I commented at Dean's that the UAE is very much a Japan of the middle East. They have some serious cultural issues we have differences with, but they are modernizing and in many cases Westernizing at a steady rate. They have been trusted business partners for years.

Varifrank had good reasons on his blog as to why shutting down this deal can be a very bad idea, given the immense amount of military maintenance and supply assistance we get from them.

My understanding is they are going to be in charge of loading and unloading ships and that is all. While UAE may not be our ideal country I understand we already have chinese companies doing the same thing at other ports and they're certainly not great democrats.

Hell, even Jimmy Carter came out in support of the deal. Besides, the Bush administration didn't come up with the plan, so there's at least half a chance it won't be all that bad. My only question is, why don't we pay a U.S. owned company to run the show? He, I'm all about spreading the wealth, so maybe this is a good thing.

I do know one thing, if this blows up, no pun intended, it will be the final nail in the Bush presidency (even if it wasn't his plan) and solidify his place as worst president since Zachary Taylor.

Let's see, Nat'l Security Advisor Hadley said no objections were made by the agencies charged to vet this (which included not one rep from the intel community) and it turns out that not only Homeland Security initially balked, the Coast Guard -- the primary entity responsible for pPort security until the problem is off-loaded to shore and Customs -- also had serious problems. Translation: he lied, (or weasled, blew smoke, etc.).

Only one Governor affected didn't lose it, Jeb Bush, who has substantial finances tied up in Dubai.

And most of us (admit it) had no idea Americans weren't doing this work.

And most of us (admit it) think Americans should be doing this work.

White-Americans, Black-Americans, Arab-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans -- but Americans nonetheless.

Oh, and check your facts on what it took to keep the longshoreman working the West Coast docks in business, and the crap they took from the very folks who love this deal.

It's not like Dubai Ports World is a normal company that is at least answerable to stockholders, theoretically people like you and me who could buy their stock.

Yep, The UAE is one of our "partners." They're partners with anyone with serious money. And I mean serious money. Dubai has the only seven-star hotel in the world. Awesome. And everything is owned in one way or another by the Royal Family.

You can't trust scemes where power and money is concentrated in too few hands. This is one of those scemes.

But, as is usual, it was the way it was handled by the White House that made this blow up. Like everything they to, it became the latest reason to dig in and launch salvos. Congress and the press aren't even allowed to question or investigate, let alone criticize this without a Veto threat?

Good grief. We would have scoffed, but not dug in as hard -- polarizing us once again -- had POTUS said, "This is the 1st I've heard of this, let's take a closer look." But no, the gang that can't shoot straight will clings to it's veneer of infallability and instead of governing they're still doing the only thing they know, they campaign.

Like Jon Stewart points out, they got 51% of the vote but have 97% of the power, but can't for the life of them figure out how to use it wisely.

Our last president would have been tarred and feathered had he try to push a deal like this through. He may have been "Slick Willie" but "Slippery George" certainly measures up to the previous high(low?) standard set by BC.

It seems with all the concern over outsourcing certain jobs in our economy, that this would be one job that we'd want to keep in-house. In my mind, national security is one area where we can't afford to skimp through outsourcing. Hey, if it means we pay more for some American Union dock workers, so be it.

Under the present administration in Washington, Dubya hasn't a clue. The southern border has been under Mexican control via Vicente Fox and assorted drug lords. Up to 1 to 2 million illegals which the passive politicos refer to as undocumented workers cross the border each year. Just go check out your local Home Depot, they are standing on the curbs. The northern border is under the control of Canada. The Panama canal is under Chinese overlordship and the Port of Long Beach is under Chinese control. Never mind that a british company wishes to hand its contract of 22 US port security over to a UAE corporation of which six are major US ports, the important thing is that this nation no longer controls its borders and Bush and company doesn't see it an important issue. He keeps bullshipping us about the worker program,then there is the illegal driver license programs, the illegal driver license voter registration programs. In California illegals have better health care than most poor folk and are entitled to education up to and thru the California college-university system and in most instance have their pregnant women bear a child somewhere in San Diego area or Texas to get US citizenship. Bush has been in office five + years and he barely address's the border issues except in bland procrastinating political terms. The actions of Congress this week indicates a political rather than a substantive solution is in the works. Refering to the quagmire in racist terminology as being anti-arab is smoke and mirrors and to Bush's weakness. Surely the interest of Senators democrat and republican and border Governors are not predicated on racist sentiment. So for Bush it is a lose-lose situaion. If the Congressional republicans cave in to this nonsense, the next election they will lose big time.

