Call It What It Is
This whole brouhaha surrounding the Bush administration’s green-light to a United Arab Emirates company slated to manage six major U.S. ports has nothing to do with protecting homeland security. Allow me to give it its proper name: Islamophobia.
This UAE company-Dubai Ports World—is just a commercial administrator. They are not in charge of security. That responsibility remains tight in the hands of our U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Officials. Moreover, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, (a multi-agency panel which includes seasoned representatives from the departments of Defense, Treasury and Homeland Security) has looked it over and has vetted the deal.
None of the Administration’s eager critics has furnished a scintilla of evidence showing the Administration hasn't done its due diligence. Add it all up, and I think what you’ve got here is a bi-partisan pack of protectionist politicians. Throw in some xenophobic anti-Arab feeling and you get our current state of affairs.
An amusing component of this flare-up is the dovish Democrat crowd’s sudden call to arms. Aren’t many of these vocal critics the same folks who opposed the Patriot Act? The same posturing chorus who attacked Bush and opposed NSA surveillance of al Qaeda phone calls? The same folks who want immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Why this sudden about face? This is utter nonsense.
The UAE is an American ally in an unsettled Mideast—and an important ally at that. They are exactly the kind of Arab country we need in our war effort and our ongoing, critical mission in the region—not unlike our friend Jordan. (In fact, the UAE is a lot better than Egypt and Saudi Arabia.) As the WSJ pointed out today:
“Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.”
Could Bush have done a better job in handling all of this? Sure. The President made some clear political marketing mistakes. He should have opened up the black-box of executive review and shared it with members of Congress.
But in the end, America ought to honor its word. We have a duty to keep our promise and we should treat our neighbors fairly. There is no room for prejudice or bigotry here. And so far, no one has proven that executive branch security vetting is flawed.
Make no mistake about it. What is going on right now on television news channels, newspapers and the Internet is simple. It is called Islamophobia.
This UAE company-Dubai Ports World—is just a commercial administrator. They are not in charge of security. That responsibility remains tight in the hands of our U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Officials. Moreover, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, (a multi-agency panel which includes seasoned representatives from the departments of Defense, Treasury and Homeland Security) has looked it over and has vetted the deal.
None of the Administration’s eager critics has furnished a scintilla of evidence showing the Administration hasn't done its due diligence. Add it all up, and I think what you’ve got here is a bi-partisan pack of protectionist politicians. Throw in some xenophobic anti-Arab feeling and you get our current state of affairs.
An amusing component of this flare-up is the dovish Democrat crowd’s sudden call to arms. Aren’t many of these vocal critics the same folks who opposed the Patriot Act? The same posturing chorus who attacked Bush and opposed NSA surveillance of al Qaeda phone calls? The same folks who want immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Why this sudden about face? This is utter nonsense.
The UAE is an American ally in an unsettled Mideast—and an important ally at that. They are exactly the kind of Arab country we need in our war effort and our ongoing, critical mission in the region—not unlike our friend Jordan. (In fact, the UAE is a lot better than Egypt and Saudi Arabia.) As the WSJ pointed out today:
“Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.”
Could Bush have done a better job in handling all of this? Sure. The President made some clear political marketing mistakes. He should have opened up the black-box of executive review and shared it with members of Congress.
But in the end, America ought to honor its word. We have a duty to keep our promise and we should treat our neighbors fairly. There is no room for prejudice or bigotry here. And so far, no one has proven that executive branch security vetting is flawed.
Make no mistake about it. What is going on right now on television news channels, newspapers and the Internet is simple. It is called Islamophobia.
101 Comments:
An amusing component of this flare-up is the dovish Democrat crowd’s sudden call to arms. Aren’t many of these vocal critics the same folks who opposed the Patriot Act? The same posturing chorus who attacked Bush and opposed NSA surveillance of al Qaeda phone calls? The same folks who want immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Why this sudden about face? This is utter nonsense.
============================
nice attempt at spin. Whats also notable is the number and voulme of REPUBLICANS who also oppose this incl Frist, Weldon, King , I could go on and on .
but we'll count on the other media outlets w/ their liberal bias to provide us that news.
Islamophobia
---
First of all, if you copy from Drudge Report, give him credit or atleast put it in quotes.
