President Bush, today -
“I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We’ll treat you fairly.’”
ME: “Great British?”
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yep.
[pause]
ME: Mr. President, even the Republican Speaker of the House is calling for a review of this “Giving the ports to the United Arab Emirates” thing.
BUSH: Yeah, what’s with that? We reviewed the thing. It’s okay.
ME: Okay, but -
BUSH: And can anyone tell me why we can’t treat Arabs fairly? My opponents -
ME: -and friends -
BUSH: -and friends need to explain to me why we should discriminate against Arab countries here. They need to explain, not me.
ME: Well, they just want a review…
BUSH: We had a review.
ME: In secret.
BUSH: Yes.
ME: That might be part of the problem.
BUSH: I don’t see why. We planned the Iraq war in secret. We wrote the Patriot Act in secret and gave Congress just a few hours to vote on ‘er. We investigraded the intelligence leaks in secret. We’re running those prison camps in secret. This month we even shot somebody in the face in secret. Why’s it a problem all the sudden?
ME: Well, maybe partly because those other secrets didn’t go so well.
BUSH: Because somebody blabbed. Thank god you don’t know about all those other…
ME: “…other” what?
BUSH: er… thingamabobbies. Nothing. Anyway, back to why you don’t want the Doobie Brothers runnin’ the port.
ME: “Dubai Ports World.”
BUSH: Whatever. Good company. We reviewed ‘em. What’re you, prejudized against Islams?
ME: No -
BUSH: How are they different from the Great British?
ME: Well, they’re a state-run business, for one thing.
BUSH: Besides that.
ME: Er… ports… al Qaeda… two 9/11 hijackers came from there… used their banks… traveled through there… you know.
BUSH: We reviewed it, I told you. So, besides that, how’re they different?
ME: I don’t know.
BUSH: Aha!
ME: No, see, that’s the point: I don’t know.
BUSH: Yes it is. ’swhat I’m saying.
ME: No, it’s what I’m saying.
BUSH: So we agree? Great, let’s go get some din-
ME: - no, we don’t agree. Why, even the Republican Speaker of the House is calling for a review of this “Giving the ports to the United Arab Emirates” thing.
BUSH: Well, what’s with that? We reviewed the thing. It’s okay.
ME: Okay, but - do you feel like we’ve already had this conversation?
BUSH: All the time. It goes away after a li’l.
ME: Oh.
BUSH: And can anyone tell me why we can’t treat Arabs fairly? My opponents -
[etc.]
Fanny Roborat
163 comments
dee
February 21, 2006 at 8:54 pm
1“But I will never turn over our national security decisions to leaders of other countries.”
George W. Bush, third Presidential debate, October 13, 2004.
(Unless, of course, it’s the leaders of the UAE, and my friends in the Carlyle Group are poised to make a couple gazillion off this deal. )
hedera
February 21, 2006 at 9:14 pm
2Friends and father, dee - remember that. Isn’t George H.W. now part of Carlyle?
Once again, the mind boggles… I wonder if he thinks this stance will make points for him in the Muslim world??
Sharon
February 21, 2006 at 9:20 pm
3“points”? Bushco started out with enough “points” in the Saudi world to make about a gazillion trips around the world in first class on the Concorde, if the Concorde were still flying. Those points didn’t protect us from attack, and I doubt these will, either.
dee
February 21, 2006 at 9:32 pm
4Daddy Bush is indeed employed by the Carlyle Group. He gives the speeches at around $100,000 a pop — “Musings of an Ex-President” or some such nonsense — then his cronies at Carlyle come in for the sale, all the while reminding the audience of how close they are to the Bush family and Wouldn’t you like to show your appreciation for everything the Bush family has done and throuw a few billion in investments our way?
Y’all need to read “House of Bush, House of Saud”, if you haven’t already. If your blood isn’t boiling now, it will be by the time you finish.
David
February 21, 2006 at 9:50 pm
5Tony Blair already has a position with the Carlyle Group when he steps down as PM. So a Brit company to the UAE international business district - the pieces fit oh, so nicely. I’m not accusing anyone, I’m just sayin’.
Oh, merd, j’accuse…
Ditto dee’s reading list.
Ann
February 21, 2006 at 11:00 pm
6And now I’m actually nostalgic for the presidency of Bush the First—a condition I couldn’t have imagined a few years ago. Yes, he was corrupt, but he never seemed dim.
SeattleDan
February 21, 2006 at 11:50 pm
7Bush the first had that “vision” thing going on. Which,as it turned out,didn’t extend beyond his wristwatch.
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 12:47 am
8After you read that one you should read “House of Kennedy, Gambino Crime Family”.
I’m a bit disappointed by this post, a fictional dialogue to make a point? Do as you will but I didn’t find this one intellectually stimulating (and I usually do) and the “duh Bush” line is getting old. A southern accent does not equate to stupidity. The caricature was too exaggerated. Kind of like the use of “frack” in BG… I agree Ann.
Perhaps if there were more actual real topics to attack we wouldn’t have to turn to fiction. The port issue will be reviewed and ultimately go away. My bet is he threw it out there as a red herring. That way instead of the opposition crying foul when he shuts ‘em down for their nationality they are all crying for them to be shut down. That’s the ultimate intelligence. Know thine enemy, and use his own rhetoric against him. Or in other words, make ‘em think it’s their idea. That’s what he did with Harriet Miers. Alito as a first pick would’ve blown up like a mushroom cloud. Gosh, Mr. President, I admire you!
SeattleDan
February 22, 2006 at 12:56 am
9Ahem,well, at least we know Adam has the President’s ear.That other Fellow giving him advice seems to have let him down in so many ways,what with bad intel on the WMD’s and the connection between Osama and Sadaam, and all that other stuff,like Social Security and the Medicare Drug Program and the list goes on. Mr.President, listen to Adam.
Deborah
February 22, 2006 at 1:07 am
10RRRRyan wrote
“and the “duh Bush” line is getting old. A southern accent does not equate to stupidity.”
I don’t think “Great British” is actually “southern” …
siobhan
February 22, 2006 at 1:19 am
11“A southern accent does not equate to stupidity.” True. His “duh” factor transcends dialect.
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 1:29 am
12RRRRRRRRRRRyan, I know Adam told us to keep it impersonal, but at the risk of censure I have to say that if you think we are simply making fun of W’s accent, then you have not been paying attention to anything the man has said for the last five years. He can barely put together one coherent sentence, and when he does, he’s so proud of himself that he makes that annoying little smirking noise every time. The only time he’s been able to speak in whole sentences was during the debates, when he was wearing a wire.
He was not always like that. Recordings of his debates with Ann Richards back when he ran against her for Gov. of Texas reveal a man who really was educated at Yale. What happened between then and the 2000 campaign, I can’t say, but maybe the drugs and booze have finally affected his brain.
Adam Felber
February 22, 2006 at 3:14 am
13Rrryan -
I’m pretty amazed that you think the Bush administration is THAT disingenuous. The way you’re painting it, they’re a bigger bunch of liars than even I think they are! Nominating someone who they DON’T want to the Supreme Court as a fakeout maneuver!? Approving a foreign power’s taking over of a major port, which they DON’T think would be good for America …in the hopes that their political opponents will put the brakes on it!?
Yipes! I truly hope that’s not the case.
[And it’s pretty clearly NOT true here: In case you haven’t followed the story in the past day, Bush REALLY does seem to want the deal to go through. A few hours ago he threatened to veto any holdup: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/index.html ]
Anyway, I’m not in the custom of explaining my posts, but I will say this: The post isn’t about Bush being dumb. It’s about the administration not understanding what it is about their behavior that has crippled their political agenda. At this point, even Denny Hastert has to come out swinging against them, and there’s no way anyone can make me believe that the White House wanted THAT.
This didn’t have to become such a headache for the administration, and now it is. I don’t think they quite understand why, even though all their critics and many of their defenders keep telling them… again and again and again…
Tim Sample
February 22, 2006 at 7:56 am
14Wait a minute! The conversation with Bush was pure fiction? You could have fooled me; as a matter of fact you did. I must really be out of shape to fall for that one. I’m going to have to start pumping irony again.
Dave D
February 22, 2006 at 8:30 am
15That “if it’s OK for a Great British company, why isn’t it OK for an Arab company?” line misses an important point as far as I’m concerned. Why is it OK for a British company to be minding American ports? Aren’t there any American companies (employing American citizens) who can do this work? I’m sure Halliburton could do it.