Tom Tancredo for President.

My main concern is that you're channeling Ann Coulter. Please, for the love of God, take a shower after you do that.

Yeah Pam, I know, I know. Us lefties are just being partisan. Only those of you on the right are offering serious criticism.

That isn't what I said at all Mark. I said

it really doesn't matter if the POTUS had come out and said that, the left would still be bitching as they are now. Nothing will change that.

Got news for ya. Our "bitching" has always been serious. You folks don't have a monopoly on security concerns any more than you do on patriotism or voicing what you feel is best for this country.

The problem is that only one side offers any solutions. Good, bad or indifferent, at least the right is trying to do something. What is it that the left has brought to the table? And how quickly you forget the bedfellows of the previous administration!

It's been five years, two crashed towers and two wars since the previous administration you are still obsessing on. You want solutions? Try living in the present and identify what is plain before your eyes.

Obsessing on? You mean that has nothing to do with the present day?

Pam, that's just more snark and you know it. (Given away of course by the "satire" tag.) It's right up there with Ms. Malkin saying, "To be sure, Bush is under fire from the left as well, but their opposition has little to do with national security concerns and everything to do with partisan politics."

If you're really interested, instead of trying (and failing) to be cute, take a look at the actual FIVE point plan, or the fine comparison at the Hotline of the stark differences in how Dean was received versus Ken Mehlman at their respective addresses to the Jewish Council of Publics Affairs from which your link was lifted.

Kenny took 3 questions and the crowd only applauded when he bashed Iran.

Howard hammered the administration without even bringing up Iraq (much) and had the crowd cooing in comparison. Unlike Mehlman, Dean talked domestic politics as well as foreign affairs and took "about a dozen question."

I loved the last question. It seemed like a fully vetted, loyalist only, fixed Bush/Cheney rally instead of a policy address to an open forum. Except this time all the love went Howard's way.

Just like some sychophant at a choreographed Presidential Town Hall who "asks" POTUS, "We just love you!" Someone in the audience "asked," Dean, "You were incredibly adept at organizing grassroots" in '04, "what is our plan for this cycle?"

And for those of you too lazy to click the link . . . and in answer to Pam's suggestion that Clinton is to blame. [GOP talking point #2, right between "Deny and Reframe" and "Blame the Media."] Here's what Howard Dean actually said:

"Republicans have been in power long enough to show that they can't be trusted with your money, your defense or power. The truth is today, 34% of the American people think that the President is doing a good job. So, we're not talking about a fifty-fifty country- we're simply talking about a country that wants competence and honesty in their leadership again"

The Plan?

• ethics legislation within the first 100 days
  
• strong national defense which begins with telling the truth to our citizens and our soldiers and our allies
  
• American jobs that will stay in America by creating a new energy independence industry
  
• a health care system which works for everyone
  
• a strong public education system

And a pony! I'm sure he said somewhere along the line that he would get me a pony!

Did I strike a nerve with you Mark? Too bad..

ethics legislation within the first 100 days - you mean they will change the legislation that is already on the floor now?

strong national defense which begins with telling the truth to our citizens and our soldiers and our allies - You mean keep our military at home because according to the left we just can't win anything? Our allies? You mean France?

American jobs that will stay in America by creating a new energy independence industry- Stay in Amaerica? Is THK going to bring her global business back home? Are you planning to cut off companies that do business overseas? I have been seeing the jobs being created already, so what is it that a Democrat is going to create? They are already being created. Are you going to force unions upon businesses? Could unions be part of the problem? In Michigan, the majority of the businesses that are closing or moving are union shops. Non union shops are booming..how can that be?

a health care system which works for everyone - You mean government subsidized? It won't happen. Healthcare is a benefit and not a right.

a strong public education system- Are you going to cut ties with the teachers union? Are you going to hold parents responsible for the actions of their children?

