*roundtrip ticket
Why opposing P&O's takeover by DP World isn't racism
P&O SHAREHOLDERS
Schroder Investment Management Ltd: 9.7%
PRUDENTIAL: 6.34%
HBOS: 4.84%
Threadneedle AM Ldt: 4.67%
Legal & General Investment Management: 3.54%
Democrats are once again bungling their argument, as Congressman after Congressman comes out against the proposed takeover of P&O by DP World, a port management company majority-owned by the Emerate of Dubai.
Democrats have turned this argument into one primarily about whether a foreign-owned company can be trusted to run America's ports, allowing voices in the Arab world to accuse them of racism, pointing out that America's security was not questioned when its ports were run by P&O, a British company.
However, there is one striking and very important difference. While DP World is a state-owned firm, P&O is privately owned - or so cursory research would appear to confirm.
I do not oppose a foreign-owned company taking control over management of such important security points. Whether based in Dubai, Britain, Poland or China, every business has one goal: profit. Their aims are not politics-based. If they were to let a terrorist attack occur, it would most certainly hit their bottom line, and that is not in their interest.
But state-owned firms are a different bird altogether. I was unfamiliar for the most part as to how state-owned firms worked until I came to Poland, where there are - literally - hundreds.
The scandals, affairs, and shady dealings of these companies are common and well-documented. Politicians gain control over these companies, and use them to achieve political goals. That's something different from the corruption you can find in privately-owned companies, where the goal is financial gain.
Is it not conceivable that any company owned by a foreign government - be it the UAE or Canada - might look to use its control over such a powerful tool for leverage in political disputes?
Yes. The UAE has, up to now, been a good partner for America in terms of trade, as well as battling terrorism. But that's not the point. The point is that companies owned by governments necessarily have secondary (and often primary) goals, which are political, rather than financial. Giving DP World control over America's ports doesn't put those harbors in the hands of foreign shareholders, it puts them in control of a foreign government.
And that is a risk not worth taking.
Speaking of labor mobility
Chicago Tribune:
Each month, Poland loses about 30,000 workers, many of them young and well-educated, to Britain, Ireland and Sweden. The three countries were the only members of the European Union that did not impose restrictions on immigration from the 10 new member states when the EU expanded in 2004.
Instead of flooding the market with "Polish plumbers,"--the European catchphrase for cheap, low-skilled immigrant labor--the tide of migration from Eastern Europe has fueled economic growth in Britain and Ireland. The unemployment rate in Ireland, already the lowest in the EU at 4.2 percent, dropped a further 0.2 percent with the arrival of 160,000 Eastern European workers over the last 20 months.
So, Poland is experiencing a brain-drain. But it might not be so bad. After all, the skills of the highly-trained programmers and computer technicians heading out of Poland are next to useless here - at least this gives them the chance to earn a bit more money, maybe sending some back to Poland. Who knows, maybe they'll return to Poland and start up a business in 10 or 20 years.
On the other hand, when it comes to doctors, Poland needs all the good ones it can get. But can we blame them for going to the UK when here they have to take on a second job to make ends meet?
Finns show common sense
 Today Finland joined the UK, Ireland and Sweden as one of the only countries in the European Union to understand basic economics. Xinhua: The Finnish government and labor market organizations agreed on Friday to relax the restrictions on the free movement of workers from new member states of the European Union.
After Estonia and other nine countries joined the European Union on May 1, 2004, Finland applied restrictions to the free movement of workers from eight new EU member states by two years as a transitional period.
The Finnish government and labor market organizations agreed on Friday that Finland as a whole would stand to gain from foreign labor and that an extended transitional period would have increased the size of the gray economy.
All parties agreed not to renew the transitional period limiting the free movement of workers from new EU member states. Finland will lift labor restrictions from May 1, and opens its labor market to new EU member states.
The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, urged on Feb. 8 more western European countries to open their labor markets to workers from new EU member states.
Dubya and the Duck
 It seems not much notable occurred at today's meeting between Polish President Kaczyński and President Bush, though we did get another nice little lesson in friendship from Dubya - one that we've had before. "I asked the president his advice on Ukraine," Bush said. "That's what friends do - they share information and share strategic thoughts." There was no change in stance on the visa issue, and even little discussion of it, despite the Duck telling a Polish radio station before he left for the US that if Poles wouldn't get visa-free travel to the US, he'd work to make visas a requirement for Americans coming to Poland. However, Kaczynski did take the olive branch extened by Vladimir Putin two weeks ago, when he said that Poles and Russians were "cousins", and that they should look to the present rather than squabble over past differences. "There have been certain signals that might lead to an improvement of relations between the Republic of Poland and the Russian Federation," Kaczynski said. "We have no certainty yet, but these signals we have received, and we're hoping for an improvement in relations between Poland and Russia." The sincerity of Putin's words remain to be seen, but many political analysts believe this could lead to a warming of relations. PiS cuddling up to Putin? They're adopting his strongarm tactics, isn't it only natural that soon they start sharing strategic thoughts? After all, that is what friends do.
