dear l,

i just posted my own question on that woman't site. let's see if i get banned as well.

as for a coherent anti-DPW argument, i think it all depends on how transparent DPW is to the u.s. security services. in the end - xenophobia IS a factor. and the chances that an emirati becomes sympathetic to a culturalist movement based on a muslim identity are higher than those of an "indigenous englishman".

does that matter? maybe.

--raf*

DPW already has an existing relationship with US security services and does freight pre-clearing. There were apprently no concerns on the part of US security in this area, DPW's performance to date has been good.

So that leaves us with?

I would suggest that if DPW suddenly started staffing US port sec. coordinators with Emiratis, then there would be some concern. But as this seems unlikely. The only threat would possibly be leakage re procedures, but one hardly needs to invest billions in taking over P&O for this. Turning a poor longshoreman with some walking around money is rather more effective.

I saw the reply, utter tripe.

Her own phrasing makes a big deal out of UAE "connexions" with 11 Sep, the hijackers, and the foreignness of the firm. Nevermind the selling firm is also foreign....

And this:
For the record, I’m not one who believes that the wave of corporatization that is currently happening in America is good for our country. I’m a small business owner, so watching large corporations continue squeeze out small companies, is bothersome to me, especially when it affects American jobs.

What caught my eye about this story, was that members of Congress from both parties spoke up about this. I report on political news, particularly news from Congress. There’s nothing on this blog that is racially motivated and if collounsbury had bothered to read through the blog that would have been obvious.

Nothing but her interest in the story, and fear of Arabs. And apparently foreigners, unless they're UK foreigners.

Of course the bit about Corporations is utterly nonsensical. P&O is a massive international firm. What on earth this has to do with small business utterly escapes me.

Among my comments the prissy little hypocrite deleted was one questioning her conclusion that procedure had been violated, when the only complaint appears to be, in re procedure, that the process was not extended for further scrutiny - on the sole basis it would appear on the scary Arabness of the buying firm.

If that is not xenophobic bigotry (albeit of a muddle headed prissy little lefty kind), I don't know what is.

I've been covering the DPW/PSA ding-dong over P&O in some depth for my day job.

The only coherent anti-DPW argument that can be made is the same one that is regularly levelled at Emirates by Qantas - that, benefitting from a no-tax environment and huge governmental investment in local infrastructure (both are set to benefit incredibly from the construction of the Logistics City at Jebel Ali), DPW enjoys benefits that are tantamount to subsidies. It's a flimsy argument, given OECD propensity to prop up 'national champions' (just look at the French!), but it's one that has some resonance with elderly Western companies that can only compete with newer Arab firms unemcumbered with legacy costs by doing lots of political unsavoury things, like laying people off and slashing benefits - which, on a geo-economic level, is not really particularly surprising or new. It's just that, after winning the game so easily for so long, OECD countries are now irritated that furriners are out-playing them under the rules that OECD countries themselves wrote. Such is creative destruction.

The really silly thing is that you could have argued the same thing about PSA had it won the bid, except that even though Asian economies are a far greater threat to OECD geo-economic dominance, OECD publics are far more scared of Arabs than they are of Asians.

Thanks Waterboy.

Overall, while Ports is not an area that my work touches on that much, what I have always heard about DPW is that it is well-run. They're coming into the Maghreb and I am frankly looking forward to their management of there as a vast step up in managerial efficiency and professionalism.

All in all, it strikes me this is nothing but an illustration of the degree to which xenophobic bigotry is becoming more acceptable with respect to Arabs.

I shouldn't really give a damn, except on the other end of the equation this will make my work more difficult as tit-for-tat xenophobic protectionism will gain traction.

For the record - I posted news from the perspective of what is happening in the U.S. Congress. That is the primary focus of our blog. It's a liberal blog and in general if the Bush administration is involved in secret deals, that news in our book. It's not about the country that is buying the Ports, it's not about anyone's ethnicity, it not about anything but what the Bush administration is doing - pure and simple.

You come to my blog and you call me racist and bigoted obviously with out reading any thing esle on that blog except for 3 stories about the Port deal. Then when I refuse to further engage with you after replying that I posted a news story and the majority of what was posted was all quotes, you further push the issue.

The only comments you made that were deleted were those in the Mod que after I let you know that I was not going to be further subject to your abuse.

I don't go running aound the blogosphere commenting in blogs that I don't agree with. I post news on my blog and leave it at that.

