Dennis comes through

Thursday, February 23, 2006
Over the last few days while I have watched conservative pundits and bloggers and Hillary Clinton and Chucky Schumer savage George W. Bush for allowing A-rabs to actually do business in and with America I have been amazed at the sheer lack of real information.

We hear and see preening, posturing, race baiting, hysteria, the artful use of irrelevant factoids, back stabbing, betrayal and downright stupidity. Despite what some folks have said to the contrary the business deal between Dubai and P&O is not like outsourcing WW2 to the Axis. And of course there is the usual weeping at Bush's incompetence when it comes to public relations. George Bush is not only responsible for what he says and does, he is responsible for what everyone says and does. Puhleaze, some people like to bitch and moan and whine. It is what they do. Trying to make them happy is a waste of time. It is like a conveyor belt, as soon as one media/pundit/politician inflated...invented...crisis passes from the public scene another takes its place. Bush might as well try to manage a...tsunami or a hurricane. {Oh yeah, we have already been through that have we not?} Meanwhile real problems are overlooked and ignored.

Well excuse me but just what was Bush supposed to do about the xenophobic reactions of people who tend to shoot their mouths off any and every time a camera and a mike comes near? And all I can say about a lot of the blogosphere has been said better by Dennis the Peasant. He has provided some real facts for a change and his essay on Playing the Muslim Card which is directed at folks like Michelle Malkin is, I think, right on. I used to like Michelle, but what I see her doing here is going to help Hillary Clinton a lot more than it is any conservative. I think it is self-serving, short-sighted and more than a little hysterical...and maybe just a little bigoted.

But hey, her traffic is way up so it is all good.

From Dennis:

The sale of Peninsular and Oriental to Dubai World Ports gives the United Arab Emirates access to roughly 18% of one-half of one of the seven Port Authority port facilities that handle cargo, as well as access to the Port Authority’s only passenger ship terminal. And as we’ve pointed out over the past several days, the Port Authority and the appropriate federal agencies still retain all security responsibilities for the facilities in question.

So this – what I’ve described above – is exactly what the likes of Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Malkin and Markos Moulitsas are actually talking about when they say the sale of P&O to DPW means “turning over American ports to foreign governments”... As well as what they mean by “being serious about port security”.


Go check it out, he has real facts on this deal as well as a previous deal with a Chinese company which went unnoticed by the not so vigilant Opposition. At last...facts.

Update from Dennis:


If hordes of swarthy Arabs and/or Muslims are allowed by the cunning sheiks of the United Arab Emirates to use Peninsular and Orient/Dubai Ports World’s facilities at the Port Newark Container Terminal, they should be aware that P&O is only a 50% partner – they’ll need to subvert the other 50%, too. That’s owned by A.P. Moeller-Maersk of Copenhagen,Denmark.

read it all.

I wonder what impact this will have on Malkin's Buy Danish campaign?

31 comments:

Eric Blair said...

Dennis is a very interesting fellow. When he zeroes in on something, you can expect very coherent and enlightening commentary.

David Thomson said...

Dennis the Peasant apparently spent only a few hours to find out this information. What in hell is the MSM doing? They normally have far more time to do this sort of research. And yet, once again these so-called professionals have failed to do their duty.

Peter UK said...

This was also posted on your "I see a Bad Meme Rising" thread 8:30

Peter UK said...

Security gaps already plague ports WSJ

Knucklehead said...

Dennis did good work on this. For giggles I decided to see how difficult it is to find out what P&O manages in the PATH NY/NJ port system (you'll have to click your way to "Facilities and Services").

Dennis mentioned that the have one freight terminal (the Port Newark Container Terminal) and one passenger terminal. This was not any attempt to check Dennis' work, I'm just curious how hard it is to find the sort of information I, among others, am complaining that the Presse ancienne is not providing.

It took roughly 2 minutes to find where Dennis got his info (he told where he got it but he didn't link so the 2 minutes was spent googling up the website and then drilling in deep enough to find P&O's Home to Our Business (Ports) to P&O Ports (New York/New Jersey) to Port of Newark Container Terminal.