Bush has served this country with terrorism overload. After all, only with fear did he win the 2004 election. Now people see "terror" everywhere and baby Bush is crying.
Say what you want, this issue is a loser for Bush.
I can already see ads prior to '06 election: "Bush sold 6 of our ports to a Muslim country".
Can't beat that.
Kudlow:a multi-agency panel which includes seasoned representatives from the departments of Defense, Treasury and Homeland Security) has looked it over and has vetted the deal.
LFC said:
---
Turns out that per the law (not that Bush cares about the law), the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States was mandated to perform a more comprehensive 45-day investigation. This is required if the purchasing company is owned or controlled by any foreign gov't.
Administration officials can't explain why this 45-day investigation did not occur.
---
In reality, I think that the deal could be made and verified as safe, but Bush seems to have no interest in calming fears or answering questions. He's dug in his heels and threatened a veto rather than ask for Congress to enumerate their concerns for the purposes of addressing them. Now there's a uniter, not a divider! (Just when you think he can't be more of a putz...)
I do not, however, like the idea of handing this type of contract out to foreign governments. In this, I'm more free-trade than Sharp is.
Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval
AP - Wed Feb 22, 12:20 PM ET
WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.
========================
only Kudlow (and Sharp of course) would read an article like that and say "None of the Administration’s eager critics has furnished a scintilla of evidence showing the Administration hasn't done its due diligence. "
I think it's time for Andy Card to go. He can't let the Prez keep getting blind-sided like this. The President's staff is completely tone-deaf, and it's headed by Card.
There's nothing wrong with this deal, but it renders a visceral first reaction. Andrew Card should have foreseen this, and alerted the President to lay the groundwork with Congress, and, some Mayors and Governors.
Andy's worked hard for six years. It's time for him to take a much deserved vacation.
rumor is Andy Card headed to the Federal Reserve Board . I think his wife is 2nd cousin to Liz Clairborne
Well, that's an outfit that he couldn't damage too much.
UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.
LOL.
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
That Larry, he's a funny guy.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
Bush is so funny.
Saudi Arabia is a parter in the war on terror.
Yet most of the hijackers came from there.
It is also Osama's home country.
Can they buy all our ports too since they are our "partners on war on terror".
They are not BUYING ports. They are buying a company that has a contract to manage the ports. This Manaement largely consists of negotiating with the American (Unionized) Stevedores and the shipping companies.
p.s. The Security will STILL be handled by Homeland Security, FBI, and the Coast Guard.
They are not BUYING ports. They are buying a company that has a contract to manage the ports.
---
LOL. "Nuance" in these kinds of things do not work.
I understand it but for the average Joe, it is "Bush sells our ports to UAE" is far easier to understand.
This is a loser for Bush. No question about it.
It's probably a loser, but, well sometimes you just gotta lose one. By the way, about that Osama thing. Why did Clinton sell them 80 F-16's?
You all do realize that this is the company that "Services" our Nuclear Carriers in the Gulf, Right?
Change Nuclear Carriers to "Ships" in the previous post. I don't know if our Carriers go that far into the Gulf.
Here's my take:
Blocking the port deal would be bad for business and bad for national security.
UAE seems to be a true ally and would be instrumental in dealing with Iran. Cozying up with them seems like a good idea to me.
Opponents of the deal are looking awefully bad to me. Nationalist, Racist, and reactionary.
If many of the opponents are also opponents of Social Security and Healthcare reform, this could help the Administration stack the deck in favor of its policies after '06.
The strawman that private accounts would somehow prevent the US from ever implementing a national healthcare system should be easy to knock down. Getting rid of reactionary hacks might make the agenda more tenable.
This has potential to become a non-partisan rope-a-dope.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Dubai Ports World is owned by the United Arab Emirates. It is not just a company it is a state owned company. My point here is simple, they may do business with us and the world but they are Arabs&Muslum first and formost. That being said it should be given careful consideration, not just passed off as something that King George has blessed. The UAE is one of the most moderate of all Arab countries and Dubai is a fun place to visit.
It has been given careful consideration and approved.
You can say carriers, Rufus. Pete Pace said "They've got great seaports that are capable of handling, and do, our aircraft carriers." I agree someone in the WH staff should be replaced. How many strikes are they allowed. The Treasury who has charge of the process and DHS who had the lead on this deal could have done more to warn the WH.
