UAE + Ports: Powerline Weighs In

Just because its been a hot topic here, and because I love Powerline, I'm linking to John's latest stand-taking post on the matter. More and more I think that the deal should not be blocked, and people should just come to recognize and reject the mountains of idiot-hype that surrounded this debacle.

How do you make this case to the average voter, succinctly? Here's Powerline for ya:

...Much criticism of the "deal"--there actually isn't a deal, a company headquartered in the United Arab Emirates bought a British company that had contracts to administer facilities at six ports--consists of general criticisms of the UAE, as though companies headquartered in that country can only do business in America if the Emirates' record on terror-related issues is spotless. That strikes me as a complete non sequitur. More confirmed terrorists have come from Great Britain than the Emirates, but no one raised any objection to British control over port terminals.

And no one seems to care that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia already controls terminals at nine American ports. Or that China operates both ends of the Panama Canal...

Its a nice post, go read it.

Addicted to Foreign Oil

I found it remarkable that President Bush said in the state of the union that the US is "addicted to foreign oil". Who must he have been placating? Was this an olive branch to the left? What is a republican president, a former oil man himself, doing making a statement like this? What does it mean? Could he be serious?

Since the state of the union, Bush has been saying it more and more. So I think he means it.

Once I got over my intial surprise, I wrestled with vague notions of the government telling us not to drive SUV's, silly pie in the sky alternative energy promises (solar rocks, man!), and general anti consumerist malaise.

Then I realized why it was so important that this statement come from W:

When President Bush says we are addicted to foreign oil, that really means something. From any leftist or even democrat politician, its just the usual propaganda - likely accompanied by all kinds of cynicism, negativity, and the lack of any real alternative. From Bush, it means that he sees a problem, and he's going to act. From Bush, the actual meaning of this statement, and the implications, have a chance of penetrating the minds of the roughly half the country who has completely tuned out the ridiculous left. This message will get through. And if its a problem, Bush will do something about it.

Why is it so bad that we are "addicted" for foreign oil? What does this even mean?

It means that the entire US economy is dangerously tightly linked to oil. We can't live without it. We can't make enough of it on our own. We have to buy from all these awful nations like Iran and Venezuala, who then use their riches for anti American purposes. We have to care about what happens in the Middle East - A LOT! - because instability harms our economy. Don't get me wrong, this isn't the retarded left wing "blood for oil" or "don't drive SUV's" or "Americans are bad" pitch. The hard fact is that oil is critical for the survival of our economy.

On Friday Al Qaeda tried to blow up a Saudi oil terminal, thankfully failed, and oil prices spiked. With oil and energy prices high, almost every US citizen is impacted directly. Worse, large companies eat price shocks in their recurring cost structure. This lowers profits, maybe alot, maybe they go into the red. This hurts the stock market, maybe alot. Maybe some people lose their jobs.

Imagine what would happen if we had to go to war in Iran? Would our economy survive it? Is that the choice, either we let these nutcases develop nukes and save our economy, or we blow up their processing plants and cost US workers a million jobs?

Wouldn't it be great not to have to worry about that?

Sure, its a pipe dream at the moment, but what about this wind power stuff? If wind works as an energy source, then what could be better? OK so wind isnt going to power our cars, but it could sure reduce consumption of fossil fuels in, say, electic power generation. That would be really good.

What about ethanol for our cars? Too expensive? Up until now I would have said ethanol programs only exist because of the Iowa caucus, and they typify government handouts that should be eliminated. Now I'm not so sure. We are addicted to foreign oil, and the addiction is harmful. I don't think the solution is conservation, I think the solution is innovation. Conservation will occur naturally when prices get too high - never before that - but by then it will be too late. Innovation will also occur when prices get high. But the hidden costs today should also be considered. The cost of making hostile regimes rich, the cost to our economy of supply shocks, the cost of have to use our military in the middle east. These costs are high. These are national issues. In this addiction, the low prices are the drug, and the economic shocks and hostile regimes are the harmful effect.

Wouldn't it be great if Venezuala and Iran didnt matter? If the whole middle east didnt matter? I think it would.

Blogs Superior in UAE Port Deal Coverage

If you've been watching the news at all, you've probably seen that the Bush administration is inexplicably selling our vulnerable ports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates - a country which is muslim, arab, and home to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers. Port security being a big deal and all, this decision and the subsequent strong defense by Bush himself ("try and stop it - I'll veto") smacked of classic Bush administration bad politics and worse PR. While governors and senators from both parties scrambled to outdo each other and score political points, Bush was - as usual - steadfast.

So what really happened here?