Yeah, yeah, I know; it’s good for the American economy to export jobs, and leave American citizens unemployed (as long as the lazy b*****ds don’t lay around collecting unemployment payments at the expense of the abused taxpayers). And it’s certainly a *real* good thing to have American companies running things in other countries (’cause after all those other people couldn’t possibly do it as well as us Americans).
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 9:07 am
16Good point, Dave D. Paul Bremer and the occupying forces have pretty much turned over all Iraqi businesses and vital utilities to foreigners, so turnabout is fair play.
Adam, I’m not so sure that poor li’l Harriet wasn’t a sacrificial lamb. Alito had long been the chosen one of the extreme right, long before O’Connor resigned. I think Meirs was just to soften us up. Sort of a one-two punch.
cooper
February 22, 2006 at 9:08 am
17I’m wondering why Bush is so insistant that such an obviously stupid venture be pushed through? Who gains if this deal happens and what do they gain? What this country needs right now is a dedicated cadre of investigative journalists. So, where are they?
Bush is asking what’s the difference between the “Great British” (0 out 19 hijackers) owning the company vs a Middle Eastern country (19 out of 19 hijackers). Sorry if I seem cynical.
gmwnkcmo
February 22, 2006 at 9:10 am
18Adam, with this one, you have outdone yourself. I dont believe in ‘channeling’ except in a creative sense. YOu ahve it a new level. THanks for a great start to a day..
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 10:16 am
19Dave D - I did hear that not a single American company bid for the job.
Adam, I stand by my assertion that it is wise to take the route that you know will bring progress instead of stubbornly spinning your wheels on futile terrain. It is quite likely that if the administration had opposed the UAE company that the ACLU would have been hiring lawyers and the critics would have been crawling out crying racism, poor international relations, and whatever other dirt they could dig up. The argument could be made that if your goal is really peace then there would be a PR reason to allow the company, to give them a “chance”. I wouldn’t make that argument though. I think they are evil and wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them. Apparently that is suddenly the consensus here, probably more because of the Bush hating than the actual merits of the case. I really would have expected a few to be on the “other” side of this.
I will definitely concede this though, if he is serious it is quite out of character and I would not agree with this position. My lackey status may be in jeopardy on this one.
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 10:24 am
20I should say this so I’m not accused of not reading posts again. I have a tendency not to mention when I agree:
kudos Adam, your point about “what it is about their behavior that has crippled their political agenda” is a very good one. I do realize that there is a level of non-disclosure that fuels the mistrust. They could certainly explain themselves better. I guess that isn’t so important to me as a lot of folks. I look for character and results, if one of those two are missing then I worry.
Chuckles
February 22, 2006 at 10:54 am
21I think the President is serious, and if I’m listening to the news right, it shouldn’t hurt security (NPR had a good story this morning). That being said - the administration shows quite a bit of hubris with this. They had to know that when this was public it would look bad, even if its not that bad. The entire presidency has been based on the idea that we’re right and no one else can criticise us. The problem is, when you say that so many times and are wrong - when you really might be right, no one wants to give you a chance.
You think they would have learned by now.
Stephen
February 22, 2006 at 11:27 am
22Here’s the thing. If I had an idea and people I didn’t agree with anyway told me it was a bad idea, how cares? If I have an idea and my friends told me it was a bad idea, I would re-think it. What is it with this crowd that they don’t want to change their minds on almost anything? (I had to say almost because of Meyers, the only thing I remember the White House changing, although they didn’t say they were wrong, but that is one) Maybe RRRyan’s got them pegged better than we do. That is not a comforting thought.
I don’t know all the details but if almost everyone hates it, it’s probably not a good idea.
I was disturbed about Haliburton, I’m concerned about the Carlyle group and the apparent unabashed pork-esque legislation.
Mary
February 22, 2006 at 11:28 am
23RRRyan-
Just a few clarifications:
1)The ACLU wouldn’t have had anything to do with it. This has nothing to do with American Civil Liberties- as in their name.
2)If you look for character and results, I believe you maybe overlooking a number of character flaws such as secretiveness, name calling, shifting blame and misleading/lying to name a few. Personally, over 2,000 American bodies doesn’t really seem like results to me.
3) To underscore Adam’s point, it isn’t just his “enemies” that are against Shrub on this one. It is also his own party. That isn’t your opponent’s rhetoric against him/her. It is “pissing in the wind.” IMHO
Sadly, I believe a good deal of this has to do with this administration’s belief that the executive branch has ultimate power. Despite all of their lip service to the Constitution, they have no intention of allowing the government to have three branches. Shrub has even said he would veto any bill that gave the Congress the right to review such deals.
The bright spot in all of this is that it will be US citizens who do the inspection and security.
Maximum Bob
February 22, 2006 at 12:03 pm
24So why didn’t political mastermind Karl Rove see this one coming? Maybe he’s worried about something else?
I agree, Mary: it’s all about the arrogance.
Murray
February 22, 2006 at 12:27 pm
25Adam,
We’ve been through this before,
If a reader can’t understand satire, it’s not your fault. If you need to explain what you have written, it’s time that one of you find a more suitable blog.
As someone else wrote several years ago to a similar situation, explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog, It’s not very interesting for most and the frog dies in the process.
Adam, you have no obligation to dumb down your writing.
Murray
February 22, 2006 at 12:41 pm
26Until Dee mentioned the Carlyle group, this one had me baffled. NO ONE has ever accused Rove of being stupid. Evil, cunning, devious, dishonest, power hungry, sure, but not stupid. The only way they would take this kind of heat would be to help out something that was very powerful, close and dear to this administration. Dubai doesn’t fit the bill.
This gaff is one of the few that the duller portion of our nation can understand. No subtleties obscure the facts. The normal hiding behind the flag, faux patriotism has been turned on its head. Handing our ports over to Al Qaeda is too easy a sound bite and one that even ditto heads can get their microscopic minds around.
It’s fun to watch Dick and w shoot them selves in the foot, instead of someone else in the face.
Scooby
February 22, 2006 at 12:54 pm
27Wow! President Bush will actually veto legislation? I’ll believe it when I see it.
I don’t care what business group owns the business of the ports, I am most concerned about the lack of security. This UAE story is really about who runs the port businesses, right?
Kind of similar to the nuclear power industry. I believe the Nine Mile nuclear plants here in Central New York are owned and run by a UK company, and who knows what other international groups have controlling interests. But the security of the nuclear power industry is the responsibility of the Dept of Homeland Security… erm, pardon my misgivings over that…
So, I’ve been suffering from the deafening silence regarding the lack of a plan to secure our chemical, nuclear and port industries. I think this is the real issue!
Now excuse me while I succumb to another apoplectic fit….
nato
February 22, 2006 at 1:17 pm
28I realize I’m over-simplifying things here, but couldn’t this be part of an apology for Bush’s comments a week or so back, when he said we were all addicted and needed to cut back on our foreign oil dependence (which kind of got the UAE a bit miffed)?
On the other foot, this COULD just be sheer incomptence on our government’s part. After all, we’ve already admitted that this whole internet thingy is way too complicated to deal with . . .
‘Rumsfeld also said al-Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups have poisoned the Muslim public’s view of the United States through deft use of the Internet and other modern communications methods that the American government has failed to master.
“Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but for the most part we — our country, our government — has not adapted,” he said.’
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060218/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld;_ylt=Al ghQUCH7M63DXrE3cLl2Epg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-
Scooby
February 22, 2006 at 1:27 pm
29‘Rumsfeld also said al-Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups have poisoned the Muslim public’s view of the United States through deft use of the Internet and other modern communications methods that the American government has failed to master… Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but for the most part we — our country, our government — has not adapted,” he said.’
Adam, I would love to see your interpretation of Rumsfeld’s profoundly inane statement… unbelievable!
I wouldn’t even know where to start!?!
Scooby
February 22, 2006 at 1:31 pm
30Actually, it appears the US government actually has mastered suppressing the MSM from reporting any actual news and from holding anyone accountable with real reporting.
Ack, I feel another fit coming on…
Harold
February 22, 2006 at 1:39 pm
31Murray, that poor frog.
The latest from AP:
White House Says Bush Didn’t Know About Port Deal
(White House-AP) February 22, 2006 - It seems lawmakers aren’t alone in having just learned that operations at six US ports are being sold to a state-owned Mideast company. The White House is acknowledging President Bush didn’t know either.
Press Secretary Scott McClellan says the decision was made by an interagency committee, and it never “rose to the presidential level.”
