New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 15, 2006

Jacob Sullum is glad to see congressional Republicans finally standing up to President Bush... but did they have to pick an issue where he's actually right?

Comments

|3.15.06 @ 9:56AM|#

Oh my Lord, I get to be the first person on the thread...I better do this right, get the ball rolling...Ok...
Sullum is right that the GOP deal over the NSA spying is indeed one of the more gutless things I have ever seen.
Hmmm. That probably did not get the thread really going.
Ok. Evolution is a secular humanist plot devoid of scientific verification. THe free market does a poor job of allocating goods and services. And we need to invade more countries. Especially Holland.

|3.15.06 @ 10:05AM|#

Not bad Ken, but you forgot to add that we should invade Holland because our children might go there to use cannabis.

|3.15.06 @ 10:10AM|#

Especially Holland.

I vote for invading Canada and forcing the slaves to operate US shipping terminals; they're damned furriners, but not TOO furrin, and most of 'em can speak English fairly well.

|3.15.06 @ 10:12AM|#

"The vast majority of port operations in the U.S. already are run by foreign-owned companies; security in those ports remains the responsibility of the Coast Guard and the Customs Service..."

Not according to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which sent a letter of Lindsay Graham explaining the role port operators play in port security.

I don't know if the Port Authority is right or wrong, as I've never seen anyone on the pro-DPW side refute, answer, or even acknowledge their points.

Instead, I've seen the words "xenophobia," "ragheads," "hysterics," "nationalists," and the like thrown around. There's been a lot more heat than light generated by this debate - which is not an unexpected consequence of the government operating in the dark, and presenting the public with a done deal, when making a decision about an issue people care about.

|3.15.06 @ 10:18AM|#

"which is not an unexpected consequence of the government operating in the dark, and presenting the public with a done deal, when making a decision about an issue people care about"

Except that this is only "an issue people care about" to the extent they're bigots. You can deny that if you like, joe, but then please recite all the sleepless nights you lay awake prior to the DPW deal thinking, "My God! Those shifty Brits are running our ports!"

|3.15.06 @ 10:24AM|#

What would this forum do without joe? He's so thoughtful, delicate, and downright uplifting, isn't he; full of nuance and what have you, perhaps a teensie-weensie bit pretentious but never ever in bad taste -- now aren't we glad we have him?

VM|3.15.06 @ 10:39AM|#

SR:

not speaking for anyone else, *I* most certainly lie awake at night, worrying about anything shifty. Especially those brits. but the clacking of their underbite is usually a dead give away.

(well, at least until i patch the tear in my noam chomsky blow-up doll)

the ports issue does seem to be more of a red herring than anything else. people lather up in this issue, including becoming internet all-world experts from a simple google search (see: typesets (fonts): Rather, Dan).

And if people are going to get bothered by that, well, i suggest they drive up Mass Ave in DC and see how much of our precious resources (and bodily fluids, of course) have been purchased and then taken over by a bunch of foreigners!

mass ave!!! in DC! they're buying up our capital!!!!!!

oooh. those are embassies. um...

right.

(exeuent pursued by large bear)

|3.15.06 @ 10:47AM|#

Aikon,

Man, you're funny.

|3.15.06 @ 10:48AM|#

SR,

You just need to accept something - conseratives and libertarians can't play an effective race card if your lives depended on it.

If you want to hone you skills at expressing this argument - you can't be concerned about X unless you're a racist, therefore the only concerns about X are based on racism - you might want to do some reading on welfare and crime debates from the 70s and 80s. Now those were quality race cards.

Your little shtick doesn't pass the laugh test.

|3.15.06 @ 10:54AM|#

...but I do appreciate your help demonstrating my point.

s.m. koppelman|3.15.06 @ 11:01AM|#

Ah, the "bigotry" gambit. I'd sort of expect this on the National Review's group blog, but it's sorta suprising on H+R and a bit puzzling coming from its maybe distant-#5 guy on Mideast issues.