Your 5 points are nothing new..and that is the point. No new ideas nor any ideas on how to correct problems...

Pam:

Did I strike a nerve with you Mark? Too bad..

No sweety, it's just that at my age, "intercourse" with you is a more rewarding evening activity than other forms of mastubation, mental or otherwise, that are more prevalently enjoyed on the web. You are my blue pill, darling.

My point, "why should we bother", was aptly made by you and your cohorts. You don't listen, you don't care, you would rather "win" than fix problems. You set up strawmen and reinterpret suggestions to your liking.

The only reason we hear from the right about a lack of a plan on the left is because you guys are tired of being shot down all the time for the abject failures of your execution of policy, and want your turn to go on a rhetorical quail hunt.

Understandable, but hardly productive.

Speaking of unproductive, I'm kinda horny for you again, so here goes:

Ethics: What's on the floor now doesn't go as far as what the Dems offered. I for one have no faith in the GOPers cleaning their own house. But not even the Dems put forth something that actually has a chance of eliminating corruption in the system. I've got a few humble suggestions that don't stand a chance in hell of being adopted, let alone getting through this thread's peanut gallary.

1. Public financing of national campaigns.
   
2. Five years of separation between government service and working for private firms which either are, or hire lobbyists.
   
3. No donation roll-overs from campaign to campaign (like Hillary funding her '08 presidential bid with donations she's getting now for the '06 Senate.) Use it or lose it.

No law will stop someone determined to break the law, but certainly there should be no debate (and there is) when someone like Duke Cunningham is convicted, his congressional pension should be forfeit.

Strong national defense meant strong national defense. Read, don't guess. Putting words in people's mouths shows just how weak your words are. We are stronger when we are both armed to the teeth and honest about our intentions. Using force is not as effective as a credible threat to use force. Without honesty, we lose our ability to shape the world through other means than the point of a gun. When you use that gun, it exposes more than any espionage program the true capabilities and weaknesses in your arsenal.

Building a new alternate energy industry in direct competition with the petroleum interests will create jobs here, is good for the environment, helps us become independant from foreign oil and is just plain good politics. Do you recycle? Does your community? Has recycling fixed all our land-fill problems? No. Does it help? Maybe. Is it still a good thing? Of course.

There is no silver bullet, but working towards progress is a lot more defensible than doing nothing. And who said anything about unions? But since you brought it up, should they be eliminated? Pretty extreme don't you think? Should every worker have no choice but to be a union member? Pretty extreme don't you think? Not everything is a choice between extremes, but to frame issues in that way has been very effective in dividing this country and winning elections for the Republicans -- and I'd rather be united. The guy who said he's a "uniter, not a divider," lied about that just as he lied about so many things.

Consistently the majority of the American people, a large majority depending on the poll, want universal health care. Dean isn't even promoting that, just asking for "fairness" in the system. A system that you damn well know is broken.

The vast majority of this nation wants to win the lottery too, so you can't have everything. But you can damn well make sure the lottery is fair and if it's broken, you fix it. The administration won't even acknowledge there is a problem let alone be responsive to the nation's desires.

That health care "right versus privilege" argument is a canard too. Is Security a "right?" Is a huge military? A missile shield? Do you have a "right" to honesty in government? How about a "right" to play the lottery, or to have the potholes on your street fixed? Do you have a right to working seat belts, non-defective brakes? But if we want something, and are willing to pay for it, it sure seems like we can get it in this country -- as long as it's in the interest of people with wealth and power -- or we are willing to fight those interests with everything we can.

I'll agree that Dean was all to vague about his educational plans. There was no "there," there in that speech. But to counter your straw-man, are you going to roll-back the cuts to student loans? Are you going to increase the availability of grants the current government cut? Are you going to fund legitimate research and development at our nation's universities regardless of the political ideology of the professors involved? Are you going to denounce the suppression of scientific analysis that runs counter to the interests of major industrial practices?

Anyway, thanks Pam. It's not that you rub me the wrong way. Sometimes you rub me just right.

AAaaaaahhhhhhhhh . . . . . . . . Gotta smoke, baby?