Worthy
From Mitch Albom:
If there had been any question that Detroit could host the world's biggest party, doubts were erased. If there had been any question the spirit of this town outshines its struggles, it is gone now.
...
Someone wrote this week that Detroit was "auditioning for acceptance," and I guess that's accurate, hard as it is to hear, because you wonder sometimes why we care so much what the rest of the country thinks.
But if we suffer a wee inferiority complex, it manifests itself in good ways. Everyone had a bit of Chamber of Commerce in them last week. Time after time, when visitors were asked their impressions of this city, they said, "I can't believe the people are so nice."
And as they head for the airport this morning, let's think about what they saw while they were here:
They saw Aretha Franklin, they saw Kid Rock. They saw the spacious lobby of the Renaissance Center looking out to Canada. They saw Canada. They saw The Henry Ford. They saw the Max M. Fisher Music Center and Seldom Blues restaurant. They saw the Fox and State and Woodward Avenue under the lights. They saw Ford Field and Comerica Park. They saw our best manners and our welcoming attitude. They saw us deal with snow. They saw a football Sunday with a downtown heartbeat.
But here's the thing.
They saw things we can see all the time.
So maybe what we showed the world, we also showed ourselves.
Coming down Woodward on Sunday, I saw a man with a cup, tapping the loose change inside it, looking for cash.
"Collecting for next year's Super Bowl," he said. "Next year's Super Bowl, anybody?"
Back to business. Today is the first day of the rest of Detroit's life. Let's hope we make as much of the weeks ahead as we did of the week behind. And we remember the biggest lesson learned from this whole, crazy experience.
Worthy.
Don't let anyone ever say otherwise.
Is Poland winning with brinkmanship?
The government will tell you it is; European diplomats and legislators will tell you it’s digging itself deeper into an isolationist black hole
Over the past few months Poland has made itself infamous in the halls of Brussels for its outlandish brashness, it’s willingness to break deadline after deadline, its stubborn resistance in the face of the harshest EU threats, and its seeming desire to stand alone and spit in the face of 24 other member states. Ah, Europe. You didn’t know what you were getting when you signed on to Poland’s membership, did you?
The stances Poland has taken on two recent issues in particular have raised the hackles of European lawmakers, who are now beginning to think that every difficult EU negotiation from now on will come down to a standoff between Poland and the rest of Europe.
In the first case, Poland was the last holdout to approve a deal extending beyond 2005 the ability of ‘old’ EU member states to charge lower VAT rates on labor-intensive services such as shoemaking, window-washing and … selling home-improvement goods. The details can be found here.
In the end, Poland got what it wanted, the EU got what it wanted, but the Union was brought to the verge of crisis. Similar concessions were obtained by holdouts Cyprus and the Czech Republic, without such melodrama.
In the second case, Poland yesterday announced that if within three months UniCredit (formerly UniCredito Italiano and HVB) doesn’t sell the Polish branch of HVB it obtained when the companies merged last year, it will look to annul UniCredito’s original takeover of Polish Bank Pekao.
The issue here is that the government doesn’t want Pekao and HVB merging, because it would create a private bank larger than the state-controlled dominant player in the market, PKO BP. But UniCredit, realizing that owning the biggest bank in the biggest new EU member state might be a profitable asset, will never let go. Find the IHT report here.
How Poland could legally annul the earlier deal is a mystery, as experts call the idea “a fantasy”.
All EU institutions have cleared the UniCredito-HVB merger, as has every other EU member state – except Poland, who by itself is holding up consolidation in the EU’s banking market.
This has the rest of the EU fuming. They remember late December’s toil to reach a budget agreement the Poles would accept. They remember Prime Minister Marcinkiewicz, after finally winning the amount of promised structural funding he needed to finance his government’s plans, standing in front of the cameras and jubilantly exclaiming, “YES!” – clenched fist and all.
That’s beginning to lose Poland a lot of political capital in EU circles. Now, newer member states are becoming reluctant to stand by Poland in these disputes as they had earlier, and some suggest that Poland is risking its natural role as a power and regional leader in the Union with such abrasive tactics.
"Poland is missing a great opportunity. Instead of being one of the large members that give the direction to the European Union policy, the government is taking on a role of a defender of its own and others' interests, even against their will," Cornelius Ochmann of the Bertelsmann Foundation in Berlin told Reuters.
And that risk is perhaps the most dangerous: Without influence, Poland will be isolated and left out of decision-making, and lose the ability to defend its citizens’ interests. While a semi-win on EU VAT rates and a tough stance against mega-banks may give it the appearance at home of a scrappy mutt that won’t be bullied by the bigger dogs, in Europe, it is very fast becoming the runt of the litter.
|
Why opposing P&O's takeover by DP World isn't racism
But isn't port security taken care of in the US by the fed and state governments?
