It's rare that I take the Bush administration's side in anything, let alone an issue of national security or foreign policy.  With regards to Dubai PortsWorld proposed takeover of several domestic shipping ports, though, I have to say my instincts fall in line with the administration's stance.

How is it any more than xenophobic, isolationist racism?  DPW is owned and run by Muslims; it's a private company controlled by the Royal family of Dubai, a member of United Arab Emirates (UAE).  And yes, a very small percentage of the world's Muslims are militant terrorists aiming to do God knows what—anything from undermining governments in Islamic natures to launching World War III.  On that basis, must we assume that all Arab-owned companies must be in cahoots with that tiny group of terrorists? 

The second-place bid for the British company that currently owns the port management contracts was from a company based in Singapore.  DPW already owns the port assets of American company CSX.  Should we strip them of those rights too because they are Muslim-owned?  What about Emirates Airlines, also owned by the Dubai royal family?  Should they fly to separate, secure airports from here on out?

The UAE is one of our allies.  It's one of the few states that we can conscionably align ourselves with; it has an operational federal courts system and is one of the most liberal regimes in the Middle East when it comes to women's rights.  Dubai is a cosmopolitan world capital and a tourist destination.

More business links with the Middle East is a good thing, not a bad thing.  Trade is a good thing.  Cooperation is a good thing.  Backing out of business deals because the other side of the deal happens to be Muslim is not a good thing. 

No one has suggested that American dock workers would be replaced or displaced; it's not like they're gonna put Osama bin Laden and a gang of dudes in turbans with AK-47s and pocket-sized nukes in charge of Port Newark.  Hell, there might even be security advantages in having one of our Arab allies run some of our sensitive ports—but who would know whether that's the case or not? 
 
I get where people's hesitation comes from, but it just isn't rational.  The Bush administration should have anticipated that this would be an issue and got out ahead of it before it became a problem.  What stuns me is that politicians on the left have been running each other over in a race to get in front of the cameras and be the first to play the "national security" card back in the Republicans' faces.  It's short-sighted.  It's isolationist, not internationalist.  It further diminishes our already tattered reputation in the Muslim world. 

Even Bush gets it, for once: "It would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."  Worse yet, it would give another shred of evidence to those who Muslims who hate America and the West that America and the West hates them back.  It deepens the divide.

Our leaders should be giving us thoughtful guidance and substantive information about this deal if it is so important, not exploiting our fears for partisan gain.  That's the lowest common denominator.  Just because the Republicans used national security like a club to beat down the Democrats doesn't mean that the Democrats should try to do the same back, because in the end, it's never going to work—it's hollow scare tactics.  The critics of the DPW takeover of ports must offer a substantive, rational argument as to why the deal is bad for American security interests—and propose an alternative that's both safer and practical (as it stands today, there are not nearly enough American companies to take over all port management operations).

Either the spin cycle is working or Americans truly fear the possibility of DPW taking over American ports—a Rasmussen survey showed 64% do not think the sale should be allowed (and, interestingly, 39% of those surveyed didn't know foreign companies already manage domestic ports and 46% were not sure if foreign companies managed domestic ports).   Maybe I am the irrational one here, but until someone shows me some concrete reasons that DPW taking over port management duties in American cities is a risk to our national security, I'm not buying it.

>> Wikipedia on the Dubai Ports World Controversy

Time to put down Tim the Tool Man

Have you seen the commercials for the latest Tim Allen horror show, Shaggy Dog?  They should take a cue from Old Yeller and put Allen out of his misery.  What's worse?  The fact that a movie studio dropped $80 million on this steaming heap of garbage or the fact that enough people might go see it to make it profitable.  

If it ain't white, it ain't right

One last rant.  I was at a deli today, and the guy in front of me in line ordered a turkey sandwich and a "chowda."  Chowda, in this case, meaning Manhattan Clam Chowder.  I've lived in New York City for three years and been silent on this issue for too long.  If it's clams dumped in a lousy tomato broth, it is not chowder, chowda, or anything like it.  Chowder is white in color and ranges from "creamy" to "semi-solid" in consistency (I prefer a semi-solid chowder—thick enough that if you threw it at a window or wall, it would stick).  Manhattan tomato and clam soup might be delicious, but it ain't white, it ain't chowda.

After I saw the story on CNN.com about the eight workers from a meatpacking plant in Nebraska who won the recent record-high Powerball lottery jackpot, my heart was warmed for a moment.  That moment quickly passed. 

It's great that these nice, deserving folks from Nebraska (notably, the group included several immigrants) had fortune smile on them.  What's troubles me is that this story, which is all over every newspaper and TV news program, gives people false hope.  The chances of winning a lottery at all—let alone hitting it big enough to never work a day in your life—are slim to infinitesimally small, and yet, a frightening number of Americans feel like that lottery ticket is a genuine, plausible route to a better life.  The statistics are stunning.  "Among Americans with salaries of $25,000 or less, 38 percent believe the lottery is the way to go," according to one study.  Sixteen percent believe winning the lottery is "a very important wealth-building strategy for all Americans."