OK, so everything DtP said checks out. P&O has just one of the freight terminals in the PATH of NY/NJ system. I'll tell ya though, its the Big Kahuna as far as freight terminals in that system goes. You gotta be a port or freight terminal junkie sorta person to not be awestruck by that facility as you pass by it (if you're ever going south from NYC down the NJ Turpike, as you get in the vacinity of Newark Airport look left, you can't miss it).

But I've digressed. While I was at the P&O site, the last link I gave above, for some reason I noticed the scrollbar and decided to scroll down where I saw these two little tidbits about the PNCT: P&O Shareholding: 50% and PNCT website.

The synergy created by the combined, longstanding industry experience of P&O Ports in terminal development and operations and A.P. Moeller-Maersk in ocean transportation and water-side operations, the introduction of modern equipment, state-of-the-art cranes, IT management technology and highly trained ILA labor...

O&P doesn't own one of seven PATH-NY/NT freight terminals in the NY harbor area, they own one-half of one of seven freight terminals. Their partner is A.P. Moller-Maersk (buy Danish!).

I don't have time to continue digging at the moment. I'm curious about the passenger terminal. I'll look that one up later. And that leaves 5 or six other ports. But the "research" to find out the above was minutes - ten or less. No special training or skills required. If you can operate a browser and mouse and have minimal levels of curiosity you can find that stuff easy. It took FAR longer to type this up and do the HTML.

If one digs down into any of this story to try and understand things even a little, and then goes back and reads the info-free tripe that passes for "journalism", one starts to wonder if they are that bad or if they are deliberately trying to influence public perceptions (I know,I know).

Eric Blair said...

"Presse ancienne".

Heh. That's funny. I like that. I'm going to use that.

Dymphna said...

knuncklehead said
Presse ancienne -- oh I love it. A phrase worth stealing. I shall put a credit for it the first, say, half a dozen times I use it...

Dennis the P, whose writing style I admire, has his own axe to grind here...but I haven't been back since this first broke, so perhaps he's got more info.

Has anyone checked out the process that the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US uses to make its decisions on this kind of thing? the UAE's DPO bought up (with the approval of the stockholders)British P&O. Does anyone even know which part of the bureaucracy has oversight on this Committee?

DPO also bought up a bunch of CSX portals here last year and no one made a deal about it. So rolling stock is less a terror risk than ports? I don't think so.

I am, like you, appalled at the dust up. So much ranting you can't see for the dust up. My initial knee jerk reaction was "oh, Lord. Do we need a company at least 51% owned by a state which has repeatedly given aid and abetted our sworn enemies and serves as a conduit for much of the terrorist $$. THey were friends of M. Atta's?" And then I started looking into it...after all, Bush has his flaws, but his patriotism is not on the table.

As far as I can tell, this was a piss poor job of PR. The administration should know the mood of the country. Post 9/11 we jump at shadows...I think the reaction blindsided the admin because they didn't consider the aura attached to "foreign investment by M.E. company" vs. "foreign investment by Brit company." Much as I like Bush's foreign policy (mostly)I cannot understand his tone deaf approach sometimes. To say he is going to finally, after 5 years, use his veto power on a bill --even this bad one -- really annoys me. I wouldn't mind so much if he had used it judiciously, ever. I mean he's the guy who signed that disgusting piece of McCain Feingold trash, leaving the mess to the judiciary to clean up. And they haven't. And now McCain has the blogs in his cross hairs.

Knucklehead is correct. None of those lazy journalists bothered to look before they leaped. I put up a chart last night of those who were for, against, and straddling this is.

Some of the "aginners" I can understand for political purposes. Like the mayors of the cities involved, say Balti and NY. But the others are simply poseurs, hoping for an issue before the elections.