It doesn't matter who owns the ports. In Britain, all the ports are privatised, P and O are a British company that is selling to a Dubai company thst has been trading all over the world for years.
This is not an issue to get all worked up about.
This isn't about who owns the ports beatroot. The State authorities will continue to own the ports.
This is about managing them.
Would you be comfortable with the Polish government controlling who gets hired and fired at a port in Brighton? Or where money is invested and disinvested at a port in Liverpool? Or how machines are maintained at a port in London?
The ports in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world are often run by companies which are of a different nationality than the ports themselves. The ports in the U.S. have been run by the British firm for a long time without apparent problems. Beatroot is right; the security of the ports in the U.S. is not run by the port manager - it is run by the Department of Homeland Security and is totally out of the control of the port manager. While Gustav makes an iteresting point about the UAE company being government owned as opposed to private, I do not yet share his concern about port security.
Of more concern is the effect blocking this contract would have on our relations in the Middle East. Already seriously strained, the relations could be destroyed if the contract is denied simply because the awardee is Arab. The UAE has been a staunch ally and you do not say to an ally (unless you want to get rid of them), we want your support, but you are Arabic and, therefore, unworthy of such a contract. Poland is already suffering under that kind of onesided relationship with the U.S. when it comes to visas. Denying this contract would, in my view, create far worse problems for the U.S.
The whole problem comes from a bigger one - that all policy is drawn up with security as the number one consideration. This obsurdity runs from the current fuss over P&O to the war in Iraq to what sparked this whole miserable state of affairs off in the first place, the WAR ON TERROR.
Once lawmakers decided that the US was 'at war' this justified all sorts of legislation and actions that have undermnined freedom and civil liberties and made some even question the ports deal because it is an Arab firm that is involved.
The US is not at war; the US and its way of life is not under threat; and the P&O ports will not be the end of civilization as we know it (although with the current crop of idiots in the government and opposition in the US, the real danger to the American way of life is from them, and not those scary foreigners.
What do you call an attack that kills around 3,000 people on American soil if not the first shot in a "war". While I do not agree that the invasion of Iraq was legitimately part of that struggle, it seems to me that al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. did they not? If someone declares war on you, are not, then, automatically in a state of war? If not, then what would create a state of war?
Beatroot, you have not answered my question.
Chuck, to you I put a similar question: Would you feel comfortable with the Polish government being in control of how cargo gets x-rayed at New York or Miami?
I wouldn't.
And beatroot - while fitting in very nicely with your view that Westerners just have to get tough with themselves and trust their own culture more for terrorism to magically disappear, it is clear that the US' way of life IS INDEED under threat, from Al Qaeda only for example. I agree that the US government is mounting its own threat through the slow wearing down of civil liberties. And while a foreign government's control of some American ports won't mean the end of civilization as we know it (hyperbole is an effective, but deceptive tool), it does represent a significant weak link in America's security - from terrorists or anyone else that might want to attack America through her ports.
But Chuck, as to the "3000 people" question - This was the same logic they used in the War on Drugs - Illegal drugs kill thousands every year. Are we in a state of war on drugs? Some might say we still are, but the reality is that no one takes this war seriously any longer, because the enemy is so nebulous. The same goes for the "War on Terror". Are we really fighting terror? We're no locking up Stephen King. No, it's really a war on "terrorism", right? - but the Bush administration (among other goverments) won't even agree to a definition of the thing. How can we be in a war with something when we don't even know what it is? How will we know when we've won?
And therein lies the rub. As long as the administsration declares we're in a state of "war" they can get away with things like Guatanamo. And since we'll never know when we've won, they can go on doing those things for as long as they like.
As for fighting Al Qaeda, well, that would make a bit more sense. I wish we had declared war on them instead of "terror", but still, where do you begin and where do you end? Al Qaeda is not a state you can take over, and you never know when all of them are dead. When do you know when the "war" with Al Qaeda is over? When we've killed all the possible sympathizers?
Depending on how you define "possible sympathizers" you could be talking about a third of the world's population. And ridding the world of that third is an ever more popular idea. But not one that I surely, and I think you too, Chuck, would accept.
So Chuck, if we really ARE in a state of war - against terror, terrorism, terrorists, or Al Qaeda - how do we know when we've won?
Gustav - can you expain to me how almost the mythical al-Qaeda, and the rest of the odd crazys who bomb tube trains in London etc, are a threat to 'our way of life'? They are no threat to me (unless I get really unlucky).
and by the way - I don't think anything is going to 'magically disappear'. This is a going to take a generation.
Great questions, Gustav. Let me respond.
"Would you feel comfortable with the Polish government being in control of how cargo gets x-rayed at New York or Miami?" The short answer is no. Nor would I be comfortable with DP doing it either. And that's the point - they won't be! That function - security - is under the control of the Department of Homeland Security (which is scarey enough, but at least it is our government) NOT DP. It seems that in this debate, people are losing sight of the fact that DP HAD to agree to allow the DHS to operate unfettered in the ports they operate.