The fact that it's specifically a company controlled by royals from the UAE, land of state-of-the-art shopping malls, hip nightspots, and government endorsement of the Taliban and Iran's nuclear enrichment program, does matter, and the fact that it's about major points of entry for goods, people, and oil in such large quantities that security relies on the general reliability of random spot checks, and not just a big office building or a bank matters too. I tend to think this port deal wouldn't have been as controversial had it been made with a Lebanese company managed by polticial secularists, for instance. Seems to me it's Mr. Sullum who's disingenuously painting all Muslim Arabs with one broad brush and all permutations of foreign ownership as the same. I'm a little curious why he's even got a horse in this race.

|3.15.06 @ 11:10AM|#

Sorry joe, but I'm not "playing a race card", I'm making a statement of fact. It is undisputed that most US ports are operated by majority foreign-owned corporations and have been operated that way for many years prior to the DPW deal. Thus, why is the DPW deal a big deal? All that's happening is that a "Great British" company (to use a Bushism) has been sold to a UAE company. What makes this transaction different than the dozens of other such transactions that have happened over the years? You can deny it all you want, but the Democratic Party's anti-racism credentials have always run out when it gets to Arabs. (See, e.g., Jello Biafra's "Love me, I'm a liberal" -- "When I vote it's for a Democrat / With a sensible economy view / But when it comes to terrorist Arabs / There's no one more red, white, and blue!")

|3.15.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Joe, so now you trust Lindsey Graham?

|3.15.06 @ 11:28AM|#

'Sorry joe, but I'm not "playing a race card", I'm making a statement of fact.'

Yes, that statement of fact being, "Except that this is only "an issue people care about" to the extent they're bigots." We have a term for "making a statment of fact" to the effect that people who disagree with you on a political issue are racists. That term is "playing the race card."

"It is undisputed that most US ports are operated by majority foreign-owned corporations and have been operated that way for many years prior to the DPW deal. Thus, why is the DPW deal a big deal?" Because Britain is a close ally with a democratic government that has no ties to international terrorists, and the UAE is not. For the record, I wouldn't want a Russian or Serbian company to manage our ports, either.

Finkelstein, I trust the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey when they make factual statement about how ports operate. Even if they did have the poor taste to contact a Republican.

|3.15.06 @ 11:30AM|#

KipEsquire,

I didn't realize that Jacob Sullum is a libertarian magazine. :)

_________________________________________

Does anyone really think that having DPW run or not run these ports will make one whit of difference in their operation?

|3.15.06 @ 11:31AM|#

Correction: "...a company controlled by the Russian or Serbian governments..."

BTW, for my own enlightenment, was that British company controlled by the British government? Does its Board of Directors consist of Tony Blair and his cronies?

|3.15.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Ah, Jacob, the Republicans are consisent. They believe in the absolute power of the governemtnto do anything as long as you say the magic words "national security" Thus they let Bush do what he wants on intelligence, snooping, disregard of rights of Americans, in the name of "national security". Why be surprised that they want to stop a sale in the name of "national security?"

For they to be principled at this point is ridiculous. As the old joke goes "We already established what you are, now we are haggling over the price."

|3.15.06 @ 11:37AM|#

SR,

I think that you need to look up the definition of bigotry. You don't seem to know what it means.

|3.15.06 @ 11:44AM|#

One has to ask, how was the DPW any more secretive than any of the hundreds of decisions that the federal government makes in this administration or any other?

|3.15.06 @ 12:06PM|#

Those on this forum who critique the DPW deal have what appear to be rational arguments, grounded in things far from xenophobia. I do not agree with them: I think the standards required for a government to become protectionist must be exceedingly high.

But these are not the arguments that came from Congress. And these are not the sentiments that came from the constituents to further feed the Congressional reaction.

As good as you think your arguments against DPW are, they are not the reasons this deal was scuttled. The original article describes the situation accurately.

|3.15.06 @ 12:11PM|#

One of the problems is that DPW is one of the few firms in the world qualified to run port ops of this magnitude.

There is only one American firm in this business at all and it doesn't come close to being able to take these contracts.

There is also the problem that the UAE is awash with cash they want to invest. It's possible this rebuff will cause them to think twice about investing in the US.

One compromise, I suppose, would be for DPW to keep ownership but set up a US subdiary that operates at arms length from the parent. Is that a viable option for anyone?

I understand that something like this has been done with foreign-owned defense contractors.

|3.15.06 @ 12:23PM|#

Mike P,

Of course the debate got ugly when it became a game of Congressional football, after the controversy broke out.