Bush didn’t find out until a few days ago.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060218210909990001& ncid=NWS00010000000001
Siobhan
February 22, 2006 at 1:41 pm
32Scooby, since he didn’t get the opportunity to use his veto TO ALLOW TORTURE (not that they’d ever consider doing so), he’s probably really excited that another opportunity might come up.
Landis
February 22, 2006 at 1:57 pm
33I’m going to have to go ahead and agree with Scooby (#25) on this one. I’m not particularly concerned with who runs the businesses at the port (from a security standpoint). I AM however concerned that we still aren’t doing a whole lot to secure our ports.
Congress is freaking out now because this looks bad and this is easy to spin in short sound bites, but they’ll be damned if they care about actual security as they (and the executive) don’t do much at all to inspect incoming cargo, while they still make me take off my SANDALS to get through security and get on an airplane.
Now we just look like idiots saying that an Arab company can’t handle the business aspect of a port in the US, but any other country can.
OK - that hurts. I can’t take this agreeing with this President thing. I’m sure I’m in agreement for different reasons, but it still hurts.
nato
February 22, 2006 at 2:20 pm
34The Rumsfeld quotes had me somewhat concerned; I thought that we were supposed to have bombed the terrorists back to the stone age (or at least bronze) with the whole “Shock and Awe” campaign. Now it looks like we’re going to have to start an “Operation Dialup” and get up to speed on this whole internet and “modern communications” stuff (and yes, considering Bush’s remarks on broadband (June 24, 2004), it would have to be dialup).
Maybe we could have DARPA start work on a network of computer systems communicating via some sort of transmission control protocol and see if something useful comes of it. . .
Maximum Bob
February 22, 2006 at 2:22 pm
35I feel your pain, Scooby. You may think that you’re crying in the wilderness about port security, but a lot of folks feel the same way. Unfortunately, few of them are members of the administration, which has more of a close-the-barn-door-after-two-or-three-dozen-horses-have-escaped policy.
Murray
February 22, 2006 at 2:33 pm
36I think that the problem is much deeper. I DO care about who controls our ports. I don’t think that it should be the lowest bidder. I don’t think it should be a corporation for the same reason that I don’t think that a corporation should stand between me and my health care. There are just things the US government should do. It should be accountable to the people of the US not to the government of Dubai.
The Nation has a good article in Commondreams about this at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0221-27.htm
Scooby
February 22, 2006 at 2:44 pm
37Murray,
Thank you for the link. Yes, I agree about the problem of the increasing corporate ownership and management of, well, just about everything!
It also helps clear up what the “New York Port Authority” is. I never quite understood that. (NY/NJ Port Authority).
Yes, public oversight makes the most sense to maintain the infrastructure. Just as how the roads, public transportation and airports are managed.
dee
February 22, 2006 at 3:18 pm
38Landis, there’s a slight distinction here that to me, makes all the difference. The foreign companies that are running the business at the ports are private companies; Dubai Ports World is owned and managed by the Dubai government.
I guess it would be like the Army Corps of Engineers running the ports of Saudi Arabia. Sure, we’re great buddies and all and of course they can trust us, but I have a feeling it wouldn’t sit well with the Saudis. Unless, of course, they were getting some mighty fine kickbacks. Which is probably the case here.
From USAToday:
Dubai Ports World has several Americans among its top executives. The retiring chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, is a Yale graduate who served in the Navy. General Counsel George Dalton came to the Dubai company from CSX World Terminals, which Dubai Ports World acquired in 2004.
Dubai Ports World acquired the port operations of the American rail company CSX in 2004 for $1.15 billion. John Snow, President Bush’s treasury secretary, was chairman of CSX before joining the administration in 2003.
A senior executive of Dubai Ports World in charge of its European and Latin American port operations, David Sanborn, was named by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. The agency advocates for the U.S. maritime industry under the Department of Transportation.
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 3:26 pm
39Mary, your ACLU defense doesn’t hold up. What do international prisoners at GITMO have to do with A.C.L.U? That’s off the top of my head, at your request I will be happy to itemize a list for you proving that the A.C.L.U does more than A.C.L.U.
Lots of good stuff here and nothing I can take issue with except Murray’s continual attempts to alienate me. Your just jealous cause Adam talked to me. I apologize for being too slow to catch the point, I don’t speak liberalese remember. Anyway, I do appreciate the clarification and apparently a few others did too.
So I respectfully ask for a little respect from you Mr. Murray sir.
Scooby
February 22, 2006 at 3:29 pm
40dee, it just gets scarier and scarier.
And as usual, it’s about the bottom line.
Ack!
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 3:42 pm
41Murray, you took the words out of my mouth. Why are such important national security functions being privatized? Since when does a corporation have any incentive to look after anything except the bootom line? A corporation is answerable only to its stockholders, or its owner, if it is privately held. I want an entity that is answerable to the soverign American people to be responsible for this function.
Julia
February 22, 2006 at 3:45 pm
42Oooh, thanks for bringing that up - I keep forgetting to send in my check. I just left a message for myself to take care of that as soon as I get home tonight. Don’t want to lose my status as a card-carrying member of the ACLU!
Julia
Landis
February 22, 2006 at 3:50 pm
43Murray, thanks for the link. Dee, great points.
Let me clarify a little and change my mind just a bit. The people who are doing the yelling right now are doing the yelling BECAUSE this is an Arab company, not because this is a corporation. They didn’t have a problem when it was run by a UK company.
I would prefer that this infrastructure be run like other public infrastructure but since it’s not right now, merely yelling because they’re Arab isn’t a good idea. If this PARTICULAR company isn’t the best choice, I think the public argument should be about that - but this isn’t what I’ve been hearing. In fact the only things I’ve been hearing specifically about this company is how well they run their ports.
So yes: it definitely smells of cronyism (which would explain a lot) and corporate control of everything is not necessarily good. But since these ports are already run by a foreign corporation, and this new corporation has been doing this in many places besides the Middle East, maybe we should focus more on the security aspect of our ports and less on the business aspect.
Ann
February 22, 2006 at 4:26 pm
44Landis–I agree completely about taking off your sandals at the airport. It’s ridiculous.
And you’re right, the “yelling people” were initially concerned about the “Arab company” aspect, but it seems that there are a lot of issues involved, and this is just the tip of the iceberg, to drag out a tired metaphor.
There’s the “FOREIGN entity controls our ports” aspect, the “CORPORATION controls our ports” aspect, the “actually it’s a foreign COUNTRY” aspect, the “and they’re associated with TERRORISTS” aspect, the “cronyism” aspect, etc.
This may be what we need to generate a really close look at the safety of our ports—something that many of us have been concerned about since the Sept. 11 attacks. I think it was even mentioned in “Fahrenheit 9/11″?
And Ryan, I don’t think that “civil liberties” are involved here—specifically the Bill of Rights—as they are in Guantanamo.
Jim
February 22, 2006 at 5:22 pm
45Alright, so a couple of possible options are as follows:
1: Bush is foolishly playing the crony card. (interesting that day before yesterday he was defending the sale of the management services to the UAE and threatening to veto any block of the deal; while yesterday, he claims to have not known about it until “a few days ago.”
2: An purely speculative wag-the-dog extrapolation of RRRRyan’s comment re red-herring.
Mid-term elections are coming up.
News of the sale of control of major east coast maritime ports to a middle eastern state run corporation becomes public.
Major Republican power players denounce the deal en mass as a threat to national security. Dems do so as well, while trying not to appear “anti-muslim.”
Bush backs down/didn’t know about deal, in face of Republican back-lash.
Republicans re-elected during mid-term elections and retain majority of seats on a platform of staying on message: “Keeping America Secure from Terrorists and Those Who Harbor Them(tm).”
Rove already has his next candidate picked out for managing during the 2008 presidential elections (most likely the Republican that is most vocally outraged by UAE control of ports) and maintains control of the Presidency once Bush’s term expires.
Possible?
To put things in perspective, how do you think politicians on both sides of the aisle would have reacted if control of non-maritime portals into the U.S had been handed over to the UAE (or any foreign corporation)?
Think LaGuardia, Dulles, Ronald Reagan International, O’Hare, LAX et al.
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 5:22 pm
46[trivial sidebar] I guess it depends on the airport, because once I noticed that sandals did not have to be removed, that was the last time I wore any other footwear to an airport. I’ve never been asked to remove them.