"How do we know when we've won?" I don't know for sure and that bothers me. But it also bothers me that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda declared war on us before we did anything. In fact, it was before 9/11. I can't tell you how to know when the fight is over, all I know is that we are in a fight we didn't choose (with the exclusion of Iraq to my everlasting embarassment). Perhaps it will end the way all other anarchic periods have ended - the terrorist attacks became so few and so ineffectual that they were no longer really noticed. A scary possibility to this scenario is the fact that many anarchic periods ended either directly in a major war (WWI for example) or a period of facism (as a way to control the "anarchists/terrorists") followed by a major war (WWII for example). I can only hope that this country would not allow things to get far enough for facism to raise its ugly head. I also hope that lessons learned in Iraq will prevent us from fighting wars of choice in the future. As they say, "Hope springs eternal."
I don't pretend to be an expert Chuck, but I saw a news report in which they explained how the P&O management were controlling the X-raying of cargo at an American port, and how DP would be taking over those duties. Regardless, management and security cannot operate independent of each other, nor without depending on each other. And the intimate relationship between the two is a potential vulnerability. I am not convinced the political element cannot seep in. Can you link me to the safeguards, Chuck?
before we did anything
Is the bit of your statement I think many of the world's Muslims would dispute. How do we claim the high ground when in their minds we started it?
Beatroot -
Don't get too upset, I'm just making sure you're still kickin' since I haven't seen you around in a while.
Tell the loved ones of the victims that terrorists don't pose a threat to our way of life. What if more and more and more of us became "unlucky"? Is death in a terrorist attack to become as routine as a car crash or heart attack? Tough luck, but it happens, just a bit unlucky? I'm sorry, but that is a significant change to my "way of life" - when I have to regard terrorism as just another way to go. Is it not something both to be fought and prevented?
The government has programs to make the roads safer and people healthier. We fight these risks, oughtn't we also fight terrorism?
And this is not exaggeration, although I'm sure it's where you and I disagree: I, and I think most, see the very real possibility of a growing number of terrorist attacks around the world; That they will become more regular and more frequent.
Or perhaps you see that too, and say that it's the American and British governments who are to blame for the rise. Still, I saw that possibility long before the war in Iraq, before the war in Afghanistan, and before 9/11. - For me it hit home after the Cole bombing. Thereafter I really considered terrorism a minor, but real and growing threat to the lives of people I know - And that has changed my way of life.
Oh, common on! Don't give that 'try telling that to the thousands of families who have..." routine.
What they are calling terrorism is, for sure, a real danger to people in third world countries - particularly in the middle east. But in the West? Though all the deaths - 3,000 in the US, 60 or so in the UK, over 100 in Madrid - are tragic, these are ocassional, one off events. The cranks that do these things are not crack troops of some all-powerful mass army. They are isolated little gangs - western born or educated - and are simply are not capable of presnting any sustainmed damger to whole societies.
The danger to 'our way of life' comes from panicy and dim western ruling elites who are closing down avenues of free speech, expression and assembley - not some loonies in vests packed full of explosives.
This has been a great topic for discussion Gustav because it is generating some thoughtful points. The news reports here seem a bit confused on the point on how much influence DP would have over how security would mesh with operations. However, this seems due to two factors: politics and lack of understanding of what is actually in the agreement.
On the first point, I am getting very tired of the politicians "grandstanding" on this issue. I heard a guest on a news talk show suggest that a 45 day moratorium would be in order to learn what is in the agreement and if there are any holes. I think that is a reasonable stance and not one calculated to make political hay over this issue (which both the left and the right are doing -TOGETHER!) It seems reasonable to DP as well because they have voluntarily put the deal on hold to let Congress have time to learn whatever it is they want to learn. That is encouraging to me with respect to DP.
Secondly, there seems to be a dearth of information on this agreement due to CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.) and the way it handled the whole thing. They did not even tell the President until just before it got out (that part does not seem to be in disagreement). Furthermore, instead of answering questions directly, the President has said "Trust me" which is a stance that many cannot take given his record. There has appeared in some newsreports I've seen (on T.V. not the print media) mention of the fact that DP had to agree to cooperate fully with DHS. Perhaps, we will learn more during the moratorium.
It may be in their minds that we "started it", but I would like to know what they think we did that deserved the kind of horror launched on 9/11. Was it helping the Afghans fight the Soviet Union (even if it was done in our self interest and not in the interest of the Afghans specifically, it did help them defeat the Soviet Union)?
Osama said he was mad at us for putting troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Why should he be mad at us for that? The Saudis let us in there. Without their permission, there is no way we could have been there. Secondly, our reason for being there was not to harm Saudi Arabia, but to help another Arab country free itself from invasion by another Arab country - something the other Arab countries seemed reluctant to do. So Gustav, what, in their minds, did we do first that justified the kind of attack we saw on 9/11?
