meaderings
Are your friends close enough to you that you can tell them that you're disappointed in them? I'm talking about a break in the meaningless small talk and basic chit-chat. If you do something that is morally or ethically wrong, would someone that you count as being close to you be able to say that what you did or said isn't right?
Yay rhetoric. The good kind, though.
In other news, our fearless leader has gone out and signed up Dubai Ports International to administer several major US ports. Not ports-of-call, mind you, but major shipping concerns. This company isn't going to be overseeing the waterfront of lovely Monterey, CA, but rather, would be managing the day-to-day operations of shipping and receiving of container ships.
To put that in perspective, it's just a management shift. Our security forces that are in place would be unaffected, and a transition should be relatively seamless. The only changes would be the letterhead on the paychecks, and the upper echelon leadership.
There has been a sizable knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for American politics, so no worries there. The reaction seems to be something to the effect of: "How can we trust them? Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates! The UAE has been a source of safe-harbor, and even sometimes funding for international terrorists!"
You know, that's true. But so is Ireland - Sinn Fein and the IRA anyone? Hell, how can we trust Montana? That state was home to Walter Kaczinski(sp?)EDIT: His name is Ted, thanks Brooke. :), the infamous Unabomber!
Bottom line, I think that outsourcing the management of our ports to an international concern who isn't based in the states isn't the best idea. Not because it's from Dubai, but because the tax dollars aren't going to benefit the Federal Reserve. It's not because of any supposed terrorist ties, but because the interest on the money earned by the administration of the ports most likely will not benefit US banks.
The reaction from the pundits has been that we're putting our lives in the hands of the terrorists by doing this, the reaction from the politicians has been the same, but with language avoiding calling Dubai a terrorist haven.
This kind of move could benefit US/Arab relations and put us in a more favorable light in the world stage. There are a considerable number of countries that see US foreign relations as irresponsible, and a move to allow another nation's corporation into US affairs may be to the benefit of global appeal for the States.
At present, we're not really hurting as far as international trade is concerned. The world needs our technology, our food, and other various exports. But with the EU becoming a solidified entity, and China rising, we may need to be on the good side of the rest of the global powers in the near future if we are to stay competitive, or dare I say it, leaders, on the world stage.
Yay rhetoric. The good kind, though.
In other news, our fearless leader has gone out and signed up Dubai Ports International to administer several major US ports. Not ports-of-call, mind you, but major shipping concerns. This company isn't going to be overseeing the waterfront of lovely Monterey, CA, but rather, would be managing the day-to-day operations of shipping and receiving of container ships.
To put that in perspective, it's just a management shift. Our security forces that are in place would be unaffected, and a transition should be relatively seamless. The only changes would be the letterhead on the paychecks, and the upper echelon leadership.
There has been a sizable knee-jerk reaction. That's the norm for American politics, so no worries there. The reaction seems to be something to the effect of: "How can we trust them? Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates! The UAE has been a source of safe-harbor, and even sometimes funding for international terrorists!"
You know, that's true. But so is Ireland - Sinn Fein and the IRA anyone? Hell, how can we trust Montana? That state was home to Walter Kaczinski(sp?)EDIT: His name is Ted, thanks Brooke. :), the infamous Unabomber!
Bottom line, I think that outsourcing the management of our ports to an international concern who isn't based in the states isn't the best idea. Not because it's from Dubai, but because the tax dollars aren't going to benefit the Federal Reserve. It's not because of any supposed terrorist ties, but because the interest on the money earned by the administration of the ports most likely will not benefit US banks.
The reaction from the pundits has been that we're putting our lives in the hands of the terrorists by doing this, the reaction from the politicians has been the same, but with language avoiding calling Dubai a terrorist haven.
This kind of move could benefit US/Arab relations and put us in a more favorable light in the world stage. There are a considerable number of countries that see US foreign relations as irresponsible, and a move to allow another nation's corporation into US affairs may be to the benefit of global appeal for the States.
At present, we're not really hurting as far as international trade is concerned. The world needs our technology, our food, and other various exports. But with the EU becoming a solidified entity, and China rising, we may need to be on the good side of the rest of the global powers in the near future if we are to stay competitive, or dare I say it, leaders, on the world stage.