No Port in the Storm  

rm_Ptalk1155 35M
3428 posts
2/25/2006 10:17 am

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

No Port in the Storm


Alright, so I was going to let this one go, but I'm so very tired of hearing about it that I have to chime in.

So there's this company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) bought out a British company that controlled several major US ports.

Naturally, our Congress is doing one of the two things they do best, overreacting. (The other is nothing.) They're all "oh my god, handing over national security!" National security my ass. They're just going to be changing the logo on the side of the building. They still have to pay our unions their ridiculous fees to take their time unloading and checking the stuff. And further, the Coast Guard and whomever else we currently have running port security is STILL going to be running the security.

It's just idiocy. It was ok that a British company owned the ports, but if we let an Arab country run the ports...dear God we might get a nuke in a crate that some 300 lb balding 3rd generation Italian mafia guy "forgot" to check. Wait...that might happen anyway...

This is a question of basic economics. When a big company buys out another company, the second one just doesn't vanish. All that happens usually is the management gets fired. Everyone else stays where they are. Why? Because the big company would have to create its own infrastructure to do otherwise, and the reason they bought the company in the first place is that didn't WANT to build their own because it wasn't affordable and/or the other company already had a better system. You know what changes here? The number at the bottom of the Income Statement (the one called "profit") goes to the big company instead of the stockholders of the the bought-out company.

It's ridiculous. All these Congresspeople have claimed repeatedly that we can't punish the entire Muslim world for the sins of some terrorists (*cough*Iraq*cough*) but suddenly get squeamish when a part of that world buys another company that "controls" some of our ports. Hypocrisy is something that really pisses me off. It's ok for the British foreign company to own it, but not ok for the Arab one. Where's the difference there, and why does it take an Arab country to call our attention to the possible security risk involved with a foreign company controlling the port?

What the hell does that mean anyway? "Controls"? From where I'm sitting, it means they own a bunch of littler companies that actually do the work.

And I hear a lot about "what if they sneak somebody in to the security?" and "what if the money they make goes to terrorists?" I hate to break it to everyone, but that just as easily can and does happen to American companies. Hell, half the 9/11 hijackers were taught in American schools for chrissakes. You think they need to own a port by proxy to sneak somebody in or make money off us?

And lastly, we're supposed to be all about free market and all that. So, explain to me what kind of example we set when we decide that some company can't buy and own all the assets of another company if it might potentially maybe consider the possibility of marginally affecting an already significant security risk.

kelly402005 53F

2/25/2006 10:23 pm

You're right on all of the above.....
And my son is on his way back to Iraq......
That's all I have to say about that.......
This country,,,,,,,, ah, this country,,,,,,, SUCKS

Peace..........
k


rm_Ptalk1155 35M
3450 posts
2/27/2006 10:15 pm

Kate: Lots more could be said, but I think I said enough.

Fly: *points up to his response to Kate*

Kelly: Well, I'm glad that he is willing to serve. I hope he (and your family) understands that his actions there are not in vain nor a result of the clever ruse of a corrupt administration looking to get cheaper oil. And yeah, sometimes our country sucks quite a bit lately, but I still think it sucks less than pretty much every other country on the planet.


Become a member to create a blog