To Beatroot: Maybe its due to the fact that the U.S. has been fortunate enough not to have suffered very many terrorist attacks, but when those planes hit their targets, this country came together like I have not seen in my lifetime. The feeling was, "We've been attacked and we MUST respond or we'll be attacked again. And the next time it could be worse." It may not be justified, but that was the general feeling. Furthermore, I don't feel that "avenues of free speech, expression, nor assembly" have been closed down in the least. Nor do I think it is possible for that to happen. Just look at what has happened over the NSA wire tapping flap. It remains to be seen whether that was illegal or not (there appears to be both presidential (including Clinton) and legal precedent). However, the fact that the flap has occurred at all is reassuring to me because it means that people can object to government actions.
Isn't it called the Patriot Act?
This gives the government powers that could only be possible in a 'state of war'. In my country, Britain, we have now laws to imprison people without charge...laws to stop the 'gloryfication of terrorism' (what does that mean?) laws to protect religious feelings being insulted...and so it goes on and on. And all because there has been a massive inflation of the threat from Jihadist terrorism in the West.
I do not accept that the threat is so huge that we have to change our way of life for a group of freaks.
But it might help if we gave up the habit of invading countries and creating chaos.
Gustav - you have been tagged! See my blog for details...
Oh, common on! Don't give that...
It certainly changed their way of life beatroot. That's my only point.
And though I agree that the threat from terrorism is not 'so huge' that we ought to voluntarily restrict our own civil liberties, I still believe the threat of terrorism spreading is enough of a reason for us to combat it. That threat exists that "isolated little gangs" can get bigger, especially as disaffected groups in the West get bigger, and extremism becomes more popular.
After all, these "one off events" didn't used to happen - isn't that enough evidence that the danger from terrorism is growing? You call it "a massive inflation of the threat from Jihadist terrorism in the West," but more Jihadist terrorist attacks are happening now than ever in my lifetime. How big will it have to get before you recognize terrorism as a legitimate threat?
So while we shouldn't 'change our way of life' by restricting civil liberties, we should by integrating these groups better, working more towards social equality, and fighting extremist philosophies - Not only in our own countries, but throughout the world, as the extremist philosophies draw on the economic inequality around the globe as justification for their beliefs.
One way of doing that is by fostering democracy in oppressed populations.
Chuck-
I'd agree with a 45 day period in order to review the deal is in order. I'm willing to believe safeguards against political manipulation exist, but they must be very secure in order to satisfy my conecerns.
What they think we did that deserved the kind of horror launched on 9/11 has little to do with the US' involvement in the Afghani war against the Soviets, if the "they" we're talking about is Al Qaeda and their sympathizers and partners. What it has mor to do with is the "horrors" Palestinians endure at the hands of Israel, who's biggest ally is the US. From there, it has to do with what is a perceived invasion of Muslim parts of the world by Western countries, the most prominent instance of which is Iraq, but which "started" with the US presence in Saudi Arabia. And that perception is not eliminated by the fact that the US was "let in" by the Saudi government, since the Saudi royal family are hated by Al Qaeda, and are perceived as allowing the US to "invade". It's enough that the US is there at all. A perceived 10th Crusade is what we did first, Chuck.
"After all, these "one off events" didn't used to happen"
If that were true then that would be an interesting point. But it isn't.
There is no evidence that the threat of terrorism is growing in the west.
I know that many in America think that 'terrorism' started on Sept. 11th - but it didn't. If you had lived in Belfast, Derry, London, Kurachi, Chechnia, Afganistan, Spain, etc...you would be confused as to how the US could be the main financier of the IRA and not actually understand that this group was using violence for political aims. I think Bush and Clinton would call that 'terrorism', wouldn't they?
The difference these days is that cross border terrorist groups which brand themselves 'al_Qaeda' do not answer to any specific community and do not have a political program - like the IRA, ETA etc did.
And they are very dangerous to the people in countries destabalized by the west in the middle east and elsewhere.
But those in the west, or Poland, are much more in danger of being run over by a motorist than they are of being blown up by a terrorist.
They're much more likely to be run over by a motorist than get AIDS, too, and yet...
It is true that these things didn't used to happen beatroot - not with this frequency and not on this scale. Before 9/11 when was the last time a terrorist attack of such a size hit the US or anywhere else for that matter? Sure, there have been attacks in Europe from groups like the IRA and ETA - But those attacks were visibly decreasing. ETA almost always warns the public before an attack - their attacks rarely kill anymore. Also, I can't remember the last time there was a an IRA attack on British soil.
In the last 5 years, we have experienced at least three major terrorist attacks in Western countries, all claimed by Al Qaeda.
