Winnowhead

Dubai Port Deal In Terms of Privatization

2006-03-09T13:52:00.000-08:00

The machinations going on in Republican circles over the Dubai ports deal is interesting in a number of ways. We have knee-jerk partisans putting aside their typical xenophobia towards the Arab world, and supporting their man Bush. We also have a prime example, with Social Security Privatization a close second, of Republican representatives and talking heads breaking rank with the administration in an attempt to keep the self-crowned "party of national security" label intact.

Now, the question of whether this particular company would be a security risk to U.S. ports is debatable, and there are enough people on all sides of the political spectrum voicing in.

But a question I haven't heard asked, and one I believe Democratic party is missing the beat on, is this: Is it in the interest of national security to turn over the operation of our ports to any private company?

I don't know the full history of who has operated our ports throughout history. But we have certainly had a supreme addiction to privatization in recent years, and the justifications are often times flawed. Any apparent financial savings are often the direct result of lack of unionization of the workforce; hence lower labor costs. The process of turning over critical operations of our government to private sector companies can lead to corruption and cronyism in the worse case, or the appearance of cronyism at best.

But, putting that aside...

Our nation's ports are fundamentally important. In the aftermath of Katrina, our economy experienced first hand the effects of a non-functioning port. Does it make sense for us to outsource such a fundamental function to anyone?

Blog: Calling All Wingnuts

2006-02-24T12:49:00.000-08:00

I just encountered this great blog: Calling All Wingnuts. Mike Start, the operator, has made an artform of calling, and getting on, right-wing talk radio. Each day he posts several new clips of him sparring on air - while some miss base, many are hits.

What is particularly interesting to me is the extremes to which one has to go to get a point in on these moderated, tightly controlled soapboxes that O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al, have at their disposal. Jeremy Glick on The O'Reilly Factor is hard not to think of.

LGF: Publishing Abu Ghraib Photos Is Un-American

2006-02-16T08:50:00.000-08:00

Speaking of Salon.com's decision to print a few of the new Abu Ghraib images:

No word on how this oh-so-courageous defense of the “world’s right to know” fits with their craven refusal to publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

Is the media the enemy because they published the photos, or because they aren't publishing the phophet cartoons "enough"?

This little rhetorical argument is is pretty weak, and clearly the implication is that Salon is publishing these for partisan reasons. Well, guess what? Maybe they are. But who cares: what was done in our name in Abu Ghraib is despicable, and you are implicitly defending it. Way to go.

Conservative = Bush Apologist?

2006-02-13T01:08:00.000-08:00

Jonah Goldberg at the NRO:

It used to be that abortion, affirmative action etc defined who liberals would celebrate. Now, all it takes is going after Bush.

On the contrary, it used to be that corruption in the halls of the U.S. Capitol and White House was unacceptable across the political spectrum. Today, the blind allegiance conservatives hold toward Bush force them to make the bogus assumption that every action of "their man" Bush represents their conservative values.

On the surface this is much worse that just turning a blind eye to warrantless wiretaps, the detention of uncharged "enemy combatants," the torture of detainees in Iraq, the leaking of classified information for political purposes, etc; irregardless of the corruption, Bush is perhaps the most unconservative president in modern times. Since when are record deficits - increased spending plus large tax cuts - conservative? Unprovoked wars of choice? The claim of unchecked executive power?

Cheney Shooting Coverage Delay

2006-02-12T23:18:00.000-08:00

NEW YORK The more than 18-hour delay in news emerging that the Vice President of the United States had shot a man, sending him to an intensive care unit with his wounds, grew even more curious late Sunday. E&P has learned that the official confirmation of the shooting came about only after a local reporter in Corpus Christi, Texas, received a tip from the owner of the property where the shooting occured and called Vice President Cheney's office for confirmation.

Did Fox News Forget To Screen GOP Guest?

2006-02-12T22:13:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Fox News this morning:

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., said a full investigation is necessary [into the Cheney/Libby classified leak scandal]. "I don't think anybody should be releasing classified information, period, whether in the Congress, executive branch or some underling in some bureaucracy," said Allen, who appeared with Reed on "Fox News Sunday."

The President and I

2006-02-12T21:46:00.000-08:00

American sentiment ridiculed

2006-02-12T20:58:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Little Green Footballs, we have this choice post. Without refuting Gore's comments in anyway, we see the insinuation that questioning our dear leader, in the midst of (gasp) Arabs, is the height of treason.

The new FISA spin

2006-02-12T14:19:00.000-08:00

The spin of supposed previous wiretapping continues with an example of surveillance during the Carter administration in 1977. The fact that FISA wasn't signed into law until 1978 apparently is irrelevant.

When the President does it...

2006-02-12T13:52:00.000-08:00

Senator Roberts via Think Progress:

In other words, the Constitution gives President Bush absolute power as long as he’s extra careful.

Cheney Hunting Accident

2006-02-12T13:26:00.000-08:00

"The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."

The Post's Deborah Howell

2006-02-12T11:14:00.000-08:00

Washington Post editor Jim Brady, in today's (Sunday) paper, is continuing to repeat the Republican wet dream: Abramoff "directed" his tribal clients to give money to Democratic candidates.

Why this storyline is being parrotted by a supposively respectable newspaper, I would like to know. Democratic candidates received less money from the tribal interests represented by Abramoff after he started lobbying him than before. At the same time, Republican candidates and "charities" more than doubled their share.

But if the indirect evidence isn't enough, it's on the Times' (and other media outlets) to prove that 1) Abramoff directed money to Democrats, and 2) There was some how a tit for tat involved. Otherwise, these insinuations, clearly intended to help Republicans save face, are worthless.

Too many blogs

2006-02-11T14:33:00.000-08:00

How many worthless blogs exist? Supposively 75,000 new ones a day. Here's mine.

Writing (and communing with satan) in beautiful Madison, WI, I'll post comments and interesting tidbits now and then. Or not.