February 2006 Archives

It hasn't been hard to notice that the Democrats have been pushing hard against the Dubai Ports deal. Now that they think it can be used as a hammer against President Bush, the Democrats have begun arguing that the UAE cannot be trusted to own a company that runs part of our country's import/export infrastructure. Apparently, they noticed that the UAE is a middle-eastern country full of arabs and muslims, and have reached another point where it is politically advantageous to play racism for votes.

This may be a great move for the Democrats. They have seen some of their best support when they've used racism as the basis for their policies. They have a long history of success in this area.

In the pre-Civil War days, the Democrats fought long and hard to ensure that blacks in this country did not receive recognition as full citizens, or indeed as full human beings. They and the Whigs were united in one regard. They both believed that slavery was an institution worth saving, and that black people should be kept in their place. That place was on the plantation. It wasn't until the rise of the Republican Party that real opposition to slavery began to take hold. The Republicans knew that the abolition of slavery would hurt them politically, primarily in the Southern states. Abolition turned the South into a major Democrat stronghold for decades, where laws continued to be passed by Democrats to limit the ability of blacks to take part in society as equals.

Over the next few decades, Democrats spent a lot of effort on keeping blacks in their places. This meant a multitude of laws requiring that they be restricted from eating near white people, using white-only bathrooms, drink from white-only water fountains, riding in the front of the bus, or generally having the same rights as white people. This was the norm in the Democrat-controlled Southern states for a long time.

In the 1960s, something changed. Although the Democrats were firmly in control of the federal government, a groundswell of popular support in the country began to see where Democrat racist policies were not such a good idea. The idea that black people should be seen as equals across the country began to gain ground. Although blacks still couldn't vote in the Democrat-controlled Southern states, other areas of the country were beginning to see the light. In 1959, President Eisenhower had introduced what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After years of work, the bill eventually became law. This could not occur, however, until legislative maneuvers were used to get past Democrat Representative Howard Smith of Virginia, chair of the House Rules Committee, and Democrat Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1960, Democrats actually filibustered the bill, succeeding in defeating the measure.

In more recent history, we've seen great advancement in the plight of blacks in America. Blacks have advanced in the arenas of education (Where Democrats once blocked the doors of the school to them), business, sports, and entertainment. Today, some of the highest paid entertainers and athletes in America are black, an indication that the PEOPLE of this country don't care about race. Democrats, though, still play the race card, often arguing that standards in education, admissions, and hiring must be lowered in order to allow the supposedly inferior race to have a chance. Fact is, standards don't need to be lowered. One day, the Democrats will realize that being black doesn't mean being stupid, and stop treating them like they are.

Back to today, we're seeing the Democrats up in arms, having finally decided that race, religion, and national origin are good reasons to oppose a business deal. They've gotten pretty adamant about it. Pretty soon, they'll be standing in the doors of the shipping terminals, blocking arab access. It's their way. They're just standing up for the white people.

Previous Dubai Ports Deal coverage

Dear Applebees,

Last night, my wife and I decided to have an evening out. We surveyed our choices for dinner and decided to go to our local Applebees. We've only been there twice before, and though neither time was entirely satisfactory in the service area, the food was excellent, and the waiters and waitresses fantastic. The service issues seemed to be related to kitchen management.

We left our house at 7pm, and by approximately 7:10 we had our name on the waiting list, having been promised a not-unreasonable 35 minute wait. Due to some drops from the list, we actually had a slightly shorter wait, which was nice. At our table, we quickly made our decisions and placed our order for our dinners as the waitress asked for our drink orders.

To start the meal, we asked for the cheese quesadillas. Our waitress quickly returned with our drinks. As our drinks emptied, she returned with refills. She remarked that we hadn't received our appetizers yet, and went to check on them. A short time later, she came by to check on us and noticed that we still had not received our appetizers. After approximately 20 minutes, we finally received our appetizers, except that the cheese quesadillas we had ordered came as chicken quesadillas. We informed the waitress that we did not mind eating what had arrived, especially considering that a replacement order taking another 20 minutes to arrive could have it arriving during our main course. Little did we know what we were in for.