In non-western countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Turkey, where terrorism also existed before, the scale and numbe have greatly increased in this time period. Yes, it happened before beatroot - but not so often and not on this scale. Even so - THEY WERE STILL FOUGHT BY GOVERNMENTS. I say again, it is only natural to fight terrorism. It still seems to me that your solution is to swat a hand at it and say "pshaw". Even when terrorism was a regular thing in your book, governments still tried to combat it. What would you do in their position?
Indeed, if it's been this way for so long now, as you say, isn't it about time we got on top of it?
And by the way, Americans are no strangers to terrorism. There was the World Trade Center bombing exaclty 13 years ago today, as well as the Oklahoma City bombing. While the latter was quite big, it was still nothing on the scale of 9/11.
So tell me again how events such as 9/11, the London subway bombing, the Madrid train bombing, the Bali bombing or the HSBC and British consulate bombings in Turkey - all motivated by a single, worldwide philosophy - were regular occurrences, coz it still sure seems to me that terrorism isn't only growing in the west, it's growing worldwide.
Your very own government agrees with me and is doing a good job of keeping track of the "evidence". Can you produce a similar list for any other group at any other period of time beatroot?
'During the 1980s, the number of international terrorist incidents worldwide averaged about 360 a year. By the year 2000, it was down to just 100.'
Paul Robinson, Spectator, 5 Aprii 2005
You are confusing one off spectaculars (in whuch the crazies got lucky) with regular terrorist activity. The risk to Westerners is very, very low (the same can not be said, these days, for Iraqis). .
By the year 2000...
And after 2001?
I might add, that the drop had a lot to do with concerted government and international efforts to combat terrorism. There were ETA and IRA members (for example) being arrested, after all.
You must have noticed how most of these "spectacular events in which the crazies got lucky" have happened only within the last few years, the most spectacular coming in the West. How can you claim then that the risk of terrorism in the West is not growing? There have been three "one-off spectaculars" in the West in the last five years - not to mention several high-profile thwartings of attacks. When before in history did that happen?
Now that you've successfully maneuvered the argument to one about whether terrorism is scary for Westerners or not, I'd like to get back to my original question, which you never answered:
Would you feel comfortable with the Polish government - or the UAE gov't, or the American gov't, or any foreign gov't - making executive decisions about how Britain's most strategic ports are managed on a day to day basis?
From MSNBC NEWS Sept. 2, 2004
Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise
NBC News findings run counter to recent Bush administration claims
By Robert Rivas and Robert Windrem
NEW YORK - As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.
Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year.
In the past 10 days, in fact, the number of dead has risen by 142 people in places as diverse as Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. On Tuesday, the number of civilians killed by terrorists totaled 38 — 10 at a subway entrance bombing in Moscow, 16 in a bus bombing in Israel and 12 Nepalese executed in Iraq.
...
Since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the analysis, around 1,500 have died in terrorist attacks in Iraq, nearly 700 in Russia, more than 350 have died in Israel, around 200 in Spain and more than 100 in the Philippines. The numbers sometimes are imprecise because of the nature of the attacks, which leave many missing.
Using the odds of dying in a terrorist related attack during your lifetime as noted below from the CDC, let's compare them to the odds of dying from a long list of real, everyday dangers.
1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack
1 in 1,500,000 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week
1 in 55,000,000 in a terrorist-caused plane disaster assuming one such incident a month and you fly once a month
See Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/4/22363/72090
Speaking of labor mobility
"Instead of flooding the market with "Polish plumbers,"--the European catchphrase for cheap, low-skilled immigrant labor-"
You obviously never employed a plumber in Britain. They certainly aren't as cheap as a Polish plumber, but when it comes to low skills, I would rather have a Polish plumber any day. At least they had some sort of training, and can read and write.
A recent article I read said the Poles had taken over the punting business in Cambridge because they were better at it, worked harder and were more polite. For those who don't know, "punting" means "poling" a flat boat along the river for some lazy tourists, rather like gondola boatmen in Venice. And yes, the article made the obvious joke.
Who is your "you" addressed to Varske? The author I hope.
It's true I never empolyed a British plumber, but living here in Poland over the past 5 or so years, I have indeed hired a Polish one.
He ripped me off (apparently, I had no idea until my landlady told me), probably because he thought I was a rich foreigner (by his standards I AM a rich foreigner).
Still, by comparing his price to what one normally pays in the states, I thought I got off pretty well at the time. So not so bad. And my shower's fixed. :)
Finns show common sense
But do you think that many Poles will be lning up to buy a ticket to Helsinki? Not a top olish destination, me thinks...
It's the principle of the thing. More opportunities are better than none at all, and this sets an example for other EU countries.
Anyway, the Finnish economy is mainly based on technology, science and research. That means most Finns are involved in those sectors, leaving opportunities for those with less high-tech skills - like plumbing or bus-driving for example. It also means there are lots of opportunities for highly-educated Poles, whose skills go to waste here.
