Politics Update
The city and county finally have a deal to get the Banks project underway. And it's all thanks to John Cranley. He is the only one that ever gets anything done around there. I can't wait until he takes over for Chabot. In the meantime, I am glad to see they are looking for developers to buid my future home.
Though Cincinnati has no ports, people in the city are really getting excited about Bush's lack of approval on this apparently threatening deal. Since I found out about it yesterday morning, I have already heard from my mom, dad, Grandma, and even Tony Scherpenberg. Although I understand that most of Cincinnati seems to be upset with the situation, I can't believe they are whole-heartedly disagreeing with the President that they elected. Though my thoughts aren't exactly in line with the city that I hope to elect me someday, I feel that I may need to make my case... (and I'm stealing this from someone somewhere)...
The UAE is not considered a threat to America. If anything, they are an ally for establishing peace and democracy in the middle east. The fact that these ports were being run by a foreign company before (by another country we consider an ally) means that we should not treat the new company (and their country) any differently just because they speak another language or practice a different faith. In fact, any action on our part to prohibit or significantly delay this deal from going down might be perceived as a insult to Muslims and Arabs everywhere, even if they are already on our side. The last thing we need right now is to turn even more friends into enemies especially in that part of the world.
I think it's also great that President Bush will be in Cincinnati today to attend a fund-raising dinner in Indian Hill. He will be surrounding himself will die-hard conservatives, including Billy Cunningham, who might just have been pushed over the edge with Bush's incompentance. First, the increased spending, then the immigration policy, and now this port security fiasco. I have a feeling that Billy will have a few words to share with old W.

5 Comments:
I don't think the UAE problem is as simple as you make it seem. You have to remember something like 3 of the guys who plotted and carried out 9/11 were from UAE and the terror project was funded with money run through UAE. There are ties to terrorist cells throughout the Middle East and the surrounding area, and although ideally it would be nice to approach the port situation in the way you propose, I don't think many people share your feelings.
The terrorists from 9/11 also learned to fly in the US at US schools and used US money to purchase plane tickets on US flights. Should we not let a US company run the ports then? You are still discriminating, Mr. Anonymous.
No, but we should allow domestic spying.
Also, there is a difference between a private company and one that is owned by the state.
No kidding. And given what we're talking about, I think I'd trust a state-owned company more.
The UAE government doesn't harbor terrorists.
no crap it is discrimination. i am saying your picture of the ideal world is ridiculous at a time where the middle east and the islamic nations are in an uproar over US involvement in their affairs and offensive cartoons. if the south stills look at the color of an american's skin as a mean to discriminate decades after slavery was abolished, try getting the country to back a middle eastern country to regulate our ports, 5 years after an attack on US soil. look at the bipartisan support against the turnover. That says something in a congress that is divide so strongly. how about the US spend some of their defense money [i think the US budget for defense is larger than the next 17 countries combined] to regulate the ports, or to invest in a US company to regulate the port. our ports are not a mean to promote diplomacy with the middle east.
Here's a random, kind of off topic question: What is going happen first, the term crusade being applied to the US effort or iraqi civil war?
Post a Comment
<< Home