So you don't like the news I posted - sorry. That's no reason to call me names and act abusively towards me on my blog or on your own. I was nothing but polite with you.

When this story drops from the news, it will no longer be discussed on my blog. There are a host of issues posted there daily on a variety of subjects by myself and others.

And also for the record, more than a few right wing bloggers are "whinning" about this news as well. Why not pick on Michelle Malkin? You seem to like to pick on women.

Well, first thanks for having the integrity for coming over to say something. I have some respect for that.

Now then, as to your comments:

For the record - I posted news from the perspective of what is happening in the U.S. Congress. That is the primary focus of our blog. It's a liberal blog and in general if the Bush administration is involved in secret deals, that news in our book. It's not about the country that is buying the Ports, it's not about anyone's ethnicity, it not about anything but what the Bush administration is doing - pure and simple.

It is more than evident that the blog is a liberal one, and that is not my issue.

My issues with your commentary was:
(i) Your own postings made reference in a guilt-association manner to supposed UAE connexion with 11 Sep. I presume I need not requote that.
(ii) There was nothing particularly 'secret' about the deal - which as I noted in a deleted comment (made certainly before I was aware of being banned) is between a UK and a UAE operator that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bush Administration. The only connexion with the Bush Administration is the standard US Gov review with respect to acquisition of US assets.
(iii) The process as described in the news coverage was in fact followed according to established practice and law. The only issue in terms of that process was the non-recourse to the option to extend the review. Why is that an issue? Where is the real concern? I've asked that question a number of times, and you run behind the skirts of quotes.
(iv) If the nationality of the buyer is not an issue for you, why bother with your own comments re supposed UAE connexion with terror?

You come to my blog and you call me racist and bigoted obviously with out reading any thing esle on that blog except for 3 stories about the Port deal.

Well, insofar as there is lacking any good explanation of why DPW's transaction is of concern, that those leaving comments in the initial post (to whom I directed my initial corrections and rebuke I might note) were all concerned about an "Arab" country/firm buying and that the US legislators were saying the same thing in polite language, one has to draw conclusions.

You can of course convince me otherwise by a convincing response, or pehraps you might want to look at your own reaction to the story.

Then when I refuse to further engage with you after replying that I posted a news story and the majority of what was posted was all quotes, you further push the issue.

And?

The only comments you made that were deleted were those in the Mod que after I let you know that I was not going to be further subject to your abuse.

As you wish, at least one longish comment analysing the situ was removed.

I don't go running aound the blogosphere commenting in blogs that I don't agree with. I post news on my blog and leave it at that.

You post news, with a selection of quotes and your own spin.

Entirely reasonable. I have no problem with that.

I am simply calling you out on the incoherence of one selection.

As to "commenting on blogs I don't agree with" - well the world is a big place, and staying in the saftey blanket of yes-men and women leads to an impoverished view of the world.

So you don't like the news I posted - sorry. That's no reason to call me names and act abusively towards me on my blog or on your own. I was nothing but polite with you.

No, I did not care for the illogical spin (including your own comments -not quotes - but in particular comments on the blog itself), and engaged in a bit criticism. Robust and not namby pamby.

I personally don't find mendacious self deception polite, but that is another matter.

And also for the record, more than a few right wing bloggers are "whinning" about this news as well. Why not pick on Michelle Malkin? You seem to like to pick on women.

I like to pick on women? Don't be any more of a hysteric hot-house flower than absolutely necessary. I treat women exactely as I treat men.

As for the right wing, well, that's not a bloody surprise. Nor is Michelle Malkin foaming at the mouth, she's a raving bigot. But that's neither here nor there.

Or to make a shorter reply:

While I am certain you are the kind well-meaning sort of person that rarely brings offence to anyone, my essential point is none of your respones with respect to this piece of news have made the least bit of sense.

Now, as I am a rough and tumble sort, perhaps my direct manner of putting a finger on the issue has unduly flustered you. A pity.

The issue remains, you've asserted the sole interest is re Bush Admin, but the deal really has near nothing to do with the Bush Admin - the entire thing was handled at the professional bureaucratic level at at worst the bureaucrats did not avail themselves of an option to inquire further, and the politicians interest is quite clearly for one reason.

The acquiring firm is of a scary ethnic background.

Simple as that.

You've said you're against foreigners controlling ports - although the UK firm has run those same ports for years and it is merely an issue of business management.

You made some mention of 'small business' versus corporations, although Ports have never been run by small businesses so where this comes from is just beyond me.