One hour after we were seated, I checked the time. We still had not received our dinners. People seated just before us were leaving the restaurant, having finished their meals. Recently seated diners were finishing their appetizers. Our waitress comments that we haven't received our meals yet, and that she's checking on them. Apparently, she says, there's trouble in the kitchen, and they are backlogged with tickets.

At one hour and 30 minutes after our seating, we still hadn't received our dinners. At this time, we've been in the restaurant for two hours, and have not seen our dinner. The waitress continues to check on us and our meals. At this time, people who have arrived after us have finished their meals and are leaving.

Finally, at one hour and 35 minutes after seating, we receive our dinners. The waitress is very apologetic, and quite understanding when I request that the manager come to our table to speak to us when she brings our check.

Once we finally received our dinners, everything was excellent. The meat was cooked properly, to both our orders. The sides were fantastic. It was a satisfactory meal, once it arrived. The desserts were a little slower to arrive than I would have expected, but not to the extreme that everything else had been late. Once they arrived, they too were excellent.

As requested, the manager came to our table at the end of our meal. She was very aplogetic, explaining that they had had kitchen issues that evening. She reduced our check by the amount of our desserts, one of which was part of a dinner combo.

I'm not a bridge-burner. I made, and make, no promises I will not return to Applebees for dinner in the future. That said, I do take previous experiences into account when making dinner choices. Having had three visits to your restaurant, all marred by poor kitchen performance, errors and delays, I'll be much less likely to make a fourth trip. With a variety of dinner choices available in our small town, we can easily find a good meal with better kitchen service. Considering that my wife and I usually go out to eat at smaller-scale restaurants, with lower prices, the decision whether to go to Applebees only happens once every couple months. In the future, the chances that Applebees receives the money I choose to spend on a dinner with my wife have dropped dramatically.

The slow service had another impact, as well. Louise, our waitress, lost income. In the time we spent in the restaurant, taking up table space, an additional seating could have taken place. Perhaps two additional seatings could have happened. The result for her was a loss of tips, which is a shame. She was attentive and friendly. She kept our drinks full, and checked back regularly. She deserved better from the evening

I hope that the Sanford, NC Applebees is one day able to one day overcome its shortcomings. At this time, however, I cannot recommend that my friends visit, due to the history of problems I have had there. This third experience was by far the worst.

Thank you,
Dave Walker

There's a bumper sticker I've been seeing a lot more, lately. It reads, "Well behaved women rarely make history." On the surface, it seems to be a call for women to go out and achieve. That's a good idea, but the bumper sticker doesn't SAY that. The slogan, which I've also seen as web banners, taglines, buttons, and in other locations, actually states a negative against "well behaved women." What's more, the statement is an outright lie.

What does this slogan have to say about women in history? I think it degrades their image. Princeton's WordNet defines well behaved as, "someone who behaves in a manner that the speaker believes is correct." A reference is made to "a well behaved child." Is the slogan trying to say that women who act in manners that are not considered correct rarely make history? That can't be true. Let's examine a few examples.

Grace Hopper was born in 1906. She earned a Ph.D. in Mathematics. She was a pioneer in the field of computing. She was called the "Mother of Cobol," because of her contributions to what may be the widest-used programming language to date. In 1986, she retired from the US Navy in 1986 at 80 years old, the oldest member of the Navy in active duty. Her rank was Rear Admiral. This "well behaved woman" died in 1992, and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Claire Booth Luce was an aspiring actress. She was active in the Women's Suffrage movement. She was an editorial assistant for Vogue before becoming an associate editor for Vanity Fair, and then managing editor. Later, she became an acclaimed playwright. During WWII, Claire was a journalist for Life magazine, travelling through Europe, China and other areas of the world. In 1942, Claire easily won a seat in the US House of Representatives representing Connecticutt's fourth district, and was re-elected for a second term. After a conversion to catholicism, she decided not to run for re-election again, instead writing for McCalls magazine, and returning to her playwright work. In 1953, Clair became ambassador to Italy at the appointment of Dwight Eisenhower. In this role, she work to fight communism and helped to settle a dispute between Italy and Yugoslavia. In 1959, Eisenhower appointed Claire ambassador to Brazil. In 1981, Ronald Reagan awarded this "well behaved woman" the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Marie Curie was well-behaved enough to graduate from Sorbonne University in Paris with top honors. While studying for her doctorate, she researched Uranium and discovered radioactivity. Together with her husband, Pierre, Marie researched radioactivity, and discovered Radium and Polonium. While also being a wife and mother, Marie became a pioneer of radioactivity research, and was the first person to ever receive two Nobel prizes.