I suggest Larry Kudlow's blog. He calls it "Islamophobia" which is harsh. People, regular folks who don't look under the hood, are afraid, and rightly so, especially with all the arrests going down in the last fortnight by the FBI, etc. One blog, The Middle Ground, blames this rash of outings on the NYT, the old grey doxy, outing the NSA. She says what they did probably forced the hand of domestic intelligence and they had to "roll up" their investigations.

As I said yesterday, if Lincoln were in charge, those beasties at the NYT would be in jail with the other terrorists.

As for Moller-Maersk....hmmm. That's the dark side of the Danes. Talk about sharks! But I'll save it for my post today or I'll never get anything written.

Thanks for this post, Terrye. A much needed balance. Funny thing is, I woke up this morning thinking "I wonder what YAGB is saying about this issue."

Won't stay away so long from now on...

And if you have time, look up "The Middle Ground." I haven't blogrolled her yet and I'm behind on my work and suffering an incipient migraine, so excuse the lack o' links. She should google easily enough.

Right now, I gotta go rustle up my essay on Maersk and on port security.

Knucklehead said...

Dymphna (and Eric),

Thanks for the kind words. Feel free to use the Press ancienne schtick and no need to cite - I doubt I'm the first to use it although I didn't knowingly steal it from anywhere ;)

I'm looking forward to your report about Maersk.

Regarding the Bush administrations failings in matters of "Press" or "Public" relations, on the surface it seems they are something approaching inept. But I cannot see how it can be any different. I don't see how "talent" or skill in PR can overcome an Press Ancienne that is relentlessly hostile. There is seemingly nothing, no matter how big or small the matter, that the PA will not immediately throw a shrieking hissey fit about. What mechanisms are available for the administration to pre-empt the sort of hissey fits we see about this port deal?

Here is the CFIUS site. According to answers.com/wikepedia (same thing in this case) CFIUS is an inter-agency committee chaired by Treasury including eleven government agencies including Treasury, DoD, Homeland Security, Commerce and Allah knows who else. I haven't discovered the full list yet.

How should the administration go about "sitting down with the American public" to explain how this deal was vetted? The only way to talk to the American people is through the Press Ancienne. From the CFIUS site, here are:

Factors To Be Considered. The Exon-Florio provision lists the following factors that the President or his designee may consider in determining the effects of a foreign acquisition on national security. These factors are:

(1) domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements;

This deal doesn't seem to be of any particular interest here. This isn't production, it is freight handling.

(2) the capability and capacity of domestic industries to meet national defense requirements, including the availability of human resources, products, technology, materials, and other supplies and services;

Idunno? Does this matter? Freight handlers, big and small, coastal or inland, air, sea, land, are owned and operated by US firms and firms from every corner of the globe.

(3) the control of domestic industries and commercial activity by foreign citizens as it affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security;

Here, it seems to me, is a key factor for consideration. Have the eleven agencies satisfied themselves that the ownership, by the UAE government and whatever private investors own DW, affects the capability and capacity of the US to meet the requirements of national security in this case of some portion of freight and passenger handling in some portion of US ports?

It would be nice if somehow the administration could get the public's attention long enough to say, "Heh, here are the big issues and here's why we're satisfied. Here's a map of the UAE. The DoD is real happy with the UAE's cooperation and the basing in strategic location overlooking the Persian Gulf, Straits of Hormuz, and Gulf of Oman. We like it there and we'd like to stay. Homeland Security says..." and so on.

How do they go about that? Do they send the major agency heads out to hit the Sunday morning talk shows? If so, does the PA cooperate or do they start their hissey fit just that much sooner?

I don't see the mechanism. Maybe they should broadcast Radio Free America domestically. Maybe they should demand time on NPR and PBS for all the funding the taxpayer sends that way.

(4) the potential effects of the transaction on the sales of military goods, equipment, or technology to a country that supports terrorism or proliferates missile technology or chemical and biological weapons; and

Well, this shouldn't be a big issue. We sell the UAE military technology and get basing rights in return. Perhaps they've engaged in the proliferation stuff, perhaps not, or perhaps they've quietly helped us with those matters. I don't think we want to blather too much if that latter is the case.