Etc.

Time to ask why in reality the story is of interest. It certainly isn't supportable on "secret deal making" by the Bush admin insofar as there is no Bush Admin P&O DPW nexus.

Stupid fuzzy headed leftist twits

Well, it says right on the front page that "The Democratic Daily reserves the right to moderate" Of course, that means the posters are stuck with what's left.

I don't go running aound the blogosphere commenting in blogs that I don't agree with. I post news on my blog and leave it at that.

Perhaps you should. Most of the people who post on Aqoul are resolutely pragmatic and the emphasis is on objectivity rather than dogma. Most people here are not invested in defending their position. Rather, they want to test their analysis and adopt a correct, or at least a reasoned, position. In your case, for example, once you discovered that the port was already in foreign hands and that the company running the port was thoroughly respectable, perhaps you should have reconsidered your concern about the story. True, members of both parties were making noises at the press about this "outrage" but it is not news that there are idiots in both parties.

One of the biggest problem facing the left today is its desire to live in an echo chamber. If the left could become even marginally pragmatic rather than being in a constant state of moral outrage because republicans keep winning elections, it would sweep the boards. But you guys typically won't go "running aound the blogosphere commenting in blogs that [you] don't agree with" and trying to understand what makes their arguments tick. You'd rather stay in your own self-righteous world where you can all engage in mutual indignation. That's a pity for you and a pity for the country. If you guys are ever going to get anywhere, you're going to have to understand how the other side thinks and convince them they're wrong. You aren't going to get anywhere just being pissed off at them.

And also for the record, more than a few right wing bloggers are "whinning" about this news as well.

snort

You have no idea. Trust me, he does.

You seem to like to pick on women.

Nice, yet pointless, ad hominem. So many people on the American left seem to live to play the victim card, no matter how absurd it may be. See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about above. This gets you no points at all except with people who already agree with you.

FTR, Collounsbury likes to pick on everyone, if he thinks they deserve it. You can certainly argue that he is obnoxious in general -- and he'd probably agree with you -- but it's risible to suggest he likes to pick on women.

Eerie is a different story -- that's a poster you really have watch out for. Eerie will gut a hapless women before you can say "misogynist." Eerie's a mean one, is Eerie. But Collounsbury, he's a relative pussycat. He even likes teddy bears.

(i) Your own postings made reference in a guilt-association manner to supposed UAE connexion with 11 Sep. I presume I need not requote that.

My posting made reference to direct quotes in the news - if you take the time to follow all the links you will see that.

(ii) There was nothing particularly 'secret' about the deal - which as I noted in a deleted comment (made certainly before I was aware of being banned) is between a UK and a UAE operator that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bush Administration. The only connexion with the Bush Administration is the standard US Gov review with respect to acquisition of US assets.

Again, that is a direct quote from the news - The Washington Post to be exact. See the link on the post. There has been quite a bit in the news about the Bush administration and secret deals if you follow other American news.

(iii) The process as described in the news coverage was in fact followed according to established practice and law. The only issue in terms of that process was the non-recourse to the option to extend the review. Why is that an issue? Where is the real concern? I've asked that question a number of times, and you run behind the skirts of quotes.

If you read the post in full and folllowed the links you would see that they did not follow the process of the laws and rules as established by Congress. Again read the post and follow the links instead of jumping to conclusions.

(iv) If the nationality of the buyer is not an issue for you, why bother with your own comments re supposed UAE connexion with terror?

My own comments about the supposed "UAE connexion with terror" are quotes pieced together. I didn't say "oh those terrible people" or say anything that has not been widely reported in the US news. If you are offended by what the US news reports about the UAE, blame that on the US news and Bush administration for continually hyping the was on terror.

You could have easily chosen to question my post with out calling me racist and bigoted. If you come to my blog and call me names, I see no reason to respond to such abusive behavior. I responded here because I feel you reacted instead of listening to my first response. I posted about news. I take no personal interest in the story other than it is political news and that is what I post about. I write very little personal opinion on my blog and I am always careful not to offend anyone outside of the Bush administration who offends me.

I had no idea that the Brits now control those ports until I read it in the news. I think it's a shame for America that other countries, any countries control our ports. I think corporatization is bad for Americans and bad for the the rest of the world as well. Workers are treated deplorably around the world by big corporations. It's a well documented issue.

