STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

valenciana · Dooney & Bourke

Ports issue?

honey · Gucci

i was going to post on this earlier, but didn't have time. thanks for posting it, i'm interested in hearing other opinions.

this is a *huge* issue in nyc, and the way it's being played out really highlights many of the problems i have with the american political system. i personally think it's bs. when i first started hearing about it i was tempted to side with the view that it's a bad idea. what changed my mind was hearing a pundit (forgot what channel) make the following argument: essentially the beef is being labelled as a security issue b/c we shouldn't let a country that has terrorists come from it control our ports. but the pundit pointed out that the shoe bomber was british, and no one had a problem with them having control over the ports.

so it's like racial profiling in the most extreme sense. a point that i definitely agree with. it's not like the company harbors terrorist, and if we follow that logic we shouldn't do business with any arab nation. in fact we shouldn't even let arab airlines fly into the states b/c there's always the risk that a plane from saudi arabia could have a terrorist on it. in fact we probably shouldn't let anyone from oklahoma control drive trucks b/c you know that person could be the next timothy mcveigh. when viewed from this perspective it obvs seems extreme and ridiculous, but it's essentially the same logic that's being applied.

it also makes me more disgusted with our current political climate. my understandis as is that as of tuesday bush was okay with the deal and was saying he would veto attempts to block it. but now he's changed his tune and is claiming he didn't know about it. i call bulls**t on that. and to me this just highlights his hypocrisy. i don't want to inflame anyone but that's how i feel. if he truly was anti-terror then i would've respected his decision not to go through with the sale or even say he was going to re-consider it. (fyi his change of tune only came after the hailstorm of criticism). i can honestly say that if he had changed his tune earlier i would've respected the decision. not that i agree with it, but i can see a clear correlation b/t thinking that a country that harbors (i use this term very loosely, and only b/c it's the best word choice) terrorists should not be in charge of a port. i would've respected that decision, and would think that he firmly believed in protecting our country and doing what he thinks is best to keep us safe. but he didn't so i can't help but think that all his posturing is just crap, and at the end of the day it's about money and oil.

just so you know that i'm not a biased bush hater, i'm also thouroughly disgusted with our current democratic leadership, and hilary is at the top of my shit list. ever since the past elections i've been seriously disappointed with the dems. many of them (kerry in particular comes to mind) changed their minds about the iraq war when it was no longer politically convenient to support it. as evidenced by the threat of dean, who had pretty much been staunchly anti-war. and now hilary is essentially supporting racial profiling b/c it's a way for her to broaden her appeal and solidify her chance at winning the 2008 election. this enrages me. again, even if i disagree with someone, i can respect them if i feel like their beliefs are grounded in something other than winning an election. the whole thing is just awful.

Maddie · Coach

What honey said.

Basically I think it's totally racist. That's about all there is to it. I understand why we might have qualms about perhaps a North Korean company controlling our ports, but the UAE is an ally.

Drew · Gucci

Sorry, but I don't want Arab-anything controlling something so big and important as ports, or anything else for that matter, in the US.

Sure, the US has the occasional wack-job terrorist, and England has a few too. But as a whole pretty much all Arab nations hate Americans, and I don't want that hatred to manifest itself over the years in ways that could compromise our national security.

Oh, Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally as well. Right. An ally. Ok. We all believe that, right?

Besides, I think the only reason we have a relationship with the United Arab Emirates is for oil Instead of trying to cozy up to these people, we should be lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and spending federal money instead on alternative forms of energy. The science is already here; we just have to do it already.

halleybird · Hermes

Drew wrote:

But as a whole pretty much all Arab nations hate Americans

Is this really true? I don't have a lot of experience studying this area, so I could be wrong, but I thought that many (if not most) Arab countries are pretty divided on the issue of Americans, and there are some that we have pretty good relations with (like Jordan, which is considered Arab, right?). But I guess I could be wrong.

Personally, I don't understand the big deal. Like honey said, the shoe bomber was British, and Al Qaeda has operatives and followers in many non-Arab countries, including the US.

I do totally agree with you about the dependence on oil -- that is something we need to address for economic and environmental reasons as well as political ones.

honey · Gucci

Drew wrote:

Sorry, but I don't want Arab-anything controlling something so big and important as ports, or anything else for that matter, in the US. Sure, the US has the occasional wack-job terrorist, and England has a few too. But as a whole pretty much all Arab nations hate Americans, and I don't want that hatred to manifest itself over the years in ways that could compromise our national security. Oh, Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally as well. Right. An ally. Ok. We all believe that, right? Besides, I think the only reason we have a relationship with the United Arab Emirates is for oil Instead of trying to cozy up to these people, we should be lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and spending federal money instead on alternative forms of energy. The science is already here; we just have to do it already.

but the thing is we're perhaps the biggest proponents of free market economies. if we're going to take that stance then it's ass backwards to then say well only certain countries can buy things. if it's such a huge national security issue then we should have dealt with it as soon as 9/11 happened and bought the ports back. but we didn't...

Ally S · Kate Spade

Nearly all of our ports are controlled by other countries, there are German, Italian, Danish, Japanese, Qatar and Belgium owning them.

I think the bigger picture here is cronyism and Bush and his appointment to the Maritime Board and his ties to the Dubai company.

here's the NPR article on some of this.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5228775

sephorablue · Marc Jacobs

Drew wrote:

But as a whole pretty much all Arab nations hate Americans, and I don't want that hatred to manifest itself over the years in ways that could compromise our national security.

I don't necessarily think this is true. Terrorists and anti-American instigators always get a lot of attention, but I think it's a big jump to assume that everyone in an entire country feels the same way. It's also a big jump to go from people who resent us, even hate us, and people who are willing to commit violence.

I also agree with honey's point that the logic doesn't hold up under scrutiny, esp. as regards things like airlines.

-- Edited by sephorablue at 18:54, 2006-03-01

-- Edited by sephorablue at 18:54, 2006-03-01