The recent flap concerning the sale of U.S. ports may have escaped your notice this past week. After all, the Vice President tried to assassinate an attorney the same week the news broke that British world port operator P&O was bought by Dubai Ports World, an entity based in the United Arab Emirates. Well, truth be told, DPW has not bought any ports, nor can they. The physical ports are owned by the Ports Authority in the various regions. What DPW has bought, with their purchase of the last British owned port operator (there are no American operators left), is the rights to terminal space at six ports in the United States: New York, Port Elizabeth NJ, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.
Let me stress the fact that I am not in favor of the ports being operated by any Arab nation, let alone the one that laundered funds for Al Qaida, and recognized the Taliban as sovereign before U.S. military might made that a moot point. What I am in favor of though, is the end to all the posturing and rhetoric espoused by self-serving politicians from both sides of the political divide. Republicans and Democrats alike are racing for the television cameras to avow their adamant opposition to "sales of American ports." As I mentioned above, what was sold by the merger of P&O and DPW are the rights to operate dock side services, including shore electric power, cleaning, waste disposal and storage. DPW has purchased the rights to physical space, and the opportunity to charge for services, and nothing more. This is akin to any of the various big city apartment management companies operating dozens of buildings for absentee landlords, for a small percentage of the take, of course. The building in which I live is just such a residence. A maintenance man takes my trash to the curb, fixes my plumbing, and handles minor improvements. He is too, ostensibly, at my beck and call around the clock. That is what DPW is interested in becoming: a maintenance man for the world's ocean going trade here in the United States.
Romania, Germany, Djibouti, Puerto Cabello in Venezuela, Adelaide in Australia, 5 ports in China, including Shanghai, and 3 in Hong Kong are just some of the ports operated by DPW. In fact, DPW is one of the world's fastest growing port operators. It is a concern that is vying for preeminence in a world which lists Maersk-Sealand of Norway as one of the major players. What the sale of P&O effectuates is the replacement of British upper management with UAE upper management. The CEO, CFO and COO will simply start sporting kaffiyahs, instead of staid Saville Row suits. The local Ports Authority will still patrol the ports. The US Coast Guard will still ply the waterways. The US Customs Service will still inspect the pitifully inadequate 5% of containers they inspect. In other words, nothing will change except the destination of the profits.
That's what rankles me. Although Dubai has become one of the safest ports of call for the US Navy, a tourist attraction for most of the Far and Middle East and a public denouncer of Al Qaida activities, it is still the home of two of the 9/11 hijackers and the source for illegal funds transfers by Al Qaida before 9/11. That they are now considered a partner in the War on Terror, both by their administration and ours, does nothing to cool my ardor. I simply do not trust them, yet. Let them continue to build bridges and things can change. My grandfather, a World War II veteran of the Burma-India campaign, did not live to see the immense friendship we developed with the Japanese. He would have been stunned to see US Army infantrymen being handed water and foodstuffs by Japanese support personnel, in a combat zone no less. In time maybe, just maybe, the UAE can become a friend and valued trading partner. I will go on record as saying I doubt it, but stranger things have happened. We did, after all, drop an atomic bomb on two cities in Japan.