Question:

Is there not some commonality/inter-business relations among the big port operation companies?
I say this because it seems that PSA/DPW likely has had British involvement at some point in their histories (Singapore at one point being a British entrepot; I'm assuming the Brits also have had extensive ties in UAE in one form or another). While the Brits may not be directly involved today, I'm guessing that the Singaporeans and Emirates learn the industry from the Brits (or, at the very least, were greatly influenced by them).

In addition, I'm under the impression that their are international standards and procedures associated with port operations - standards and procedures that are the same regardless of the company (and no doubt have been likely crafted to some extent by the big operations). Would not the big US port operations firms be involved in them as well?

Note: Of course, there would be specific country laws and regulations, but maritime transport is international in scope.

Plus, this doesn't address the fact the the US has attempted to exert tremendous pressure on the maritime transport industry to adopt policies and procedures to account for the increased security concerns of the US. If so, this suggets to me that the US (both the government and the big martime transport companies, although not necessarily the PO companies in the US) does exert some influence on international standards and procedures - standards and procedures that PSA/DPW would need to abide by in order maintain their postion as biggies in the industry.

If not, then we (US citizens) have had smoke blowed up our behinds from the government (but more specifically, Homeland Security). Which, given the current administration, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

You are a dense little twit.

Good fucking lord.

Let me quote "It’s a well known fact that money for the September 11 attacks “was wired through the UAE’s banking system” and two of the September 11 hijackers were UAE citizens."

That's you. Not a news quote. You.

Make whatever mealy mouthed excuses you bloody well want, but when one selects quotes and writes things like that, it's your bloody sad excuse for mental capacity at work. Hiding behind the excuse of quotes is pure namby pamby cowardice and weak-minded idiocy.

Secret Deals
Again, that is a direct quote from the news - The Washington Post to be exact. See the link on the post. There has been quite a bit in the news about the Bush administration and secret deals if you follow other American news.

Again, cowardly dodging of responsibility for your own shoddy analysis.

There was nothing in the WP re "secret deals" - it was with respect to the review process, which is not public (which is nothing the current American Administration instituted). Standard procedure, being spun for partisan political reasons. It was your either impoverished mental capacity or personal spin to make that secret deals by the Bush Administration.
The same re your assertions re the standard procedure not being followed - your assertion utterly w/o support in the news coverage.

At least be bloody honest about having a bloody opinion rather than hiding behind the falsehood that your asserted opinions were merely quoting the news.

If you read the post in full and folllowed the links you would see that they did not follow the process of the laws and rules as established by Congress. Again read the post and follow the links instead of jumping to conclusions.

I did, and there is nothing there re not following established procedures, not having recourse to an optional extended review is NOT not following procedure.

At least in a world of rational, fact based analysis. Your hysteric confabulations notwithstanding.

My own comments about the supposed "UAE connexion with terror" are quotes pieced together. I didn't say "oh those terrible people" or say anything that has not been widely reported in the US news. If you are offended by what the US news reports about the UAE, blame that on the US news and Bush administration for continually hyping the was on terror.

You're a weak-minded coward, that is for certain. Your words, quoted supra. Your selection of information and your phrasing, meaning that your own, tremulous little mind managed to somehow piece together something.

Oh but it wasn't you who generated the info?

Pathetic twit.

I had no idea that the Brits now control those ports until I read it in the news. I think it's a shame for America that other countries, any countries control our ports.

So, you're besides being a weak-minded pathetic little twit unable to even stand up for her own pathetic commentary, you're a pathetic jingo of a know-nothing nativist. Auslander Raus.

Foreign management of a port company of course, I may add, is not "other countries" controlling the report. US armed security forces bloody well control the ports, a few damned foreigners I am sure are not going to ... well the Creator alone knows what kind of absurd little idiotic paraniod xenophobic piece of idiocy lurks behind your fear of them furriners having a mangement interest in US ports.

I think corporatization is bad for Americans and bad for the the rest of the world as well.

Oh great, another weak-minded piece of idiocy.
Well, that merely adds to the cake.

Workers are treated deplorably around the world by big corporations. It's a well documented issue.

Actually, quite the contrary, it is something the know-nothing bolshy wooley headed Left likes to assert in a hand-waving fashion. Real comparative data on treatment of workers shows multinationals pay higher wages, and provide better benefits than domestic firms.

But "Corporations" are nice scary monsters. Facts and reason be damned.

Bah, bloody stew of illogic, weak-mindedness and namby pamby lack of responsibility. Typical Left wooley-headed idiocy. No wonder you people keep losing.