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 5:30 pm
47So the “American” part is just for effect? Suddenly the “Bill of Rights” applies to non-Americans? Why wasn’t the ACLU leading the charge to liberate Iraq from Hussein using that logic? You cut my argument in half, but that’s okay…
“I don’t think that “civil liberties” are involved here”
Sure they are, disallowing a foreign company to continue the operations of another foreign company that it bought out strictly on the grounds of nationality? If you want it to be about civil liberties it can be construed just about without exception. Which is one of the many grounds for removing their tax-exempt status.
When I was watching the movie Groundhog Day I kept thinking how fun it would be to do one thing one day, do the exact opposite the next and see how many people complained no matter what I did. It’s up there with the tree falling in the woods. I can’t prove it, but I’m quite certain that there is a sound. LOL. Don’t even get me going on string theory nonsense.
Jim
February 22, 2006 at 5:32 pm
48Regarding option 2 in my previous post:
Not that I’m a conspiracy theorist or anything…I’m just sayin’.
Siobhan
February 22, 2006 at 5:47 pm
49“When I was watching the movie Groundhog Day I kept thinking how fun it would be to do one thing one day, do the exact opposite the next and see how many people complained no matter what I did.”
In other words, you’d just want to be a shit-disturber, not discussing things from a genuine point of view?
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 5:52 pm
50The BoR applies to anyone on U.S. soil. Any non-citizen arrested for shoplifting or bank robbery or murder has the same basic rights as any citizen in similar circumstances. Depending on their status (documented, undocumented, permanent resident, etc.), “due process” might mean something different further down the line, but there is still “due process,” in that the local sheriff can’t unilaterally decide to toss someone on a one-way flight to Syria.
Once a U.S. citizen steps off U.S. soil, all bets are off. That’s why the State Dept. asks travellers to keep out of trouble and not try to smuggle drugs into or out of Turkey, for example.
(J.D., but not licensed, not practicing)
Harold
February 22, 2006 at 5:53 pm
51Jim, I was kinda taking #2 as a given. This isn’t quite as much a non-issue as Dick Cheney’s hunting accident, but it’s one that everyone can do a lot of fairly safe political grandstanding on. A lot of Congressional incumbents are going to try to use this to their advantage in the upcoming elections.
Julia
February 22, 2006 at 5:58 pm
52– “Suddenly the “Bill of Rights” applies to non-Americans?”
Um…not suddenly, no. So far as I know, it always has. I thought (I could be wrong) that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to pretty much anybody under American jurisdiction…here or, like, on bases and stuff.
But I could be wrong. I was a poor student.
Julia
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 6:03 pm
53Siobhan do you really think you got my point? Every post I’ve made here has attested to my sincere and genuine opinion that people here simply hate Bush, everything he does, and everything he stands for, regardless of the individual merits of those actions. This has been a huge circus watching as opinions adjust to the latest news,
1. Bush approved a UAE company running security on our ports.
General response: “What an idiot”
2. Bush approved a UAE company running 6 ports that would be secured via the coast guard and overseen via customs.
General response: “What an idiot”
3. Bus didn’t even know about it.
General response: “What an idiot”
—— Alarm goes off, it’s 7:00 AM yesterday morning!
1. Bush disapproved a UAE company running security on our ports.
General response: “What an idiot”
…
I’m kinda living in a glass house here though. I realized that about 11 days ago I crossed over to a point that anything A.G. does will result in “What an idiot” from me. How does one get out of such an illogical state?
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 6:06 pm
54Julia, so the second half is, why isn’t the ACLU leading the charge to liberate Iraq?
Please don’t close the circle of reasoning by saying “because they aren’t American”. - Please
Stephen
February 22, 2006 at 6:15 pm
55Heard George Bartlett on Fresh Air today. His book might be worth the read:
“George W. Bush is widely considered to be one of the most politically conservative presidents in history. His invasion of Iraq, his huge tax cuts, and his intervention in the Terri Schiavo case are among the issues where those on the left view him as being to the right of Attila the Hun. But those on the right have a different perspective — mostly discussed among themselves or in forums that fly below the major media’s radar. They know that Bush has never really been one of them the way Ronald Reagan was. Bush is more like Richard Nixon — a man who used the right to pursue his agenda, but was never really part of it. In short, he is an impostor, a pretend conservative.”
There is a great excerpt from his book on their web site.
Stephen
February 22, 2006 at 6:17 pm
56I’ll try to post the link.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5227215
Don’t know if that will work or not.
RRRyan, I’d be real interested in your take.
Julia
February 22, 2006 at 6:19 pm
57It’s not a circle. I said the rights apply to anyone under American jurisdiction. Iraq is under Iraqi jurisdiction, it’s not under American law.
That’s why, as I understand it, if you’re an American citizen caught breaking, say, Turkish law, in Turkey, you can go to prison for a very long time - in Turkey.
Julia
Siobhan
February 22, 2006 at 6:21 pm
58What I was responding to was the idea of saying one thing one day and another the next just for the sake of seeing what response you’d get. Nothin’ more, nothin’ less. If that wasn’t the point you were trying to make, then I didn’t get it.
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 6:55 pm
59Iraq is not under U.S. jurisdiction–sort of. But Guantanamo is, arguably.
Pete IVDL
February 22, 2006 at 6:58 pm
60Landis, YOU wear SANDALS when you travel? With or without white socks? (I’m a sandals/socks fashionista, myself, although my wife always vetos the look).
As all the screwed developing nations who’ve had to put up with globalis(z)ation would say, “Where’s the beef?” (or lamb, or goat…)
I honestly don’t understand the argument, whether it’s about Muslim companies controlling Western ports (who was guarding the ports/airports when 9/11 happened?), a company controlling the port instead of a government (bit late for globaliz(s)ation arguments, it’s a done deal - our prisons and healthcare are already well out of government hands, although they’re a REALLY bad argument for privatis(z)ation), or cronyism (neither Bush nor any of his frat buddies will be on the welfare line after his stint in the USS “Control Room”).
I’m not saying I agree in any way with any of these arguments for handing control of the ports over to anyone, I’m just saying it’s a bit late to fight the Good Fight. We shoulda done that about 10 years ago, but we were distracted by all the shareholder profit calculations as we bought into privatiz(s)ation then. Now the piper is at the door with his itemis(z)ed bill, and we have to find our collective wallets…
If anyone knows what my point is, will they please tell me? Thanks.
cooper
February 22, 2006 at 7:05 pm
61Julia, RRRRyan, thanks for reminding me. It’s time to renew my membership in ACLU.
Siobhan
February 22, 2006 at 7:22 pm
62Americans who’ve got a CLUe?
Landis [Card Carrying ACLU Member]
February 22, 2006 at 7:35 pm
63Pete, ever since they started making me take off my shoes I wore sandals. And I got away with it several times. But the last couple of times they even made me take off my beloved Chacos. And this was AFTER the news reports about people being allowed to keep their shoes on again!
Oh, and of course I wear my socks. Usually white. And my wife has gotten used to it.
And while you’re still trying to figure out what your point was, I’m working on pointing out that I was trying to make that same point.
Glad to see you found that ‘Zed’ key. I hope you don’t wear it out.
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 7:47 pm
64Socks with sandals, definitely. At least, in the wintertime.
Ann
February 22, 2006 at 7:58 pm
65No, Pete, I don’t wear sandals when I travel, and I’m afraid I’d join your wife in a veto over sandals with socks, had I the power. I recognize that there may be some outdoorsy activities for which this combo is appropriate, however. I DID sympathize with Landis, who complained about taking off HIS sandals. It’s a ridiculous waste of time and can’t possibly be considered a safety measure. But I wear shoes on a plane. Slip-ons, of course.
Murray
February 22, 2006 at 8:01 pm
66Stephen, you mean that Bush is as much a phony conservative as he is a phony Texan?
Any real Texan will tell you his accent is as genuine as the $3.00 bill with W’s face on it. Here is a guy who was born and raised in Maine, went to high school and college in Connecticut, grad school in Mass. and never lived in Texas until his mid to late 20s. His accent is pure politics. Rove knew he would never fly as a northeasterner so now he’s a fake Texan.
Maximum Bob
February 22, 2006 at 8:05 pm
67I’m already an ACLU member, but discussions such as this one remind me I’d better send them a few more bucks.
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 8:10 pm
68Pete, was it that we might as well give up on national security because we missed the boat?
Stephen, since you put it that way I most certainly will read that article. I’m a slow reader though.