The end result of the brouhaha has been twofold: true discussion of the deal on its merits has been stifled, and the Democrats in congress have been forced to admit that we are, indeed, fighting a war against a serious enemy. This is in direct contradiction to their previous positions. If they were consistent they would welcome this deal with open arms. After all, we are the ones creating terrorists in Iraq. We caused the majority of the world's ills. This deal would go a long way toward healing those wounds. That even the obstructionist Chuck Schumer, (D) New York, sees this deal as ill advised should gladden the hearts of many, but it does not gladden mine. What it does is sour my stomach to know that he, and those like him, through self-aggrandizement, will today rail against "selling our ports to foreign nations unfriendly to us," and tomorrow complain about unauthorized wiretaps, which actually do combat terrorism. In retrospect, my opinion of the whole mess is, to paraphrase Sun Tzu in The Art of War, when you cannot make your enemies your friends, kill them with bullets.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Taking Aim at the Vice President
It is a peculiar coincidence that sensational murderers seem to use all three of their names more often than the average American does. Think John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth. It's as if their mothers are perpetually castigating them for some transgression. It is then, only a matter of time before the Vice President will be publicly known as Richard Bruce Cheney. He has been roundly berated by the major media outlets for "nearly murdering" someone, when the truth is more benign. The Vice President erred, and had his error compounded by another's carelessness, which resulted in a friend of his being wounded by bird shot. Any injury by firearm is, by definition, serious, and the Vice President made the wrong choice when he neglected to inform the national press immediately. As Henry Kissinger once said, "What will come out eventually, must come out immediately," but that does not change the fact that nothing the Vice President could have done would have changed the mishap, nor the inevitable media excoriation.
In a New York Times article titled, "No End to Questions in Cheney Hunting Accident" it was reported that "The incident provided a wealth of material for Democrats, gun control activists and critics of the Bush administration, not to mention late night comedians." Apparently it escaped the attention of the self-proclaimed Newspaper of Record that those groups are all one in the same. John Dickerson, writing for the online magazine Slate reported, after poking fun at Texas, "Vice President Cheney shot a man in the head on Saturday, and 21 hours later you had to be looking at the web page of the Corpus Christi Caller Times to find out about it." Later in the article Dickerson ruminates, "When you nearly commit homicide as a public official shouldn't the honor of your office compel you to stand up and explain yourself in some fashion, at least say something in a press release and not just whisper it to a Texas rancher?" Evidently, monsieur Dickerson believes that offenses by public officials are to be judged by what the "honor of the office" demands. Lucky thing for President Clinton that Dickerson was not available to comment on his honor in office. There's also no escaping the fact that he is beside himself with glee that this occurred in the far away land of Texas. In neither of these things is he alone. No major outlet has missed the opportunity to zing the Vice President when reporting what happened.
In the county where the incident took place the Sheriff's Office released a statement that said, in part, "Sheriff Salinas was informed shortly after the incident by Secret Service Agents by phone due to incompatibility of radio equipment." So there was no attempt at a cover up, but rather a disregard for the always antagonistic press. The Kenedy County Sheriff's Office knew of the incident minutes after it happened, as did any number of staff at the hospital where Harry Whittington was flown for treatment. It seems then that the problem, as the press sees it, is not one of a cover up, but rather, as the venerable Washington Post put it, "Cheney waited 14 hours after the shooting to disclose it publicly." Therein lies the Vice President's true contravention: he neglected to inform the honorable members of the press in a fashion they deem timely.
Well, why should he? The major press sources have done nothing but ridicule the Vice President at every turn. Nothing has been off limits. Not even a major surgery escaped their scorn. More than one news source opined at the irony of a "heartless man" receiving cardiac care. His daughter's sexual orientation received scrutiny reserved only for those on the right. Can anyone imagine former President Clinton or Chelsea receiving this kind of attention? No, and that's why this story will not die. The story is not about the Vice President's mistake, nor his failure to issue a press release. The story is about the press feeling slighted. They hate the man, and the administration, and will not stop until their term has expired in 2008. All this from a supposedly impartial media.
In the opening paragraph of this article I stated that the Vice President erred by not disclosing the incident quicker, and I mean that. Not because I believe that wider, faster dissemination would have resulted in any sequence of events other than what happened. The press would have simply found something else about which to carp. The failure of the Vice President to purchase a $7.00 supplement to his hunting license has already been cited numerous times, in numerous places. No, it was a done deal the second the shotgun pellets hit Mr. Whittington. The reason Cheney should have had his office release a statement earlier is simply because that's what anyone of us should do when we screw up: own up to it. I am certain the Vice President is hurt more by the knowledge that he injured a friend, than by the jibes and barbs of a partisan press. He is many things, but thin-skinned is not one of them. He still should have owned up to it, and moved on to suffer his private penance. When this will all end I am uncertain, but one thing I do know: it is still much safer to hunt with Vice President Cheney, than it is to ride over bridges with Senator Kennedy.