I agree, Larry, it is Islamophobia. I like the quote from some newspaper today that Brit Hume read, bipartisan hissy fit. The media led the charge against this deal. Today they can say well now the WH told us this. What happened to reporting?? Why did no one call these companies, or find out how the ports work, or know other foreign countries have the same deal. They just come out blasting against it, and our Senators and Representatives were clueless. They know nothing about the ports they fuss about so much.
Maria did a good job today at objective interviews. Steve showed the UAE is one country that we have a trade surplus with. They must keep Boeing in business.
I've been crawling around the blogosphere (dang, I feel silly typing that) and I think people are starting to get over the initial shock, and realize it's not at all what it seemed. I predict there will be a couple of hearings and it will quietly go away.
Every now and then, market-based indicators and the Fed's Phillips Curve models align. Today is one of those times. As a result, Mr. Bernanke's acceptance of the status quo was the appropriate move. The real test will come when gold and commodity prices start to fall while the economy remains strong. At that time, the new chairman will make his name. Stopping the tightening before economic damage is done would be a huge and very beneficial development. But the only way to do that is to move the Fed away from its Phillips Curve bias and toward a market-based method of inflation targeting. Believe it or not, Ben Bernanke is off to a good start.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114057637795579762.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
Wesbury is good, but not as good as Kudlow. Market indicators and Phillips Curve models are not in alignment. How can they be in alignment if Wesbury belives growth and low unemplyeement don't cause inflation? They will never be in alignment. Furthermore, gold and other commodities have been falling lately. I would like to ask Wesbury when would be a good time to pause if not now? How much further gold and commodities need to fall until it's time to pause?
I agree someone in the WH staff should be replaced
---
George Bush is the one.
Democrats-Business: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has taken two major steps this month to reach out to the business community.
1) She included in her party's "Competitiveness Agenda" -- a parallel document to President Bush's proposal in his State of the Union Address -- a promise to reform the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, whose onerous reporting requirements are harming small businesses. This development has gone nearly unnoticed, and it is significant because Pelosi is putting political smarts ahead of the feelings of retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.).
Republicans, on the other hand, seem unwilling to touch the legislation that retiring Rep. Mike Oxley (R-Ohio) wrote and touts as his greatest accomplishment. Business leaders are appalled at the White House's nearly complete inaction on the issue, and only a handful of GOP House members want to open that can of worms. A government report at the end of this month will examine the effects of the legislation, which imposed detailed business reporting requirements and attached criminal penalties to executives who do not comply properly or make mistakes. A wide range of business executives complain that the compliance costs from Sarbanes-Oxley have been a serious drag on the economy and prevented stronger job growth and growth in the equities markets.
The Dems are more Republican than the Republicans?! It's shocking!!!
sharp said...
Steve showed the UAE is one country that we have a trade surplus with. They must keep Boeing in business.
Yup, it's all about money, eh Sharp? As long as they contribute to the economy...
Funny, i don't remember not attacking Bin Laden because he was so busy cozying up to the Iraqi royal family. Yet we started a $300 billion 2200 American lives war because Saddam had "ties" to Osama Bin Laden. What a freakin' joke.
Yup, it's about money alright. I've got $1000 that says some day we'll find out some lobbying firm greased a few palms before this deal got done. Any takers?
And so much for that "pre 9/11 mindset" Bush likes to fart out of his mouth. We start a war, torture people, spy on Americans, lock people up for years without access to a lawyer, do racial profiling, all because we "learned on 9/11 you can't be too careful". Uh huh.
You people really do get more gullible by the day.
Don Kohn is next!
Sharp said in response: "It has been given careful consideration and approved" referring to the current topic. Forgive me if I don't agree with your vast knowledge of the port commerce laws and extensive review of this UAE Company. But I'm sure you and "rain man" (Kudlow) have got a handle on this problem. One question, how come Bush has been so wrong, on so many major issues, and yet you want us to take him on his word that this is good for America. Right! Mr. Sharp you might be better off keeping your nose to the grindstone at your local 7-11, and leaving the current day issues to those people that can have a less bias point of view! But Don’t let that stop you from making your wonderful posts.
it is significant because Pelosi is putting political smarts ahead of the feelings of retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.).---
I thought Pelosi lived with her finger in the air. what else is new?