No, there probably won't be a giant wave of Polish immigration to Finland, but hey, I expect the salaries for the jobs Poles will be going for are much higher there than they are here.
the Finnish economy is basically based around the small town of Nokia...
Dubya and the Duck
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a transcript of
remarks by President Bush and President Kaczynski of Poland in photo
opportunity:
The Oval Office
11:57 A.M. EST
PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, welcome to the Oval Office. It's really
good to have you here. We have just had a extensive discussion about important
issues. After this press statement we'll go have lunch and continue our
discussions. And we've got a lot to discuss, because we're strong allies and
friends. We're friends in liberty. We believe in peace.
I told the President, it's amazing to be sitting with somebody who knows
the difference between living in a society that is not independent, and not
free, and one that -- and now he's the President of a free country. I thanked
the President and the Polish people for their support of democracy movement in
Iraq.
We had a very interesting discussion about NATO and the European Union.
You can be an active member of the EU, a loyal member of the EU and a friend
of the United States at the same time. I asked the President his advice on
Ukraine. That's what friends do -- they share information and share strategic
thoughts.
We talked about the importance for commercial ties. We'll continue those
discussions over lunch. The President of Poland comes to a country that
respects Poland. There's a lot of Polish-Americans that have still got great
pride for the homeland. We congratulate you on your victory and welcome you.
Thanks for coming.
PRESIDENT KACZYNSKI: President Bush has spoken of the subject of our
talks. The first part has been extended, to a certain extent, and we will
continue our discussions during lunch. We have discussed issues relating to
NATO, the European Union, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia and Iraq and
Afghanistan. In other words, to say very briefly, we've discussed all issues
that both countries are interested in.
Mr. President and myself have discussed issues relating to freedom in the
Ukraine and Belarus. And the support of the United States for all actions that
are leading to freedom in Ukraine and Belarus are very important for Poland,
at the same time. There have been certain signals that might lead to an
improvement of relations between the Republic of Poland and the Russian
Federation. We have no certainty yet, but these signals we have received, and
we're hoping for an improvement in relations between Poland and Russia. We
shall continue our talks in a few minutes.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
END 12:02 P.M. EST
SOURCE White House Press Office
I've discovered that although I often find written translation an absorbing and interesting sideline I lack the temprement of a good spoken interpreter (namely my mind starts to drift in the boring parts).
Nevertheless I would have paid to be on the interpreting staff at Bush - Kaczynski behind closed doors. The biggest bonus would be the total culture clash with Bush's politics-as-business schmoozing and tendency to give demeaning nicknames as an expression of his power and Kaczynski's politics as moral crusade and liable total disdain of Bush's faux Texas behavior (probably the only thing I don't detest about the duck).
It seems to me that they both exhibit a kind of "I'm-not-one-of-themhigh-falutin'-edumacated-types" attitude that goes well together. Plus, PiS' platform of social "solidarity" is very close to the idea of compassionate conservatism, that is: trample all over civil liberties while enacting populist agendas and then call yourself sensitive for doing it.
PiS is the Polo-European incarnation of the neo-cons.
I doubt there was any tension in the room at all Michael, these two are a match made in hell.
Just wait.
Not the vibe I've gotten from Kaczynski, he might play to the rubes but doesn't see himself as one (the way Lepper quite rightly does) or want to be seen as one. Who he really reminds me of is a communist era local official who takes himself very seriously and doesn't know how to handle disagreement or dissent.
The things he has in common with W (not being good at the whole compromise thing) are even more likely to drive them apart.
This was obscured in the current newscycle somewhat by Cheney's decision to shoot a buddy in the ass.
A small price to pay for hours and hours of hilarity.
Twisted
I saw this too. While I was reading it, I could almost hear the Polish conservative voice in my ear 'she shouldn't have got herself pregnant if she didn't want to be a blind single mother of three...'
If she was a single mother of 2, why did she get pregnant again? Was it voluntary or was she raped? Was birth control available to her or not? If so, why did she not use it or did it fail? I think that before I can decide which side I support, I need more information. Is there more available?
Most information I've found is in Polish media. But let me just answer your questions hypothetically, and see if you still aren't sure that you can decide Chuck.
Let's just say that she was not raped. In any case, if she had been, she would have been allowed to have an abortion in Poland.
Birth control is widely available in Poland, so I imagine she had access to it, barring strange and unusual circumstances.
Let's just say, hypothetically, that she simply did not use it.
Your question implies (from my reading) that if all of this is true, she DESERVED to go blind, because she was somehow careless. I reject this conclusion.
If she wanted to get pregnant, you seem to suggest that she shouldn't have wanted to because she was single, and hence should have been prepared to bring up three children blind. Do you think she should have also been forced to have this child if she had not been a single mom? If so, why? Because it would be easier to manage three children blind when you have a husband?
If she didn't want to get pregnant, you seem to suggest that it was her fault for not using birth control, and hence deserves all of the consequences that come with bearing a child, including, in her case, blindness. That's a draconian punishment for such a common mistake, Chuck.