Gambling is a vice that too often sucks cash out of those who cannot afford it, preying on those who hope for a better life.  Yeah, most people probably understand that their chances are slim, we know the people who play the lottery the most aren't necessarily acting on a strictly rational basis.  You don't typically see CEOs, corporate attorneys, and doctors spending an afternoon buying scratch tickets; a person who makes a six-figure salary isn't counting on that Mega Millions ticket as a way to a better life.  Those who play the most play not for pleasure but for hope, they want more for themselves and their families, they work hard, and for that reason they're more eagerly persuaded to spend their hard-earned money gambling.  It's a false hope.  

Certainly, some people gamble for pleasure—and can afford to do so—and some people gamble competitively, and they're entitled to do what they want with their money and time.  I enjoy the occasional game of poker myself.  There are TV commercials in several states touting the merits of lotteries and casino gambling, pointing out that part of the revenue stream goes back to communities, either as taxes or lottery profits.  The argument goes, if you play the lottery, you're helping fund our schools and put more cops on the street. 

But let's not be deluded by the glamorization of Powerball and the World Series of Poker.  Let's not pretend there aren't any victims here.  Lotteries and legalized gambling are a tax on the poor and working classes, exploiting the desperate hopes of those who work hard just to keep their heads above water.  Even if the revenues do pour into government programs, it's burden-shifting--the burdens of the wealthy to support the common good onto the backs of those who can least afford it.  Cut taxes on the rich, and open up a couple new casinos or start a new lottery to suck the poor dry—it's taking from the poor to pay for the poor, Robin Hood gone wrong. 

I picture a working-class woman walking out the door to work early one morning, on her way to a factory, just like the story of the 8 Powerball winners did every morning.  And she sees this story on TV, and believes, hey, maybe next time, I'll be the one holding the winning ticket--the ticket to a better life.  Is this really what the American Dream has become?

I can see why the police don't want to allow disruptive behavior during the State of the Union, but that said, my gut instinct is that she did nothing wrong.  She didn't launch an ad hominem attack on Bush; she just posed the question that our president should have answered in his speech but could not and did not try to answer.  Sheehan didn't get up and start screaming during his speech.  She wasn’t wearing a shirt filled with slander or obscenity.  Perhaps she committed a fashion faux pas wearing a T-shirt to Congress, but in this country, that's hardly a crime—especially compared to the real crimes that transpire on Capitol Hill.

What's really chilling is that Sheehan's ejection sounds so familiar—a lot like the president's approach to keeping dissenting voices out of his campaign events during the 2004 presidential campaign.  When it's Bush's campaign and he's paying for the events, to keep out any voices that disagree with you might be intellectually dishonest, but it's sort of his prerogative—it's his event.  When opinions are squelched before the State of the Union, a tradition dating all the way back to our first president, in the Capitol Building rather than on the campaign trail, it's more than a little unnerving.

>> ABC News

>> Village Voice

W's just so damned easy to pick on that I resist the urge most of the time.  But this article from the Times (Los Angeles, not New York, thanks to the Note) about a rare instance of the president dealing with (or rather, ducking) candid questions from CHILDREN reminds me just how much the president's attitude toward the press really gets under my skin, though.  Thinking back to the children's book bit from Fahrenheit 9/11, you gotta wonder if the man's just easily shaken by kids.

But the problem runs much deeper than just the wisdom falling from the mouths of babes.  On a recent episode of The Daily Show, there was a short skit comparing a Tony Blair "town hall meeting" toward the end of the British parliamentary elections to clips of Bush's own "town hall meeting" experiences in the U.S.  There was something nauseating about seeing how clearly sycophantic and rehearsed the questions were in the Bush clips.  Watch it here.
 

During the last presidential campaign, there were several accounts of how the organizers of Bush's campaign events were very careful to keep out any protesters or members of the opposition.  While I respect the Bush supporters' right to have their rallies without undue interference, the heavy-handed attitude toward any possible dissenters still doesn't go down easy. 

I think this goes to the general uneasiness so many of us have about President Bush.  Unlike President Clinton, President Bush the senior, or President Reagan, you simply have this feeling that President W. Bush is lying through his teeth--that even he doesn't believe what he's saying.   One day, Bush tells us all that he thinks our armed forces can handle any conflict or situation that might arise.  The next day, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff tells us that our military is stretched too thin to handle any more burdens--something most anyone who is paying the least bit of attention to what is happening in Iraq could probably surmise on their own (although even an unlimited amount of military power couldn't necessarily cure what ails that ravaged nation).