The portraits of President George W. Bush served up by these two new books could not be more at odds. As Mr. Barnes sees it, Mr. Bush's brand of conservatism — activist, forward-leaning and willing to use the government to solve problems — is "the conservatism of the future."
Mr. Bartlett, in contrast, sees Mr. Bush as a "pretend conservative" — "a partisan Republican, anxious to improve the fortunes of his party" but "perfectly willing to jettison conservative principles at a moment's notice to achieve that goal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/books/review/21kaku.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
While they hold hearings on who gets to shuffle the papers at the ports, did anyone read Kofi's plan to reorganize the human rights committee to guarantee that the free, democratic nations will have the minimal influence and minimal membership?
CHILDREN!! I sense Anger from the other side of the aisle. Could it be our left-leaning friends are visualizing Dubya escaping the noose, once AGAIN??
TAX, Bush's principles many not be the same as Bartlett's, but he does not abandon them so easily. I think Republicans will learn they can not spend and spend and make it work any more than the Dem's did.
I agree with Barnes, also, with Bush.
While the Congress was busy preparing the report on the failure of every agency in the reaction to Katrina aftermath, did it include a section on itself? Did it talk about the poor job it did in appropriating the funds for HDS and how it let them be misused for nonsecurity purposes?
Did it remember the 9/11 Committee pushed for reorganization of congressional committees as well as the departments of government. I think it was to reduce the number of committees that DHS answers to and testifies for so that DHS might spend less time going from committee to committee and trying to meet guidelines of the all.
Sharp, no. Do you have a link?
regarding the Kofi comment.
Administration officials can't explain why this 45-day investigation did not occur.
--
Maybe because there was no US asset being sold? As I understand it (which, admittedly is not deeply enough), some US state ports authority have contracts with a UK corporation to operate their docks (excluding such things as inspecting cargo). That UK corporation is being sold.
Why should there be a US investigation of a purchase of a UK corporation? We have no say in the matter.
It seems to me that the legal question is whether the contracts can be terminated-for-convenience on the basis of a change in ownership of the company.
But the political question is whether it is a good idea to treat all Muslims the same, whether they are friendly to our interests or not.
Frankly, I have been ashamed by the Republican response to this. The Republican Party has *always* stood for judging people by the content of their character rather than on their race or ethnicity.
rufus said...
CHILDREN!! I sense Anger from the other side of the aisle. Could it be our left-leaning friends are visualizing Dubya escaping the noose, once AGAIN??
Bush'll never be impeached. I say that only based on the fact that if he hasn't been impeached up to this point, then he could probably get away with even lying about a blow job or something. So to that extent, sure, he'll escape another noose. But approval ratings in the 30's, where they'll soon be because of this (assuming they're not there already) is hardly escaping a noose.
Frankly, i think Bush is past the point of no return in that he's now actually at a point where he benefits politically from his own incompetence and scandalous activity. What i mean by that is, i'll give it 10 days before we hear about some other moronic act of scandalous incompetence which will no doubt put an end to this story - as our attention gets diverted by some other story. And that story will last all of 2 weeks before it gets diverted by yet another story. And on and on.
In fact, my tinfoil hat is telling me that Rove is actually leaking these stories, timed out to accomplish just that. Ok, maybe not. But Bush is benefitting from the rash of new stories continually pushing the previous ones off the front pages.
Rufus, I wish I could link to the article in the WSJ today by Holman Jenkins, JR. Maybe it is online elsewhere. He is against Bush as greenie champion. He notes there has already been a 54 cent tariff put in place against ethanol from Brazil. He thinks if we were serious about getting over an addiction, our shores would be open to all and any source of ethanol. He notes the problems with enzymes, yeasts and fungi in breaking down cellulose to produce from switch grass and stover to use on a commercial basis. He sees it all as a gigantic agriculture lobby feast, and the auto's lobby is hooking on to gain strength. It is a good article.
As Mr. Barnes sees it, Mr. Bush's brand of conservatism — activist, forward-leaning and willing to use the government to solve problems — is "the conservatism of the future."
Apparently the "conservatism of the future" is "bash liberals while we try to act like them".
Too funny.
aaron, I read it in yesterday's WSJ. Let me look.
aaron, here is Kofi.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007997
Mmmm...Ethanol.