In a New York Times article titled, "No End to Questions in Cheney Hunting Accident" it was reported that "The incident provided a wealth of material for Democrats, gun control activists and critics of the Bush administration, not to mention late night comedians." Apparently it escaped the attention of the self-proclaimed Newspaper of Record that those groups are all one in the same. John Dickerson, writing for the online magazine Slate reported, after poking fun at Texas, "Vice President Cheney shot a man in the head on Saturday, and 21 hours later you had to be looking at the web page of the Corpus Christi Caller Times to find out about it." Later in the article Dickerson ruminates, "When you nearly commit homicide as a public official shouldn't the honor of your office compel you to stand up and explain yourself in some fashion, at least say something in a press release and not just whisper it to a Texas rancher?" Evidently, monsieur Dickerson believes that offenses by public officials are to be judged by what the "honor of the office" demands. Lucky thing for President Clinton that Dickerson was not available to comment on his honor in office. There's also no escaping the fact that he is beside himself with glee that this occurred in the far away land of Texas. In neither of these things is he alone. No major outlet has missed the opportunity to zing the Vice President when reporting what happened.
In the county where the incident took place the Sheriff's Office released a statement that said, in part, "Sheriff Salinas was informed shortly after the incident by Secret Service Agents by phone due to incompatibility of radio equipment." So there was no attempt at a cover up, but rather a disregard for the always antagonistic press. The Kenedy County Sheriff's Office knew of the incident minutes after it happened, as did any number of staff at the hospital where Harry Whittington was flown for treatment. It seems then that the problem, as the press sees it, is not one of a cover up, but rather, as the venerable Washington Post put it, "Cheney waited 14 hours after the shooting to disclose it publicly." Therein lies the Vice President's true contravention: he neglected to inform the honorable members of the press in a fashion they deem timely.
Well, why should he? The major press sources have done nothing but ridicule the Vice President at every turn. Nothing has been off limits. Not even a major surgery escaped their scorn. More than one news source opined at the irony of a "heartless man" receiving cardiac care. His daughter's sexual orientation received scrutiny reserved only for those on the right. Can anyone imagine former President Clinton or Chelsea receiving this kind of attention? No, and that's why this story will not die. The story is not about the Vice President's mistake, nor his failure to issue a press release. The story is about the press feeling slighted. They hate the man, and the administration, and will not stop until their term has expired in 2008. All this from a supposedly impartial media.
In the opening paragraph of this article I stated that the Vice President erred by not disclosing the incident quicker, and I mean that. Not because I believe that wider, faster dissemination would have resulted in any sequence of events other than what happened. The press would have simply found something else about which to carp. The failure of the Vice President to purchase a $7.00 supplement to his hunting license has already been cited numerous times, in numerous places. No, it was a done deal the second the shotgun pellets hit Mr. Whittington. The reason Cheney should have had his office release a statement earlier is simply because that's what anyone of us should do when we screw up: own up to it. I am certain the Vice President is hurt more by the knowledge that he injured a friend, than by the jibes and barbs of a partisan press. He is many things, but thin-skinned is not one of them. He still should have owned up to it, and moved on to suffer his private penance. When this will all end I am uncertain, but one thing I do know: it is still much safer to hunt with Vice President Cheney, than it is to ride over bridges with Senator Kennedy.