I think corporatization is bad for Americans and bad for the the rest of the world as well.

Workers are treated deplorably around the world by big corporations. It's a well documented issue.

Oh bloody hell, I can't click on those links after reading this. My brain might implode.

Re this question:

Is there not some commonality/inter-business relations among the big port operation companies?

Of course, Port Management has become a huge international business, and a rather competitive one. Thankfully there is less and less absurdly childish nationalism in re outsourcing management and clear international standards have emerged.

It's helping raise efficiency and reduce corruptoin.

Gains for workers, gains for cosnumers, gains for everyone but the mafias and the political patronage shops. And trade unions feather bedding.

I say this because it seems that PSA/DPW likely has had British involvement at some point in their histories (Singapore at one point being a British entrepot; I'm assuming the Brits also have had extensive ties in UAE in one form or another).

Indeed. Without knowing firm management directly, I would hazard the opinion that a lot of line management is not only expat (goes w/o saying in UAE) but Western expat.

In addition, I'm under the impression that their are international standards and procedures associated with port operations - standards and procedures that are the same regardless of the company (and no doubt have been likely crafted to some extent by the big operations). Would not the big US port operations firms be involved in them as well?

Not sure I understand the question.

Certainly standards in port management have become international in the past decade, and the players are largely multinational, when they are not national authority.

Plus, this doesn't address the fact the the US has attempted to exert tremendous pressure on the maritime transport industry to adopt policies and procedures to account for the increased security concerns of the US.

Exactely.

If so, this suggets to me that the US (both the government and the big martime transport companies, although not necessarily the PO companies in the US) does exert some influence on international standards and procedures - standards and procedures that PSA/DPW would need to abide by in order maintain their postion as biggies in the industry.

Correct.

Re anon: don't be picking on the editor in chief. She knows things.

Addendum:

"Updater II: US Sen Hilary Clinton has come up with an atrocious bit of pandering with a suggested bill to ban for government ownership of US ports. specifically aimed at DPW. Well, what lovely sentiments. Let's go after a friendly company from a friendly nation, for the sole cause of their ethnicity. I had some vague respect, once upon a time, for this woman. This rather removes that last remaining speck of that respect."

Col,

I have to agree with you here - simply dumb. First, while DFW is largely Emerati owned, they DO NOT (or would not) own the ports - only the port operations (Which, of course, would include much of the infrastructure; but as I understand it, they wouldn't necessarily own all of the land surrounding the ports, nor all of the docks/births for ships. I could be wrong here, though. I'm thinking the land/docks/berths are leased/rented to the port operations firm rather than outright sold. After all, the NY/NJ Port Authority is funded partially by tax payers).

Second, the maritime industry is international in scope, and the United States does exert considerable influence on how it is conducted. Banning foreign firms from engaging in an activity that is inherently international in scope will likely make it more difficult for the US to exert it's influence on the maritime industry. Which may have the unintended consequence of foreign countries being less willing/likely to bend to the will of US in re our increased security concerns and our desire for implementing new policies and procedures affecting the maritime industry.

To be fair to the muddle-headed Lefty whinging cowardly git, the actual entries are not as annoying.

What has attracted my ire is her cowardly pretence that her selection of quotes, and own phrasing, have nothing to do with her. That as well her complete running away from any coherent engagement on the issues.

Weak minded rot.

Eponymous
Effectively DPW is a management firm - although ownership of the assets strikes me as mere trivia. I mean, what are they going to do with a Port that would damage security? Shut it down? Steal it?

There is nothing logical that comes to mind.

Dinging foreign ownership does one thing, in real terms - it damages US interests in terms of US involvement in the industry.

Bah, bloody stew of illogic, weak-mindedness and namby pamby lack of responsibility.

I can't see why this surprises you so. It's a common tactic whenever dogma is unsupported by evidence. Rather than just make things up, you string together a bunch of random facts on the theory that, if they all appear in the same paragraph, they all must have something to do with each other.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the job of "port operator" largely ministerial? This is completely unlike, say, one automaker taking over another. As I understand it, DPW has overall management control but their role is, in a sense, passive. They're not really stepping into the day-to-day operations. The same facilities will be in place and the same people will work at them doing the same jobs. Security will still be handled by the USG. etc.

So what could the fear possibly be? Is DPW planning on firing all the union workers and smuggling in thousands of "subcons?" Or, perhaps, being from Dubai (It's a well know fact that ObL actually visited Dubai on more than one occasion!), that they're going to introduce an ISO 9001 process for smuggling in WMDs? What?