And likewise you could pay taxes to cover your health as well as to cover the cost of administering the lottery commission. It's a matter of choices, the distribution of scarce resources -- which is the essence if not the very definition of politics.

Didn't ya hear? We can make laws, laws that require, mandate if you will, functional brakes on cars for instance. Some people get cars through work, others rely on government subsidized public transportation. But there are many of us, myself included, small businessmen and the self-employed who keep this economy chugging along, who find the cost of health care exorbitant.

BTW, you're wrong. Every poll I've seen on the issue has people in favor of universal coverage by either a 3 or 4 to one. Choice is a red herring thrown out to confuse and delay the inevitable.

As for being long-winded, sorry to blow smoke up your skirt, but that was the pared down version. I actually erased three paragraphs that tried to make the case on an individual/personal level, but thought I was getting wordy.

It's a general approach to security, military and foreign affairs, called honesty. Something saddly missing the last five years. Honesty and realistically appraising any given situation. Not just trying to sell something, like a war for example. Honesty in intent, goals, COST, and metrics to gage progress.

A general forthright approach to specific engagements. Mandating specific, obtainable movement towards what is in our strategic interests and not open ended engagements. And you enforce that by making officials accountable.

For instance, if three years ago your Secretary of Defense says that the "war might last two weeks or two months, but no way will it last two years" -- and that same SecDef, after the war has been going on for three years, shows no progress towards quelling a mounting insurrection and the security situation has gone to shit, getting worse every week -- you might consider replacing him.

Honesty with those you ask to die for the cause. You and I can agree that Saddam Hussein did not order the 9/11 highjackings. We can further agree that he was not directly involved and that if he did have any links to terrorists before the war (he did, Abu Nidal from the Achille Laura and paying off Palestinians to bomb Israel) or al Quaeda (tenuous at best, and much less than Bush's friends in Dubai), those connections did not lead to 9/11 even indirectly.

Was there a potential that he might reconstitute his WMD's and also a potential that he would give them to terrorists? Sure, just as there is a potential for monkeys to fly out of my ass. (I love tying that.) But note that the intelligence community was equally divided over the potential that he would ever use such weapons that he didn't even have against us, and only then if we attacked him first. The State Department went as far to say that he wouldn't even use them if we attacked him, and the true experts in the field at the Dept. of Energy said there was no way those alluminum tubes were useful in enriching uranium.

Despite all that, they sent Colin Powell out there with his fake vial of anthrax or whatever and Bush told us about nonexistent yellow cake from Niger. If we have a generally honest approach to this stuff, those things won't happen again. We can restore our credibility and with that begin to repair our standing in the world.

Ancient history, I know. Quit obsessing on the last four years and tell me the plan for what to do now, right? We can start by being honest with the men and women we put in harms way. They certainly deserve the truth. They CAN handle the truth. The administraiton might lie to us, national security and all. But they'd never lie to the troops.

How is it then, if they aren't being fed a load of horse shit from their superiors and the daily dose of Limbaugh they get through AFR, that 90% (Niner Zero Per Cent) of our troops think that they are in Iraq in "retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11?" An even greater percentage, a wopping 93% don't think they are over there because of WMD's, and most, 68% think the mission was to remove Saddam or to stop him from harboring al Quaeda -- 77%.

Um, guys, mission (whatever it is today) has been accomplished. No, you say. We have to bring democracy to the Middle East. Only 24% think so.

We're keeping the boys in their barracks as all hell breaks loose, so as not to aggravate the situation. Seems to me that under that doctrine, the only thing they're good for is target practice. Bring 'em home. We can sit by and watch them kill each other just as easily from here, and it's a lot cheaper.

How's that for a plan. Put up with the garbage of the bloodthirsty and reality challenged, suffer the accusations of cutting and running, bring 'em home and have a parade. Bring 'em home because not one more dime, not one more drop of blood should be spent on this insanity. Regroup, rest, and prepare for a real war with Iran and Syria and bring on the appocalypse the theocrats in Washington have been working on since day one.

We would do that . . . if we were honest.

Mark-

But there are many of us, myself included, small businessmen and the self-employed who keep this economy chugging along, who find the cost of health care exorbitant.