Would everyone that I “reminded” to give to the ACLU let me know how much you give so I can match it to my political organization? I’ll of course have to adjust up to account for the non-tax-exempt status of mine. :-\
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 8:16 pm
69ACLU is not tax-exempt. ACLU Foundation is.
Maximum Bob
February 22, 2006 at 8:29 pm
70RRRRyan, I’m giving them my house. So do a web search for the average cost of a single-family home in Santa Clara County, CA, and send that to whomever.
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 8:57 pm
71I’ll throw in my house in Fairfield County, CT.
Julia
February 22, 2006 at 9:05 pm
72Mr. Rrryan - my post specifically and intentionally credited no one in particular with jogging my memory to renew, as I did not want it misinterpreted. I was prompted by the general conversation, but if you care to take credit, I’m sure the others here understand my gratitude to them.
The 50% increase over my (non-tax-deductable) donation last year, however, is solely your doing. Thank you.
As to the amount of the donation, of course, I would never discuss such a thing. It involves consideration not only of finance but of principle and priority. You will have to answer those questions for yourself, as did I.
Julia
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 9:11 pm
73Sharon, I recently read this article: http://www.ahherald.com/bishop/2005/gb050929_aclu.htm and thought it was accurate. Thanks for shedding some light for me.
Stephen, that article was super relevant. So perhaps we have a third party emerging? I especially appreciated the insight into Bush’s pattern of firing and demoting people who don’t agree with him. Now I’d like to verify that other presidents don’t have similar stories to the two that are mentioned in the excerpt. Actually it is three since Bruce Bartlett himself was one of the victims. That would make it hard to present an unbiased POV wouldn’t it?
A lot of the article was very well articulated opinion. It is easy to find distinctions between any two people on the planet. So I didn’t find the itemized list of “Bush isn’t Reagan”s very important.
Anyway, that article did get me thinking. I still would prefer to let the administration do their job without my nosing around but you know, it’s perfectly reasonable to want more information. I think I get the point of Adam’s post, so yaw are sayin’ you’d like to know more of the details on more of the issues?
Ooops… I have to change the channel the one I’m on just showed Alec Baldwin. Have you seen the petition going around? If the one I got is even remotely accurate there are like 15,000 people boycotting Alec Baldwin. LOL.
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 9:13 pm
74I have an idea, how about everyone go and buy a bunch of Alec Baldwin movies. That should even things out.
Sharon
February 22, 2006 at 9:20 pm
75Ryan, lately the core of your arguments seems to be “the Democrats did it, too.” But this was the administration that was going to restore “honor and integrity” to the White House. Or did I misunderstand?
To simply say, “they did it first,” is a double-edged sword. Assuming that we ever again have fair elections in this country, there -will- be a Democratic in the White House again someday. Do you really want him (or her) to have this kind of unlimited power?
Maximum Bob
February 22, 2006 at 10:44 pm
76It’s an interesting contradiction, Sharon, when someone runs for office claiming to be different, and then cries, “The other guys did it, too!” whenever they’re criticized.
When his followers defend Bush with a “Clinton did it, too,” what I hear is, “Bush is just like Clinton.” This is of course untrue; Bush is nowhere near as accomplished.
RRRRyan
February 22, 2006 at 10:44 pm
77no.
hedera
February 23, 2006 at 12:46 am
78This is interesting. I’ve now read through this whole thread, and nobody but me seems to have been listening to Morning Edition today. They had an interview, which is printed here, on the whole port controversy, and the issue I don’t see anybody pick up on is that Dubai Ports World won’t be “managing the ports”. They won’t be in charge of security: the U.S. Coast Guard is now and will continue to be. What DPW will be in charge of is cargo handling. Period. They’ll run the cranes. In fact, in NY/NJ, they’ll only be in charge of 1 of 6 terminals, and 2 of the other terminals are managed by Chinese companies.
This is a storm in a teacup. This is about who drives the forklifts, and it’s being presented as a great failure of national security. In fact, most of the people driving the forklifts now are American; and they’ll continue to drive the forklifts if DPWWe lost the battle over “foreign” management of U.S. ports years ago.
hedera
February 23, 2006 at 12:49 am
79OOPs, hit the send key too soon. The last paragraph should read:
This is a storm in a teacup. This is about who drives the forklifts, and it’s being presented as a great crisis of national security. In fact, most of the people driving the forklifts now are American (read the NPR story linked above); and they’ll continue to drive the forklifts if DPW does take over cargo management. Not to mention that Dubai is in this for the money, which they won’t make if they hire terrorists.
And we did lose the battle over “foreign” management of U.S. ports years ago: after all, we hired the Brits.
Emmarie
February 23, 2006 at 12:52 am
80I agree with hedera, but that’s no reason the administration’s investigation/analysis shouldn’t be available for at least other important elected officals to see. If the threat is nonexistent, which the guy on Morning Edition said it is, the report won’t have anything damning and will explain to the (we then assume) overreacting Congressmen exactly why they are just not treating Middle Easterners fairly.
And of course this administration is noted for its fairness.
hedera
February 23, 2006 at 12:54 am
81Good point, Emmarie, since probably the worst thing about the Bush administration is its total unwillingness to explain anything to anyone. Starting with Congress.
Siobhan
February 23, 2006 at 1:32 am
82I think someone said earlier (I admit, I’m too lazy to look it up) that it pains them to admit that they might agree with W on this one. I’m sorta in that camp too. Sorry to disappoint you RRRRRRRRRRRR, but some of us are capable of giving him benefit of the doubt occasionally.
Port security is a big deal, but from the sound of it, these guys won’t be doing the security - that’s still Coast Guard, Customs and Homeland Security. They will be signing the paychecks for a bunch of US dockworkers, so if you have an antiglobalization beef, you’ve probably got a legitimate seat at this table. AND, as mentioned earlier, maybe the upside is that we will FINALLY focus some attention on port security (says she who commutes over a major sea route everyday).
As Pete mentioned, we already said ok to overseas oversight of these operations years ago. It’s a little late to raise that issue. The Brits seem to be okay with this firm overseeing some of their ports and they’ve got experience with terrorists, so they probably did some vetting.
One story on All Things Considered tonight mentioned that the Israelis had an advantage at Entebbe because they’d designed and built the airport so they knew their way around (?? gawd, details and wine don’t mix!). Half of the west coast seaports have been pre-fabbed in China, along with many major refineries. Again, if it’s an issue, we kinda missed the boat.
UAE is not Iran. I know a few westerners who’ve lived there. I don’t know if this deal is good on its own merits, but I’m not prepared to oppose it just because a) W likes it and b) the word “Arab” is involved on the deal. I’m also not totally ready to support it, would love more details.
If W and company had spent more time being more open, maybe we would trust them on it. As is, they’ve built a healthy reservoir of mistrust with the American people and the world, and now it’s one of those times when we deal with the consequences.
Blah blah blah
waterfowler
February 23, 2006 at 2:04 am
83Hedera,
Thank You!
for restoring my faith in the Assha…er…Felbernauts! I was thinking of opening w/ “The ragheads are coming, the ragheads are coming!!”
Where does this leave us? Screaming about national security about this “tempest” or about an “un-covert” agent?
I’m glad y’all are so interested in our security, can we please start w/ our borders? And where do y’all stand on the Patriot Act or NSA eavesdropping or profiling?
They’re all tied together, yet y’all jumped on the slowest pony.
Sharon
February 23, 2006 at 2:29 am
84If this was a tempest in a teacup, then an awful lot of folks fell for it, including Senators and journalists. Bush vowed to use his first ever veto to block any bill that would attempt to block this sale.
So what’s it really all about? What was it supposed to distract us from noticing?
wf, I think you’re well aware where most folks here stand on the issues you listed. The NSA fishing expedition does nothing to secure our borders, but it sure does occupy a lot of our resources that could be better spent. All the reasons offered for not obtaining warrants boil down to “because who’s gonna stop us?”
The PATRIOT Act is another fishing expedition. I’ll concede that there may be some very special case where a criminal investigation might justify a warrant for someone’s library records. It might have even been used as a plot device on Law & Order, for all I know. But mostly it stinks to high heaven of Nixonian “enemies lists.”
{future Librarian and Defender of the First Amendment}
waterfowler
February 23, 2006 at 2:44 am
85Sharon (75) and Max. Bob (76),
It’s just that we have short memories, and don’t remember y’all being so disturbed when Clinton was lying to us and a federal prosecutor or when he was selling missile technology to the Communist Chinese (to reach L.A.),who, I believe, were given control of some of our ports out West during “their” administration.