(5) the potential effects of the transaction on U.S. technological leadership in areas affecting U.S. national security.

Ummm... doesn't seem particularly applicable.

This seems to boil down, IMHO, to whether or not DoD and Homeland Security are satisfied that this deal either helps or doesn't hurt. Nothing in the factors to be considered suggests that whether or not a childish PA or an ill-informed public is going to start frothing about the deal.

Knucklehead said...

The deal is dead. Nothing can survive:

Dubai Ports is lining up powerful supporters to persuade skeptical lawmakers the deal is a good idea. Even before the controversy erupted, the company had hired Bob Dole's law and lobbying firm, Alston & Bird LLC, to win approval for the deal. The Albright Group, led by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also has been trying to speak with members of Congress. (link: AP - Senators Say Ports Deal Raises Risks)

Which reminds me of a time I made my poor, teenage daughter, misbehave in a public forum. She was doing the "college search" schtick and we were sitting in a big auditorium listening to a speaker during the "info session" tell us how many Albright Scholars they'd produced or had on the faculty or whatever and I tapped her and whispered, "I was a half-bright scholar". Not the least bit original and quite corny, but she found it hilarious and read me the riot act later for making her laugh while someone was speaking.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

I think everyone of good intent will agree that it's good to get facts rather than wallow in hysteria. And in this case hysteria has definitely been the rule. Still, it is foolish to dismiss our feelings out of hand. Many studies, psychological and mathematical, have highlighted the fact that feelings can sometimes be a better guide than reason.

You really hit the nail on the head here:
It is like a conveyor belt, as soon as one media/pundit/politician inflated...invented...crisis passes from the public scene another takes its place.

That, in essence, is what the presse ancien does. They stir up trouble every single day, if possible, because trouble is what sells newspapers, trouble is what garners eyeballs on the TV screens.

Add to this the egregious behavior of the disloyal opposition. My considered opinion is that Hillary holds no real beliefs or moral values whatsoever. She is simply trying to find issues with traction. Her husband is a smart enough pol to realize that unless the Republicans can be peeled off of the security issue the Democrats don't have a hope in hell of winning a major election. How to reconcile the security issue with the Kossacks is quite a conundrum. What better way to blindside the Republicans than emphasizing their security failings in a a couple of blue states (+Florida--bonus points!) with a union workforce--c'est parfait, as Kerry would say.

And yes, on both sides of the aisle we have some irrational anti-Arab, anti-Muslim fever.

The problem with the disloyal opposition is the same as with the boy who cried wolf: there sometimes really are real dangers out there.

I have yet to see a truly dispassionate and enlightening discussion of this whole matter but I am not going to lie awake tonight waiting for one. I will point out though that it is very possible that the Schumers and Hillarys and Malkins are right.

As for Bush, I think contrasting him to Lincoln is enlightening. Lincoln labored night and day to bring all and sundry on board for his war, writing incessantly to every influential pressman or politician who would listen. Bush by contrast has a "screw you" attitude which makes defending his actions far more difficult than it needs to be. Were he to play divide-and-conquer on the hostile presse ancien, rather than treating them wholesale as the enemy, he and we would probably have far more success.

terrye said...

Dymphna:

Hello. I read somewhere that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States was established by Congress in 1979 to oversee [of all things] foreign investment.

I agree with knucklehead, there is no way the Bushies could have done PR for this. In fact if anything it would have made people more suspicious. I remember the incredible effort they put into selling Social Security reform. The result? The AARP runs ads telling America Bush is trying to destroy the system and the Democrats refuse to even think about offering an alternative of their own. Besides, when the Bush people do PR it is called propaganda.

When I heard about the deal I did not think Oh my God the people who flew planes into buildings are taking over our harbors and ports and are going to kill us all. Silly me. I thought well, one great big company is buying another great big company. I knew enough Arab business majors years ago at IU to know these guys don't just freak out at cartoons of Mohammed or blow people up, some of them actually run businesses.

