To Increase Safety, Bush Gives Security of NY Ports to the Muslims
Capitalism will destroy itself. – Karl Marx
Taking privatization to a level of absurdity that would make even Milton Friedman blush, Bush approved giving the wolf the responsibility of protecting the chickens security of New York ports to a Muslim-Arab company based in the United Arab Emirates. Surprisingly, some New York politicians are questioning the wisdom of this arrangement.
The NY Times reports, Â
The Bush administration dismissed the security concerns of local officials yesterday and restated its approval of a deal that will give a company based in Dubai a major role in operating ports in and around New York City[…] The decision, they said, was final[…]Mr. Schumer said that he was concerned that the company could be infiltrated by terrorists with designs on exploiting the vulnerability of American ports. He noted that the Sept. 11 attacks were financed in part by money that passed through banks in the United Arab Emirates.
Change “American” to “German” and “Arab” to “Jew” and you’ve got 1930s Berlin. Is this sort of bigotry acceptable now on here?
Come on, Kelsey, get with the program. What’s good for Bush’s multi-billionaire buddies is good for America, dirty bombs be damned.
Is this article from ‘the onion’?
No, Josh, it’s not. But paulatriedes’ response sure is! That the Honorable Senator Schumers’ concern (against Bush outsourcing New York’s security to a company’s hands when that company’s host country facilitated financing for 9/11) is a view reminscent of Nazi Germany is such a lame-ass attempt to employ the ol’ Nazi trump card that it could only have been meant satirically.
Hilarious!
Oh, but Bush is so much better for Israel!
…than who? Arafat?
I know Israel doesn’t really factor into the picture, but I can’t believe that no Israeli firm got the contract to run security. But then again, the Israelis are not whom Bush is in bed with!
Matt,
No other country should be running our security. The U.S. and the U.S. alone should be running our security.
“Capitalism will destroy itself. – Karl Marx
Taking privatization to a level of absurdity that would make even Milton Friedman blush..”
David,
milton friedman? capitalism? Do you even know who milton friedman is, or for that matter what “capitalism” is? it sure doesnt sound it. Stop trying to sound intellectual, youre embarrassing yourself.
Point well taken, David. Besides, the US government should be supporting American jobs. But there might not be any good American agencies. Also, Israel supposedly has the best security contractors.
Why don’t you tell us, Joe? Why don’t you tell us how the push for privatization has nothing to do with Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys, and outsourcing U.S. security to a foreign firm is not Bush’s own gross misuse of the concept? Or do you believe this sugarcoated nonsense is what’s really motivating W?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020509-1.html
Alternatively, in the off chance you (and not me) are the one lacking the economics background to debate this issue, just continue to justify your own Neocon preferences through insulting my intelligence and education without any specifics of the policies themselves.
My point is that Bush is influenced by cynical understanding of privatization which is really about justifying his own preference for rewarding select corporations (domestic and otherwise) and industries with tax breaks and contracts, at the expense of security of all kinds.
i agree with david, we should be running our own security NOBODY else should do it, shows what kind of president bush is, seems like he cares about money and oil more than his country.
Dave: I need not tell you that we are dealing with an administration that knows nothing about security, much less fighting a war on terrorism. The ‘Morons in Chief’ cover their ignorance with arrogance (catchy phrase?) and don’t have a clue-or choose to ignore the facts on the ground-regarding security. By awarding the contract to their Arab friends, they must assume all responsibility for their actions and poor judgement! If there is trouble in NYC, I recommend sending the Vice-President to take them all out since he is a ‘sharpshooter’.
Father of the ‘Kvetcher’
Dave-
I am as against letting this Dubai company take over the ports as you are, but instead of criticizing this from a rational and relevant standpoint, you go on to attack capitalism, privatization and milton friedman. There are a few things you should understand, first:
1) This has nothing to do with a “push” for privatization. Before the dubai company took over, it was run by a different private company. Bush didnt privatize control of the port, he (administration) approved the dubai takeover of the british company. Do you even read the links you post?
2) Accordingly, the problem here (even according to democrats) isnt a capitalism or privatization issue, but an issue of allowing an arab company to control the ports. I have no idea why you brought up capitalism and milton friedman, other than to remind us how much you oppose them.
3) One of the main points of your criticism was completely wrong (“push for privatization”) so you in fact you do deserve to be criticized (and you should also try to read comments more carefully, I never mentioned your education mr. insecure).
Joe,
1) Also bad idea. That’s why I stressed it should be under U.S. auspices.
2) I do not oppose capitalism. I oppose unfettered corporate capitalism. I oppose the excesses of privatization. Security would never have been outsourced to a non-American firm in the first place if there wasn’t a push for privatization. In fact, it wouldn’t be a corporation, but a Federal agency.