"Not sure I understand the question.

Certainly standards in port management have become international in the past decade, and the players are largely multinational, when they are not national authority."

I was thinking more along the lines of standardization in operations. In other words, the day-to-day port operations in Singapore will be similar to the day-to-day port operations in Long Beach/LA, will be similar to other major port operations around the world.

Containerization is one example of this standardization, which ties into the inter-modality aspects of transportation in general (containers from ships placed on flat-bed rail cars for rail transport or flat-bed trucks for surface transportation).

This also ties into the procedures that are established to manage contanerization and the inter-modality of transportation. Inventory systems, warehousing, computerized shipping records for accounting and tracking, security systems, and the like. All are becoming increasingly standardized across the industry (both internally as a means of maintaining competitiveness and externally via national and international law/regulatory oversight).

Anono mate:

Quite right, but I have standards and expect people to stand up for their opinions, not pretend it isn't even an opinion and hide behind the incoherent idiocy they got their ideas from the press.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the job of "port operator" largely ministerial?

Well, managerial. Not sure I'd use the phrase ministerial, but it's about oversight, processes and the like.

This is completely unlike, say, one automaker taking over another. As I understand it, DPW has overall management control but their role is, in a sense, passive. They're not really stepping into the day-to-day operations. The same facilities will be in place and the same people will work at them doing the same jobs. Security will still be handled by the USG. etc.

Right. Same people, same ... well, everything and USG in control of security.

Perhaps DPW might succeed in pushing through new practices to boost efficiency (thus as the Biz Blog note, the preemptive xenophobia of the trade unions), better use of labour. But its process and management.

So what could the fear possibly be?

Imposition of unflattering Thobes for sr mgmt?

Is DPW planning on firing all the union workers and smuggling in thousands of "subcons?"

Well, given US port inefficiencies, this would be a step forward. I can only wish.

Or, perhaps, being from Dubai (It's a well know fact that ObL actually visited Dubai on more than one occasion!), that they're going to introduce an ISO 9001 process for smuggling in WMDs? What?

Kha.

Bar coding and GPS tracking for smuggling of chinese pirated goods.

Epo:
As far as that goes, yes. Best practices.

Yikes. You're dealing with provincials, my dear Col. I hate to use the word, as it inevitably smacks of implied arrogance, and [God/Allah/The Big Whoever] knows I've relatively little knowledge of MENA in comparison, but there's no other honest definition for the POV.

I happened to catch some CNN commentary with "viewer feedback" and all the responses were along the lines of your particular target. Very sad.

Ay-rabs, as you put it, are "Teh Enemy" here in the majority view, pure and simple. Even among the people who want to be tolerant, that subtle, unspoken racism lurks under the surface. Any suggestion that "THEY Control Our Ports" is met with the knee-jerk response you'd usually expect from people who don't bother to educate themselves on what it means to "control" said ports.

Kudos for bothering to try to explain it, particularly for your own personal experiential assessment of DPW, though I'm afraid your valiant efforts are likely to have relatively little effect.

Mr Blue

Well, yes. I suppose one reason why I went to town on this little whinging muddle headed Lefty git, is she's so bloody pious about being a bloody progressive.

But frankly this is a depressing if expected response.

BTW, Anon my man. Perhaps you'd like to guest an arty on this issue?

I'd just like to congratulate you on losing the last bit of respect you had for Hillary. I lost that a couple of years ago.
Carry on.

Ah sod off you silly gold bug. I don't get exposed to the stupid little hypocrite all that often.

And, as you know, I only care about stuff that impacts me. Normally Bill's slimey wifie has little interest to me.

She's gonna be prez in a coupla years, you know. I'm getting more convinced of that every day. She has Hubert Humphrey's old talent for talking out of all sides of her mouth at the same time, except she's even better at it than he was. Soooo, her stuff might be impacting you a bit more in a little while.

By the way, Mr Blue, mind if I use your paragraph:
"Ay-rabs, as you put it, are "Teh Enemy" here in the majority view, pure and simple. Even among the people who want to be tolerant, that subtle, unspoken racism lurks under the surface. Any suggestion that "THEY Control Our Ports" is met with the knee-jerk response you'd usually expect from people who don't bother to educate themselves on what it means to "control" said ports."

A point of departure, if you will.

This is an important observation, and a dangerous truth. Take our little dimwit. I am sure she's a nice, well-meaning person. Not particularly clear-headed but well-meaning in a wooley lefty way. But the response is there.