The outgoing CEO of Dubai is Edward Bilkey, a retired US Naval Officer. In fact a great many people in the management of this company are Americans. So this is a company with a lot of American contacts and personnel.

Dennis may have his own axe to grind, but then it is beginning to look like a lot of people do too.

Other than Congress passing a Raghead Need Not Apply law I honestly do not understand how we can stop this company from buying a British company.

BTW, several other countries [like Australia and Britain and China] will be effected by this deal and they are not creating conspiracy theories around the deal. Not yet anyway.

terrye said...

MHA:

Lincoln was hated as much or more than he was loved in his time and not just by people in the south. He was also murdered by someone who failed to feel included.

I think if we try to compare Bush and Lincoln we have to remember that the press ridiculed Lincoln as a hick and a hayseed and a tyrant and he was not above having people who questioned his authority in time of war locked up. So we can only take these comparisons so far.

As for Bush's screw you attitude, well I think it was acquired. He used to really work at reaching out but he drew back a nub one too many times I think. It might be that this is a personal failing on his part, but I can't imagine living with the kind of mindless hatred directed at him and his family all day every day.

I am on Day 2 of life without TV news, but I did slip up and turn on NPR while in the car this morning. Well there was Professor Yoo being interviewed by some young reporter who was doing his best to get Yoo to say that Bush personally authorized torture. In fact one of the things done to one stone cold killer was [dare I say it]forcing him to wear women's underwear. The reporter was hostile to say the least.

I got this picture in my head of Bush saying: "I want that murdering son of a camel effer in panties, right now!!!!"

And I began to lose it. It was just so stupid. I turned the radio off and went back to my audio book. That is the press.

Knucklehead said...

MHA,

it is very possible that the Schumers and Hillarys and Malkins are right.

It is possible they are correct but they aren't doing any better at articulating their position than the administration is. They are screaming in "righteous" anger, demanding that an explanation be forthcoming that will dampen their righteous anger, but there is nothing in their screaming that tells us what is righteous about it.

I've been looking for a way to get on board with the antis in this one and I can't find it. "Just because" isn't good enough.

The demand on the Bush administration seems to be that they counter the arguments of the opposition. What are those arguments? And, as with the Myers nomintation thing, the shrieking is coming from left and right. The left we can toss. They are against it for no other reason than that Bush is for it.

The opposition right, on the other hand, isn't offering any reasons I can detect to join them. Just as an example, consider this OpinionJournal piece from Peggy Noonan, If Cattle Flew.

Noonan is normally a reasonably sensible person. But what she's got there is a screed about the poor customer service skills of the TSA that she's trying to disuise as righteous anger about airport security. She relentlessly claims that the TSA has lost sight of its primary mission which is providing security for the flying public. But what she screeds about is that the TSA sucks at being nice and gentle with the flying public. Well, it would be nice if they were just swell and smiled like an Avis counter rep, but that isn't their primary mission. The terrorists haven't gotten control of an airliner since the TSA came into being. There's no room in that to make some claim that they are inept just because they are gruff.

Perhaps a bad example but...

I fly a fair bit. Going through the security stuff is not particularly pleasant but that doesn't mean it is insecure. And her $800 cigarette lighter Englishman? Who cares! The guy should have paid some attention to what he could and couldn't take on an airplane and put the damn thing into his checked bag or shipped it ahead to his hotel or left it at home. The system isn't there to get his respect and admiration. Its there to stop him from bringing his freakin' cigarette lighter on an airplane.

Knucklehead said...

I'm still fuming about Peggy and her $800 cigarette lighter Englishman. If the guy can afford $800 cigarette lighters and vacations to the US he can afford to think ahead and have a pre-paid US Mail overnight envelope in his carryon bag.

