Damn you, Tia. And all the rest of you proofreaders out there.
Have I ever told the story about how I was writing a paper in law school the month we acquired DogBreath as an adorable little ball of fluff? Buried in a footnote on page 45 or so is a sentence beginning "The sole puppies of this amendment..." I didn't catch it before submitting it, and the professor either missed it, or let it slide.
This is so tin-eared, I can't imagine whose idea it could have been. Thank goodness George W. Bush is there to keep us safe, since the Democrats don't take national security seriously.
The control of security will remain with US Gov authorities and Port staffing will be American (obviously). While hand-waving panic-mongering have made reference to Gazprom and use of state influence over firms, I defy anyone to come up with a rational scenario whereby DPW ownership impacts US security. Further, DPW already has an existing security relationship with US authorities, with US authorities pre-clearing cargo with DPW overseas for shipment to US ports, and DPW runs, MENA, European & Asian ports already.
Control of security being with US government authorities is, even if formally true, not sufficient. Employees of the company managing the operations of the port are obviously going to be able to circumvent security at will -- really, do you think people who work in airports wait in the security lines 30 times a day?
And this:
It is, in short a state-owned firm run like a private corporation.
is likewise not particularly reassuring. While the company is government owned and controlled, really, the UAE government doesn't exercise that control much? While I am certain that this is true in the normal course of business, that's not the kind of thing I want to put a lot of weight on.
I do think that Lounsbury has some point in that the reaction to this is driven partially by xenophobia/racism. But I don't think that's relevant -- the arguments for keeping port management in domestic hands seem compelling even in the absence of racism.
"If there's an argument for why this isn't self-evidently insane, I'm all ears. Anyone?"
Presumably you also oppose U.S. ownership of companies that run foreign ports? Would you also oppose all foreign ownership of U.S. strategic assets, and and all U.S. ownership of strategic foreign assets?
What's the precise policy principle being established here?
Have you noticed what percentage of cargo and tanker ships coming into U.S. ports are U.S. owned or foreign owned, by the way? Should we not allow foreign-owned ships and tankers in? Can you explain why managing the ports is something that U.S. regulation and supervision cant manage safely, but it's safe to treat the ships differently?
Just for starters.
"...could possibly have thought that turning over control of our ports to a foreign government...."
Can you be specific on how you are defining "control of our ports"?
Also, do you consider the government of Dubai hostile? If so, why? Would you object to a French-government-owned company, or a Venezuelan-owned company making the same deal? How about Jordan?
Joe -- at least one right wing blowhard seems dissatisfied with this situation even coming from the Bush admin.
LizardBreath -- But the port management was already not in domestic hands, wasn't it? The shift is not from domestic to foreign management but from British to UAE. 'Less I'm missing something.
To make the argument that the status quo (which I understand to be ownership by a non-governmentally controlled British company) is better than UAE control, the points to push on have to be govermental control versus private, and then characteristics of the UAE regime itself.
Also, do you consider the government of Dubai hostile? If so, why? Would you object to a French-government-owned company, or a Venezuelan-owned company making the same deal? How about Jordan?
Farber, as for me, I'd object to an American company being in charge of port security. Port security should be handled by the U.S. Government. Similarly, I don't want the FBI privatized, or the border patrol either.
I'm with JM. Who cares? We can't make the ports "safe" to begin with. If there are obvious problems ("the largest shareholder is Osama Bin Laden"), then scuttle it. Otherwise, much ado about nothing.
Considering that pretty much the entire fleet of U.S. cargo ships are flagged in either Liberia or Panama; and considering that foreign interests have owned these management contracts forever; and considering that the stockholders don't actually unload tankers or inspect for whatever should be inspected, I can't see that it maters much. If anything, UAE now has a greater incentive to restrain its citizens and allies from bombing our ports than it had before.
13, the principle that in order for something to be securely run, it must be government-run, rather than government regulated, can be expanded to cover so many industries. How do you limit it to ports?
1) What should I and we fear about this deal that makes it different from previous and pre-existing conditions?
2) What's the general principle that you are expostulating that should be universally applied to such deals, and which deals fall under it?
3) Specifically, what would be possible, or even likely, under this deal that wasn't previously possible? (Okay, something of a re-statement of the first question, but there you can give a more general answer, and here I'd distinctly like some specific examples.)
4) What's "self-evidently insane" about it? Nothing in it seems so at all to me.
"But I don't think that's relevant -- the arguments for keeping port management in domestic hands seem compelling even in the absence of racism."
And what are those arguments? And what's the definition of "domestic hands"?
"Employees of the company managing the operations of the port are obviously going to be able to circumvent security at will -- really, do you think people who work in airports wait in the security lines 30 times a day?"
This differs from today how?
"While the company is government owned and controlled, really, the UAE government doesn't exercise that control much?"
Presumably you also oppose U.S. ownership of companies that run foreign ports?
Nope, although I wouldn't be surprised or opposed to policies of those foreign governments forbidding it.
Would you also oppose all foreign ownership of U.S. strategic assets,
If I have a clear grasp of what you're including under the rubric of 'strategic assets', yes.
and and all U.S. ownership of strategic foreign assets?
Under the same principle as my answer to the first question, no. Wouldn't be surprised if they objected, though.
What's the precise policy principle being established here?
I prefer domestic control of US assets vital to national security. I'm not all that bothered about what we control in other countries, although I fully support other countries' right to impose similar regulations.
Have you noticed what percentage of cargo and tanker ships coming into U.S. ports are U.S. owned or foreign owned, by the way? Should we not allow foreign-owned ships and tankers in?
No problem with allowing foreign-owned ships and tankers in.
Can you explain why managing the ports is something that U.S. regulation and supervision can't manage safely, but it's safe to treat the ships differently?
For one thing, we aren't just talking about worrying what comes off ships in US ports. We are (or I am) also worrying about control of the flow of cargo into and out of the country, and how that can be facilitated or hindered in line with the interests of foreign powers.
Can you be specific on how you are defining "control of our ports"?
Management of the movement of ships and cargo moving through them, which is what I understand this deal to entail. If you have detailed knowledge greater than mine (which shouldn't be hard, I don't know all that much) to share in this regard, I am fascinated and eager to learn more.
Also, do you consider the government of Dubai hostile? If so, why? Would you object to a French-government-owned company, or a Venezuelan-owned company making the same deal? How about Jordan?
I'm really troubled by the 'foreign government' thing, so yes, I'd be bothered by a French, Venezualan, or Jordanian government-owned company making the same deal. My specific knowledge of the government of Dubai isn't all that great, although the additional atmospherics that have blown this story up are obvious.
That a UAE owned company is running port operations certainly merits a closer look, though it's tough to really gauge the security implications.
Two preliminary questions: What attack scenario becomes more likely as a result of the UAE company running aspects of port operations? Why does the scenario become more likely?
13: "Farber, as for me, I'd object to an American company being in charge of port security. Port security should be handled by the U.S. Government."
Could you please be specific as to which points of port security that are presently handled by contractor you object to versus which points that are supervised by U.S. government personnel or regulation are okay?
I assume you have some specifics in mind as to what you mean by "in charge of," since you are concerned and making this point. Obviously, you must have specific concerns. What do you point to? What are they?
w/d, maybe I'm just ill-informed on this, but when it comes to bringing things or people into our country from other countries, it's my personal preference that the security not be provided by anyone worried about cost-cutting and profit margins.
I'm calling a 'Socratic Method' penalty. This is an off-the-cuff blog post, backed up with very little indepth knowledge of Dubai, the UAE, port security, or anything at all.
If you wish to make the point that the uneducated should just shut up, go right ahead. That one's worth about one comment.
If you have more accurate knowledge, that should convince us that this deal is entirely unexceptionable, go ahead and share it. I am certainly open to being convinced.
The peppering with questions that anyone who dares to have an opinion should surely be able to answer, on the other hand, irritates me unspeakably. Do you have anything to say in the form of a declarative sentence?
Joe: I'm no better informed than you are, but I would think that there are still government employees maintaining security at a privately run port. I don't know if you're saying otherwise, or if we're just talking about a matter of degree.