One wag put it: The Republicans have become Democrats, and the Democrats have become "Batshit" Crazy!
CHILDREN!! I sense Anger from the other side of the aisle. Could it be our left-leaning friends are visualizing Dubya escaping the noose, once AGAIN??
=================================
ummm no. Bush approval ratings down to 40% . sad for a 2nd term president.
and watch folks as our neo-con friends try to make this a democratic/republican issue. Small problem is the Republicans are lined up en masse against this which is the honest truth.
That pesky truth thing seems to always get the neo-cons.
Sharp, I read Very little about Ethanol that is correct. We protected the ethanol industry to help it get started. It was partly (maybe, mostly) a political thing, but ethanol made from corn could not compete with a subsidized sugar cane product produced by a Socialist government.
I don't know exactly when Cellulosic Ethanol will be viable on a widespread basis. There are a lot of variables. One of the largest of these, of course, is the price of oil. BUT, with bio-engineering, gene-splicing, etc. I wouldn't bet against economic viability in two or three years.
Again, as someone who has read quite a bit on this subject, I'm telling you take a lot of what you hear with a grain of salt. For example, CNBC had a guy from Cato on last week that stated it cost $2.70/gal to produce ethanol. That's just pure silliness. The other morning the President of Cargill stated that it cost about $1.05/gal to produce ethanol. Who do you want to believe?
You're going to hear a LOT of squawking about the price of Ethanol in the next several months. Right now, it's in incredibly short supply. The newly enacted mandates (effective Jan 1) have taken every drop that we can produce, plus thirty million gal/mo that we're importing. The Good News is that we have about 150 Million gal/mo coming online later this summer.
The Republican Party has *always* stood for judging people by the content of their character rather than on their race or ethnicity.
--
Lies, lies and more lies.
2% of African Americans support Bush and the Republican party.
What is the commonality between Abraham Lincoln and Michael Steele? They were/are Republicans who live(d) in Washington.
Sharp, if you take every dime of the $4Bil that was paid to farmers last year "Not to Grow Corn" and added it into the price of corn it wouldn't raise the price of a gal of ethanol more than $0.15. Add in the $0.51/gal excise tax break, subtract out the $0.40 or $0.50 profit from the co-products and you come out with a break-even wholesale price of between $1.20 - $1.30/gal. WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDIES, ANYWHERE!
And, the technologies still improving.
He thought we could afford the ag subsidies to the farmer. He does not see the viable commercial production. He got oil at $70 to make cellulose degradation profitable. He thinks with competition for land, there is not enough to grow corn.
TAX, Wesbury said today gold at $500 and the economy still good would be the time to quit.
Jim Rogers puts gold at $800 this run.
Sharp, keep this in mind about ethanol. It will just get "Cheaper" to produce. And, Oil will get more expensive.
Remember that corn that Monsanto came out with 10 years, or so, ago? It produced greater yields, but it was a little tough on the tummy; so they had to pull it off the market. Bio-Engineering will probably pull off some remarkable things in the next 5 - 10 years.
Just three or four years ago, the yield was 2.5 gal of ethanol for a bushel of corn. Today, it's 3 gal of ethanol, 1/3 gal of corn oil for bio-diesel, 1/3 bushel of high grade cattle/chicken/fish feed, and a significant amount of carbon dioxide, to be used in oil field flooding, carbonized drinks, dry ice, etc.
Meanwhile the yield for an acre of corn is up about 40%. And, the energy used to raise a bushel of corn is down by probably 50%, or more.
Omar at Iraq The Model sounds shaken by the Mosque bombings and related events.
Roger Ferguson, the Federal Reserve's vice chairman, submitted his resignation Wednesday, saying he will step down after more than eight years on the central bank's board of governors.
His resignation is effective April 28. Ferguson, who has been a member of the board since November 1997, sent a letter to President Bush informing him of his decision.
"My service on the board has been rewarding and stimulating, and it is now time for me to pursue other professional opportunities," he wrote in the letter. Ferguson won't attend the March 27-28 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, according to the Fed's Web site.
Whoever he is, "He's Clueless." We are only using less than 12% of what we're growing to produce ethanol, right now. That's to replace about 3.4% of our gasoline. The other 85% + we're using for cattle feed, or exporting.