Clinton and Reagan obviously had their own issues with telling the complete truth--what politician doesn't?--but it seems like the only people who could ever buy the snake oil sold by our current president are the people who want to believe what he's saying. 

There was a controversial Times (New York) article months back about the Bush spin machine and the bold statement of a Bush operative asserting that "We create our own reality."  Last November, a plurality of American voters decided to follow our president through the looking glass for another four years.  The President's continuing pattern of obfuscation makes it clear we're in for three more years of his own "virtual" reality.

One of America's most important entrepreneurs recently gave a remarkable speech at a summit meeting of our nation's governors. Bill Gates minced no words. "American high schools are obsolete," he told the governors. "By obsolete, I don't just mean that our high schools are broken, flawed and underfunded. ... By obsolete, I mean that our high schools - even when they are working exactly as designed - cannot teach our kids what they need to know today.

>> "What, Me Worry" by Thomas Friedman in the April 29, 2005 NY Times

Friedman goes right to the heart of the education crisis in America--which is no small accomplishment, given that most of the empty education rhetoric that flies around our country doesn't.  He doesn't, however, propose any practical solutions.  How do you redefine elementary and secondary education for the 21st century?  That hurdle jumped, how do you implement the changes necessary to make it happen?  Who foots the bills for all this?  Who goes first?

It occurs to me that the federal government, and quite possibly even government in general, isn't well-suited to this task.  The government is far from nimble enough to make dramatic changes in public education--a quintessentially local activity--and even if it could, it might not be appropriate or constitutional under our system of government.  To me, there are large structural changes that could help--taking on the powerful teachers' unions, for one, and restoring funding control to the local level, for another. 

The conceptual changes are the harder changes to tackle, and here's where recent federal and state government efforts may do more harm than good.  Our political leaders have adopted a mantra of "it’s the results, stupid" so far as education policy.  Anything that boosts the numbers--graduation rates, standardized test scores, whatever quantifiable figures you can cook up--is good enough for politicians to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. 

The critical mistake is rushing to stand behind the silly notion that quality education can be quantified in numbers.  As many are quick to point out, how much is that high school degree worth if the person who earns it can't really read, can't really understand basic arithmetic?  Worse than that, there is no love of learning or intellectual cultural in our country--no drive to learn more and be the best educated country in the world.  Looking to the future, you can't like what's on the horizon if Gates, Friedman, and so many others are right about what's happening in other countries.

Personally, I'm a product of private secondary and post-secondary schools, but I can recognize that there are many good public schools in this country.  And it's also plain to see that there are far, far too many mediocre or worse public schools in this country--that's the reality.  Friedman's right.  Tinkering here and there, pushing a couple test scores up, cranking out a couple more diplomas--it won't fix anything.  The system is fundamentally flawed and those who need it the most pay the price--those who will depend on public education because they don't have any other choice, no other way to a better life, no American dream.

Perhaps the market will ultimately take its course and "correct" American education, but by that point, it'll be too late.  For international economic forces to prompt us to change our crumbling education system would mean that our economy crumbled to the point where we have no other option than to confront doing "something hard", to borrow Friedman's words, head on. 

The Associated Press headline that came over the wire yesterday said it all: "Gonzales Will Follow Non-Torture Policies."

You know how bad the situation is when the president's choice for attorney general has to formally pledge not to support torture anymore.

| From “Don't Torture Yourself (That's His Job)” by Maureen Dowd (1/6/05)

By using torture, we Americans transform ourselves into the very caricature our enemies have sought to make of us. True, that miserable man who pulled out his hair as he lay on the floor at Guantánamo may eventually tell his interrogators what he knows, or what they want to hear. But for America, torture is self-defeating; for a strong country it is in the end a strategy of weakness. After Mr. Gonzales is confirmed, the road back - to justice, order and propriety - will be very long. Torture will belong to us all.

| From “We are All Torturers Now” by Mark Danner (1/5/05)

Respondeat superior. “Let the master answer.”  The term for the legal theory of vicarious liability, holding the owner, master, or superior accountable for the actions of her servants.  In our nation, the people are sovereign – we are the masters, and the government is our servant. 

When you treat people like animals, as if their lives and their dignity is irrelevant, you deserve to be treated similarly by those people.  It’s the Golden and eternal rule that governs the political affairs of humankind.  I’m not sure what’s more disgusting – the torture itself or the people who abide it in the name of “national security.” 

Just remember – the American flag flies above Guantánamo Bay, above the prison camps in Iraq, and over every covert mission carried out by our government – and like it or not, we are as responsible for the actions directed by our superiors and carried out by our armed forces and intelligence agents as any master is for the criminal actions of his servants.  One other thing I’m not sure of – should I be more ashamed of what has been done in the name of America to date, or afraid of the repercussions not yet seen?  (Ironically, the Abu Gharib torture scandal was the topic that first provoked me to start up my own intermittent ‘blog.  I’m sort of sad to see that the situation is far worse than I’d surmised at that time.)