Also, ditto LB on the point which I would phrase "why treat other commenters as if they're hostile parties deeply committed to their view, as opposed to fellow-seekers of knowledge?"
Presumably you also oppose U.S. ownership of companies that run foreign ports?
Nope, although I wouldn't be surprised or opposed to policies of those foreign governments forbidding it.
So you're overtly for a double-standard in what U.S. policy should be on management of world ports. Okay.
Would you also oppose all foreign ownership of U.S. strategic assets,
If I have a clear grasp of what you're including under the rubric of 'strategic assets', yes.
No, I'm afraid you're the one declaring the principle, not me. Either you have a definition of what you oppose, or you do not. I can't supply that for you.
I'd note for starters that it would seem difficult to come up with any definition that is concerned about what comes into our ports that doesn't include the ships, and that it would be equally difficult to come up with any definition that is concerned with our energy supplies that doesn't concern our energy supplies, i.e., the oil and gas in the ground, before it gets into pipelines and tankers.
If you exclude those two, I'm at a loss to understand where the line is being drawn as to when we should find the need for U.S. company ownership of U.S. strategic assets.
I'd also like a definition of what "U.S. company ownership" means, please.
and and all U.S. ownership of strategic foreign assets?
Under the same principle as my answer to the first question, no. Wouldn't be surprised if they objected, though.
Okay, again, we should have rules for others that don't apply to us. I just want to clearly understand.
What's the precise policy principle being established here?
I prefer domestic control of US assets vital to national security. I'm not all that bothered about what we control in other countries, although I fully support other countries' right to impose similar regulations.
Please define "domestic control" and "US assets vital to national security." I seriously don't have much idea what you mean by either term, and what's included and excluded; without some clear understanding of each term, I don't see how it would be possible to usefully discuss these assertions.
Have you noticed what percentage of cargo and tanker ships coming into U.S. ports are U.S. owned or foreign owned, by the way? Should we not allow foreign-owned ships and tankers in?
No problem with allowing foreign-owned ships and tankers in.
So the concern about ports is?
Can you explain why managing the ports is something that U.S. regulation and supervision can't manage safely, but it's safe to treat the ships differently?
For one thing, we aren't just talking about worrying what comes off ships in US ports. We are (or I am) also worrying about control of the flow of cargo into and out of the country, and how that can be facilitated or hindered in line with the interests of foreign powers.
So we should also take control of cargo and what's in tankers and pipelines at the other end, as well? If not, why not? If the concern is that the flow can be interrupted, what's the rationale for letting it be interrupted only at our ports? If we don't take control of the entire flow of the cargo, and take control of the oil and gas and minerals at the other end, how are we in the least safer simply by having control of our ports?
Can you be specific on how you are defining "control of our ports"?
Management of the movement of ships and cargo moving through them, which is what I understand this deal to entail. If you have detailed knowledge greater than mine (which shouldn't be hard, I don't know all that much) to share in this regard, I am fascinated and eager to learn more.
No, again, I'm not objecting to anything here. If you have objections, they have to be based upon facts, surely. I'm trying to understand precisely what facts you are concerned with. What do you define as "Management of the movement of ships and cargo moving through them"? To me, that's so general as to convey nothing graspable to me, but I assume you have specific concerns, since flouting them is, after all, "self-evidently insane."
Stuff that's "self-evident" shouldn't need explanation, by definition, but obviously explaining self-evident things is the simplest thing in the world, again by definition. So please do so, if you would be so kind.
Also, do you consider the government of Dubai hostile? If so, why? Would you object to a French-government-owned company, or a Venezuelan-owned company making the same deal? How about Jordan?
I'm really troubled by the 'foreign government' thing, so yes, I'd be bothered by a French, Venezualan, or Jordanian government-owned company making the same deal. My specific knowledge of the government of Dubai isn't all that great, although the additional atmospherics that have blown this story up are obvious.
So you already objected to the British-owned company? Have you commented on that previously? Or is British ownership non-worrisome, but French is? How about British companies owned by non-British born Muslims or people who are currently British citizens, but not born there? Are you familiar with the name "Lakshmi Mittal"?
23, JD: "w/d, maybe I'm just ill-informed on this, but when it comes to bringing things or people into our country from other countries, it's my personal preference that the security not be provided by anyone worried about cost-cutting and profit margins."
What specific differences are you pointing to that were present last week, but won't be there should this deal not be broken?
So you're overtly for a double-standard in what U.S. policy should be on management of world ports. Okay.
I don't see how this is a double-standard. Why must the U.S. have a policy of the management of ports that are not in the U.S.?
So you already objected to the British-owned company? Have you commented on that previously?
This seems like an egregious example of the "if you haven't blogged about your objection to X you are objectively pro-X." I should think we're better than that!
The argument is obviously that "privatization roolz!"
Having said that, obviously it's a stupid political move, given the way that the right wing has stirred up racism to rationalize the war on terrah. But it is interesting in the ways that it both reveals that the administration, being oil guys, is hand-in-pocket with oil guys all around the world, *and* in the way that it preempts popular Democratic objection (in, say, the midterm elections) because inevitably such objection would have racist undertones, which the Republican party is always happy to exploit.
But yeah, I'm with LB: strategic assets shouldn't be outsourced, and should in fact be in the control of government, not private hands, even if said hands are American. This is, however, and old-fashioned idea, and one that admittedly ignores cost-benefit analysis. Probably 95% of the time no one knows or cares who owns/is in charge of X. Of course, the 5% that it ends in a conflict of interest of a total fucking disaster sucks, but hey, there's money to be made in the meantime.
This is an off-the-cuff blog post, backed up with very little indepth knowledge of Dubai, the UAE, port security, or anything at all.
If you wish to make the point that the uneducated should just shut up, go right ahead. That one's worth about one comment.
There are established limits here as to how many questions or comments can be made in response to posts and further comments? I wasn't aware of this.
If you have trouble backing up what you've chosen to blog about and state, I'm not clear why that becomes my problem, though, of course, as a blog-owner, it's perfectly up to you to set new commenting rules, and as a person, to just react as a person.
If I'm asking unimportant or irrelevant questions, that would be another perfectly valid objection to what I've responded with.
But I do consider that if someone is making a blog post full of assertions and questions, that they're inviting questions and comments, though certainly such queries and comments should be polite and courteous. I certainly hope I've been polite and courteous, while attempting to elicit precisely what it is that you are concerned about and why, and what is "self-evidently insane." Again, that which is self-evidently insane must clearly be easy to explain.
But if I'm bothering you, then I'll shut up now.
I do consider it potentially imprudent to blog strong opinions and declarations about issues that one isn't reasonably familiar with, but that's a matter for each blogger to decide to handle as they wish, of course. And I really have no idea how familiar or unfamiliar you are with the issues you are raising here, so all I can do is read what you write, and either ask questions, or not.
In any case, apologies if I've somehow been out of line. I'm always full of questions when I don't understand something.
My affirmative statement is that I'm not, at this time, aware of any good reasons to be alarmed with this deal, and the only reasons I am aware of are variants of fear-of-foreigners. But I'd very much like to be made aware of the valid, "self-evident" concerns here -- I'm certainly not declaring that I know there are none, or that there can't be -- but all I can do to find out what they are is ask -- and thus I've been asking polite questions which I'd assume should be perfectly easy to answer, given their self-evident nature.
But I'll just back off and read now, then, rather than be further annoying with my cross.
But yeah, I'm with LB: strategic assets shouldn't be outsourced, and should in fact be in the control of government, not private hands, even if said hands are American.
I actually agree with this, but hadn't yet said it. While the ports are gov't assets, the leases covering the management function were held by private companies before this deal. If the management is going to be in the hands of a private company, I am still more comfortable with it being in the hands of an American company than one based overseas.
My affirmative statement is that I'm not, at this time, aware of any good reasons to be alarmed with this deal, and the only reasons I am aware of are variants of fear-of-foreigners.