Chuck - would you support gouging out the eyes of all women who do not use birth control? If not, then why do you believe this woman deserved blindness -- because she had the bad luck of getting pregnant? If we're going to do these kinds of things, let's be consistent and not let chance decide.
Abortion is the business of the woman whose body is having the pregnancy. Period.
I think I misread the article. Upon reading it again, it appears to me that she was told she could go blind very shortly after discovering she was pregnant and not after she had the baby (which is how I read it the first time, for some reason) I thought the article was implying that she found out after the birth of her third child and got pregnant a fourth time, even after the warning. This is obviously not the case. I agree that she should have been able to have the abortion, ESPECIALLY in this case. I don't understand why she was refused. However, I do question why she chose to get pregnant or to take the risk of getting pregnant (if she had birth control available) when she already had two kids and was a single mother. It is a very difficult job for a single mom to bring up kids and the single women who do so have my respect. However, being in that situation and choosing to engage in behavior which could only make her situation and that of her existing children worse is irresponsible behavior. If she did not have a choice or if the birth control failed, then she has all of my sympathy. This is why I wanted more information on the situation. If she got herself into the situation by choice (which is not evident in the information so far), then she should have been able to get the abortion, but she should not get much sympathy. I think you read way to much into my questions.
On the point of whether or not the children would be better off with a father, I would say that as a general rule, kids are better off with both a mother and father present as long as it is a loving and caring home for all involved. If it is an abusive situation (physical, mental, or emotional), then such is not the case.
I didn't know that "family values" included abortion.
I also didn't know that responsibility for one's actions was "draconian punishment".
Furthermore, I was surprised to learn that not giving a woman an abortion was analogous to "gouging out the eyes of all women who do not use birth control". I didn't know that it was a "consistent" view to see things this way.
Thanks for the peek into your worldview Gustav.
I hope that you're around to tell the kid that he's a "draconian punishment" and that "family values" would have warrented his killing when he gets older. No doubt you view this as the "compassionate" position.
I didn't know that "family values" included abortion..
It does when the other alternative is causing a woman to go blind.
I also didn't know that responsibility for one's actions was "draconian punishment".
That forcing someone to go blind for getting pregnant constitutes "responsibility for ones actions" is also new to me, likwidshoe.
Furthermore, I was surprised to learn that not giving a woman an abortion was analogous to "gouging out the eyes of all women who do not use birth control".
It is not, and I don't say that it is. I say that Chuck's question implies that he believes that women who don't use birth control ought to go blind, since he seems to say that going blind was ultimately "her fault" for getting pregnant. Should all women who get pregnant be prepared to go blind - or just this one because she was unlucky?
Thanks for the peek into your worldview Gustav.
You're welcome. It is my blog after all, and that's what it's for, and presumably, why you came and kept reading.
I hope that you're around to tell the kid that he's a "draconian punishment" and that "family values" would have warrented his killing when he gets older.
The child isn't the punishment likwidshoe, the forced blindness is - and I think you know it. Family Values, in my view, would have warranted allowing the mother to terminate the pregnancy if she wished, because blindness ought not to be the punishment for fornication.
Worthy
Is Poland winning with brinkmanship?
Poland might be seen as the 'runt of the litter' by the Eurocrats in Brussels, but normal people in Europe might see Poland as being a member of the ever growing awkward, against centralisation of power and politics into the hands of unelected, and mostly failed, national politicians and officials which make up the decision making bodies in Brussels.
This is why euroscpetics wanted to see an expansion of the EU. By increasing the number of countries voting it weakens the power of the Germany-France axis. Now Poland - a poor country - has as much power within Brussels as France, Germany, UK. And that's good.
I don't think the image of Poland is endangered by Polish antics in the EU, it's the EU itself that has the image problem with the average European citizen.
I agree that the Eurocrats have very little recourse to respond to Poland's cheek. But I think that while some outside Brussels see Poland as an admirable rebel, most see Poland as living up to its backward, stubborn image.
This is why euroscpetics wanted to see an expansion of the EU. By increasing the number of countries voting it weakens the power of the Germany-France axis.
- Reminds one of the chaos caused by the liberatum veto, doesn't it?
Now Poland - a poor country - has as much power within Brussels as France, Germany, UK. And that's good.
But not fair. As far as I remember, since the constitution didn't pass, Nice is still in force, isn't it? That means Poland has nearly the same number of votes in the EU as those countries, though it has a far smaller population.
I don't think the image of Poland is endangered by Polish antics in the EU, it's the EU itself that has the image problem with the average European citizen.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I think you're right that the average EU citizen believes the union is too unwieldy - but they disagree as to weather it should be more centralized or devolved in order to solve that problem. One thing is sure though, Poland's antics in the EU are noticed by international businesspeople - and that's not good for FDI.
|
my feed
