Nick sez:
Well, you could always make the case that Winning Side is also one for GWB. So, what are your feeling on the Port thing, tc? Just curious.First things first: OF COURSE the Davies are represented: Village Green Preservation, Low Budget, To The Bone; many more in the vinyl flat rounds. Debating the genius thing, the Ray vs Dave thing, old vs. new, will need to be left to another time. They never pop up, because, well, 16,000 songs, it's just the odds. They'll show up sometime.
Oh-- and do you have any Kinks on your Ipod? If not, shame on you. Ray Davies is a friggin' genius, and his music has stood the test of time as well or better than anybodys. If so, how come I never see it listed?
The Port thing. Hmmm. Curiosity is bad for cats, Nick. But since it hasn't disturbed my rest as much as the wiretapping and other issues have I'm not terribly informed on it, and don't have an overwhelming desire to delve into it too far. Several items though:
- I think it's only poetic that after drumming up fear of muslims and overwhelming American Nationalism for five years that the deal is scuttled by a widespread xenophobic and American Nationalist sentiment. It's an amazingly tonedeaf political move, and may be an indication of just how distracted and exhausted Rove may be. It's worthy of a Democratic political foot-in-mmouth (other than the whole, you know, illegality part)
- Contrary to the denunciation of opponents fro Limbaugh and Hannity, opposition to the deal does not necessarily imply racism.
- For five years, the Democrats have been proposing arrangements to increase security and improve operations at America's ports. Each time, the Republican majority refused to entertain the motions/bills.
- In the final analysis, there is a required process for such a deal, entailing, as I understand it, a 45 day period of discussion and research, as well as review by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Defense (as chair of CFIUS). These events did not happen, and thus, pushing the deal through was unjustified and likely illegal. Personally, I'd guess that there may have been some inkling that the deal would not pass muster, and so the need to sneak it through without proper review.
But Winning Side? the dubai ports deal, illegal wiretapping, Iraq's descent into civil war and chaos, the Plame investigation, "Osama Dead or Alive", New Orleans, the thwarted raid on Social Security, the Abramoff/ K Street corruption orgy, destabilization of the Middle East, estrangement of most of America's former allies, the total abdication of fiscal responsibility... And of course, the only external terrorist attack on American Soil in the last 100 years. If that's defined as winning, I think we're all better off losing.
But if you chant "We're number one! We're number one!" loud enough, doesn't that make you number one?
ReplyDeleteWell, there is the one inconvenient reality that Bush did, in fact, win. Twice. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteAs to the Dubai fiasco-- you're point #the first is very good. Except I have no idea what you mean by the "illegality part." There are many issues in the Dubai situation-- I wasn't aware that illegality was one of them. But yes, in large measure Bush was hoist by his own petard on this one. Which is unfortunate. Because he was actually right for a change.
Point the secondeth. No, opposition definitely does not mean racism. I was initially against the deal, too, and not for any sort of racist beliefs. It is said that on important issues of the day, the debate is far too often, "Did not." "Did too." "So's your mother!"
Point the one preceding after two. True enough-- so let's have a debate about THAT instead of knee-jerk lynching of a company that really could be a valuable ALLY in the Middle East, rather than continued cozying up to the Sultans and other bad actors?
#4. Hmm... I have not read anything about any illegality or "sneaking it through" any where. It was my understanding that the deal went through the normal review process (which, quite frankly, is woefully inadequate), but before it was finalized, a few folks raised a stink. Where did you read about it being illegal (not questioning you-- simply want to follow up on that)?
Finally. It's a shame that out of what could have been a useful, constructive, and informative situation, we got the worst of all worlds. The deal that likely should've gone ahead (DPW), that would've fostered good will with moderate Arabs and Muslims, was shot down for almost entirely spurious reasons. The debate that SHOULD be going on about port security (or lack thereof) has been lost beneath the tons of dreck being slung by both sides about the Dupai Ports World deal. And the Republicans pick NOW of all times to finally revolt against the President.
Very, very sad.
And, on that cheery note, I depart.