I would describe my worry as 'fear of conflicts of interest between nations' rather than simple xenophobia. We wouldn't outsource our military to Dubai, and under the same principles I am uncomfortable with outsourcing the practical capacity to interfere with our military's supply chain to Dubai. This isn't terribly likely to ever be a practical problem, but it strikes me that it's in the realm of 'not terribly likely' things that would be better off as impossible.
Similarly, from a security point of view -- whether or not the ports are secure (which, as of now, regardless of whose management they're under they certainly aren't) depends not only on the formal security apparatus, which would presumably remain a US gov't function, but on the degree to which the functioning of the ports generally abides by security procedures and regulations. I am very disturbed by the idea that the financial and management decisions that will govern whether the ports are secure (which, again, I am aware that they are not now) will be made, ultimately, by officers and managers without a personal investment in the security of the US, and possibly without much personal liability under US laws.
To the extent that you find those worries misplaced, go right ahead and explain why.
(Admin note: Annoyingly, for reasons of anonymity, I can read but not respond to email sent to LizardBreath@unfogged.com while I'm at work. I can't read or respond to email sent to my hotmail address until I'm home.)
I apologize that I've written things that struck you that way.
For purposes purely of self-education so I can best try to avoid that in future, if you could -- and you might as well do this in e-mail, rather than bore everyone else, if you care to bother, though obviously there's no obligation at all -- quote back to me which passages or wordings were impolite or discourteous? I'm aware only of being direct in my questions, so being made aware of where I was impolite or discourteous might help me in future avoid using phrasing I should avoid. (If I wanted to piss people off, I'd try to; I'm not trying to.)
If you can, thanks. If not, I know you're busy. And sorry again.
Gary, this is a genuine question. After giving it your sincere interpersonal best, are you honestly confused about why an interlocutor might be annoyed by this sort of thing?
So you already objected to the British-owned company? Have you commented on that previously? Or is British ownership non-worrisome, but French is? How about British companies owned by non-British born Muslims or people who are currently British citizens, but not born there? Are you familiar with the name "Lakshmi Mittal"? Have you noticed what percentage of cargo and tanker ships coming into U.S. ports are U.S. owned or foreign owned, by the way? Should we not allow foreign-owned ships and tankers in? Can you explain why managing the ports is something that U.S. regulation and supervision cant manage safely, but it's safe to treat the ships differently? Can you be specific on how you are defining "control of our ports"? Also, do you consider the government of Dubai hostile? If so, why? Would you object to a French-government-owned company, or a Venezuelan-owned company making the same deal? How about Jordan? Could you please be specific as to which points of port security that are presently handled by contractor you object to versus which points that are supervised by U.S. government personnel or regulation are okay? What do you point to? What are they?
I mean, Socratic irony has been annoying for the last two thousand years.
Mmm. Sally, at 6, has independently discovered (all right, maybe she picked it up from me) the technique. I explained to her what it was called, and then I explained what the Athenians did to Socrates.
I'm going to stay out of the Farber/LB debate, but broadly speaking I want to note that I fully intend to use LB's #24 next time someone starts hassling me on my own blog about stuff they claim I'm supposed to know.
I must be getting cynical in my old age, because that's probably enough reason for me to support voting for such legislation, without really believing in its merits. That veto would be the best thing to make Republicans run against, evar.
44: I don't think Bush is wrong on the merits here. I really don't have a problem with an UAE country getting the contract. The real thing to note is that this is further evidence that there never was a War on Terrorism, and that many people in the WH are as clear on this as any of us.
Well, I'm not, but if you are, Gary, don't hold back. If you actually have information and would like to share it, go right ahead and do that. No one gains much of anything from your posing fifty questions in a row followed by a little "What, me, aggressive?" routine.
"Bush just announced that he would exercise his Very. First. Veto. Ever. to block any legislation interfering with the UAE deal."
This is becoming a habit. Why does he need to veto, anyway? Can't he just ignore the law for the sake of national security?
On the merits of whether or not this is actually a big deal as opposed to just Americans freaking out over swarthy Arabs, nothing of substance I've read suggests that DWP will have any significant ability to actually tamper with or control the flow of ships or cargo. The company will manage the business of the ports, while the security is handled by the government - rather badly, but no worse around an Arab company than around a British one. So what's the problem?
I'm regretting this post, because I genuinely don't know much about it, and was largely trying to throw something up because I'd been feeling bad about light posting. On the other hand, doesn't managing the business of the ports include such things as hiring the people who load and unload the ships, directing traffic, maintaining the facilities, all of which entail a certain level of control over the ability of the ports to process cargo? It's not as though this were a purely financial deal, and the management company had no influence over day-to-day processes.
Presumably port management would also involve access to security information that a terrorist would find more difficult to obtain via google, or even a search through The New Yorker archives.
Bush can't back down, imho, because then the deal would count as another security/competence error. Hard to believe that they would really sacrifice port security for a corporate deal in which the US has only the slightest interests, much less the Bush administration, though.
I am eagerly awaiting the LizardBreath on Port-Security treatise, by the way. No blog post could possibly stand without it.
FL, 40: "Gary, this is a genuine question. After giving it your sincere interpersonal best, are you honestly confused about why an interlocutor might be annoyed by this sort of thing?"
This is a genuine answer: no. But I didn't write that "sort of thing." Context matters. Taking lots of stuff out of context and eliminating everything in between it results in an entirely different "sort of thing." I'm sure you know that. One can play that game with anyone's set of comments, but it wouldn't be a fair or honest approach.
Nor was any sort of "irony" involved. See also 17 for the short version. If necessary, just 17, q 4.
But I'm not asking those questions anew; I'm responding to your pile-on, and simply noting that there was a short form. I'd rather drop it, which is what I did when I, you know, apologized twice, and said I was backing off, in 32.
But clearly that's not good enough, FL, since you felt the need to, after that, additionally rearrange my words and explain how annoying something I didn't say in that manner is, considerably after I apologized.
Twice.
I wrote some other "positive" statements, but I've deleted them, as they seemed to me likely to cause offense. Not wanting to do that is why I generally ask people to explain when I don't understand what they're saying.
Actually, one other response on 40, FL, since it occurred to me while I was just out walking on a quick errand: if instead of what you wrote in 40, you'd instead written something like "Gary, what you wrote came across as a string of many questions in what seemed like very short order -- can you understand that that might seem annoying?"
And I'd have likely thought about that a few moments, and likely have replied something like "hmm, well, they hadn't seemed that way to me in my head when I wrote them, since to me they were in a number of discrete chunks, separated by bits of time, but now that you put it that way, yes, I can see that they wouldn't necessarily come across that way to someone else, and I can understand, now that you've put it that way, how that might seem annoying. Thank you for helping me see that."
I'm definitely not an expert on this, but I have been reading Lounsbury's coverage of the issue (see JM's link in 4) and I don't really see any reason to doubt him. There are a few points that haven't really been addressed here:
- This is not a case of a foreign company buying up US port operations. It's a case of a company based in the UAE buying a company based in the UK that already operates the ports in question. That is, the employees of the ports will remain the same, as will the management and procedures. At the ports themselves, nothing will change; the only change will be who the stockholders (and board of directors) are.
- The UAE has been a very good ally for the US. To the extent that they were "involved" in 9/11 (which I know no one here has claimed, but it's been bandied about elsewhere) it was on the exact same level as Germany or the UK; that is, there were underground cells present. Since then the Emirates have been very helpful to us on security issues and they've never given us cause for concern.
- There is undeniably a strong current of anti-Arab racism in this country. I think Lounsbury goes a little far in attributing the liberal outrage to that; I think it's more that this is an issue the Democrats want to be "strong" on (like JM said above). For the conservatives, though, it's probably most of it, along with garden-variety xenophobia.
- The Port of Long Beach is managed by Cosco, a company owned by the Chinese government. Where's the outrage over that?
Okay, that's all I can think of right now. Again, I'm no expert, but I think this is all accurate.
"It's hard to know if the ironic interpretation or the straightforward one is more charitable."
It was straightforward. I didn't notice that any of my sentences or phrases were rude or discourteous. (I may have not noticed; thus I ask.) I subsequently took your point that having a profusion of questions that a reader reads in quick order can have an off-putting effect.