By now, there are so many articles about the ports deal that it would be impossible to post a meaningful chronology. For a sampling, try this. You'll have to go way back to see most of the initial articles. The long and the short of it is, the MSM went nuts and mischaracterized and blatantly misreported the ports "sale" (which in fact is just a UK company being bought by a UAE company). Gobs of politicians, including '08 hopefuls Bill Frist (R) and Hillary Clinton (D) scrambled to score big national security points. Even now, to the average viewer, Bush is looking pretty bad.

But against this tide, you can find some counterpoints. What do you do when politicians and the media are going berzerk and it just doesn't add up? Read blogs, of course. For example, you can read this balanced post at Captains Quarters, which contains slightly more extensive quotes from Bush than simply "I'll veto" and also fails to make some of the mainstream media errors such as calling it a ports "sale", or attributing port security to the UAE.

Better yet, you can look in our own New England blogosphere: To warm up, what is going on with these liberals playing the national security card and forgetting all about their heartfelt opposition to "profiling"? Pardon My English notes this lefty hypocrisy. Better yet, MuD and PHuD clams things down a bit and links to Big Lizards rather more balanced analysis of the situation. Rhode Island's Anchor Rising adds yet more balanced analysis while acknowledging the obvious visceral reaction that many of us are prone to feel on first hearing of UAE involvement in US ports.

Perhaps most surprising of all - and I can't even believe I'm going to say this - is that the king of Mass lefty blogs, Blue Mass Group, takes a similarly balanced approach in two apparently pro-Bush front page posts here and here! Now, don't get me wrong - the self styled (and deeply ironic) "Reality-based commentary" at BlueMass is no stranger to your typical Kos-derived anti Republican juvenalia, but this is really something worth noting. These progressives are so pro-Deval Patrick that they cant even keep their fangs out of the presumptive D Gov. frontrunners neck, these suckers are actually agitating to take Massachusetts further left, if that can be imagined. But yet there it is, on the front page - a sane and reasonable analysis of the UAE ports matter. How easy would it have been to jump on the anti-Bush bandwagon yet again? And yet while the MSM and politicians from both parties are busy knee jerk panic mongering for anti-Bush and political points, respectively, good ol humble blogs are taking a deeper look. A more balanced look. A smarter look. Even on the left.

When something makes absolutely no sense at all, 9 times out of 10, your understanding is flawed. Don't understand what the heck is going on in this world? Read the blogs.

George Will on Why Conservatives are Happier

George Will doesn's always get it right, but he's a good and interesting writer and this piece is a gem:

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

Aside from the fact that I think liberals are generally wrong about almost everything, I sometimes feel that they can be a real drag to be around in any case. Why? Because there is this big cloud of miserable chip-on-shoulderness which seems to follow them everywhere. Maybe its the whole guilt-is-life thing, or maybe its that the US is so evil and bad, or that most exalted people in their estimation are the needy - but - well anyway, go read it! Here's a snippet:

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver.

UAE and ports

I admit that I am somewhat baffled by Bush's decision to strongly defend the "sale of our ports" to a company from UAE. Here is some clarification from an unlikely source, CBS news!

Could it be that Bush is the only one with his head on straight, taking the principled stand against hyperventilation once again?

Fighting Dem Paul Hackett Surrenders

Much has been made in the left wing blogosphere of the new "fighting dems" phenomenon: Iraq war vets who are returning home to run for political office as Democrats. Their hero and #1 highest profile fighting dem was this clown Paul Hackett from Ohio, who lost an unexpectedly close race against a weak but supposedly secure Republican incumbent last time around. This time he is lined up to take down senator DeWine (R-OH).

The hard left loved him.

But yesterday, Hackett dropped out of the primary against D frontrunner Sherrod Brown. True to conspiracy theorist nutjob form, he blamed Democratic party leaders for sabotaging his campaign and betraying him.

Some left wing sites are quick to forget how much they loved him but even though they all now say he couldnt have possibly won (!!) some are really feeling the hurt.

Me, I just find it ironic that the fightingest of the fighting dems acted in typically democratic fashion - and surrendered.

So what are they going to do about it? Apply their tired old marxist driven class based analysis to their own party, of course!