It’s not that y’all did it first, it’s that we openly object…to border policy, relations w/ Mexico, control of our ports, and I still believe that “if you carry a gun, don’t be a Dick.”
waterfowler
February 23, 2006 at 3:02 am
86Sharon, (I was saving this for Asshat),
The blogoshpere has become a very powerful tool, but after a couple of days, sometimes hours, you can look in the mirror, or your past posts, and think, “OH!!SeaSkunk!!”. That’s what’s happening right now w/ these spineless pukes in D.C. They are freaked out because of us, well, y’all, but they chill soon enough,….sometimes..
Maximum Bob
February 23, 2006 at 3:09 am
87WF -
“BuBuBut Clinton!…”
Thanks. Never fails to amuse.
ice weasel
February 23, 2006 at 3:23 am
88I’m sorry, I thought this was the Mallard Filmore discussion group.
I mean, I saw the host explaining his humour and some of the readers still didn’t get it.
So what is it exactly that goes on in here? I mean, aside from the obvious remedial training ground this has turned into?
Oh yeah, “Clinton’s penis”. There, that explains everything.
I feel so much better now.
cooper
February 23, 2006 at 9:10 am
89Landis, next time you fly, try sandals, calf-high black nylon socks, pasty white legs and plaid Bermuda shorts w/ striped golf shirt. TSA will wave you right through, though your wife will be finding another seat assignment.
ice weasel
February 23, 2006 at 9:41 am
90coop, is that a halloween costume?
Sharon
February 23, 2006 at 10:03 am
91I’m only going to say this once.
Clinton lied under oath…about a blow job. W took an oath–twice–to defend the Constitution of the United States. He’s never “lied under oath” because he refuses to ever testify under oath.
Out of all the million$$$ of taxpayer dollars that were spent investigating the Clintons’ so-called criminal activites, not one indictment was ever obtained. Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Jack Abramoff…just the tip of the iceberg.
Whatever Clinton did or didn’t do while in office, it was legal at that time. In fact, his administration pushed to tighten up the loopholes in FISA. Selling missle technology to China? Well, Clinton, like BushCo, never met a corporation he didn’t like.
cooper
February 23, 2006 at 10:37 am
92ice, it’s the new national uniform for getting through airport security. Didn’t you get the memo? The Gap has them in all colors and configurations. Kate Moss wore hers to the Gram(my’s). Get with the program, man!
Redshift
February 23, 2006 at 10:37 am
93The idea of “they’re just managing the port, the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of security” is just another line of BS, don’t buy it.
Yes, those agencies are in charge of security, but that doesn’t mean that the company running the port can’t be a security risk. To indulge in a bit of hyperbole, it’s like saying that there’s no security problem having a mob-connected company move into your city, because the police are in charge of law enforcement. Adding security risks to the mundane operations of the port means more work for the people “in charge of security,” which makes them less secure.
Considering the general attitude of this administration that they’re always right, and rules are a nuisance rather than a mechanism to ensure the job is done right, their assurances that “the government” has fully checked this out (but they can’t tell Congress the details) are somewhat less than reassuring. Given the number of times in the past that claimes of secret information that supports their conclusion turned out to be false, requiring them to “show their work” on this one is just common sense.
cooper
February 23, 2006 at 10:53 am
94I have to agree with Redshift on this. DP World will actually be handling the cargo, hands on. Things could be inserted into or removed from the cargo containers during handling. Right now port security consists of visually inspecting at approx. 2% of the containers; X-Raying maybe 10% and statistically analysing the rest, based on port of exit and destination. The creation of Homeland Security has not made a major difference in how the U.S approaches the problem. This is how large destructive weapons will be brought in. We’re not serious about solving this securtiy lapse and bringing in a Middle East state owned company to run the ports is the height of stupidity.
Sharon
February 23, 2006 at 10:54 am
95The Long War, martial law, detention without trial, suppression of dissent, and Bush’s mysterious “new programs”:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/32647/
And a quote from one of the comments:
cooper
February 23, 2006 at 12:37 pm
96So, Adam, I think we have been behaving rather well this time, responding to the news of the day and discussing various opposing sides in a civil and reasoned manner. Can we go have ice cream now, even ‘fouler? You buying? I know, cup cakes, on Susie! She won’t mind, if we save her a few of the chocolate ones. Can we go now, huh? Can we?
dee
February 23, 2006 at 12:56 pm
97cooper, quit being an asshat.
Murray
February 23, 2006 at 1:30 pm
98It is amazing how this story actually DID rely on the subtleties. They just didn’t come out until much later. And once the details came out the story changed. It is still somewhat amusing that the sides are switched. W needs to explain the details to defend his side and the flag wavers just say “we don’t want Al Qaeda defending our ports”.
Given the new information, who cares who manages the system?
Murray
February 23, 2006 at 2:19 pm
99OK, My Bad.
I posted before reading the last several comments. Now my take on this issue has shifted again, although I think I’m back to having our Government handle anything that resembles security.
Gotta go, Realtor’s here to sell my house so that I can donate the proceeds to NARAL.
Ann
February 23, 2006 at 2:34 pm
100Murray, that’s South Dakota NARAL, right?
Murray
February 23, 2006 at 2:38 pm
101Ann, They need it the most.
RichM
February 23, 2006 at 2:46 pm
102When will somebody tell our fearless leader that he’s overdrawn at the political capital bank? I actually don’t completely disagree with the Administration’s position (odd feeling, that), but I cannot figure out how poor their political acumen is these days. Is this really the fight that they need to get into right now?
Ah well. Napoleon said “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Scooby
February 23, 2006 at 2:48 pm
103Well, I built me a raft and she’s ready for floatin’
Ol’ Mississippi, she’s callin’ my name
Catfish are jumpin’
That paddle wheel thumpin’
Black water keeps rollin’ on past just the same
- Black Water
By Bush’s standards, I believe the Doobie Brothers are even overqualified for the job.
But seriously, I wouldn’t even start worrying about the increased threat from the UAE operating the ports, until we really gave port security some consideration… any consideration… we’re like wide open… I’m shocked and awed that we haven’t been struck again since 9/11…
I’ll just segue out of here…
I’d like to hear some funky Dixieland
Pretty mama come and take me by the hand
By the hand, take me by the hand pretty mama
Come and dance with your daddy all night long
Sue
February 23, 2006 at 2:52 pm
104OK, if we’re gonna talk cargo handling, here’s the really scary part: notice all those CSX alumni now connected to DPW? The same CSX whose train broke down in an underground tunnel in downtown Baltimore a couple of years back, where it proceeded to burn for two days(and yes it was carrying something scary, tho’ I’ve blocked the memory of what, exactly). Hope their cranes and cargo containers are in better shape than their tracks!
RRRRyan
February 23, 2006 at 2:55 pm
105So I love this question! “What was happening while everyone was distracted with this port thing?”
Scooby
February 23, 2006 at 3:03 pm
106RRRRyan,
Believe me, I would love to stop being distracted by this administration, but they continue to feed the flames.
I can’t remember this country being so divided… is anyone else participating in “The Polling Station’s” weekly polls. Topical polls with very interesting results…
This Week’s Question
Participate in the poll, then the following Tuesday you will see the results broken down by Dems, Repubs and Indies. Also another blogging site if you are so inclined…
cooper
February 23, 2006 at 3:29 pm
107Oh great, dee! Now we can just forget the ice cream and cup cakes! Jeez…
Scooby
February 23, 2006 at 4:04 pm
108My treat!
Mary
February 23, 2006 at 4:24 pm
109I do not hate Shrub. It isn’t fair to accuse me of that RRRRyan.
As for what has been happening during the latest brewhaha, I don’t have the time to write it all down. But, I’ll give you one hint, Shrub visited my home state.
cooper
February 23, 2006 at 5:13 pm
110Scooby, thanks! What a pal!
David
February 23, 2006 at 6:18 pm
111Whoa,
I go away for a couple of days, and wow, the presses roll.
It is a coup d’etat, no they are not answerable for anything, and my favorite ice cream is butter pecan (what else would a Southern boy’s taste in ice cream gravitate to?)
I agree with the people who have observed that we don’t have any meaningful port security anyway. I do think all ports should be public infrastructure, publicly run. OK to lease space to private corporations, but they should have to answer directly and continuously to a public official in charge of the facility who is backed by public security. Modern privatization, especially post-2000, is civic madness.
The president, as president, is simply stark raving mad.