We had more corn in storage this winter than ever before in history. One reason is that the 1/3 bushel of DDG that we co-produce is Super High Protein Feed. It replaces a lot of the raw corn that is used.
Then you go back to why we were paying those subsidies in the first place. We have almost as much good corn land lying fallow as we do in production, from year to year. Then there's other land that hasn't been farmed in years because it's marginal, and the "Small" farmer who owns it doesn't know how to work the system, or just doesn't care to. At three dollar corn it'll be coming at you from directions you've never dreamed of.
AND THAT'S JUST "CORN!" We're not even talking about all of the other starchy, sugary crops that can produce ethanol. AND, that's not getting into Cellulosic, yet.
Jenkins is editor of "Political Diary"- John Fund.
What do you think about the Financials being up, Sharp?
Listening to Cramer's radio show w/o Cramer. A Merril Lynch analyst says all ten sectors in the S&P are up this year. Telecom is the best. Still selling me Tech., Fin., Health. This is the third year isn't it. He'll buy energy stocks if the price of oil drops more. No bear here.
Ate my comment, again. I say, what do you think about Financials being up?
I can see ethanol as an additional source of fuel as we diversify. None of the facts can change the fact that there is a tarrif on imports. I agree with Jenkins that it would not be there if the current campaign were as serious as it is portrayed.
The financials have made a few runs. I sold my broker too soon and my banks when they looked weak. Banks do well when the Fed stops so they say. If you are bullish on the economy, it is a good time to own. You know the economy better than most. I'll look at the graph for xlf. Cramer wrote a bullish piece today.
Sharp, I don't know s***. I know in the long run the market goes up. I'm the "Worst" tout in the world in the "short run."
BTW, that tariff is "INCONSEQUENTIAL." We want to develop our own industry, not allow a socialist economy to eat up our fledgling ethanol industry before it gets started. It will probably be used as a "bargaining" chip in the upcoming trade talks.
Chart looks good. Broke out today with ok volume.I was thinking of buying this tomorrow if the inventories for the oil and ng are negative which they will be.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui
How long would you keep it?
I would keep it until the Fed looks like it is not done or until the volume drys up or if it makes a double top like the xlb is right now if it does not break through. The brokers have all run so far I am afraid to buy them back. We could hold it for ten years. The banks always have a turn. All the bears are just bugging me right now.
Take that chart of change it to xlb.
Looks a little toppy.
Toppy and tired and I may sell my last mining stock or not. I can't figure iiin that Churchhill recommended. I keep selling half and it keeps going up. I have never found a call to listen to. I guess carbon fiber must be in demand. Should not buy things I do not entirely understand, but it seemed tied to the constrution boom coming(non-residential).
Non-residential construction/carbon fiber? I'll take your word for it.
Sorry it is high carbon, bronze plated, steel wire and high carbon strand. Feel like I should be buying instead of selling is my problem. The ESM to reinforce concrete must be the construction. Read their history, it is like they do not know what they want to be. They buy and sell assets with unusual frequency.
I looked up iiin 's chart. Whoa P/E's only ll damn it's straight up. I might wait until it breaks to sell much more.
Then again, I'm the "Worst" tout in the world.
Insteel had good earnings and is expanding. I'll keep the bit I have.
A note from Senator Frist. Is this more turf war?
“It is important for Congress to be involved in this process. I have requested a detailed briefing on this deal.
“If the Administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review.
“This is not the first time questions have been raised about the Executive Branch's review process, led by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, for these types of transactions. These deals could have a major impact on America’s security, the protection of which is our greatest responsibility. The CFIUS process needs to be more transparent and include a role for Congress that includes reviewing these deals, and possibly voiding them if necessary.”
The CEO from Dubai say there is no way they will sell off the American ports. It is a done deal for him. Good for him!
rufus and sharp -- might it be easier for you guys to pick up the phone or email each other directly .
i dont think kudlow appreciates using his blog to carry a one-on-one conversation
Just a suggestion.
Congress has shown its true color: a bunch of protectionists. Our Congress is a mess!! If it continues, it's going to drag down our economy, and another great depression is coming. Just one of the reasons that its approval rating is so low. Wake up Congress!!
TS --
congress is awake... they are exercising "oversight" and it is spelled out in the Constitution.