Monday, February 06, 2006
The Behavior of Cartoons
Miscreants armed with the righteous wrath of Allah, that oh so peace-loving deity, burned the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus last week. This followed days of demonstrations where the flags of those countries were burned. Apparently one has to work oneself up to major acts of arson. In the event that you have been hiding under your bed for the last week the reason was thus: a series of political cartoons, printed last month in Denmark, depicted the Prophet Muhammad in a less than charitable light. Well, that is not quite accurate. Allegedly any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, or any other prophet for that matter, is blasphemous. We can, therefore, assume that it is only a matter of time before Rolling Stone's offices are burned due to Kanye West's recent cover appearance in the guise of Jesus Christ.
Now lest you begin to think that I am soon to be up in arms about Kanye, rest assured I care not. I am an avowed agnostic. No, what causes me angst is the disingenuous nature of the supposedly pious leaders of the Islamic faith. They complain bitterly of the defilement of the prophet's likeness, while turning a blind eye to the depiction of Jews, published all over the Middle East in ostensibly reputable journals, as cannibalistic blood-drinkers. Not one indignant voice was raised when the Bamiyan Buddhas were dynamited by that oh so pious group, the Taliban. No religious leader castigates Saudi Arabia for putting to death anyone who converts to a religion other than Islam. No fingers are wagged, in that inimitable Arab way, when women are forced to wear burkhas under penalty of death. Most tellingly, not one imam, mullah or self-appointed Islamic holy man stepped forward to publicly condemn the actions of 19 men who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Those actions were a direct response to a murderous call to kill infidels in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, and Islam was largely silent.
The cartoons, in case you could not actually see them, showed the prophet in various roles. One had his turban replaced by a fused bomb of the sort Natasha and Boris routinely threw at Bullwinkle. Another had his holiness in Heaven informing suicide bombers that he had temporarily run out of virgins. There were others, but you get the gist. The fact that these were political cartoons meant to stimulate dialogue, much like the Washington Post's depiction of a quad-amputee serviceman, was apparently lost on the Arab street. No, this was proof of the Western world's perfidy, righted only by profuse apologies from the heads of government, and changes in laws that would prevent future transgressions. Bridges from west to east, it seems, are in need of construction.
Why these bridges need to be constructed solely by the West remains a mystery. Apparently, Islam, having had the good fortune to arrive last amongst the world's major religions, has no room for improvement. Non-Arab women being forced to wear head coverings while in the Arab world, under penalty of assault, sexual and otherwise, is evidently what is meant by "Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace." Wild celebrations in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere on 9/12/01 were, I presume, nothing more than expressions of grief that the words of the prophet had been corrupted in such a detestable way. Yes, the poor, downtrodden adherents of a 6th century bloodthirsty, power-hungry brigand are doing nothing more than peacefully requesting their place at the world's table when they blow themselves up in Tel Aviv, while on a bus crowded with women and children.
Unfortunately, all too many will see these actions as just nothing more than the powerless using the only weapons at their disposal in order to call attention to their plight. We, as a nation, have already largely forgotten that all 19 hijackers on 9/11 shared a deep, abiding faith in a strict interpretation of the Qu'ran. We, as Americans, want to think that their actions were aberrations, not the actions or thoughts of the rank and file. We, desperately, want to believe that Islam is a noble religion of peace and tolerance. Actions speak louder than words though, and there have not even been words. Until the professed silent majority of the Muslim world rises up, shakes off the shackles of the murderous legions like Hamas, which was recently elected to office, and bin Laden, we can only conclude that either their silence is tacit complicity, or else they simply do not exist.
Now lest you begin to think that I am soon to be up in arms about Kanye, rest assured I care not. I am an avowed agnostic. No, what causes me angst is the disingenuous nature of the supposedly pious leaders of the Islamic faith. They complain bitterly of the defilement of the prophet's likeness, while turning a blind eye to the depiction of Jews, published all over the Middle East in ostensibly reputable journals, as cannibalistic blood-drinkers. Not one indignant voice was raised when the Bamiyan Buddhas were dynamited by that oh so pious group, the Taliban. No religious leader castigates Saudi Arabia for putting to death anyone who converts to a religion other than Islam. No fingers are wagged, in that inimitable Arab way, when women are forced to wear burkhas under penalty of death. Most tellingly, not one imam, mullah or self-appointed Islamic holy man stepped forward to publicly condemn the actions of 19 men who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Those actions were a direct response to a murderous call to kill infidels in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, and Islam was largely silent.