3) Again, — I want U.S. security under government oversight. Not a corporation, even a domestic one. This would have been a given once. It isn’t now because of privatization.
And nothing in the realm of domestic U.S. security should ever be given to a foreign government. Not even the ports of New York.
Dave,
All the points in your above post may be valid, but you still didnt acknowledge that one of the main points of your original critisims was this “push” for privatization, when in fact it is no more private now than it was before the dubai take over. You made mention of friedman, marx and capitalism, when the actual economics of the arrangement has not changed at all. This is my point.
In my opinion, I don’t trust anyone with security but the Israelis. The Americans don’t know what they are doing for the most part, and while the French are really tough on Muslim extremists, even though it is largely because they are racist, I don’t think that they would prove to be completely competent. First, look at their war record. Second, a few years back during an airport security exercise in which security workers, which I think included soldiers and/or policemen, had to spot a bomb in luggage. They used a real bomb for the exercise, and they failed to spot it, so it ended up on a transcontinental flight to the US. The bomb’s whereabouts are still unknown.
I know, Israeli security and defense is probably not perfect, but I would bet that it is the best around, unfortunately a product of its long experience with terrorism.
Joe,
How is the U.A.E. deal being defended except for a belief in the efficiency of corporations?
It is one thing to defend an ally being given a contract (and England is an ally), but it is still a greater belief and trust in privatization to trust a neutral country with a checkered past.
How is this being defended? Because of trust in the efficiency of a corporation.
You are claiming there is no difference or change in terms of privatization itself. That is not correct. Before the concept was extended to an ally. Now it is being increased to allow a non-ally who has even demonstrated past intolerance towards hostility in its national banks.
How is it being justified? Privatization. Therefore, though you are correct that “the actual ecnomics of the arrangement has not changed at all,” the blanket of privatization has been increased because of a different past and present strategic relationship with U.A.E. –even though the contract remains the same.
“the blanket of privatization has been increased”
Huh? You may not like the new company controlling it, but that is a more of political/ security issue and does nothing to increase privatization. Stop creating new definitions of words.
I already got you to admit that the change was from private control to private control, and that the economics of the arrangement hasn’t changed at all, yet you still insist on your original “capitalism/privatization†point. Stop sidestepping the fact that not only were you wrong, you were very wrong.
After reading Joe’s first attack on David’s post, I was going to jump in, but it seems that David has said most of what I was going to say.
Joe, this mechanistic thought process smells a bit like rotten fish. How far is outsourcing supposed to go? Well, if you understand that outsourcing ccmes from the idol worship of money (as in, make as much paper profit as you can, Ponzi or otherwise), you take it to its natural conclusion: autocanabalism.
Security, like manufacturing, should not be outsourced.
Speaking of manufacturing, may I recommend Hamilton’s ‘Report on Manufactures,’ and his ‘Federalist Papers,’ so that you may understand that the U.S. republic was not founded to become an independent East India Company?
PS ‘The Federalist Papers’ have nothing in common with the lawyers and judges in the US who started ‘The Federalist Society’ in 1982, to plot out their plans for ‘fuhrerprinzip’ here.
No, Joe, you have bubkas. I said “a level of privatization.” Read my article again. I certainly read the Times article I referenced. Perhaps you should read my post before commenting on it. I never claimed privatization was being introduced into this situation.
Â
The level of privatization hasnt changed at all, except perhaps in your head. I hope this helps
Outsourcing security from an ally to a non-ally demonstrates a greater belief in the reliability of corporations, and therefore, privatization.
Many of us are not comfortable with that. Including even some Republicans.
You can’t have it both ways, Joe. So if that’s not your concern, what is?
It’s just a corporation, right Joe? So what’s the problem? According to you?
“Outsourcing security from an ally to a non-ally demonstrates a greater belief in the reliability of corporations, and therefore, privatization.”
This simply is not true, and i have never heard or read such a statement before. Where are you getting this from? I dont see the connection at all. Being for privatization doesn’t mean being reckless with who is contracted. Even the biggest proponent for privatization wouldn’t support contracting with companies that aren’t effective, non-productive or that lacks expertise let alone a company that poses major security risks. Contracting with a “problem†company doesn’t show greater belief in privatization, its just an example of poor decision making- which is what the bush administration is doing by allowing this to go through.
What happened to the great leaders such as FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, all we get in the last election was a Republican who ducked it in Alabama, and a Democrat that gave aid to the enemy with respect to their military service. It’s a sad state these days
Hooter,
Why restrict yourself to great leaders ? Do you think Reagan would have pulled this shit?