Mark you are self employed by choice. And one of the drawbacks to being self employed is the cost of healthcare.
You could work for a larger firm that could pay for the healthcare, but you chose to work for yourself.

Put the national healthcare on the ballot in 08' and let's end the discussion once and for all.

As for obsessing on the past, I don't find you to be doing that. The past is directly related to the future. I was not told that the war GWOT would not qick. I was told it would be long. As for Iraq, I don't see us losing. Love the monkey line...that is a good one and should be used more often!

According to the IAEA, there is no proof that Iran is a nuclear threat...why would we attack them? And what has Syria done?(sarcasm is heavy but necessary)

Pam, you have no idea. I'd rather eat broken glass than join some big firm, and my attitude would certainly get me on some kind of short list working for the government.

I learned from a law-school buddy that a friend of ours from school died from a heart attack this week. He was just a couple of years older than me, 47.

My buddy also sent me the results of an ABA poll of young attorneys.

A RECENT ABA survey found that four out of five young lawyers working in large law firms would at least consider changing jobs. In a recent poll in California Lawyer Magazine, 70 percent of lawyers surveyed said they'd start a new career if they could. It's an attitude shared by many attorneys who find themselves dissatisfied with the practice of law and leaving to pursue other endeavors - some completely unrelated to the legal profession.

Thirty percent of respondents to the "Career Satisfaction Survey" of the ABA's Young Lawyers Division (composed of ABA members younger than 36 or who have been practicing law for fewer than five years) reported that they would strongly consider leaving their current firms or organizations within the next two years. Private practitioners in large firms identified themselves to be more likely to consider such a move than those in smaller firms. General job dissatisfaction was most often cited as the primary motivator behind a desire to change jobs.

Those attorneys who become dissatisfied with the profession often cite work-related stress, the inability to balance their professional and personal lives, the adversarial nature of the profession and failure to contribute to social good as the aspects of law practice that have sapped their enthusiasm. "Lawyers have the highest depression rates, highest pressure, lowest popularity ratings and the longest hours of almost any profession that exists," states author Hillary Mantis in her book Alternative Careers for Lawyers. According to John E. Tobin Jr. - the executive director of New Hampshire Legal Assistance, an employer of 21attorneys statewide - these are aspects of the profession that law school doesn't teach.

Since I closed down my Cleveland practice, moved to Toledo, and cut back on practice I drink a hell of a lot less -- and I moved here to buy a bar. If I joined a large firm, even a medium sized firm, they'd better have excellent health insurance because I'd need a liver transplant in five years.

The bar is a family thing: my wife, Judy, really runs the place. Her sister and our son work for us, plus another 6 employees, and of course my Father-in-Law who's retired (we move here so he could). He's still there a lot and will boss everyone around if you let him.

The law practice is all mine of course, but harder since I lost my number one assistant, Judy, who's at the bar instead of answering my phone, scheduling appointments and billing clients (and is the nicest boss I ever had.) When we were in Cleveland Judy was a stay-at-home mom and I was in court constantly. There's been some role reversal since we moved to her home town.

I'm now the soccer Dad who runs the taxi service. Since we open for breakfast at 5:30am, Judy goes over between 3:30 and 5am, depending on what she has to prepare for the daily lunch special. So I'm the one on call for the night shift if someone doesn't show or there's any problem. I got rid of a lot of riff-raff that used to hang out there at night, but for a while it was pretty crazy. I still do the overnights on the weekends.

Did I mention kids? Three girls all going to different schools. All who need to be run around by dear old dad. Our daughter (13) is a bona fide genius, and is no worries (yet), but we have custody of two nieces too. One is in 1st grade and the oldest one graduates this spring (thank god) and that should free me up to be in court more. (Lucky me.) We got the youngest one at an early enough age that there aren't any emotional scars from the truly screwed up situation we took them from. The oldest one has been a project -- she was basically raising four other kids.

She was on SSI as a "slow lerner." They had placed her in learning disabled classes and hadn't taught her a damn thing. We've been working with her the last three years to catch her up, mainstreamed her, and she's actually going to pass high school without getting any deferrments from the requirements all the other kids have. Plus she should be ready to take the State Boards in Cosmetology this summer. She's no longer considered disabled.