A disturbing baseline.

Put in the context of the cartoons and the circus around that, it is a depressing one.

As the cliched saying goes (I think it's Mencken, but I can't remember it for sure), patriotism (or, some other noble sounding cause) is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Not new phenomenon--I remember all manner of garbage that came up when the Japanese were buying US-based assets, nevermind that, in many instances, they too were buying from other foreign owners--but then, the Brits didn't count as foreigners back then either.

I'd venture to guess, in absence of any knowldge, that besides much of the senior management and others being expats, pretty sizable chunk of DPW is actually owned by people outside the Middle East? Is it any more UAE than Chrysler is "American"?

Not so sure if the favorable tax/regulatory environment in UAE makes DPW any more of an "unfair" competitor than in many other "international" operators based in some geographic locale with favorable regulations: so many US corporations are based in Delaware, I think, for regulatory reasons. Almost all cargo ships in the world, despite never having been anywhere near either Liberia or Panama, are Liberian- or Panamian-flagged. So...what the hey!

Depressing the way so many people can't get out of their echo-chambers. One should hope that there are more Lounsburies in the world--or that the current one is more visible, in highly anonymous kind of way, of course.

Pantom:

Don't be messing with me man.

She's gonna be prez in a coupla years, you know. I'm getting more convinced of that every day.

Afraid I have a hard time thinking that is going to happen.

She has Hubert Humphrey's old talent for talking out of all sides of her mouth at the same time, except she's even better at it than he was. Soooo, her stuff might be impacting you a bit more in a little while.

Ick.

This particular piece of pandering I find particularly disturbing.

Kao:

DPW does not have diversified ownership, it is a UAE/Dubai game, but you would be right with respect to staffing.

We Lounsburies are a secretive bunch, however, averse to limelight.

Money for the September 11 attacks was wired through the UAE's banking system, according to U.S. officials. Two of the September 11 hijackers were UAE citizens.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060217/pl_nm/security_congress_ports_dc_1

unless they're UK foreigners. agreed.

and

Auslander Raus. agreed.

i must say, quite the entertaining comment war you have going on here, col!

and with respect to your sidetrack RE: the state of "everyman" thoughts on "arabs," in my experience, even on liberal university campuses it's by in large true. i only need to point you to this http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/08/43e9a83e2a5ed?in_archive=1 for you to get an idea of what's running through many a person's head. (okay, that particular university isn't all that liberal, but, still, it's more liberal than some!) well, i'm sure you were already quite aware of that, but that little wanker quite uneloquently stated it for all to see. it's created quite the little firestorm on that particular university campus with battle lines drawn largly as expected. but i digress.

all in all, i'm quite impressed with this particular little banning incident. we need more people like you in the world, col. if only your type weren't so ellusive.

"By the way, I am very interested in seeing if there is any coherent anti-DPW argument to be made that does not ride mere xenophobia."

Col,

Came across this item:

DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

See the rest here...

http://www.dpworld.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

Not necessarily an argument, per se, but one that would likely raise some eyebrows in certain quarters (company that just so happens to have the winning bid for port operations in several US cities has a high-ranking executive nominated to serve as Maritime Adminsitrator in DoD).

Correction - as Maitime Administrator in DoT.

Interesting find. Thanks very much and please do pass along more information like this if and when you can.

Well, two items:
(i) note the Arab company is managed by Ango expats. No suprise for a Dubai firm.
(ii) The company was not "bidding" on US port operations. It 'bid' or negotiated the takeover of the UK operator, P&O. The US operations are simply part of the P&O portfolio of assets. The fact DPW won P&O board approval really has zero to with USG.

Now, one can make a case that DPW relations in this case may have had some impact on its passing the US review, however as the firm has a longstanding working relationship with US authorities via the pre-clearing program, this strikes me as fairly superflous.

However, your post does underline what seems to be a key point of confusion in much commentary. The nature of the DPW acquisition, and the apparent sensation that DPW is engaging an American deal or that there is a USG role in arranging the deal.

Col,

Will do - was glad to see my intuitions confirmed in re expat involvement in management. And you're correct on second point - poor wording on my part (past my bedtime, I suppose).

Thanks mate.

No worries on wording, high as a kite now, bloody bone pain decided to make a major come back. Meds are doing a job, but bloody hell it is hard to think straight.

