Yesterday Soj had a recommended diary on DKos that began:
The Arabs are controlling our ports! They're lovers of terrorism and sponsors of fundamentalist Islam and George Bush sold out American security to the highest bidder! This is the kind of bigoted claptrap I expect at Little Green Footballs, not DailyKos.
The diary went on to unfold the case for accepting the controlling interest of Dubai Ports in a way that was very much along the lines that George Bush was to explain later in the day. It was well argued and persuaded a number but rejected by most
[Update]: Because I have not seen it recorded elsewhere, and because of one or two of the posts touching on this made down thread, it is worth noting the following comment that was made after the first failed bid from the Singapore company PSA by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong: "I'm quite sure PSA is studying carefully how to respond and what to do. As I said, we don't come with gas and oil in our pockets." So, just what sort of deals have been made between Dubai and Bush?
Not only were some facts in the diary identified as wrong but the whole point was being missed in that the issue is largely one of national security in an area of peculiar vulnerability, made worse because it has suffered from continuing neglect by the current administration.
One of the strongest comments on the diary was made by DHinMI
No, It's Crap (4.00 / 2)
And coming from Soj, there's no reason to expect intellectual honesty either.
Now, on reflection, I am not sure how fair this comment was in this particular instance and if I am hesitant it is because I have my own issues with Soj that could prejudice my judgement (relating to his attitude to women, and statements regarding the beneficial effects of Romania poverty on them).
No, the reason I quote DHimMI is because there is an intellectual dishonesty and it exists mainly amongst those who are personified on here as typical contributors to Little Green Footballs.
To explain this, let me step back a little and approach it from a UK and highly personal angle.
A question was posted on one of the later diaries asking what the British attitude was to the takeover of P&O, one of their most famous and oldest established companies. It was answered by LondonYank:
It's not an issue here at all. Brits don't mind (none / 1)
their infrastructure being owned by foreigners.
This is a really free country that is tolerant of anyone investing here. Complete non-issue.
You have to remember that the UK is a member of the European Union, guaranteeing equal treatment to 24 other countries. Adding UAE or anyone else to that list is no big deal.
The press here thinks P&O shareholders made a great deal. That's been the focus. They also think the US objection is racist and ignorant.
I normally agree with LondonYank. He is not wrong in his comment but his answer is very incomplete on this issue. Take, as an example, this reaction at the shareholder's meeting of P & O announcing the sale:
P&O's big City investors have overwhelmingly voted through the £3.92billion sale of the iconic British company to Dubai's DP World despite a last hurrah from mutinous retail shareholders.
In a sometimes stormy meeting at the Wembley Conference Centre, irate retail investors ganged up to accuse the P&O board of selling out to "Johnny Foreigner".
First on his feet was Captain David Hawker, who quickly set a jingoistic tone. "I'm astounded at the ignorance of so many in the business world over understanding the lessons of history. It was after all seafarers who built the British Empire.
"Now I see every business in this country seems to have one object only - to sell out to Johnny Foreigner. If this board couldn't run this business successfully, why didn't you say so."
Glowering at P&O chairman Sir John Parker, he added: "If the Arabs want to buy it, shouldn't you have thought maybe it's worth keeping." He then launched a general attack on Arabs - which he later apologised for and withdrew - before being swiftly interrupted by Sir John.
Maintaining a diplomatic calm, Sir John said he had a "great affection" for P&O and was well versed in its 168-year history.
"I have been in the maritime business for 40 years but that must not get between my fiduciary duty and my duty to shareholders," he said, adding DP World's 520p-a-share bid "maximised value" for the ports and ferries group.
I can understand why, if not sharing his views, the irate Captain Hawker feels the way that he does. My own cousin joined a P & O liner for a time as a break before joining her father's practice after completing medical school. She married one of the ship's officers. I have had to nod, as if I shared the same awe, as she and her husband talked at length about the ships and the P & O reunions and what the company meant to them.
This is not dissimilar to my ex-merchant navy officer brother who goes to all his own reunions and talks fondly of his own shipping line, its demise and the demise of the shipping industry, and how he feels about this sale.
So, LondonYank correctly identifies the political and city reaction to the sale, but does not accurately reflect the so-called "Middle England" reaction.
I have no sympathy, however, with the source of the reaction of the people that I have quoted, putting aside some of the anti-Arab, xenophobic undertones. There are two reasons for this, although I cannot apply these to Captain Hawker simply because I do not know him:
1- I know which side of the police lines these people were on when Margaret Thatcher destroyed the livelihood of the coalminers and their industry.
2- I know which globalisation supporting party these people vote for in an election, and it is solidly conservative.
You see, it is "globalisation", or at least the neocon form of it, that is fundamental to George Bush's automatic and unthinking acceptance of the sale of P&O and the handing over of the management of key US ports to Dubai Ports.
Globalisation demands the free flow of capital across the world. It is not a one way street. It has to be allowed to come into the States as well as flow out of it for globalism, combined with the use of U.S. military supremacy to support U.S. security interests and democracy simultaneously, to work. This is the "New World Order" dream of those such as Charles Krauthammer, who has a direct influence on White House thinking, and Eliot Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Frank Fukuyama, all of whom are "dyed in the wool" neoconservatives.
This is the first lack of intellectual integrity by the Republican net roots. They fail to recognise that the sale of the management of their ports to the Dubai Royal Family is a direct consequence of the type of neo-conservative globalisation for which they happily vote
They cannot pick and choose which parts they like and dislike, and ignore the consequences of the remainder, of this neo-conservative agenda. George Bush offered them the full "carte du jour" menu without alternatives. They chose this at the ballot box in 2004. Now they want to pretend that they did not and want a recount.
There is another lack of intellectual integrity amongst our Republican friends.
First I need to say, so that I am not accused of a lack of intellectual integrity myself, I would probably be accused of being in favour of globalization. This is why I rarely use the word. In fact, I am in favour of the type of liberal internationalism that places me alongside Clinton and Kerry. It would probably gain me a seat with the centrists in the Davos Group but would probably also get me labelled as dangerously "Anglo-Saxon" by the European left. To me, I earnestly believe that properly managed, it is a path to greater world equalisation and peace.
That having been said, I am opposed to the sale of the P & O Group. My reason is to do with jobs, These go far wider than just the company itself.
My concept of international liberalisation does not exclude each nation retaining and developing what economists now call "champion industries". These are those industries that a nation is particularly well fitted to develop and which deserve encouragement from its government and private sector to maintain.
By seniority of position rather than by academic study, I became a member of the prestigious Institute of Transport in the UK. I learnt considerable respect through this for the Logistics Industry and for British achievements in the field of the management of ports and other parts of the transport infrastructure. Our skills in this field are valuable export earners.
The sale of P & O represents not just the handing over of a company, but the handing over of control of a significant part of this industry. So for me, it is about future jobs in the UK.
That is one of the reasons for the way that I vote as I do.
I am not sure how much of this industry will remain in United States hands after the proposed sale, but I am sure some of the same concerns that exist in the UK may apply to an aspect of the future skills in your country.
So to Soj, and to George Bush, my objection to what has happened in my country and my concern for what is being proposed in the US, is not xenophobia. It involves not just your security but it is also about the neo-conservative globalisation agenda and its implications for the way changes in your industries are managed.
To Little Green Footballers I would ask if they have fully thought through the implications that the neo-conservative agenda has for their middle class voters. If they haven't, they should and, whether they vote for another party or a different form of Republicanism, they should get rid of this current administration fast.
Cross posted from ePluribus Media