 Rolling Stone Magazine ran its "people of the year" crapola in its most recent issue, available here.  I usually tend to avoid these year-in-review pieces; this year's been no exception, even with the painful, tragic collapse of the Yankees and the subsequent freezing over of hell that was the 2004 baseball season to look back on and celebrate.  This one's worth a click because they let a couple interesting people speak for themselves--some might call it "lazy" journalism, but I like the idea that the reporter asks relatively good questions and the subject answers them.  Barack, of course, got his two cents in... I have to say, if I didn't find him so incredibly genuine, I'd think he sounded like one arrogant junior Senator in this interview.  Once again, Happy New Year to the servers at Livejournal and the rest of the ether.

One of my New Year's Resolutions, by the way, is to reduce the --s,...s, and ""s in all of my writing by at least fifty percent.  Wish me luck...

"The Audacity of Hope" -- Newsweek profile of Barack Obama | Link
"The Candidate: Barack Obama" -- New Yorker | Link

Looking back at what turned out to be a rather depressing year politically, the newly-elected and very junior U.S. Senator from Illinois stands out as a story that gives me a little bit of hope.  Never one to miss an obvious play on words, I have to wonder -- will Barack turn out to deliver more hype than hope?  I think that at the time of the DNC, the liberal faithful knew that something was lacking in the Kerry campaign--it lacked any sort of soul.  We cheered for Kerry because he's a good man, to be sure, but not because he got the blood pumping like your Bill Clintons, Barack Obamas, or even your Ted Kennedys.  In the end, that missing intangible factor might have been worth a couple million votes, but to be honest, I doubt there was any Democratic candidate who could have defeated Bush in 2004.  Perhaps the tree of American liberalism must be refreshed from time to time with the political blood of ... well, the entire party this time around.  My New Year's wish is that Barack's hope is an omen of a shifting tide in American politics -- even if it takes several more election cycles to take full form, a truly renewed Democratic Party espousing liberal social and economic values would be worth the wait.

And then I listened to our sitting president explaining the logistical struggles of aiding the thousands of people suffering in the wake of the tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia in his fumblin' bumblin' good ol' country boy English on the radio this afternoon.  Suddenly, I can't wait for 2005.  Happy New Year.

Do you know why going to the dentist’s office sucks?  If you were raised Catholic, it should be obvious to you—it’s the guilt.  At least for the routine stuff—cleanings and cavities—it’s one of the few instances in life in which you receive medical care because of your own laziness.  Accidents happen—and they often happen because people do incredibly stupid things—but accidents don’t always happen out of sheer laziness. 

When the hygienist is hovering over your mouth, scraping out last Christmas’s turkey and stuffing, cursing to himself and sucking blood and spit out of your mouth with that little vacuum thing, you know that you are being judged.  It’s just embarrassing – you’re incapacitated, you can’t talk or respond to anything the dentist says to you because your mouth so wide open, you’re breathing in the dentist’s face, and they are scraping crud out of your teeth.  You can see it in their eyes – they are thinking to themselves (and sometimes muttering out loud), “Did this person grow up in West Virginia?  Do you think he can even wipe his own ass properly, because he sure as hell didn’t manage to floss these teeth all the way at the back of his mouth at any point in the last year?”  Having never had one myself, I maybe shouldn’t invoke this particular metaphor, but the cleaning seems like a gynecological exam for your face.

After the X-rays are taken and that surprisingly heavy lead vest is lifted from your chest, the weight is replaced with the far heavier opprobrium of the dentist and hygienist reviewing the shots and deciding on a plan of attack.  In fact, when the dentist herself finally gets involved is when the real guilt sets in.  “Haven’t you been flossing?”  “Been awhile?”  “You’re completely fucked.”  No matter how inevitable a cavity is, you still feel about four years old—that occasional night that you just didn’t feel like brushing thoroughly or those two days you forgot to floss are back to haunt you, in whirring, thumping, mechanical form.  As the dentist leers over your mouth with her mighty Novocain needle in hand, you realize you only have one person to blame – yourself.  No other medical profession can hang this guilt over your head like a dentist can. 

If you a break a leg, you’re not a bad person.  If you have dry skin, it’s not your fault.  If you’ve got the flu, it’s nothing you did—everyone’s catching it.  But when the dentist hands you that little plastic bag with the free toothbrush and Glide floss sample, you feel about five years old all over again—and you nod like a guilty little child when you promise to brush and floss more before the next time.  Maybe there’s a reality show in this—God knows there’s one for everything else unpleasant in life (dating, dieting, parenting, traveling, male modeling)—The Cleanest Teeth.  Watch as twelve toothy adults compete for the whitest choppers—and more importantly, the moral approval of their dentists.