History is FULL of well-behaved women who made history. Florence Nightingale, Barbara McClintock, Coretta Scott King, Sally Ride, and many other women went on to make history without turning into the kind of woman we would call "ill-behaved."

Of course, the bumper sticker slogan isn't about the truth of women in history. It's about excusing the poor behavior of the woman who would place such a sticker on her car.

There has been a lot of talk, lately, about the security of our ports, as a Dubai-based company is soon to gain control of certain aspects of our container shipping and receiving structure. Concerns about foreign control of these shipping terminals seems rather late, as foreign control is exactly what we've had for years. What's happening is that the British company that has controlled the terminals is being purchased by a company based in Dubai. We're just seeing a transfer of control to a company in another country. More reasonable fears seem to be based in the fact that the company gaining control is in a Middle-Eastern country with potential ties to terrorism. Perhaps these ties are less potential and more actual.

Many of the ports from which containers may be shipped to our shores are already controlled by this Dubai-based company. I believe this is a long-term economic strategy on the part of Dubai to increase its non-oil income. This is a necessary step, as Dubai expects to run out of oil in the next 10 years. Dubai has been taking many steps to replace its oil income, spending billions to create a worldwide economic center and tourist destination. Many world-class hotels have been built, and some other amazing landmarks are being created, as well. Aside from the economic center, they are building a series of huge theme parks, archipelagos in the shape of huge palm trees and even one called The World. Dubai may well be the major tourist destination of the 21st Century.

The major question of the port deal is whether Dubai's control of the container shipping aspects of some of our major ports poses a major strategic threat to America. I do not believe this to be the case. I believe quite the opposite, that having Dubai involved in a major link of our economic chain actually increases our security.

Economics is the key to this analysis. Let's take a look at the feared threats in a bit more detail.

One fear is that having foreign control could have an adverse economic impact on the United States. I do not believe this to be the case. Whichever company controls the container shipping terminals in our ports, that company will create its income by processing ships full of cargo that arrive at, and leave those ports. In order to have a greater income, ships must be processed. Containers must be unloaded from arriving ships and their contents routed to rail and truck services for transport elsewhere in our country. Containers from within our country must be brought in by rail and truck, loaded on ships, and sent elsewhere in the world. That's the business being done at these terminals. Each container processed, and each ship docked, holds a specific dollar value of income for the company involved.

In order for this company to use their control of the ports to damage our economy, they would have to slow the processing of ships and containers. Dubai, in their transitional economic state, isn't trying to reduce their own income in order to hurt the rest of the world. In fact, they're trying to enhance the incomes of the rest of the world to create more customers for their own finance and tourist economy that they are building. It is in the best interest of Dubai to help America improve its own economy, because they can see front-end profits at the shipping terminals, and back-end profits at their theme parks as Americans gain more disposable income.

Why, then, would Dubai want to leverage their control over our ports to reduce the activity at those ports? It makes no sense. Dubai isn't becoming our economic adversary with this move. Instead, they are taking a direct step to make themselves America's economic ally. We could use a few more of those.

Another major fear is that Dubai, through its control of our container shipping facilities at these six major ports, could make us more vulnerable to terrorist threats. I'm not sure that this fear is well-founded, either.

Theoretically, the controlling company of the terminal could allow containers with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to enter America. These weapons, in the hands of terrorists, could be used against a variety of targets. Major targets would be governmental and economic sites. On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked both types of sites. Of those two, the more effective attack was on the economic location of the World Trade Center. For months after the attack, the US economy struggled to rebuild. The damage was done to our financial center, with collateral damage to our manufacturing base, personal incomes and employment.