David
February 23, 2006 at 6:19 pm
112I meant to add I neither know nor care who or what 43 is as a private citizen, which is what I wish he had remained for the republic’s sake.
jerry-the-conservatroll
February 23, 2006 at 7:40 pm
113I’m honestly conflicted by this whole thing. It’s waaaayyy more complicated than most folks outside the rarified air of the Republic of Felber*.
I can see both side of this arguement but I am tending to lean towards letting the sale go through. I tend to think it’s a lot like how the Javits Center in NYC operates. Javitts is owned by the state of NY. When an event is taking place there, the show organizers hire a company, usually GES or Freeman Decorating, to manage the labor and provide the equipment (for lifts, etc). The teamsters hold the labor contract to operate that equipment and move the freight. In this case, the UAE company takes the place of Freeman.
Also, the UAE really is one of the few countries in the area we have had on the side of the West for quite a long time. The governemnt and military there do NOT want the new Caliphate to appear. We’re in danger of pissing off a good friend.
*Adam - when you run in ‘08 I still want the NSA job.
jerry-the-conservatroll
February 23, 2006 at 7:43 pm
114edit —-
I’m honestly conflicted by this whole thing. It’s waaaayyy more complicated than how most folks outside the rarified air of the Republic of Felber* are discussing this.
Murray
February 23, 2006 at 8:12 pm
115Scooby, where do I pick up the honey?
(You can keep the ice cream)
cooper
February 23, 2006 at 8:23 pm
116David, I, too, have a fondest for Butter Pecan and also, a peculiar Maine specialty - “Moose Tracks” - lots of chocolate in a vanilla base.
“I meant to add I neither know nor care who or what 43 is as a private citizen”, well Dave, in case you ever get curious - http://www.celebrity-pics.net/dp/2-22.htm
Murray
February 23, 2006 at 8:39 pm
117Molly Ivans has some good points.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0223-28.htm
Scooby
February 23, 2006 at 8:57 pm
118In 2002, the Coast Guard estimated it would take $5.4 billion over 10 years to improve port security to the point mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. Last year, Congress appropriated $175 million. The administration had requested $46 million, below 9-11 levels.
This is very helpful, objective information.
It’s also completely unbelievable!
Ack!!!
Chuggo
February 23, 2006 at 10:29 pm
119After reviewing this entire thread, I believe it is time to provide the answer to the persistent question that seems to be running as an undercurrent. I sincerely hope this will end this debate in an amicable way. Here it is:
“Vanilla”
You are welcome.
ice weasel
February 23, 2006 at 10:56 pm
120Vanilla caramel fudge swirl please. And just a dash of butterscotch on top (and don’t worry, I’ll pay the extra for the butterscotch).
siobhan
February 23, 2006 at 11:04 pm
121I may have lived more than half my life in SF, but my Motown roots cry out for Sanders to top the ice cream. Accept no substitutes.
Emmarie
February 23, 2006 at 11:09 pm
122Actually, it depends. If in a cone (waffle, always waffle) or if I’m paying, mint chocolate chip. If in a bowl, superior quality vanilla with fudge and maybe nuts of some type.
I wonder how this all fits in the section on tangents established in the rules-guidelines post.
Julia
February 23, 2006 at 11:12 pm
123That bloody well tears it. Just TEARS it. I’m done.
The only thing under discussion was a ‘plain-vanilla’ pumpkiny kind of ice cream.
That’s all that was ever on the table, that is the base, and you can always count on
the base. But no. Can’t stick to a subject, can’t have a rational discussion
based on facts, it’s just too volatile.
All of a sudden you have people wanting vanilla-vanilla, probably French vanilla too,
but too sly to say it, not to MENTION those extremist asshats who think you can
strike for chocolate fudge sauce.I’m SORRY, but how in hell are you going to place an
honest
, acceptable ice-cream order when you don’t know who controls the votes?
Things have gone to hell in a handbasket. I, for one, have had it with the
side arguments about the proper temperature of fudge sauce and the
misleading figures on the cost of hard caramel shells. And I don’t want to hear
a single word from anyone about the effect of waffle cones on the yen OR the
rainforest.
I mean, Jesus, people, can’t we all get along?
waterfowler
February 23, 2006 at 11:18 pm
124Murray, Molly’s good points are usually her fingernails.
cooper & dee,
Think “On Golden Pond”. Since Adam introduced me to that word, all I can see is Fonda discussing it w/ the kid, mulling it over, and deeming it a “good word”. Therefore it should be considered an endearment and not grounds for no ice cream. Vanilla w/ chocolate syrup and lots of pecans.
coop, did I hear you praying?
Stephen
February 23, 2006 at 11:28 pm
125I, personally, am split between Butter Pecan, raised in FL after all, and Tin Roof Sundae, love those chocolate peanuts.
Ann
February 23, 2006 at 11:58 pm
126I suppose I’m revealing my age when I say that I yearn for Butter Brickle—I haven’t seen it in the store in years. Pralines and Cream is a good substitute, however. Or anything chocolate, it goes without saying.
waterfowler
February 24, 2006 at 12:18 am
127Now Julia’s praying?
Sharon
February 24, 2006 at 12:27 am
128I love Molly Ivins. Thanks for thelink, Murray. “A corporation is like a shark, designed to do two things: kill and eat.” Damn, I wish I’d written that!
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say with all sincerity…coffee, vanilla, AND chocolate, topped with chocolate sauce and chopped salted roasted almonds. This used to be on the menu at Friendly’s, but now you have to ask for it to be custom made. Braum’s ice cream, in Dallas, is pretty damn good, too.
cooper
February 24, 2006 at 8:33 am
129‘fouler, me? Praying? Not likely. But, now, I can’t speak for Julia.
cooper
February 24, 2006 at 8:38 am
130Actually, ‘fouler when I think of “On Golden Pond”, I’m think of the younger Fonda in her bikini, though I have to agree - it is a good word.
Julia
February 24, 2006 at 9:46 am
131Not praying, no…just a sudden breakdown at the multiplicity of choices. Wonder…what would Lobster pick?
Lemon custard, please, and thanks to Scooby for the treat.
Julia
dee
February 24, 2006 at 11:25 am
132My nephew-in-law’s grandfather (got that?) always ordered vanilla, because, as he said, “That way I can imagine it’s any flavor I want.”
And siobhan, You’re absolutely right. Sanders Hot Fudge. And maybe a cream puff.
Are my Motown roots showing?
Harold
February 24, 2006 at 11:35 am
133I was going to take a stand for Rocky Road, but I heard that the Diebold computer tallying everybody’s votes has indicated that “Strawberry” won by a landslide. How odd.
ice weasel
February 24, 2006 at 12:13 pm
134Hey wait, doesn’t the carlyle group own all the strawberry flavoring in the world?
momma (formerly anon)
February 24, 2006 at 12:25 pm
135I am glad someone started specifying ‘roasted’ and ’salted’ nuts. Not just any nuts will do. Of course roasted, unsalted and chopped pecans and almonds are the best on a sundae of sorts; I personally have grown out of maraschino cherries, unless they are in my Shirly Temple. All forms of vanilla are good for one of the scoops but how do y’all feel about Baskin and Robbins dark chocolate selections? Now this is a good thread. Discerning ice cream intellects…Thanks
Siobhan
February 24, 2006 at 12:44 pm
136…….mmmmmmmmmm…… cream puff….
who needs cones?
Scooby
February 24, 2006 at 1:00 pm
137In an attempt to veer somewhat back on-topic…
Perhaps we can devise some relevant ice cream flavors related to current events:
Quail Shot Custard - tiny balls of premium dark chocolate in vanilla with cherry swirl
Dubai Double Dutch - fine British toffee laced with vintage port and a hint of essential oils of Dutch cocoa
Iraqi Road - unshelled walnuts lovingly nestled in lemon ice
Citrus Mohammad Mocha - high-caffeinated coffee beans in a creamy orange sherbet base
Whipped Jesus Wept - lamb-shaped chocolate-covered cherries in a smooth caramel-chocolate blend
Scooby
February 24, 2006 at 1:04 pm
138…optional infant-shaped chocolate-covered cherry topping for the “Whipped Jesus Wept”
dee
February 24, 2006 at 1:07 pm
139Scooby — for “Iraqi Road” you owe me a monitor.
And I hope this discussion proves to Adam that trying to keep us on topic is like trying to herd Unitarians.