But if one hasn't yet considered that, it can be very puzzling to look at a set of neutral phrases and questions and wonder where the offensive part is.
I'm partially to blame in that I know very well from experience that if I write a set of flat, emotionally neutral, statements and questions (and I'm not claiming that necessarily every phrase I used above comes under that description, I'm speaking generally now), that if I just leave it it that, people will bring their own emotional mind-set to it, and often that will mean reading a variety of emotional reads in it that weren't put there by the writer (which isn't to say that other times I'm not genuinely implicitly insulting or condescending or offensive, because sometimes I am; I'm just not talking about those times just now), and which the reader is projecting into the neutrality.
I wish I were better at figuring out, or at least having the patience to, slow down and carefully consider where I might leaven my hasty flat statements, assertions, and questions, when I'm spitting them out, with jokes, asides, and adjectives and adverbs that cushion, soften, and generally are friendly and nice, so as to help lessen the odds of negative emotional reads being read in. But I tend to write, as noted, extremely quickly, and often such phrasings don't occur to me, or I can't even think of good ones to add, and they simply don't have anything directly to do with my point, and in the end, I'm pretty crap at doing that sort of thing very often.
I imagine the only answer is for me to try to work harder at that. It's just fairly antithetical to my writing style, alas. (Strunk and White don't, that I recall, advise "leaven your sentences with friendly adjectives and adjectives; make frequent side-jokes to indicate your friendliness.") But I'll just have to try harder, frustrating as I find it.
I'm loath to return to the substance of the port issue, but the more I read, the stronger my opinion grows that I don't see anything to be alarmed at. I'm still perfectly open-minded about having facts I'm unaware of brought to my attention to help inform me as to why I should be alarmed, mind. But I've still not yet seen any such facts. I'd bet a nickel that a week from now not many folks here will be disagreeing (if they've been doing much reading on the topic), but I could very well be wrong. I can, however, manage to afford the nickel (to one person).
At risk of returning to the substance (and of, oh, no, asking a couple of questions!), does anyone have any security issues they'd like to point to that are alarming about this deal? Or any other specific problematic aspects that worry them? (Specifics, that is, not "the company is owned by Dubai, and I need say no more.")
"If you have more accurate knowledge, that should convince us that this deal is entirely unexceptionable, go ahead and share it"
Oh well, it isn't exactly knowledge, but Dubai has a population of 150 000. It has very little oil. It's trying to be an entrepot, linking Yurrup with India, having a big airline, shopping malls, luxury apartment blocks, very un-Wahabi culture. It bought P & O because it's a well-run utility company in an area it understands, and it brings, and will bring for the foreseeable future if competently run, a return on capital of about 7%.
There is a theory that says the more that cultures trade with each other the less likely they are to attack each other. WWI was perhaps a counter-example. But unless the US really wants to stop trading with Arabs, this opposition is slipping toward irrationality. Evil Wahabi Arabs control the supply of American petroleum products. They do it today, they've done it since 1970 when you became a net importer of oil.
(Funnily, and perhaps off-topic, the loudest wailing I've heard about this has come from a mailing list I'm on. It's for people (like me) who work on the HP3000 mini-computer. i.e. a bunch of old farts who were in the technical vanguard in 1978, but are now old farts going on Luddites. )
I should say that I am coming around to "this deal is not, to my knowedge, any worse than the status quo before the deal" while still having a not-all-that-well-supported sense that "the status quo before the deal is pretty bad, from a security point of view, and having one's attention drawn to that for the first time by the fact of this deal is not wholly irrational."
I should say, Gary, that I wouldn't have been irritated at all by a direct statement that "I disagree with your assessment. I think port security is in a tolerable state as it is, and I don't see that this deal changes anything," (or "I think that while there are real problems with port security, I don't see that this deal changes anything,") and on reflection, I'm coming around to agree with you, if that is your point. FL sums up what's obnoxious about your mode of discourse in 61: "since you're clearly *not* "just askin'," but trying to make a point." To the extent that you ask questions wih the intent of eliciting an admission of your interlocutor's ignorance of the relevant facts (great, in this case) as opposed to sincerely seeking information, you're being a prick.
But do keep commenting: annoyed as I am at your tone, I don't mean to tell you to get lost.
More here. (I'd write more if I were more awake; three cups of coffee haven't yet turned their trick, or even been propositioned and taken advantage of by a certain police department.)
"I think port security is in a tolerable state as it is,"
Well, that I never said, and wouldn't say, since I don't think it is. But that's another issue. I don't think the ownership of the management company has any relevance to the state of port security, so far as I've looked at the issue for a number of years, through this morning. Port security is an issue of the federal government, and the inadequate efforts made by DHS and the Republican Congress. The home base of the global corporation that owns the management that administers the paperwork on other stuff about the port is irrelevant, so far as I know.
"To the extent that you ask questions wih the intent of eliciting an admission of your interlocutor's ignorance of the relevant facts (great, in this case) as opposed to sincerely seeking information, you're being a prick."
Well, that's a thought. I've generally thought that it was better to ask questions -- particularly when I'm not 100% sure that there aren't facts I'm unaware of -- than to simply contradict someone, but I'll try to keep it more in mind.
But I didn't know that you're ignorant about the issues you were asserting were "self-evident." I wondered, but that's entirely different than knowing.
Generally speaking, when someone writes as strongly as "If there's an argument for why this isn't self-evidently insane," and I respect the person, I work under the presumption that they may know something I don't know. And if my own POV is that I have no idea why this deal shouldn't be presumed fine absent more information, my inclination is to ask a bunch of questions, and give the person the opportunity to explain what's so self-evident-unto-the-point-of-only-an-insane-person-would-not-see-it.
I mean, that's pretty strong language, wouldn't you agree? I'm not projecting that level of absolute certainty (I must be insane not to see it!) into a statement of "this deal seems troublesome on its face to me, but I can't really say why; what do you think?" or something along those lines, I think.
So my natural inclination isn't to charge in and start attacking your grasp of the facts before I find out what facts you have in mind that are so self-evident.
In other words, I'm so far rather unwilling to accept or agree that this is a one-sided case of me simply being all unreasonable in taking you at your word and being a prick because I politely (if repetitively and subjectively perceived as quickly) asked you a bunch of questions, which I also then reduced to four simple questions, and then reduced to a single question (none of which you felt like answering).
Of course, maybe that's just because, in Wolfson's never-withdrawn-or-modified words, I'm an "asshole." (Not that you ever signed onto that notion; it's just the sort of thing that tends to stick in my memory when it's never apologized for or withdrawn, so I tend to assume it's an opinion still in force by the person who uttered it.)
"...annoyed as I am at your tone...."
Present tense. Am I still using an annoying tone?
Were 32, 39, 55, 62, and 63, say, also annoying? Is this one annoying? Wait, I bet being asked that is annoying....
Would it help if I were standing on my head while asking? Or wearing Groucho glasses? Maybe if I had Jimmy Carter read my lines?
"One morning, as Gary Farber was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that he was in a world of completely baffling conversational norms that were somehow clear to everyone else."
I dunno what people have been reading on the ports issure. Here's a not-wrong, though very short, piece. A Washington Posteditorial which says what I thought was obvious, but obviously isn't.
I've generally thought that it was better to ask questions -- particularly when I'm not 100% sure that there aren't facts I'm unaware of -- than to simply contradict someone, but I'll try to keep it more in mind.
There's a middle wandering around here somewhere. I think it's feeling excluded.
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Peter King (R-NY) are cosponsoring litigation to block a deal
Lawyers think lawsuits are the solution to everything.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 9:21 AM
Damn you, Tia. And all the rest of you proofreaders out there.