When you approach people beforehand and ask them to sit around a table and figure out an answer, you can usually expect a fair minded effort grounded in truth and mutual respect. When you bring them a finished plan, tell them you're going through with it no matter what they say, and call them names when they start asking questions, you can usually expect that they will go into panic mode, and that someone will attempt to hijack the people's concern about the underlying issue to push their own agenda.

And, of course, you can count on professional politcians to reduce complicated issues to angry soundbites when there is enough public outrage to convince them to play to the cameras.

|3.15.06 @ 12:30PM|#

When you approach people beforehand and ask them to sit around a table and figure out an answer, you can usually expect a fair minded effort grounded in truth and mutual respect.

Which is exactly why Congress created CFIUS 30 years ago to handle this kind of issue as apolitically as possible. I have seen absolutely no evidence that the committee did anything during their 30 day review that was not "a fair minded effort grounded in truth and mutual respect."

Furthermore, I presume that every result from that committee gets implemented and announced the same way as every other one. It's government. Governments have processes.

Saying Congress was right and the DPW deal is wrong because the president didn't send them a nice note about this particular CFIUS decision is mind-boggling.

|3.15.06 @ 12:38PM|#

Mike P,

Telling people "we've got a board that looks at this, and they said it was ok, so don't interfere" is not the same thing as "asking people to sit around a table." My point is that the public (or the reps, when we're talking about the federal government) needs to have real input into controversial decisions. Handing off the decision to a group of experts and not having a public discussion is exactly the opposite of public participation.

I don't know of the CFIUS did a good job or not. I do know that the process was deemed insufficiently transparent by a rather large majority of Americans.

But I see by your sarcastic dismissal of this point - "send them a nice note" - that you don't really have much respect for open, participatory government. Too bad - you're going to keep running into this dynamic until you get it through your head that people don't like to be told "don't worry, daddy's taking care of it."

|3.15.06 @ 12:46PM|#

And while we can sit in the ivory tower and conclude among ourselves that the board's decision was the most brilliant bit of policymaking in the whole wide world, that's not the point.

This is a democratic republic, governing a democratic society, one in which people have taken to heart the dictum that just power comes from the consent of the governed. I've certainly had my share of frustration, watching good planning policies get sunk or distorted by the public and their leaders/followers.

The best way I've learned to deal with this is to bring the public into the process as early as possible, and give them the power and the tools to make the best decision themselves. You bet it's a pain in the butt, but whaddygonnado?

|3.15.06 @ 12:49PM|#

joe,

Why would this decision be thought a priori to be controversial?

Oh, right...

"xenophobia," "ragheads," "hysterics," "nationalists,"

|3.15.06 @ 12:53PM|#

Mike P,

I'm going to give your race card shrieking the only response it deserves:

Ha ha. Loser.

|3.15.06 @ 12:59PM|#

If the ports deal was good, why did DPW back out? (Yeah, it's probably just politics - but what do we really know?)

JMJ

|3.15.06 @ 1:07PM|#

joe,

I would have preferred to leave the second -- and only racist -- descriptor out of your quote, but the ellipses would not have scanned as well.

"xenophobia," "hysterics," "nationalists," do, I think, accurately describe the reaction Congress intended to get out of the public.

Similarly, I have no reason to conclude that Japanese internment in World War II was due to racism. That action can be fully explained by xenophobia, hysterics, and nationalism without resorting to racism.

But just because it's not racist doesn't make it justified.

|3.15.06 @ 1:17PM|#

Because Britain is a close ally with a democratic government that has no ties to international terrorists, and the UAE is not. For the record, I wouldn't want a Russian or Serbian company to manage our ports, either.

Why Russian or Serbian? It is curious that you didn't say anything about a company owned by the Chinese government. Is it because one runs the port of Los Angeles? How come you and the Democratic Senators who are screaming bloody murder now where quite then?

The money quote from the article:

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach count foreign companies as managers at 13 of 14 port-owned container terminals, and three of those companies are controlled by foreign governments.

|3.15.06 @ 1:23PM|#

anon,

I picked Russian or Serbian to answer the "raghead," "scary brown people" accusation. Singling out China wouldn't have worked very well at that tast, now would it?

I just learned about the Port of LA question since this story broke. I'm not too happy that a company controlled by the Beijing regime is operating American ports, either. Perhaps something good can come out of this debate, and that port can also be entrusted to an independent company, or at least one controlled by a friendly, democratic government.