One major economic target would be the ports themselves. Obviously, an attack on one of the major ports would do serious damage to the ability of the controlling corporation to make an income at that port. To attack one of those major ports would be to damage the economic state of Dubai itself. As self-destructive as Islam is, I doubt that Dubai is interested in cutting its own economic throat by allowing major destruction to its own economic assets. As a side-effect of such an attack, Dubai would likely lose control of other major US ports, as well as major ports it controls in other countries. This would not be a smart move.

So, we can assume that any weapons allowed into our country would not be destined for one of the major ports.

A nuclear weapon brought in through one of these ports may be used on a major city. New York would have to be marked off the list of potential targets, as Manhattan (the obvious target) would allow the blast radius to do great damage to the port in question. Likewise, attacks on the cities hosting the other five major ports would cause damage to the ports in question. An attack on Washington, DC would make more sense from a strategic standpoint. There again, though, some factors must be taken into account. For once, the attack would have to have a near perfect chance to succeed to be allowed. Any failure to detonate the weapon successfully would probably result in an investigation taking place, and the source port of the container would quickly be traced. The resulting scrutiny would probably result in a change of control over the port, and thus the loss of income for Dubai.

Chemical or biological weapons, unlike nuclear, do not vaporise themselves and their surroundings when used. Even if used successfully, the after-effect would include investigation, and the probable loss of control over the ports. Again, I don't believe Dubai wants to slit its own economic throat in this way.

No, I believe Dubai has an interest in making sure that NO NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) weapons make it through their ports. This is why they would cooperate with officials in ensuring that all containers entering our country go through already-existing controls and audits designed to prevent their use as weapons-transport.

In addition to the above, Dubai knows that a major attack on US soil will have adverse impact on the US economy. Such adversity would result in reductions in exports, as the manufacturing base takes a jolt. Likewise, imports would be harmed as personal incomes dipped and the need for imported goods reduced. Reductions in manufacturing means reductions in imported raw materials, as well. Such reductions will reduce the loads on the ports, and reduce the income to Dubai. On the back end, a hurting US economy means much less international travel, especially to tourist destination.

We are on the cusp of a major coup in international relations. By allowing this transfer of ownership to continue, we have the chance to turn the United Arab Emirates into a major economic ally of the United States. I think this is a good idea.

The long-term implications of such an economic alliance are great. In Middle-Eastern politics, UAE would be forced to argue against support of terrorist attacks on the United States. In order to safeguard their own economic well-being as their oil-based income dries up, UAE would become an example of how cooporation with the United States and the Western world is in the best interest of other Middle-Eastern states. As time passes, and UAE reaps the economic benefits of our alliance, other states would be forced to either stand with them and join the greater economic world, or fight them and invite the judgement of the rest of the world.

In the end, the rest of the Middle-Eastern and Islamic world will be forced to choose. Will they see this economic divide and follow the UAE to prosperity and membership in the greater world society, or will they divide the Middle-East against itself and weaken themselves?

Either way, the United States and the greater peaceful world benefits.

Thoughts?

Shadow of the Giant - by Orson Scott Card

Every time I read a new book in the Ender's Game series of novels, I'm completely blown away. The original four books, I read without a break. I've since gone back and re-read the first novel again, and it was just as good as the first time I read it. The second series, following the "Bean" character from the original book, has been a whole new adventure, which I've enjoyed immensely.

This book picks up immediately after Shadow Puppets. Bean is still working, reluctantly, in the service of Peter Wiggin, the Hedgemon of Earth. Along with his wife, Petra, Bean is now intent on tracking down the babies he believes to be born from the embryos, stolen in a previous book. Time is of the essense, because Bean is dying from the same condition that made him the most brilliant military mind the world has ever known. He wants to find the babies before he dies. Also, he is given hope for a cure, but at a huge cost to him and his family.

Meanwhile, Peter Wiggin is working to build a peaceful world. Standing in the way are China and the muslim world, both of which have goals of domination and empire. India, caught in the middle, has defeated the Chinese invaders, only to be controlled by muslim invaders from the West. What's more, each of these powers has, at its head, a Battle School graduate, two of whom fought with Ender in the final battle against the Bugger threat.