I kinda put my life on hold so this kid could have one. Since they had pidgeon-holed her as unteachable the school figured she'd never be able to do anything but push a broom and didn't bother even trying to teach her anything. For instance, they gave her a math credit for wood shop, an English credit for working in the cafeteria. She really worked hard and has a lot to be proud of.

Both jobs? I kinda wished the last couple of years that none of our customers at the bar knew I was a lawyer. Work is so inconvenient. I haven't even been advertising for clients. If I didn't have a steady stream of customers insisting I take their cases, life would have been a lot less complicated. ;-)

Since my retirement plan consists of me working until I'm 80, I figure I got plenty of time restart a full time law practice, which unlike the lawyers in that survey I really do enjoy. Probably since I limit myself to family law and actually help people instead of just fight other lawyers over someone else's money, I've had a more rewarding experience than most. But the break has been nice too. Besides, it's given me a chance to learn all about blogging.

On that we see eye2eye, sort of. You want your kids to succeed, you have to be involved with their education whether they're in a good or bad system. If my older niece came from a family situation that functioned at all, she wouldn't have been such a project. The school system only had so much to work with and once they figured out that we weren't going to settle for her just drifting by they helped, mainly by getting out of our way and giving her encouragement, and some tutoring. They also let her stay in the suburban district she had started in when she moved in with us, which was a better system than Toledo Public -- but requires dad's taxi service.

I've see the best and worst in Ohio Education. We didn't move to Toledo until my son graduated. We lived in Shaker Heights, which simply put has the absolute best public school in the State, period. The Cleveland border was two blocks away and the school system there was so bad the Federal Courts ran it for 30 or so. Most of my son's high school teachers had their PhD.s. The progressive social climate was on the cutting edge, with the school system working hand in hand with the housing department to maintain a near 50/50 black/white racial balance. He was president of the chess club. The kids coming from the Cleveland system had a hard time with checkers.

All parents were automatically full fledged members of the Shaker Hts. PTO. They just needed to show up. And if you didn't show, especially to the quarterly parent-teacher confereces, you were considered an apostate. That city had one industry, housing (expensive, highly taxed housing) and one export -- smart kids. Despite that, we still had to be involved directly with his education.

Then I moved to Toledo and entered my daughter in Toledo Public -- or at least started to. We walked in, spoke briefly to the administrators who had never heard of things like "room parents" and couldn't tell us if the PTO met once a week, month or at all. But the smell of mildew and the crubling plaster is what sent us running to home school her. A web-based charter school called the "Electronic Classroom Of Tomorrow" (ECOT) had just started and was pretty good, a great resource for home schooling, but little kids need other little kids, so that only lasted a year. She's in a brick+mortar charter school now, a college prep science academy. The 1st grader is also in a charter school that is so new the paint hasn't dried.

Hopefully, what the teachers in the charter schools lack in experience they make up in enthusiasm. That's the theory, anyway. Toledo is the capital of charter schools in this State. I object to vouchers on principle. Last I looked, 98% of vouchers go to religious schools. I have a lot less problem with a public/private partnership, in anything, than mixing religion with public financing. This sums up my religious view nicely.

But chartered, for-profit schools aren't the sole answer. I'm very pleased with our convicted crook of a Governor for one thing. He and the GOP entrenched legislature decided to invest all the money they got from the tobacco companies in schools instead of rare coins or some other ponzie sceme. That school that smelled so bad is under the wrecking ball and Toledo is rebuilding 75% of our public schools from the ground up. Test scores are trending in the right direction too, but they have a long way to go. I'm hopeful that by the time my 1 year-old grandson is ready for school the system will have it's act together.

Since charter schools are state funded, I don't think they should be in direct competition with the public schools. That's counterproductive. Where the public school is failing that's all they are, but ideally you fix the public school and the charter schools act as an augment -- not a substitute. They should fill niches, like a charter school of the performing arts or for special needs kids or advanced kids. My 13 year old is in one of those, but the 1st grader is in an elementary school that really is nothing unique or special, just not part of the public school system which has been falling apart and won't be done rebuilding for some years.