The real reason so many people are upset that Hackett left the race has less to do with ideology than it has to do with the ongoing class war within the world of progressive activists. Online, Hackett's support came primarily from those activists who have very little power within the progressive movement as a whole: the working class within the progressive movement. By contrast, Sherrod Brown's support came from the aristocracy within the progressive movement: those who, like Charles Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel, have a lot of power over the direction of the progressive movement. Class, in this sense and in the world to which I am applying the term, is not determined by income. Rather, it is determined by power and ownership over the progressive movement. The outrage comes from the generally accurate perception among the progressive activist working class that the progressive activist aristocracy used their vastly greater power to remove Hackett from the race in favor of Brown. The outrage comes from the fact that, like in IL-06, they made this decision on behalf of a candidate of their choosing without consulting the progressive activist working class. The outrage comes from the very real fact that the activist working class places the blame for the nation's continued conservative backslide squarely on the progressive activist elite.

To which I will only add this one snippet from Tom Matzzie, MoveOn.org Political Action Director:

The story about "the Democrat who sold out" has become too familiar. Too often progressives tip toe around these betrayals. But there needs to be real consequences for these Democrats.

Replacing a right-wing Democrat with a more progressive Democrat will help voters more clearly understand what Democrats stand for--and that will help Democrats win.

Could this represent a schism in the Democratic base? Activist elites vs. anyone remotely centrist? We can only hope. The sooner the Democratic party finishes imploding, the more time we'll have to form a rational and loyal opposition party.

We Should Thank the Hard Left Blogosphere

This NY Times piece discusses Democrats' remorse over ongoing missed opportunities to take advantage of the troubles of the Bush administration. Some great quotes aside, the main message of the article is that the D's can't win unless they stand for something:

"It's absolutely required that the party talk about things in addition to the Abramoff scandal," said Martin Frost, former leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "I think the climate is absolutely right to take back the House or the Senate or both. But you can't do it without a program."

And Mr. Bayh said, "I don't believe we will win by just not being them."

The article doesnt mention it, but the real reason that the Democrats are completely unable to stand for anything is the overwhelming influence of the hard left blogosphere and related orgnazations such as MoveOn. These organizations dominate the activist community and ruthlessly attack any Democrat who does not hew close to the liberal line. (see: Lieberman) These people have taken their anger over the 2000 election, multiplied it by the war in Iraq, and added in a thousand additional ingredients - both real and imagined - and now they are insane. Insane, yet powerful. Too powerful to be ignored by Democrats, but too insane to appeal to the masses. This leaves the Democrats confused, unable to take a position, talking out of both sides of their mouths - or more often, not talking at all except to complain.

As long as the hard left retains such dominant influence, the Democrats must remain toungue-tied - or lose even worse than they already do! So, thanks, moveon and dailykos. You guys really help out alot in befuddling the Democratic party.

Alternatively, you might take Nancy Pelosi's view of things:

Ms. Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, did not dispute that argument. But, pointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush's Social Security proposal last year, she said there was no rush.

"People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year. "I feel very confident about where we are."

McCain blasts Obama

McCain shows some teeth against Obama who apparently bait and switched on lobbying reform. Details here at the indispensible Real Clear Politics

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions...

Is McCain making all the right moves for 2008 by slapping down the Democrat hero du jour? Or is Obama just screwing up a whole lot and catching flak from all sides? (note: Obama took some heat from the left for his anti filibuster position on Alito.)

Mohammed Cartoon Fiasco

The play by play goes something like this:

• Danish newspaper published cartoon portraying Mohammed, God of Islam, offending many muslims around the world
  
• Muslims begin violent protests, boycotts, threats, etc.
  
• Euopean pols mortified, apologizing
  
• Other European newspapers publish cartoon; similar cartoons follow
  
• Editors being sacked, European pols mortified, apologizing and scrambling:
  

Europe's political elite were scrambling last night to contain the furore across the Arab world at the publication of caricatures of Muhammad, with leaders stressing that freedom of the press did not mean freedom to cause offence.

(from the Guardian UK)

I think there are a couple really interesting angles to this:

1. Gutless European pols will attempt to curtail their own freedoms in order to de-offend muslims, in a cowardly show of impotence

2. Nonetheless, freedom of the press oriented press folks will continue to mock Mohammed in cartoons in an escalating fashion

I mean, really, how could all of Europe ever seriously prevent this from happening? So long as the papers (and web sites, etc) have a mind to create and publish cartoons mocking Mohammed, they surely will do so. I can envision hundreds of cartoons, thousands even, coming from all corners of Europe and even other countries with free presses - completely overwhelming the muslim ability to take individual offense, protest, or carry out individual violent reprisal.

From there it goes one of two ways: a world war of muslims vs. the west (free press vs. offensiveness to faith), or a final acceptance by muslims that they just cant get violent every time their religion is trifled with.

I think its going to be the latter. If the world floods itself with images mocking Islam, the only possible outcome is that Islam will have to just chill the hell out. Theres just no way its going to come to a world war over a silly cartoon.