Have I ever told the story about how I was writing a paper in law school the month we acquired DogBreath as an adorable little ball of fluff? Buried in a footnote on page 45 or so is a sentence beginning "The sole puppies of this amendment..." I didn't catch it before submitting it, and the professor either missed it, or let it slide.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 9:25 AM
This is so tin-eared, I can't imagine whose idea it could have been. Thank goodness George W. Bush is there to keep us safe, since the Democrats don't take national security seriously.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 9:36 AM
Here is an argument for this idea's not being insane. The comments are interesting, too.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 9:47 AM
Hrm. On an instant reaction, I don't buy this:
Control of security being with US government authorities is, even if formally true, not sufficient. Employees of the company managing the operations of the port are obviously going to be able to circumvent security at will -- really, do you think people who work in airports wait in the security lines 30 times a day?
And this:
is likewise not particularly reassuring. While the company is government owned and controlled, really, the UAE government doesn't exercise that control much? While I am certain that this is true in the normal course of business, that's not the kind of thing I want to put a lot of weight on.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 9:59 AM
I don't guess that it's useful to speculate as to how the right wing blowhards would be reacting if a President Gore were to propose this.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:18 AM
I'm not sure how reassured I am by Lounsbury's arguments either, but I don't know how safe our ports can get, realistically.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:18 AM
I do think that Lounsbury has some point in that the reaction to this is driven partially by xenophobia/racism. But I don't think that's relevant -- the arguments for keeping port management in domestic hands seem compelling even in the absence of racism.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:21 AM
"If there's an argument for why this isn't self-evidently insane, I'm all ears. Anyone?"
Presumably you also oppose U.S. ownership of companies that run foreign ports? Would you also oppose all foreign ownership of U.S. strategic assets, and and all U.S. ownership of strategic foreign assets?
What's the precise policy principle being established here?
Have you noticed what percentage of cargo and tanker ships coming into U.S. ports are U.S. owned or foreign owned, by the way? Should we not allow foreign-owned ships and tankers in? Can you explain why managing the ports is something that U.S. regulation and supervision cant manage safely, but it's safe to treat the ships differently?
Just for starters.
"...could possibly have thought that turning over control of our ports to a foreign government...."
Can you be specific on how you are defining "control of our ports"?
Also, do you consider the government of Dubai hostile? If so, why? Would you object to a French-government-owned company, or a Venezuelan-owned company making the same deal? How about Jordan?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:22 AM
Joe -- at least one right wing blowhard seems dissatisfied with this situation even coming from the Bush admin.
LizardBreath -- But the port management was already not in domestic hands, wasn't it? The shift is not from domestic to foreign management but from British to UAE. 'Less I'm missing something.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:25 AM
Nationalize port operations now!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:26 AM
8: Shouldn't keeping be returning?
To make the argument that the status quo (which I understand to be ownership by a non-governmentally controlled British company) is better than UAE control, the points to push on have to be govermental control versus private, and then characteristics of the UAE regime itself.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:26 AM
Also, do you consider the government of Dubai hostile? If so, why? Would you object to a French-government-owned company, or a Venezuelan-owned company making the same deal? How about Jordan?
Farber, as for me, I'd object to an American company being in charge of port security. Port security should be handled by the U.S. Government. Similarly, I don't want the FBI privatized, or the border patrol either.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:26 AM
I'm with JM. Who cares? We can't make the ports "safe" to begin with. If there are obvious problems ("the largest shareholder is Osama Bin Laden"), then scuttle it. Otherwise, much ado about nothing.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:30 AM
Considering that pretty much the entire fleet of U.S. cargo ships are flagged in either Liberia or Panama; and considering that foreign interests have owned these management contracts forever; and considering that the stockholders don't actually unload tankers or inspect for whatever should be inspected, I can't see that it maters much. If anything, UAE now has a greater incentive to restrain its citizens and allies from bombing our ports than it had before.
Posted by arthur | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:30 AM
12 written before I'd seen anything after 8.
13, the principle that in order for something to be securely run, it must be government-run, rather than government regulated, can be expanded to cover so many industries. How do you limit it to ports?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:31 AM
Let me make it four basic questions:
1) What should I and we fear about this deal that makes it different from previous and pre-existing conditions?
2) What's the general principle that you are expostulating that should be universally applied to such deals, and which deals fall under it?
3) Specifically, what would be possible, or even likely, under this deal that wasn't previously possible? (Okay, something of a re-statement of the first question, but there you can give a more general answer, and here I'd distinctly like some specific examples.)
4) What's "self-evidently insane" about it? Nothing in it seems so at all to me.
"But I don't think that's relevant -- the arguments for keeping port management in domestic hands seem compelling even in the absence of racism."
And what are those arguments? And what's the definition of "domestic hands"?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:33 AM
"Employees of the company managing the operations of the port are obviously going to be able to circumvent security at will -- really, do you think people who work in airports wait in the security lines 30 times a day?"
This differs from today how?
"While the company is government owned and controlled, really, the UAE government doesn't exercise that control much?"
Your objection to the UAE government is?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:35 AM
Presumably you also oppose U.S. ownership of companies that run foreign ports?
Nope, although I wouldn't be surprised or opposed to policies of those foreign governments forbidding it.
Would you also oppose all foreign ownership of U.S. strategic assets,
If I have a clear grasp of what you're including under the rubric of 'strategic assets', yes.
and and all U.S. ownership of strategic foreign assets?
Under the same principle as my answer to the first question, no. Wouldn't be surprised if they objected, though.
What's the precise policy principle being established here?
I prefer domestic control of US assets vital to national security. I'm not all that bothered about what we control in other countries, although I fully support other countries' right to impose similar regulations.
Have you noticed what percentage of cargo and tanker ships coming into U.S. ports are U.S. owned or foreign owned, by the way? Should we not allow foreign-owned ships and tankers in?
No problem with allowing foreign-owned ships and tankers in.
Can you explain why managing the ports is something that U.S. regulation and supervision can't manage safely, but it's safe to treat the ships differently?
For one thing, we aren't just talking about worrying what comes off ships in US ports. We are (or I am) also worrying about control of the flow of cargo into and out of the country, and how that can be facilitated or hindered in line with the interests of foreign powers.
Can you be specific on how you are defining "control of our ports"?
Management of the movement of ships and cargo moving through them, which is what I understand this deal to entail. If you have detailed knowledge greater than mine (which shouldn't be hard, I don't know all that much) to share in this regard, I am fascinated and eager to learn more.
Also, do you consider the government of Dubai hostile? If so, why? Would you object to a French-government-owned company, or a Venezuelan-owned company making the same deal? How about Jordan?
I'm really troubled by the 'foreign government' thing, so yes, I'd be bothered by a French, Venezualan, or Jordanian government-owned company making the same deal. My specific knowledge of the government of Dubai isn't all that great, although the additional atmospherics that have blown this story up are obvious.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:35 AM
How do you limit it to ports?
For the very cynical reason that the Democrats *own* the "we aren't doing enough to secure our ports!" argument, is my bet.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:35 AM
That a UAE owned company is running port operations certainly merits a closer look, though it's tough to really gauge the security implications.
Two preliminary questions: What attack scenario becomes more likely as a result of the UAE company running aspects of port operations? Why does the scenario become more likely?
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:37 AM
13: "Farber, as for me, I'd object to an American company being in charge of port security. Port security should be handled by the U.S. Government."
Could you please be specific as to which points of port security that are presently handled by contractor you object to versus which points that are supervised by U.S. government personnel or regulation are okay?
I assume you have some specifics in mind as to what you mean by "in charge of," since you are concerned and making this point. Obviously, you must have specific concerns. What do you point to? What are they?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:39 AM
w/d, maybe I'm just ill-informed on this, but when it comes to bringing things or people into our country from other countries, it's my personal preference that the security not be provided by anyone worried about cost-cutting and profit margins.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:40 AM
Gary:
I'm calling a 'Socratic Method' penalty. This is an off-the-cuff blog post, backed up with very little indepth knowledge of Dubai, the UAE, port security, or anything at all.
If you wish to make the point that the uneducated should just shut up, go right ahead. That one's worth about one comment.
If you have more accurate knowledge, that should convince us that this deal is entirely unexceptionable, go ahead and share it. I am certainly open to being convinced.
