tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post114215561928609260..comments2023-09-28T21:40:05.328+10:00Comments on Dr Clam's accidental blog: So foul and fair a day I have not seenMarco Parigihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-1142289913707460132006-03-14T09:45:00.000+11:002006-03-14T09:45:00.000+11:00Yeah, I didn't want to expand on my theory too muc...Yeah, I didn't want to expand on my theory too much because I was pretty sure I didn't have any of the relevant facts (as opposed to my usual arguing standpoint, of merely lacking *most* of the relevant facts).<BR/><BR/>And I think you put the heart of my complaint quite succinctly.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05203948349102824828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-1142283093829927572006-03-14T07:51:00.000+11:002006-03-14T07:51:00.000+11:00Hmmm, the state control of ports was relinquished ...Hmmm, the state control of ports was relinquished some time ago, as these were/are operated by P&O- and I understand there are ports on the West Coast operated by a company owned by the People's Republic of China. <BR/>Your last point also illustrates the difference between the definitions of 'stupid' used by us and them in the context of democratic governance:<BR/>Us: Likely to wreck the economy, cause severe irreparable environmental damage, make us lose all our friends, and/or result in the violent deaths of many of our fellow citizens.<BR/>Them: Likely to lose us votes.Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-1142209265055710392006-03-13T11:21:00.000+11:002006-03-13T11:21:00.000+11:00Hmm. On the one hand, I think reliquishing state c...Hmm. On the one hand, I think reliquishing state control of ports (and therefore the front line of border security, because bugger airports, if you want to smuggle a dirty nuke or weapons-grade anthrax anywhere, you'll send it in a shipping container)is pretty daft to start with, especially if you're an insular, paranoid, essentially xenophobic super-power.<BR/><BR/>(I had a point to add here than a Dubai-owned company has a vested interest in exercising sufficient security precautions to avoid any hint of association with radical groups, but it's based on nothing but speculation, so ignore it)<BR/><BR/>My guess is that the Senate opposition was partly because the company in question is owned by Goldarn A-Rabs, but also partly because of Bush's approach over it. I find it striking that this seems to be thbe issue he is prepared to go to war against the Senate over.<BR/><BR/>Also, yes. It's stupid of them. Except inasmuch as the Senate's stance appears to be well supported by the electorate, and Bush's is not (or is seen as contradictory and possibly a bit suspect, which confuses people and is probably an ironic consequence of four years of constant scaremongering about terrorists).Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05203948349102824828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-1142206818256473752006-03-13T10:40:00.000+11:002006-03-13T10:40:00.000+11:00The big (irrational?) nightmares of the US senate ...The big (irrational?) nightmares of the US senate are more telling than the big dreams of Dubai.Marco Parigihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.com