I could just hear Peggy if the TSA allowed a bunch of hijackers on an airplane because the crap they were carrying wasn't just ordinary, cheapo crap but expensive, heirloom kinda crap. What the heck is that woman thinking? That's what my mom always called "waking up on the wrong side of the bed". She shoulda waited until she was less grumpy to write that dopey article. I'm tempted to open an Opinion Journal comment account just to yell at her.

Rick Ballard said...

Terrye,

You are a treasure. I thought so when I first read your comments at Roger's place and I haven't stopped thinking so since.

Yours truly,

Cynical Heartless Loon

Knucklehead said...

Terrye,

As for Bush's screw you attitude, well I think it was acquired. He used to really work at reaching out but he drew back a nub one too many times I think. It might be that this is a personal failing on his part, but I can't imagine living with the kind of mindless hatred directed at him and his family all day every day.

I'm with you on this. The demonstrated attitude of the MSM toward Bush is, "We hate you! We hate you first time, every time. We are going to spit, hiss, and scream at every move you make and every word you say. Nothing you can do or say is going to change that. We hated you on Day One and we'll hate you the day you leave office and we'll hate you as long as we draw breath." What possible point is there in trying to change that attitude. It doesn't matter what he says to them. They aren't the least bit interested in listening and they aren't the least bit interested in changing their attitude.

That part is hopeless. He has to go do what he thinks needs doing. He's a stronger person than I am. I would have flipped the bastards the bird and hocked a wad of phlegm at them some time around Day Four.

terrye said...

Cynical Heartless Loon:

Right back at you.

Rick Ballard said...

Knuck,

I keep returning to the President's ability to achieve consensus while Governor of Texas. He did an outstanding job of reaching accross the aisle and compromising to achieve what could be achieved - the very definition of politics.

When examining his actions I always return to "Was the action consonant with the previous word?", I have yet to see an action that fails that test. Not that I'm happy with every action taken - I regard the withdrawal of the Mier's nomination to be an act of expediency that was unjustified. And I ain't real happy with him signing CFR - although I understand that telling McCain to stuff it would not have been well received on the Rep side of the aisle in the Senate.

History will be much kinder to this man than the current drivel issuing from the propaganda organs might ever lead one to imagine.

chuck said...

If the guy can afford $800 cigarette lighters and vacations to the US he can afford to think ahead and have a pre-paid US Mail overnight envelope in his carryon bag.

Hell, he could walk to the nearest terminal shop and mail it home. Like I did my pocket knife -- the shop had all I needed, it wasn't like I was the first.

The only things I have lost were a small pair of cheapo folding scissors with 1" rounded blades -- I thought that a bit too zealous -- and a $1.25 cigarette lighter. No problem with the latter, the only shop at the Bakersfield airport was happy to sell me matchbooks -- it wasn't as if I was the first ;)

terrye said...

knucklehead:

Peggy is a snob. I have sent stuff by mail before when I travel. In fact I do not check baggage. That is why God made washing machines.

I have thought about what I would do if I was Bush. Right now I would be tempted to ask Michelle Malkin if Filipinos should be allowed to do security work or go anywhere near ports and planes in the US considering the never ending ongoing chronic battles that are fought in the Phillipines with Islamists. One generation removed??? I dunno, better safe than sorry. Profiling and not fair. Ah well, life is tough.

If I were Bush I might be tempted to tell them if they think it is so damn easy let them run for the job and put their money, their time and their sanity where their big fat mouths are.

The point is these people just jumped without even bothering to get the facts. I bet most of them have no idea how many foreign companies own property in the US. Like I said the Australians are leasing a toll road here in Indiana and the locals are not happy.

terrye said...

Rick:

Yes, Bush was not only successful in Texas he was well thought of.

I think it has to do with:

The Clinton impeachment and the huge chip on the shoulder of the national Democratic party and their friends.

The 2000 election and the belief among many that the election was stolen and the rampant paranoia which ensued.

The trauma of 9/11 and the need to blame it and all that comes from it on someone safe, who will be gone by 2009. In other words---fear.

I agree, history will see this time very different than we do.