Scooby
February 24, 2006 at 1:10 pm
140…of course I needn’t point out that optional topping is only available in South Dakota…
nato
February 24, 2006 at 1:22 pm
141Why are we discussing ice cream? That’s barely a step above ice milk. It has to be a double scoop of gelatto: Top scoop espresso, bottom scoop vanilla bean. Jeez, people! (my LDS status requires me to forgo my top scoop, depending on the strictness of the ward I am in, but I can still at least fantasize)
RRRRyan
February 24, 2006 at 1:55 pm
142what kind of a$$hat would order vanilla? j/k
Sharon
February 24, 2006 at 2:05 pm
143Black Box Voting uncovers more irregularities in 2004 election here.
Michael Bains
February 24, 2006 at 4:33 pm
144Wow! That was really quite well done!
Chuggo
February 24, 2006 at 4:33 pm
145Vanilla. In a bowl. Nothing else. It’s okay if it melts a little, and you stir it up a bit, but don’t get carried away at it.
That, my friends, is the last I will discuss the subject.
Landis
February 24, 2006 at 5:36 pm
146You all just don’t get it, do you? Hagan Daaz Coffee is the only way to go.
Of course if that’s not possible, a nice bowl of vanilla will do.
cooper
February 24, 2006 at 6:32 pm
147Adam, now you see if dee had behaved herself and not called me an !!!ASSHAT!!!, we could have all gone out, had our ice cream (on your corporate credit card, of course), come back, and stayed on target. Instead, the last 50 or so posts have been about our favorite dessert and why everybody else’s sucks canal water. Once again we’re stirring up ill feelings and raising the collective bile. It’s all your fault, dee! Why can’t we just get along?????
Julia
February 24, 2006 at 7:05 pm
148Note for Ann - saw butter brickle today in a Goodrich’s dairy store. But…I think it’s a mostly midwestern chain.
Julia
Chuggo
February 24, 2006 at 7:08 pm
149This might cause us to go further off topic, but I forgot to mention that right beside my bowl of vanilla is a glass of single malt scotch. No ice. Not only does the color contrast nicely with the white of the ice cream, it really is a nice compliment taste-wise.
dee
February 24, 2006 at 7:39 pm
150Ah, cooper. It’s all part of my plan. What would you rather be discussing — Dubai Ports World or ice cream? If we’re going to stir up ill feelings and raise the collective bile, I’d much rather it’d be over a nice bowl of Haagen Daas Dulce De Leche.
Ann
February 24, 2006 at 8:58 pm
151Thanks, Julia. I’m originally an Iowa girl!
Pete IVDL
February 24, 2006 at 9:01 pm
152This is utterly fascinating.
About 25 years ago (roughly the time that ‘Star Wars’ came out), the big thing Down Under was the sudden, amazing, appearance of “21 Flavours [sic] Ice Cream”. It was such a big thing to have a choice of colours and/or flavours, we even had one store (Norgen Vaasz) open up here in Melbourne (Australia’s second largest city).
It lasted about 3 years, and is now a convenience store. Although it’s not particularly convenient…
Our biggest, most cosmopolitan supermarkets carry around 3 different brands of ice cream, with a grand total of 6 flavours between them. The top-of-the-line “Frozen Heart Attack In A Box” variety is caramel and chocolate, and most shoppers tend to hide such extravagances under packs of dunny paper and Doritos.
Hearing about all these wierd and wonderful blends of icecream is astonishing. No wonder the American government doesn’t know what it’s doing - the people who should have voted the other guy in were too busy figuring out which of the 60 or more flavors of ice cream they should have been buying! Or the 40 or more varieties of coffee (we have around 8 to choose from). Or.. Or…
Seriously, it’s a great cultural awareness exercise going on here. Utterly fascinating.
Love,
Chocolate Mint Pete
Pete IVDL
February 24, 2006 at 9:03 pm
153Oh - the dunny paper is packed separately to the Doritos. Although, that would explain a lot about the Australian psyche…
Jim
February 24, 2006 at 9:55 pm
154Pete,
Thanks for the correction to your previous post. Now I think I know what dunny paper is (I can’t access my Aussie/Merkin on-line translator).
waterfowler
February 25, 2006 at 1:01 am
155Pete IVDL, what do you make of y’all’s gun control laws? I’ve heard or seen some stunning and unbelievable stuff…
ice weasel
February 25, 2006 at 1:13 am
156Let’s see, all time winners.
Ben & Jerry’s stopped making, about four years, one of the best, Vanilla Caramel Fudge Smooth. Somehow the evil trolls and B&J’s managed to keep all the textures perfect. Creamy caramel, smooth blended fudge and nicest vanilla all around them. Darn fine way to kill yourself.
Then there’s Godiva’s Chocolate Raspberry Truffle. That works well in a pinch.
If you’re lucky, and the elves at Baskins Robbins have been kind, they’ll have their World Class Chocolate (a fine blend of, as I recall, three or four kinds of chocolate). They used to make something called Brandied Cherries that was absolutely the closest thing to oral sex you could have by yourself (hey, I’m no contortionist and I stopped voting republican years ago).
Those would be my top picks.
Just sayin.
Pete IVDL
February 25, 2006 at 1:38 am
157WF, as a country kid growing up, I learned to handle and fire all types of firearms and to hunt all our shootable pests (rabbits, hares, foxes, feral dogs, feral cats, conservative voters); I gave up long ago trying to understand our carefully-crafted, incredibly restrictive, and utterly useless gun control laws. At about this time (18-30) I learned that other folks didn’t know or care about weapons handling, storage, or use, and at the time I thought “what a great idea!”. Then those same laws applied to me, and I didn’t think that any more. But it was too late.
Growing up in the bush, every kid I knew also knew how to shoot for fun & profit; but once I moved to the Big Smoke, I found that in nearly every case, the kids there couldn’t be trusted with a bag of navel fluff. My opinions have nosedived since then. So when I look at the problems caused by misuse of firearms in the US, I cringe, because there’s just no reason whatsoever for anyone in a city to own a gun, let alone be permitted to carry one, concealed or no; but then other countries, like us, with the strictest and limiting gun controls imaginable, are also spiralling into the same massive gun “accident” levels, so what do we do?
I always remember dad telling me, over and over again, “there are no accidents with guns”. Know what? He was absolutely right. And of course, now only the outlaws have guns…
Mind you, I still have a factory special 1914 Lee-Enfield .303 bolt-action rifle stashed away. I’ll never use it again (it’d shatter my spinal hardware), but I’m never giving it up. It’s all I have left of them Good Ole Days…
David
February 27, 2006 at 2:34 am
158Fowler, your comment said more about you than about Molly Ivins.
Chuggo, beside the bowl of butter pecan is the southern drink of choice, which is procured by leaving a 20 dollar bill on a stump - you’ve got your assignment, Cooper.
Pete, I once fired an Enfield .303 (no modifications, metal butt plate) - closest thing I could relate it to (and I used to shoot a NATO 30-06) was getting whacked in the shoulder with a sledge hammer accompanied by a shock wave. Never again. How in hell did they get British soldiers to fire those goddamned things?
I’m off now to join a herding of Unitarians.
Harold
February 27, 2006 at 7:51 am
159I hate to be off-topic, but this comment has nothing to do with ice cream.
I was just reading an article on the latest twists in the Dubai Ports World story, and I saw the company referred to for the first time as “DP World.” Sounds kinda like a porno shop, doesn’t it? Or maybe a magazine that focuses exclusively on Double Penetration layouts? I’ve always felt that if Clinton will be remembered for getting a blowjob from an intern, Bush II will be remembered for ass-raping the United States. So maybe he and DP World are a natural fit?
Pete IVDL
February 27, 2006 at 8:11 pm
160I heard the same contraction, Harold - I thought it was a kiddie’s playground.
“Tired of unpacking your boxes? Hate brown paper packages tied up with string? Let DP World take the hassle out of Hasselhoff!”
David
February 28, 2006 at 1:50 am
161DP World is where I live, what with it being my initials and all. Who the hell are these usurpers. DP World was my domain before these bastards even knew how to fleece people. It’s ultimately some goddamned investment group, so I’m sticking by my original suspicions regarding the Carlyle Group of Gropers.
Mary
February 28, 2006 at 10:37 am
162Back on the topic of ice cream- we have two local confectionaries that make some really killer flavors and the only ‘true’ dark chocolate ice cream I’ve ever had. Far better than the national brands.
Murray - should I make chocolate cream puffs for Felberpalooza?
Murray
February 28, 2006 at 8:20 pm
163Mary, if you can keep them fresh (not poisonous) till you get here and make enough for 200. You Bet!