What's great about these books is that they are just good stories. The science-fiction elements have always seemed toned-down, in favor of character development. I've come to know these characters, over the course of the series, and many of them I know quite well. In the end, I have trouble figuring out who is the main character of the second series. Is it the story of Bean and his life with Petra? Is it the story of Peter Wiggin and his quest to unite the world? Is it the story of the Battle School graduates, and how they affected the world?

After reading what may well be the last book in the series (I have no knowledge of the plans of Orson Scott Card. I just read the books) I believe the story is about all of this. This is the story of an extraordinary group of individuals, incapable of not affecting everything around them. We follow grand world politics, military strategy, battles, religion, family relationships, motherhood, and so much more.

I've been trying to convince my wife to read Ender's Game. Every new book in the series that I read becomes the reason she needs to start reading, so she can reach that point. Having read what I believe to be the end, I have to say that this book is a fine reason to start reading the series. This book is what brings a batch of books, which continue a single story, into a single large work that I can see as one.

The power to lead lies with those who follow.

I continue to be entertained by the whole non-issue of the NSA listening in on conversations between known terrorists and others. There have been a lot of lies told about this program, including the big lie that this is a program to spy on Americans. Of course, anyone who has bothered to find out any truth in the issue knows that this isn't a program designed to spy on the average law-abiding American. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of ignorant people who are being fooled by the lies told about the program on a daily basis by the Democrats and their ilk, though.

Personally, I think the whole thing is funny. When I grew up, it was a common belief that you could have your phone calls eavesdropped upon. We believed that EVERY phone call between a phone in the US and a phone overseas was listened to. It wasn't a matter of whether we liked it or not, but whether it allowed the US to catch spies before they could do damage.

Now, though, I'm discovering that our beliefs may not have been the case. It never bothered me that overseas communications might be listened to. Why, then, should I get upset about a program existing that only listens to phone calls between phone numbers of known terrorists and others in the US? I'm having some real trouble figuring that out.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very much in favor of protecting human rights. Civil liberties are an important part of our society, and what makes our country great. There is not, however, a stated protection of privacy in our Constitution. Eavesdropping on terrorist communications does not qualify as an "unreasonable" search. There IS a reason. That makes it quite reasonable.

I don't spend a lot of time wondering, though, why the left in this country is so willing to lie about an important anti-terrorism tool such as this. They're not trying to protect anyone's rights. They're trying to find a way to regain the power they've lost in our government to the Republican Party. That's all this is, or ever has been.

I've long contended that the idea of Islam being a "religion of peace" was a lie. Michelle Malkin has some photos of European muslims showing what TRUE Islam is about.

Hatred, destruction, division, and holocaust. That's what I expect from Islam. That there are many nice, peaceful people who practice Islam and contribute to a productive society doesn't take away from the fact that Satan is at the heart of their "faith."

IMHO, of course.

As my friends and family can tell you, I'm a fan of Toyota. In general, they make quality cars. Their trucks are known for their strength and long life. Nothing, though, prepared me for the following video. The TV show, "Top Gear" took a 1980s era Toyota pickup and proceeded to determine what it would take to destroy it.

What does it take to destroy a Toyota Pickup? Good question. Rough treatment was just the beginning. Next came a collission with a tree. After that, it just gets to be ludicrous.

I know I'm a day late, but I just want to say how happy I am about two particular Tuesday events.

1. Sandra Day O'Connor is no longer a Supreme Court Justice, playing the wishy-washy middle.

2. The humorless, annoying, and more boring than ever Democratic Party has put aside all pretense of being the party of any sort of ideas, embracing obstruction and making sure that they demonstrate it publicly. Their childish behavior in the State of the Union Address was put on display for all to see, and we can no longer try to excuse it away by saying that they're just standing up for what they believe in. What they've proven is that they believe in nothing enough to try to advance it. They've grabbed the sash labelled "Obstructionist" and are wearing it like a fat, ugly teenage girl who thinks she'll be Miss America someday.

Ah, bliss.