The cartoons, in case you could not actually see them, showed the prophet in various roles. One had his turban replaced by a fused bomb of the sort Natasha and Boris routinely threw at Bullwinkle. Another had his holiness in Heaven informing suicide bombers that he had temporarily run out of virgins. There were others, but you get the gist. The fact that these were political cartoons meant to stimulate dialogue, much like the Washington Post's depiction of a quad-amputee serviceman, was apparently lost on the Arab street. No, this was proof of the Western world's perfidy, righted only by profuse apologies from the heads of government, and changes in laws that would prevent future transgressions. Bridges from west to east, it seems, are in need of construction.
Why these bridges need to be constructed solely by the West remains a mystery. Apparently, Islam, having had the good fortune to arrive last amongst the world's major religions, has no room for improvement. Non-Arab women being forced to wear head coverings while in the Arab world, under penalty of assault, sexual and otherwise, is evidently what is meant by "Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace." Wild celebrations in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere on 9/12/01 were, I presume, nothing more than expressions of grief that the words of the prophet had been corrupted in such a detestable way. Yes, the poor, downtrodden adherents of a 6th century bloodthirsty, power-hungry brigand are doing nothing more than peacefully requesting their place at the world's table when they blow themselves up in Tel Aviv, while on a bus crowded with women and children.
Unfortunately, all too many will see these actions as just nothing more than the powerless using the only weapons at their disposal in order to call attention to their plight. We, as a nation, have already largely forgotten that all 19 hijackers on 9/11 shared a deep, abiding faith in a strict interpretation of the Qu'ran. We, as Americans, want to think that their actions were aberrations, not the actions or thoughts of the rank and file. We, desperately, want to believe that Islam is a noble religion of peace and tolerance. Actions speak louder than words though, and there have not even been words. Until the professed silent majority of the Muslim world rises up, shakes off the shackles of the murderous legions like Hamas, which was recently elected to office, and bin Laden, we can only conclude that either their silence is tacit complicity, or else they simply do not exist.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
the beads
As we all know, it means the world to liberals that they not be offended. They cannot be called into question for making comments that, were they made by others, would be deemed racist, homophobic, misogynistic or downright crude. The reason for this is simple: liberals are all spirit and light. Anything they say has to be taken in the context of the wonderful things they have done for the downtrodden. It does not mean anything to them should they offend someone because, after all, anyone they offend deserves to be offended.
Well, I am offended. I am not, however, thin-skinned. So, when a member of the Pennsylvania state congress referred to his colleagues as "crackers," I was irritated, but not offended. When the Mayor of New Orleans promised that the city, in which I was born and raised, would once again, someday, be a "chocolate city" I was annoyed, but not offended. When anti-abortion protestors call me a "baby killer" and "racist bastard" and "Satan" as I volunteer my Saturday mornings to escort patients through their vitriolic phalanx, I am piqued, but not offended. I am offended, however, when liberal cartoonist Tom Toles uses a drawing of a wounded service member, sans arms and legs, to make his anti-war statement. I can only presume that is what is meant by "I support the troops, but not the mission."
Therein lies my offense. You cannot with good conscience support people who are doing something with which you disagree so strenuously. It is intellectually dishonest to say you do. I am not here to fight that particular battle though. If you do not support the war against Islamic facism, on whatever front, that is your right as an American. I support your dissent. I bled for it as a member of one of the most storied units in the United States Army. What I do not support is the reprehensible, foul use of the likeness of the wounded. Liberals have made great hay of the fact that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are "draft dodgers" while John Kerry was a "war hero." Forget that he was a participant in a war in which they did not believe. Forget that the liberal messiah, former President Bill Clinton, was himself a "draft dodger." When President Clinton ran against a bona fide war hero, Bob Dole, there was no moratorium on casting aspersions on "war heroes." No, that particular caveat only came about when they finally had a veteran publicly support what they so cavalierly espouse.