The peppering with questions that anyone who dares to have an opinion should surely be able to answer, on the other hand, irritates me unspeakably. Do you have anything to say in the form of a declarative sentence?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:45 AM
Joe: I'm no better informed than you are, but I would think that there are still government employees maintaining security at a privately run port. I don't know if you're saying otherwise, or if we're just talking about a matter of degree.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 10:48 AM
Also, ditto LB on the point which I would phrase "why treat other commenters as if they're hostile parties deeply committed to their view, as opposed to fellow-seekers of knowledge?"
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:03 AM
19:
So you're overtly for a double-standard in what U.S. policy should be on management of world ports. Okay. No, I'm afraid you're the one declaring the principle, not me. Either you have a definition of what you oppose, or you do not. I can't supply that for you.I'd note for starters that it would seem difficult to come up with any definition that is concerned about what comes into our ports that doesn't include the ships, and that it would be equally difficult to come up with any definition that is concerned with our energy supplies that doesn't concern our energy supplies, i.e., the oil and gas in the ground, before it gets into pipelines and tankers.
If you exclude those two, I'm at a loss to understand where the line is being drawn as to when we should find the need for U.S. company ownership of U.S. strategic assets.
I'd also like a definition of what "U.S. company ownership" means, please.
Okay, again, we should have rules for others that don't apply to us. I just want to clearly understand. Please define "domestic control" and "US assets vital to national security." I seriously don't have much idea what you mean by either term, and what's included and excluded; without some clear understanding of each term, I don't see how it would be possible to usefully discuss these assertions. So the concern about ports is? So we should also take control of cargo and what's in tankers and pipelines at the other end, as well? If not, why not? If the concern is that the flow can be interrupted, what's the rationale for letting it be interrupted only at our ports? If we don't take control of the entire flow of the cargo, and take control of the oil and gas and minerals at the other end, how are we in the least safer simply by having control of our ports? No, again, I'm not objecting to anything here. If you have objections, they have to be based upon facts, surely. I'm trying to understand precisely what facts you are concerned with. What do you define as "Management of the movement of ships and cargo moving through them"? To me, that's so general as to convey nothing graspable to me, but I assume you have specific concerns, since flouting them is, after all, "self-evidently insane."Stuff that's "self-evident" shouldn't need explanation, by definition, but obviously explaining self-evident things is the simplest thing in the world, again by definition. So please do so, if you would be so kind.
So you already objected to the British-owned company? Have you commented on that previously? Or is British ownership non-worrisome, but French is? How about British companies owned by non-British born Muslims or people who are currently British citizens, but not born there? Are you familiar with the name "Lakshmi Mittal"?
23, JD: "w/d, maybe I'm just ill-informed on this, but when it comes to bringing things or people into our country from other countries, it's my personal preference that the security not be provided by anyone worried about cost-cutting and profit margins."
What specific differences are you pointing to that were present last week, but won't be there should this deal not be broken?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:03 AM
So you're overtly for a double-standard in what U.S. policy should be on management of world ports. Okay.
I don't see how this is a double-standard. Why must the U.S. have a policy of the management of ports that are not in the U.S.?
So you already objected to the British-owned company? Have you commented on that previously?
This seems like an egregious example of the "if you haven't blogged about your objection to X you are objectively pro-X." I should think we're better than that!
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:05 AM
27: See 24.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:06 AM
The argument is obviously that "privatization roolz!"
Having said that, obviously it's a stupid political move, given the way that the right wing has stirred up racism to rationalize the war on terrah. But it is interesting in the ways that it both reveals that the administration, being oil guys, is hand-in-pocket with oil guys all around the world, *and* in the way that it preempts popular Democratic objection (in, say, the midterm elections) because inevitably such objection would have racist undertones, which the Republican party is always happy to exploit.
But yeah, I'm with LB: strategic assets shouldn't be outsourced, and should in fact be in the control of government, not private hands, even if said hands are American. This is, however, and old-fashioned idea, and one that admittedly ignores cost-benefit analysis. Probably 95% of the time no one knows or cares who owns/is in charge of X. Of course, the 5% that it ends in a conflict of interest of a total fucking disaster sucks, but hey, there's money to be made in the meantime.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:11 AM
What Dr. B said.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:12 AM
If you have trouble backing up what you've chosen to blog about and state, I'm not clear why that becomes my problem, though, of course, as a blog-owner, it's perfectly up to you to set new commenting rules, and as a person, to just react as a person.
If I'm asking unimportant or irrelevant questions, that would be another perfectly valid objection to what I've responded with.
But I do consider that if someone is making a blog post full of assertions and questions, that they're inviting questions and comments, though certainly such queries and comments should be polite and courteous. I certainly hope I've been polite and courteous, while attempting to elicit precisely what it is that you are concerned about and why, and what is "self-evidently insane." Again, that which is self-evidently insane must clearly be easy to explain.
But if I'm bothering you, then I'll shut up now.
I do consider it potentially imprudent to blog strong opinions and declarations about issues that one isn't reasonably familiar with, but that's a matter for each blogger to decide to handle as they wish, of course. And I really have no idea how familiar or unfamiliar you are with the issues you are raising here, so all I can do is read what you write, and either ask questions, or not.
In any case, apologies if I've somehow been out of line. I'm always full of questions when I don't understand something.
My affirmative statement is that I'm not, at this time, aware of any good reasons to be alarmed with this deal, and the only reasons I am aware of are variants of fear-of-foreigners. But I'd very much like to be made aware of the valid, "self-evident" concerns here -- I'm certainly not declaring that I know there are none, or that there can't be -- but all I can do to find out what they are is ask -- and thus I've been asking polite questions which I'd assume should be perfectly easy to answer, given their self-evident nature.
But I'll just back off and read now, then, rather than be further annoying with my cross.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:15 AM
But yeah, I'm with LB: strategic assets shouldn't be outsourced, and should in fact be in the control of government, not private hands, even if said hands are American.
I actually agree with this, but hadn't yet said it. While the ports are gov't assets, the leases covering the management function were held by private companies before this deal. If the management is going to be in the hands of a private company, I am still more comfortable with it being in the hands of an American company than one based overseas.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:17 AM
Damn, but Farber can type at the speed of light.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:18 AM
"Damn, but Farber can type at the speed of light."
And piss people off that fast, as well!
Only 99%, though, actually. And you think I'm much longer and weightier when I do.
But when I look for responses, you've all grown much older, while I've retained my youthful perkiness.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:30 AM
I certainly hope I've been polite and courteous,
Not so much.
My affirmative statement is that I'm not, at this time, aware of any good reasons to be alarmed with this deal, and the only reasons I am aware of are variants of fear-of-foreigners.
I would describe my worry as 'fear of conflicts of interest between nations' rather than simple xenophobia. We wouldn't outsource our military to Dubai, and under the same principles I am uncomfortable with outsourcing the practical capacity to interfere with our military's supply chain to Dubai. This isn't terribly likely to ever be a practical problem, but it strikes me that it's in the realm of 'not terribly likely' things that would be better off as impossible.
Similarly, from a security point of view -- whether or not the ports are secure (which, as of now, regardless of whose management they're under they certainly aren't) depends not only on the formal security apparatus, which would presumably remain a US gov't function, but on the degree to which the functioning of the ports generally abides by security procedures and regulations. I am very disturbed by the idea that the financial and management decisions that will govern whether the ports are secure (which, again, I am aware that they are not now) will be made, ultimately, by officers and managers without a personal investment in the security of the US, and possibly without much personal liability under US laws.
To the extent that you find those worries misplaced, go right ahead and explain why.
(Admin note: Annoyingly, for reasons of anonymity, I can read but not respond to email sent to LizardBreath@unfogged.com while I'm at work. I can't read or respond to email sent to my hotmail address until I'm home.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:31 AM
Kos diary taking the chill side.
Posted by rilkefan | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:33 AM
Not so much the 'chill', but the 'freak out about something different' side. I'm completely on board with more attention to port security generally.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 11:40 AM
I apologize that I've written things that struck you that way.
