For 5 years, the W Administration has used "9/11", "9/11 changed everything", and "terrorism" to justify every policy and violation of the law. But here we have an issue that really does touch on issues of terrorism, and we aren't allowed to talk about it? It just has to go through, 'cause the big boys like Snow and Carlyle Group said so? Hmmm - somehow I don't think that will work.

And accusations of racism, after 5 years of not-so-subtle anti-Arab, anti-Middle Eastern ("white grandmothers shouldn't be searched at airports"), and anti-Islamic insinuations and flat out statements from Republicans are a bit rich, don't you think?

Cranky

The reason the blog sphere changed, what I call 'flip flopped', is because we are looking at typical Conservatives blogs who carry prejudice. As White House goes on defending (and a word of compromise with Congress to delay the deal comes around); Conservatives come down on the earth. But no doubt all these Conservatives have been found 'red handed'; trying to burnish their National Security credential cheaply all along. Quite interesting that Democrats caught them by their own medicine.

About the deal - it should go ahead. (My arguments are on my blog.)

Finally about Dan's question - his doubts are valid whether general American public can very easily turn around in opinion to see the validity of the deal. Too many political vested interests in festering this controversy rather than addressing the issues head on.

I'm perhaps more optimistic than Dan that the deal will go through. But my concern is elevated about the odds that it won't because I believe we will be safer if the deal goes through.

Here's my latest post on that point: Tipping points, cartoons, and ports

At the same time, I'm guessing the DPW will come up with a way to committing to spin off the US ports to another owner. They've already said they weren't the object of the P&O acquisition anyway. They were after the Asian portfolio.

"But here we have an issue that really does touch on issues of terrorism, and we aren't allowed to talk about it? It just has to go through, 'cause the big boys like Snow and Carlyle Group said so? Hmmm - somehow I don't think that will work."

Is this a parody?

Is this a parody?

Lamentably, no. It's what passes for rational discourse in many parts of the blogsphere.

Of COURSE, Cranky Observer's comment is satiric or a parody.

Here is how one can determine that:
(1) Imagine oneself writing the words.
(2) Try to keep from smiling.

In this case, of course, one cannot avoid the smile and chuckle.

If, rather than smiling, one becomes somewhat sexually aroused while imagining the writing process, then it is not parody or satire.

>> Is this a parody?

> Lamentably, no. It's what passes for
> rational discourse in many parts of the
> blogsphere.

I guess I am missing something. For the last 5 years, Scott McClellen has answered every difficult question posed to him with "this administration hasn't forgotten 9/11, unlike the terrorist-coddling liberals who oppose us. The American people want this Administration to do whatever it takes to protect them from terror". Literally - you can look it up in dozens if not hunderds of transcripts.

But tough questioning on an actual, honest-to-god issue of security is "parody"? And I (we) are supposed to just trust what we are told by an Administration which has failed every single test of serious goverence?

I question who is the parody here.

Cranky

Why exactly should the deal go through?

You libertarian types are always complaining about government, and here we are selling the rights to operate a port to a government-owned entity.

But I think Kaus has it right, pointing to a Slate explainer on what port operators do. Turns out they are involved heavily in cargo manifests, permissions, i.e. all the paperwork you need to get something into the country. This makes the operation of security forces by American entities irrelevant. Controling a port operator is indeed an excellent way to

Then we have the connected guys: 'I know the Dubai people, they are great'? Well, I am sure some flight school operators thought --before 9/11-- that Saudi students where just hunky-dory.

But the overall tenor of this and other posts here really really amazes me. The general attitude here, from the owner and the majority of 'regulars' is condescention toward the perfectly rational concerns of normal Americans. Its almost juvenile -- a sort of nany-nany-nany to every concerned red state American, every outsorced code jockey, every American tech support worker replaced by a H1-B employee, every blue collar guy who loses his job because his factory relocates to Mexico. Really, do you guys despise your countrymen that much? I guess the hoi polloi are suited for cannon fodder in your global democracy campaigns, but there opinion is not to be consulted about making a decent living, or having a rational immigration policy, or protecting the actual land where they live.