The liberal left needs to be held accountable by all the rest of us. It is time that their hypocrisy be exposed. All those who profess to support the troops, while shouting about war crimes and lies need to admit what they have been thinking all along: the military is the problem. If the military would just go away, or, better yet, only be used as a response to natural disasters, the world would be a better place. If, while wearing your Birkenstocks and eating your granola, you truly believe that, stand up proudly and admit it. Of what are you afraid? Is it that all that noise about, "the majority of Americans support my position!" might be just that, noise. Are you afraid that people will turn against your point of view in droves once they see in what you truly believe? I, personally, have no qualms about revealing that I am a republican; a pro-choice, socially moderate, gay-rights fan, but a republican nonetheless. So, to all those liberals who hate the military, and everything for which it stands, stand up and simply say so, and quit picking on those who cannot, at present, defend themselves. The heroic combat wounded have given you the right to say any inane, disgraceful, ignoble thing that you can conjure up. Be honorable enough to recognize that truism, and leave them alone.
Well, I am offended. I am not, however, thin-skinned. So, when a member of the Pennsylvania state congress referred to his colleagues as "crackers," I was irritated, but not offended. When the Mayor of New Orleans promised that the city, in which I was born and raised, would once again, someday, be a "chocolate city" I was annoyed, but not offended. When anti-abortion protestors call me a "baby killer" and "racist bastard" and "Satan" as I volunteer my Saturday mornings to escort patients through their vitriolic phalanx, I am piqued, but not offended. I am offended, however, when liberal cartoonist Tom Toles uses a drawing of a wounded service member, sans arms and legs, to make his anti-war statement. I can only presume that is what is meant by "I support the troops, but not the mission."
Therein lies my offense. You cannot with good conscience support people who are doing something with which you disagree so strenuously. It is intellectually dishonest to say you do. I am not here to fight that particular battle though. If you do not support the war against Islamic facism, on whatever front, that is your right as an American. I support your dissent. I bled for it as a member of one of the most storied units in the United States Army. What I do not support is the reprehensible, foul use of the likeness of the wounded. Liberals have made great hay of the fact that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are "draft dodgers" while John Kerry was a "war hero." Forget that he was a participant in a war in which they did not believe. Forget that the liberal messiah, former President Bill Clinton, was himself a "draft dodger." When President Clinton ran against a bona fide war hero, Bob Dole, there was no moratorium on casting aspersions on "war heroes." No, that particular caveat only came about when they finally had a veteran publicly support what they so cavalierly espouse.
The liberal left needs to be held accountable by all the rest of us. It is time that their hypocrisy be exposed. All those who profess to support the troops, while shouting about war crimes and lies need to admit what they have been thinking all along: the military is the problem. If the military would just go away, or, better yet, only be used as a response to natural disasters, the world would be a better place. If, while wearing your Birkenstocks and eating your granola, you truly believe that, stand up proudly and admit it. Of what are you afraid? Is it that all that noise about, "the majority of Americans support my position!" might be just that, noise. Are you afraid that people will turn against your point of view in droves once they see in what you truly believe? I, personally, have no qualms about revealing that I am a republican; a pro-choice, socially moderate, gay-rights fan, but a republican nonetheless. So, to all those liberals who hate the military, and everything for which it stands, stand up and simply say so, and quit picking on those who cannot, at present, defend themselves. The heroic combat wounded have given you the right to say any inane, disgraceful, ignoble thing that you can conjure up. Be honorable enough to recognize that truism, and leave them alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