For purposes purely of self-education so I can best try to avoid that in future, if you could -- and you might as well do this in e-mail, rather than bore everyone else, if you care to bother, though obviously there's no obligation at all -- quote back to me which passages or wordings were impolite or discourteous? I'm aware only of being direct in my questions, so being made aware of where I was impolite or discourteous might help me in future avoid using phrasing I should avoid. (If I wanted to piss people off, I'd try to; I'm not trying to.)
If you can, thanks. If not, I know you're busy. And sorry again.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 12:10 PM
Gary, this is a genuine question. After giving it your sincere interpersonal best, are you honestly confused about why an interlocutor might be annoyed by this sort of thing?
I mean, Socratic irony has been annoying for the last two thousand years.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 12:19 PM
Mmm. Sally, at 6, has independently discovered (all right, maybe she picked it up from me) the technique. I explained to her what it was called, and then I explained what the Athenians did to Socrates.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 12:22 PM
I'm going to stay out of the Farber/LB debate, but broadly speaking I want to note that I fully intend to use LB's #24 next time someone starts hassling me on my own blog about stuff they claim I'm supposed to know.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 12:43 PM
This fucking rules.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 1:49 PM
Bush just announced that he would exercise his Very. First. Veto. Ever. to block any legislation interfering with the UAE deal.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:19 PM
I must be getting cynical in my old age, because that's probably enough reason for me to support voting for such legislation, without really believing in its merits. That veto would be the best thing to make Republicans run against, evar.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:22 PM
44: I don't think Bush is wrong on the merits here. I really don't have a problem with an UAE country getting the contract. The real thing to note is that this is further evidence that there never was a War on Terrorism, and that many people in the WH are as clear on this as any of us.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:22 PM
Are you familiar with the name "Lakshmi Mittal"?
Well, I'm not, but if you are, Gary, don't hold back. If you actually have information and would like to share it, go right ahead and do that. No one gains much of anything from your posing fifty questions in a row followed by a little "What, me, aggressive?" routine.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:22 PM
3rd richest man in the world.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:28 PM
45: AMEN!
Not that Bush cares, as long as his pension fund is fat and happy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:28 PM
46: It isn't about the merits. It does, however, raise the question of what, exactly, is so very, very important to him about this particular deal.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:31 PM
"Bush just announced that he would exercise his Very. First. Veto. Ever. to block any legislation interfering with the UAE deal."
This is becoming a habit. Why does he need to veto, anyway? Can't he just ignore the law for the sake of national security?
On the merits of whether or not this is actually a big deal as opposed to just Americans freaking out over swarthy Arabs, nothing of substance I've read suggests that DWP will have any significant ability to actually tamper with or control the flow of ships or cargo. The company will manage the business of the ports, while the security is handled by the government - rather badly, but no worse around an Arab company than around a British one. So what's the problem?
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:35 PM
Bush threatening a veto just rallies the Republicans in Congress to make sure he doesn't have to. Plus, what Isle of Toads said.
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:42 PM
The company will manage the business of the ports
I'm regretting this post, because I genuinely don't know much about it, and was largely trying to throw something up because I'd been feeling bad about light posting. On the other hand, doesn't managing the business of the ports include such things as hiring the people who load and unload the ships, directing traffic, maintaining the facilities, all of which entail a certain level of control over the ability of the ports to process cargo? It's not as though this were a purely financial deal, and the management company had no influence over day-to-day processes.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:51 PM
Don't regret posting this! No regrets!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 2:55 PM
"Bush just announced that he would exercise his Very. First. Veto. Ever."
He's said that about some twenty-odd bills, at least, over the past five years, you know. Possibly more; I've not been counting.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 4:45 PM
Well, yes. It's not his Very. First. Threat To Veto, it's a threat to exercise his Very. First. Veto.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 4:48 PM
Presumably port management would also involve access to security information that a terrorist would find more difficult to obtain via google, or even a search through The New Yorker archives.
Bush can't back down, imho, because then the deal would count as another security/competence error. Hard to believe that they would really sacrifice port security for a corporate deal in which the US has only the slightest interests, much less the Bush administration, though.
I am eagerly awaiting the LizardBreath on Port-Security treatise, by the way. No blog post could possibly stand without it.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 5:00 PM
FL, 40: "Gary, this is a genuine question. After giving it your sincere interpersonal best, are you honestly confused about why an interlocutor might be annoyed by this sort of thing?"
This is a genuine answer: no. But I didn't write that "sort of thing." Context matters. Taking lots of stuff out of context and eliminating everything in between it results in an entirely different "sort of thing." I'm sure you know that. One can play that game with anyone's set of comments, but it wouldn't be a fair or honest approach.
Nor was any sort of "irony" involved. See also 17 for the short version. If necessary, just 17, q 4.
But I'm not asking those questions anew; I'm responding to your pile-on, and simply noting that there was a short form. I'd rather drop it, which is what I did when I, you know, apologized twice, and said I was backing off, in 32.
But clearly that's not good enough, FL, since you felt the need to, after that, additionally rearrange my words and explain how annoying something I didn't say in that manner is, considerably after I apologized.
Twice.
I wrote some other "positive" statements, but I've deleted them, as they seemed to me likely to cause offense. Not wanting to do that is why I generally ask people to explain when I don't understand what they're saying.
And now I again try to bow out.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 5:24 PM
Actually, one other response on 40, FL, since it occurred to me while I was just out walking on a quick errand: if instead of what you wrote in 40, you'd instead written something like "Gary, what you wrote came across as a string of many questions in what seemed like very short order -- can you understand that that might seem annoying?"
And I'd have likely thought about that a few moments, and likely have replied something like "hmm, well, they hadn't seemed that way to me in my head when I wrote them, since to me they were in a number of discrete chunks, separated by bits of time, but now that you put it that way, yes, I can see that they wouldn't necessarily come across that way to someone else, and I can understand, now that you've put it that way, how that might seem annoying. Thank you for helping me see that."
Anyway.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 5:48 PM
I'm definitely not an expert on this, but I have been reading Lounsbury's coverage of the issue (see JM's link in 4) and I don't really see any reason to doubt him. There are a few points that haven't really been addressed here:
- This is not a case of a foreign company buying up US port operations. It's a case of a company based in the UAE buying a company based in the UK that already operates the ports in question. That is, the employees of the ports will remain the same, as will the management and procedures. At the ports themselves, nothing will change; the only change will be who the stockholders (and board of directors) are.
- The UAE has been a very good ally for the US. To the extent that they were "involved" in 9/11 (which I know no one here has claimed, but it's been bandied about elsewhere) it was on the exact same level as Germany or the UK; that is, there were underground cells present. Since then the Emirates have been very helpful to us on security issues and they've never given us cause for concern.
- There is undeniably a strong current of anti-Arab racism in this country. I think Lounsbury goes a little far in attributing the liberal outrage to that; I think it's more that this is an issue the Democrats want to be "strong" on (like JM said above). For the conservatives, though, it's probably most of it, along with garden-variety xenophobia.
- The Port of Long Beach is managed by Cosco, a company owned by the Chinese government. Where's the outrage over that?
Okay, that's all I can think of right now. Again, I'm no expert, but I think this is all accurate.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-21-06 6:03 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 7:21 AM
"It's hard to know if the ironic interpretation or the straightforward one is more charitable."
It was straightforward. I didn't notice that any of my sentences or phrases were rude or discourteous. (I may have not noticed; thus I ask.) I subsequently took your point that having a profusion of questions that a reader reads in quick order can have an off-putting effect.
But if one hasn't yet considered that, it can be very puzzling to look at a set of neutral phrases and questions and wonder where the offensive part is.
It's possible that the much-reported, much-blogged, study referred to in this iteration of the story may be relevant.
I'm partially to blame in that I know very well from experience that if I write a set of flat, emotionally neutral, statements and questions (and I'm not claiming that necessarily every phrase I used above comes under that description, I'm speaking generally now), that if I just leave it it that, people will bring their own emotional mind-set to it, and often that will mean reading a variety of emotional reads in it that weren't put there by the writer (which isn't to say that other times I'm not genuinely implicitly insulting or condescending or offensive, because sometimes I am; I'm just not talking about those times just now), and which the reader is projecting into the neutrality.