Rep. Tom DeLay said Wednesday that President Bush is making a big mistake backing a sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates
Schumer, Clinton, Frist, and DeLay on one side, Dubya on the other. "W" has got to be right on this one.
But then again, Jimmy Carter is on Bush's side too. That makes me a bit nervous.
David Brooks, in todays NYT, has it exactly right - Schumer has given Al Jazeera what it can't manufacture - a perfect example of US politicians treating a country with no more ties to terrorism than Great Britain with a different set of rules.
White House staff somewhere deserves to be fired for a bad mis-handling of a sensitive political issue; this was totally foreseeable and totally diffusable and it was fumbled.
That said, White House PR mistakes occur often and early, and they don't excuse fear-mongering politicians from their unconscionable false implications that a foreign contractor will augment US vulnerability and exposure. If a politician doesn't understand the facts, he or she is guilty of speaking in ignorance; if they do, they are guilty of outright perjury for political gain.
Toot Squat opined:
"Say what you want, this issue is a loser for Bush. I can already see ads prior to '06 election: "Bush sold 6 of our ports to a Muslim country".
Can't beat that."
>You do realize first of all that no ports were sold, right? Secondly you do realize that it was a transaction between a British company and a UAE company, right?
As for the larger issue of it being a "loser for Bush" I would just say that you have told us that same thing confidently about 3 dozen other things in the daily news that were going to be the undoing of President Bush, and you have been wrong 100% of the time. I see you, dear Tootie, as the perfect contrary indicator. Keep up the perfection. (If you actually want to be correct once, try getting the facts of a case straight first.)
It seems someone else (Big Lizards) has looked at a map, and, surpise, surprise discovered that the UAE (whose fine air-fields, and ports we have the use of) sits right across the Straits of Hormuz from IRAN.
LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION
There is always tension between the legislative and executive branches. There's nothing wrong with that on its face. But to assert, as some have here, that Congress has an oversight role to play here shows ignorance of the process. In the past 2 years the proper multi-department review has been done over 110 times on similar transactions. If Congress was invovled on all of these they would about now be working their way through hearings on the 3rd action item. However, they are free to propose all sorts of things for their political posturing including hearings and even legislation blocking this transaction. It would be unwise-- but that almost guarantees they'll do it. Let a million Schumer pressers bloom. Smarter folks will opt to watch curling.
dang, blogger
Monkeydarts -- KTS highlighted the nuance you point out above.
will you at least concede this administration has indications of gross mismanagement, a failure to communicate effectively w/Congress, and inability to analyze data.
if not let me highlight a few :
- katrina response
-- scooter libby resigning
--underestimating post-war iraq
-- Nsa spying
-- Abu gharib
-- bad intelligence analysis in Iraq
Monkeydarts -- why dont you analyze each issue and show us how you can conclude this administation is doing a great job.
rts, I would disagree with one part of the Brooks column. I don't think anyone fumbled anything. The proper people work through these transactions every week. They correctly worked on this one and came up with the proper conclusion. The fact they were, way after the fact btw, blindsided by cheap political hackery isn't their fault. Container freight comes into America every day that was loaded by Arab owned operators. The panel knows that and they know that much of that freight is unloaded here by foreign owned operators in our ports. I don't blame the folks at Treasury, State, Justice, Defense and DHS for not predicting that Schumer/Hillary/Frist/Hastert et al would take this one transaction out of hundreds and use it to try to drive a wedge between the US and one of her best allies in the Muslim world. I think there's lots of bad Monday Morning QBing going on there. Otherwise Brooks is pretty good on this.
I disagree with the Bush admin on many things stix.
Which of the above items you listed have brought about the downfall of the Bush administration (which was the point I was addressing if you recall)? I note that they are in their second term and have held both houses of Congress throughout with the brief exception of the Jeffords jump. If you think that that list of yours is going to vault the D's to power in November 2006-- then fine. Have a go at it.
2% of African Americans support Bush and the Republican party.
---
Sadly, that is not too much of an exaggeration. However it in no way contradicts my statement about Republican support for judging by value rather than by ethnicity.
Despite your assertion that nearly all blacks are Democrat, with a few exceptions, nearly all of the black appointees to positions of political power (other than the so-called "black jobs") have been made by Republicans.
