Not our Port, but...
I try to keep my posts pretty local, but as residents directly adjacent to and surrounding America's largest port complex, I imagine we all have some perspectives and interest in the outcome of the current battle regarding the proposed operation of six East Coast ports by Dubai Ports World, a state owned company from the United Arab Emirates (CIA World Factbook here).
Now, I find the idea that a company from any Islamic nation would be prohibited outright from engaging in business in the United States on principle, or out of some vague racial or religious fear reprehensible. I don't see this situation in that light, however. Our ports are one of organised labor's last stronghold and the United Arab Emirates is a black hole for labor rights. How can this company, which is owned by a country which essentially consists of an ultra-powerful, feudalistic elite & the exploited workers that serve them, some in a state which could be effectively described as indentured servitude, be considered as an appropriate manager for six ports that rely on organised labor for their daily operations? In the UAE, strikes and unions are illegal, does this company even have the relevant experience to respect the institutions of labor that move goods through our ports, or to adapt to the local situation?
On top of all of this, following a bi-partisan Congressional backlash, Bush is now threatening to veto any and all bills that come across his desk until the Dubai Ports World deal goes through. I can't underscore how significant that threat is, as Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill since taking office, and now he's apparently willing to use his veto power arbitrarily to force this deal through. That moves the conflict over the deal into another sphere - is this deal really a proxy attack on organised labor by the Bush administration? Or is it more of the "looking out for his friends" politics that have been making messes globally over the past 5 years?
I've rambled enough. What do you guys think?
Update! - New York Times and Los Angeles Times coverage of the Bush veto threat & Los Angeles Times coverage of the battle between Congress & Bush.
Bonus! - Here's a fun link for any kids who happen to be reading this blog!
Now, I find the idea that a company from any Islamic nation would be prohibited outright from engaging in business in the United States on principle, or out of some vague racial or religious fear reprehensible. I don't see this situation in that light, however. Our ports are one of organised labor's last stronghold and the United Arab Emirates is a black hole for labor rights. How can this company, which is owned by a country which essentially consists of an ultra-powerful, feudalistic elite & the exploited workers that serve them, some in a state which could be effectively described as indentured servitude, be considered as an appropriate manager for six ports that rely on organised labor for their daily operations? In the UAE, strikes and unions are illegal, does this company even have the relevant experience to respect the institutions of labor that move goods through our ports, or to adapt to the local situation?
On top of all of this, following a bi-partisan Congressional backlash, Bush is now threatening to veto any and all bills that come across his desk until the Dubai Ports World deal goes through. I can't underscore how significant that threat is, as Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill since taking office, and now he's apparently willing to use his veto power arbitrarily to force this deal through. That moves the conflict over the deal into another sphere - is this deal really a proxy attack on organised labor by the Bush administration? Or is it more of the "looking out for his friends" politics that have been making messes globally over the past 5 years?
I've rambled enough. What do you guys think?
Update! - New York Times and Los Angeles Times coverage of the Bush veto threat & Los Angeles Times coverage of the battle between Congress & Bush.
Bonus! - Here's a fun link for any kids who happen to be reading this blog!
2 Comments:
Welcome, kids...and now, let us begin our happy fun tour!
Our tour begins at the...hey, you two. You two kids in the back. I do not like the way you keep whispering to one another. Very suspicious, these whispers. Like whispers of plotting. These whispers, could they be the whispers of children plotting to start a labor union? I think they very well could be. Yes! Dubai Port Authority henchmen, SEIZE THEM!
"Lawmakers who have called for the deal to be blocked need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard," [Bush] said."
Hmm...well, I can't think of one good reason. FULL STEAM AHEAD!
I guess Haliburton doesn't run ports, or he'd have his good reason. Cocksucker.
Can I just say here (again) that President Bush is a cocksucker? An imbecilic, empty-headed, submoronic cocksucker?
And not the good kind of cocksucker.
Thank you, I had to get that off my chest.
I realize it is not particularly sophisticated or witty political banter, but this administration inspires these kinds of old West outbursts in me. Uncivilized, I know. Mea culpa. But I wanted to speak on a level the President himself could comprehend.
Thank you America, good night!
And good luck.
We're going to need it.
Post a Comment
<< Home