I wish I were better at figuring out, or at least having the patience to, slow down and carefully consider where I might leaven my hasty flat statements, assertions, and questions, when I'm spitting them out, with jokes, asides, and adjectives and adverbs that cushion, soften, and generally are friendly and nice, so as to help lessen the odds of negative emotional reads being read in. But I tend to write, as noted, extremely quickly, and often such phrasings don't occur to me, or I can't even think of good ones to add, and they simply don't have anything directly to do with my point, and in the end, I'm pretty crap at doing that sort of thing very often.
I imagine the only answer is for me to try to work harder at that. It's just fairly antithetical to my writing style, alas. (Strunk and White don't, that I recall, advise "leaven your sentences with friendly adjectives and adjectives; make frequent side-jokes to indicate your friendliness.") But I'll just have to try harder, frustrating as I find it.
I'm loath to return to the substance of the port issue, but the more I read, the stronger my opinion grows that I don't see anything to be alarmed at. I'm still perfectly open-minded about having facts I'm unaware of brought to my attention to help inform me as to why I should be alarmed, mind. But I've still not yet seen any such facts. I'd bet a nickel that a week from now not many folks here will be disagreeing (if they've been doing much reading on the topic), but I could very well be wrong. I can, however, manage to afford the nickel (to one person).
At risk of returning to the substance (and of, oh, no, asking a couple of questions!), does anyone have any security issues they'd like to point to that are alarming about this deal? Or any other specific problematic aspects that worry them? (Specifics, that is, not "the company is owned by Dubai, and I need say no more.")
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 8:37 AM
"I can, however, manage to afford the nickel (to one person)."
Actually, y'all can split it as you like; I just meant I didn't want to afford more than a single nickel on the bet.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 8:41 AM
"If you have more accurate knowledge, that should convince us that this deal is entirely unexceptionable, go ahead and share it"
Oh well, it isn't exactly knowledge, but Dubai has a population of 150 000. It has very little oil. It's trying to be an entrepot, linking Yurrup with India, having a big airline, shopping malls, luxury apartment blocks, very un-Wahabi culture. It bought P & O because it's a well-run utility company in an area it understands, and it brings, and will bring for the foreseeable future if competently run, a return on capital of about 7%.
There is a theory that says the more that cultures trade with each other the less likely they are to attack each other. WWI was perhaps a counter-example. But unless the US really wants to stop trading with Arabs, this opposition is slipping toward irrationality. Evil Wahabi Arabs control the supply of American petroleum products. They do it today, they've done it since 1970 when you became a net importer of oil.
(Funnily, and perhaps off-topic, the loudest wailing I've heard about this has come from a mailing list I'm on. It's for people (like me) who work on the HP3000 mini-computer. i.e. a bunch of old farts who were in the technical vanguard in 1978, but are now old farts going on Luddites. )
Posted by dave heasman | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 8:55 AM
I should say that I am coming around to "this deal is not, to my knowedge, any worse than the status quo before the deal" while still having a not-all-that-well-supported sense that "the status quo before the deal is pretty bad, from a security point of view, and having one's attention drawn to that for the first time by the fact of this deal is not wholly irrational."
I should say, Gary, that I wouldn't have been irritated at all by a direct statement that "I disagree with your assessment. I think port security is in a tolerable state as it is, and I don't see that this deal changes anything," (or "I think that while there are real problems with port security, I don't see that this deal changes anything,") and on reflection, I'm coming around to agree with you, if that is your point. FL sums up what's obnoxious about your mode of discourse in 61: "since you're clearly *not* "just askin'," but trying to make a point." To the extent that you ask questions wih the intent of eliciting an admission of your interlocutor's ignorance of the relevant facts (great, in this case) as opposed to sincerely seeking information, you're being a prick.
But do keep commenting: annoyed as I am at your tone, I don't mean to tell you to get lost.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 8:57 AM
More here. (I'd write more if I were more awake; three cups of coffee haven't yet turned their trick, or even been propositioned and taken advantage of by a certain police department.)
"I think port security is in a tolerable state as it is,"
Well, that I never said, and wouldn't say, since I don't think it is. But that's another issue. I don't think the ownership of the management company has any relevance to the state of port security, so far as I've looked at the issue for a number of years, through this morning. Port security is an issue of the federal government, and the inadequate efforts made by DHS and the Republican Congress. The home base of the global corporation that owns the management that administers the paperwork on other stuff about the port is irrelevant, so far as I know.
"To the extent that you ask questions wih the intent of eliciting an admission of your interlocutor's ignorance of the relevant facts (great, in this case) as opposed to sincerely seeking information, you're being a prick."
Well, that's a thought. I've generally thought that it was better to ask questions -- particularly when I'm not 100% sure that there aren't facts I'm unaware of -- than to simply contradict someone, but I'll try to keep it more in mind.
But I didn't know that you're ignorant about the issues you were asserting were "self-evident." I wondered, but that's entirely different than knowing.
Generally speaking, when someone writes as strongly as "If there's an argument for why this isn't self-evidently insane," and I respect the person, I work under the presumption that they may know something I don't know. And if my own POV is that I have no idea why this deal shouldn't be presumed fine absent more information, my inclination is to ask a bunch of questions, and give the person the opportunity to explain what's so self-evident-unto-the-point-of-only-an-insane-person-would-not-see-it.
I mean, that's pretty strong language, wouldn't you agree? I'm not projecting that level of absolute certainty (I must be insane not to see it!) into a statement of "this deal seems troublesome on its face to me, but I can't really say why; what do you think?" or something along those lines, I think.
So my natural inclination isn't to charge in and start attacking your grasp of the facts before I find out what facts you have in mind that are so self-evident.
In other words, I'm so far rather unwilling to accept or agree that this is a one-sided case of me simply being all unreasonable in taking you at your word and being a prick because I politely (if repetitively and subjectively perceived as quickly) asked you a bunch of questions, which I also then reduced to four simple questions, and then reduced to a single question (none of which you felt like answering).
Of course, maybe that's just because, in Wolfson's never-withdrawn-or-modified words, I'm an "asshole." (Not that you ever signed onto that notion; it's just the sort of thing that tends to stick in my memory when it's never apologized for or withdrawn, so I tend to assume it's an opinion still in force by the person who uttered it.)
"...annoyed as I am at your tone...."
Present tense. Am I still using an annoying tone?
Were 32, 39, 55, 62, and 63, say, also annoying? Is this one annoying? Wait, I bet being asked that is annoying....
Would it help if I were standing on my head while asking? Or wearing Groucho glasses? Maybe if I had Jimmy Carter read my lines?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 9:34 AM
62 and 66 are Kafkaesque. The more charitable interpretation remains indeterminate.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 9:46 AM
"One morning, as Gary Farber was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that he was in a world of completely baffling conversational norms that were somehow clear to everyone else."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 9:52 AM
I dunno what people have been reading on the ports issure. Here's a not-wrong, though very short, piece. A Washington Post editorial which says what I thought was obvious, but obviously isn't.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 9:54 AM
I've generally thought that it was better to ask questions -- particularly when I'm not 100% sure that there aren't facts I'm unaware of -- than to simply contradict someone, but I'll try to keep it more in mind.
There's a middle wandering around here somewhere. I think it's feeling excluded.
Posted by Josh | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 9:55 AM
Also the LA Times.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 9:56 AM
Gary, maybe you'll understand when every blog comment you've ever written is inscribed into your flesh with a sharp blade. Now step into the machine.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 9:57 AM
68: Well, that happened when I was around 4.
But admire my shiny mandibles!
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 9:59 AM
"Gary, maybe you'll understand when every blog comment you've ever written is inscribed into your flesh with a sharp blade."
Ah, nanotech tattooing!
"Now step into the machine."
Well, I am still commenting here, so I believe I've done as you command, mistress.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 10:00 AM
Emperor Joseph II: Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. But there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-22-06 10:04 AM
This is a much, much better version of what I said #44. And still the real point of this whole kerfuffle, to my mind.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-23-06 7:12 PM