Knucklehead said...

Chuck,

It just isn't that wildly difficult, is it. Arrive early. I never fly though La Guardia but I can't believe the "thousand people in line" stuff. Get a grip, Peggy. It was probably more like 80 or 90 people. And how hard is it to watch the long line of people ahead of you and do what they do. Take yer freakin' shoes off. Take yer freakin' coat off. Put 'em in the bins. Pull your laptop computer out of the bag. Leave your penknife at home or ship it ahead. It is inconvenient for everyone and it is going to be more inconvenient when you're hauling along a brat in a stroller. Get over it.

flenser said...

A reasonably good news piece from the NYT of all places.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

flenser,

The link contains this line:
the Department of Homeland Security, whose failures after Hurricane Katrina will be the centerpiece on Thursday of a White House-directed report on "lessons learned" from the multiple failures in the devastation of New Orleans.

That's where I stop reading. Lies piled upon lies.

I happen to know for a fact that huge amounts of effort were shifted from terrorist-security to hurricane-relief following the presse ancien's feeding frenzy over Katrina, led by the Slimes. I happen to know that this shift of resources has halted several very promising technologies in their tracks. I can't tell you how. If the Slimes now wants to get on its high horse now that port security is inadequate and that the "failure" of the Katrina efforts are proof of this--well, I just can't handle the gall. Pardon me while I go have a technicolor yawn.

Knucklehead said...

The NYT piece is sorta more or less foggily OK, but why do they and all the other press accounts have to go and promote inaccurate nonsense like:

...the $6.8 billion deal that would give a Dubai company management of six American ports... The deal would transfer the leases for ports in New York, Baltimore and Miami, among others...

It is not PORTS that are being leased. It is container (and in one case a passenger) terminals in five US ports (the sixth port city is Vancouver which, last I checked, we hadn't conquered away from Canada yet).

In NY/NC this is 50% of the container terminal in Port Newark. There are various other terminal in Port Newark and Port Newark is just one of six or seven large terminal areas with the PATH of NY/NJ area. There are also numerous "private" terminals scattered throughout the area (owned by particular companies rather than being "public" terminal facilities.

In Baltimore this represents 100% of two (the container terminals) of six public and eight private terminals. In Miami, close as I can figure, it is 50% ownership of one of three container terminals which are only part of the frieght terminals and Miami is a big passenger area. I haven't figured out New Orleans (and won't bother) and the facilities in Phila aren't listed.

There are no end of other ports in the US, many, many, freight and other terminals, and a whole lot of them are leased by non-US companies either in whole or part.

Why can't the "Paper of Record" tell us the straight scoop? Why does this have to be presented as "The UAE will control the port in New York and other US cities"? That just isn't the case.

elemental said...

I can't believe it took this incident for you to see that Malkin was a bit bigoted. Whatever else happens, if more people realize that the better, no matter what the motivation might be.

terrye said...

elemental:

Well to be truthful I have had my doubts about Malkin before, but she is right about somethings. But then that could be said for a lot of people.

terrye said...

knuck:

I have wondered, is this so much different from buying or leasing a terminal at an airport?

I mean airports are kind of a no mans land. And there are terminals, and gates etc.

It would seem to me that characterizing this as the purchase of a port [which when you think about it is bizarre] would be like saying that United Airlines bought Dallas Fort Worth International Airport if they leased a terminal there, and by extension if a foreign company bought United...saying that a foreign company or entity is taking over Dallas Fort Worth..make sense?

chuck said...

Why can't the "Paper of Record" tell us the straight scoop?

Because they don't know and haven't the skills to find out. I am convinced that journalism as a profession that digs up information no longer exist. What we have instead is a propagandist's guild where attitude counts for everything.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

chuck,

I'm afraid you're right as usual.

Rick Ballard said...

elemental,

We're sorters and sifters here. Not many believers around. Malkin say some true things and some things that don't withstand close scrutiny.

Try and figure who we hold up as an absolute truth teller and get back to us with a name.