As for the Senators, you'd have to ask them.

|3.15.06 @ 1:31PM|#

joe,

As I noted above these are the only companies that have the qualifications to run extensive port operations.

|3.15.06 @ 1:40PM|#

I just learned about the Port of LA question since this story broke.

Do you think that the Senators who objected to the DPW deal were as ignorant as you were about the Port of LA? Do you think that senator Feinstein didn't know who is operating the LA port in her own state? For the record, I think she knew very well and I think she defended the deal when the Chinese company took over a few years back.

Then, to what do you attribute her position now? Would racism be a possible explanation? or is it that 9-11 changes everything?

|3.15.06 @ 1:50PM|#

Isaac Bartram,

Are you saying that all of the world's major ports are run by either the Chinese or DPW?

|3.15.06 @ 1:55PM|#

Would racism be a possible explanation?

I ask it to those on the other side of the debate. I'll ask it to those on this side.

Why is racism the only illegitimate explanation? Why are nationalism, xenophobia, war hysteria, or plain old protectionism -- foreigners running our ports -- not bad enough?

Maybe there is an issue of actual sublimated racism. But I don't see it. And, frankly, I don't find it any worse than the overt nationalism and protectionism that I do see.

|3.15.06 @ 2:00PM|#

anon,

I have no idea what goes on in Diane Feinstein's head. Would you care for some rank speculation?

|3.15.06 @ 2:04PM|#

Are you saying that all of the world's major ports are run by either the Chinese or DPW?

No, but there are only a few firms that do it and The Chinese and DPW are two of them (Actually I think there are at least two Chinese firms). One is from Hong Kong and the other from the mainland. There may be more.

Of course, one was P&O (which used to be a steamship line) but they have been bought out by DPW; hence the pickle in which we now find ourselves.

|3.15.06 @ 2:08PM|#

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that the only time conservatives seem to be against Bush is when he's acting like a libertarian...

|3.15.06 @ 2:10PM|#

I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and say that, if a law was passed requiring American companies to do this work, and exclusing their international competition (or most of it), American companies would quickly develop the capacity necessary to win the contract.

It would cost more, most likely, but it's not as if operating cranes and talking over wireless of proprietary practices of the PLA and DPW.

Charles|3.15.06 @ 3:24PM|#

So you who would favor this deal, let me ask a question: You honestly see no difference, in terms of security or safety or whatever, between a company run by the UAE handling port operations versus a British company doing so?

And if not, do you think that seeing a difference is solely attributable to racism, xenophobia, or hatred of Islam?

|3.15.06 @ 4:03PM|#

Isn't there a Danish port operator that could do the job? Wouldn't that be a fun way to really kick the intoonfatah into high gear!

|3.15.06 @ 4:04PM|#

Or is it intoonfadah?

|3.15.06 @ 4:52PM|#

"You honestly see no difference, in terms of security or safety or whatever, between a company run by the UAE handling port operations versus a British company doing so?"

In the absence of any evidence that DPW's managment has been involved in aiding terrorists? Yes, I see no difference at all.

|3.15.06 @ 5:33PM|#

Certainly, people could oppose the DPW deal on rational grounds, but I don't think many of our friendly neighborhood Congressmen were doing so. In fact, I think most of the ones opposing the deal were playing on an anti-Arab animus. Or, perhaps more accurately, they were scared to go against said animus.

I don't think joe, Jennifer, or anyone else here who has opposed the deal (and I think joe was only tepidly opposed, if in opposition at all) are doing so principally because of anti-Arab feeling. I don't doubt that most Americans have some distrust of the Arab world, but that's to be expected at this stage of the game.

Incidentally, Denmark is the greatest threat to the U.S. Just look at a map. See Greenland, the great big, still sorta Danish land mass encroaching on North America.

|3.15.06 @ 6:20PM|#

Between the UK and the UAE...

1. Only the UK has tried to conquer the US. Twice!

2. Only the UK has burned Washington DC to the ground.

3. Only the UK sullies the English language with spellings like "colour" and "centre".

Okay, the UAE probably does #3 as well. But I'm in a particularly Anglophobic mood right now.

VM|3.15.06 @ 11:09PM|#

"Isn't there a Danish port operator that could do the job? Wouldn't that be a fun way to really kick the intoonfatah into high gear!"

Maersk Shipping is danish... they run the cargo already. it's just that most don't know until it's blown out of proportion by the news.

or something like that...