And for the general readers, pls do pass along any items. I would like to tackle this subject. It's rather important. Of course clarity is too.

dear all,

is there any chance to move this to aqoul? and/or have someone who actually likes to write about things like "due diligence" write up a comprehensive article about this?

it could then be placed in the "best of aqoul" section.

cheers,

--raf*

Col:

Re the jumping-off point on racism via bunker mentality, feel free. Look forward to reading it.

Raf Bey:

You mean this entire discussion, the post, or...?

I do have a link from my other entry and am definately planning follow-up.

dear col,

i don't propose moving the whole discussion (although that would be nice). i mean to shift the debate over to aqoul (where i've seen your post) since over here it gets overlooked. yinshuisiyuan just wrote a post on geo-economics & it seems like you & y and maybe some other biz-people could do something on these topics like the "danish cartoon" thing.

maybe e will even give you your own box in the sidebar!

cheers,

--raf*

Right Raf Bef:

This particular post is a bit too abusive to put in 'Aqoul. I have been trying to be a bit more restrained in my 'Aqoul engagements.

However, you're right there is much here.

As my Research Assistance post above notes, I am planning on tackling this (and any colleagues joinging me are welcome) as I see it as important, and yes, tied to the Cartoons issue in a round-about manner. I am fully planning on putting the follow-on in 'Aqoul and tying that into even the overall theme of Cartoons and MENA-West relations etc.

Actually, given time constraints, I think perhaps an evolving, updating post might be in order. I foolishly promised a due diligence file for Monday and am only half way through. Pity there is no overlap, but the file is Tunisian...

But let me reiterate - anyone with interesting infos in re DP World (which I am familiar with but only superficially relative to where I want to be), US review of investments (again my knowledge is terribly superficial there), or the backstory to the bidding war. I have already discovered via P&O's well-done website (ahem a standard our Dubai firm needs to aspire to) information on ownership of the ports, etc.

Oddly for all the pissing and moaning, P&O / DPW will not even be full owners of most of the Ports, but only 50 percent.

Of course the other owners are also, gasp Furriners!!!!.

But 'White' furriners. Nice and cuddly.

I'm very surprised this has gotten the attention from Congress that it has. When I first saw the NY Post article, I thought it was the stupidest, least well-founded argument I could remember seeing in a major Western news source.

Aside from having no real merit (something already covered extensively above), it had factual errors (The operational planning for 9/11 was not carried out in Dubai but in Hamburg- and of course it'd be equally ridiculous to stay away from Germany for its 'ties' to terrorism). Worse yet, it ended like this:

Supporters of the deal insist that it doesn't give al Qaeda opportunities it doesn't already enjoy. That's no comfort.

What the Post effectively admitted itself was that there was no good reason to block this- not that it stopped calling for such a block regardless.

I was personally wondering as to whether Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Post, or one of his associates had some sort of business interest in seeing this deal fall through.

I'm very surprised this has gotten the attention from Congress that it has. When I first saw the NY Post article, I thought it was the stupidest, least well-founded argument I could remember seeing in a major Western news source.

Aside from having no real merit (something already covered extensively above), it had factual errors (The operational planning for 9/11 was not carried out in Dubai but in Hamburg- and of course it'd be equally ridiculous to stay away from Germany for its 'ties' to terrorism). Worse yet, it ended like this:

Supporters of the deal insist that it doesn't give al Qaeda opportunities it doesn't already enjoy. That's no comfort.

What the Post effectively admitted itself was that there was no good reason to block this- not that it stopped calling for such a block regardless.

I was personally wondering as to whether Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Post, or one of his associates had some sort of business interest in seeing this deal fall through.

DW:
Surprised? My dear naive young fellow, I would be surprised if the jingos had missed the occasion.

Re Murdoch, no I think there is no reason to suspect business interest other than selling papers.

I'm kinda new to the details of the Port biz. In fairness to my bigoted fellow Merkins, an initial hesitation could be justified by sheer knee-jerked caution, but the story only has traction because the swarthy subsversive Semites (non-Hebrew Division) are threatening to sap and impurify our precious coastal fluids. (Apologies to "DR Stangelove").

It seems to me your reference to 'left' xenophobia is pretty weak. You're referring to a website that is pretty standard fare liberal, Democratic Party stuff. Left websites like, say, mrzine.org isn't joining in the xenophobia that liberals are latching onto.

Your comment, steve, is obscure to me. I suppose you are slicing and dicing the Left rather more finely that I would bother. Call it weak, I call it indifferent to precious slide and dice.