Blacks are playing an understandable but dangerous game. They understand Clarence Thomas's position that, despite his excellent academic career, people think, and only because he is black, that he was only able to get a Yale law degree because of the kinds of affirmative action that lowered standards. They understand that Thomas doesn't believe in his own inferiority, and thus resents the asterisk that has thus been placed on his diploma. But Democrats truly believe in black inferiority, and thus believe that this kind of affirmative action is necessary and kind--and routinely denounce Thomas (who doesn't oppose other kinds of affirmative action) as hypocritical. Because he is black, and only because he is black, they reason, he just couldn't possibly have succeeded had the standards been equal.
However blacks also understand that lower standards make it easier to get credentials.
The dangerous game is the belief that one can accept these demeaning benefits without a cost.
The Democrat view of blacks is best exemplified by the show "Good Times", as lovable objects of pity and charity, the Republican view is best exemplified by the Cosby Show. Republicans see blacks as intellectual, capable, and driven--as people like Condi Rice. The main criticism of Condi Rice comes from a man who became rich portraying a barefoot black worker singing in an illiterate dialect about his understandable desire to stop working. There is nothing wrong with the song, per se, what is wrong is the stereotype.
So the Democrats pay blacks to put on bling and hop around to drums, or maybe to display athletic prowess, whereas the Republicans scratch their heads because of a belief that blacks are capable of making real contributions. I'm not saying there is anything necessarily wrong with those other jobs, what is wrong is the racist stereotype.
It is like when you go to an elementary school program, and the students are putting on their little skits, and you see some black kid and you wince because you just know that they are going to have him do some lame rap number the teacher has come up with, just because the kid is black and the teacher thinks it is culturally sensitive because this will make the program relevant. And then the kid comes to center stage, and the rap begins, and you just feel so sorry for him, that he has been subjected to the indignity of that stereotype.
But people like to be paid, and thus they will often go for that which is perceived as giving a benefit, even if it is demeaning.
Darts --sorry the list of mine has no Nov2006 underpinnings. Im trying to put the politics aside and evaluate this administration.I cant stand Harry Reid, Howard Dean or Pelosi if that makes you feel better.
What I was asking you to objectively analyze each of these points and ask you if collectively they signal an administation that just seems to be managed ineffectively.
I see you, dear Tootie, as the perfect contrary indicator. Keep up the perfection. (If you actually want to be correct once, try getting the facts of a case straight first.)
==============================
BTW darts -- if you are looking for a good contrarian indicator . Listen to Kudlow: Since he wrote
"Hillary’s 2008 Hopes " on feb 13th highlighting
"Incidentally, Rasmussen has President Bush’s approval rating up to 49 percent. "
Bushs approval rating has gone nowhere but down. Fox has it down to 42%
Darts-You are right on on this issue. There would have been no issue if the members of Congress and the media were not anti-Arab. These deals go through all of the time. Maybe someone should have warned the WH that it was coming, but maybe no one on the committee is as biased as they are. Maybe they thought it was routine since the other 18 countries are not fussing.
So far the Dem's have said we have not spent enough money. If we just spend more money, everything would be ok. I think NY and NJ want the most. The labor unions want protected from foreigners.
Rufus, may I copy your comment and mail it to Frist?
I think you had better send him the web address of Monster.com
I believe he's going to be looking for a job pretty soon.
He can always fall back on surgery. He will love going back to MediCare paperwork.
RTS said... a country with no more ties to terrorism than Great Britain
Pop quiz. Only 3 countries in the world that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate gov't of Afghanistan. One was part of this deal, and is wasn't Great Britain. Can you guess which one it was?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cliff May has some interesting thoughts on the deal. #2 and #3 especially are good points.
Monkey -
I agree that those who vet the deal are not to blame, but somebody should have picked up the obvious headline possibilities of this particular matter and preempted the brouhaha. Politics is a tough game, but you've got to be attentive to it. That's all I meant.
LFC - I saw that point in Ervin's OpEd piece also - yes, UAE recognized them, but the point of all this security and the issue at bar with the ports is that what matters is behavior in a post - 9/11 world. This would not be an issue, but for 9/11, so that is the only fair prism to view this through - since 9/11, by all accounts, UAE has been nothing but an ally. Clinton & Schumer voted to sell them F-16s - if they trust them with our fighter jets, why not with a commercial traffic management company?
I stand by the argument.