Current Events: Dubai Port Company Deal is Disgraceful

So the government is going to contract out operations at six U.S. ports to a state-owned company based in the United Arab Emirates? Are they out of their f***in' mind?!? ---------------------------------- According to our own government's information (the CIA World Factbook), the UAE came into existence in the early 1970s and consists of seven member emirates. Given its Persian Gulf locale, it is also a "strategic location along southern approaches to Strait of Hormuz, a vital transit point for world crude oil". The president and vice president of the UAE are elected by the Federal Supreme Council (composed of rulers of the seven emirates) for five-year terms. In terms of a legislature, members of the unicameral, 40-seat Federal National Council members are appointed by the rulers of the constituent emirates for two-year terms. --------------------------------- Without rehashing the excellent talking points in the link above and the analysis in the article below, let me raise one additional point, particularly the fact that Dubai Ports World is a state-owned company. Despite a good stretch of relative stability for the UAE, an emirate in the Middle East is not exactly the most stable government. -------------If there is future uncertainty as the current ruler's successor or, even worse, an Islamist government comes to power, a neighboring country invades or the UAE in its present form fragments, what would happen to the DPW's records, business operations and relations with the U.S.? What might an Islamist government do with records, documents and information about six major U.S. ports? What would happen to port operations in the U.S. in the aftermath of such a change in the region? Did anyone who (and, indeed, we still don't really know who) approved this deal give a moment's consideration to the above issues? For more information on the Dubai Port Deal Debacle, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22cnd-port.html?ei=5094&en=f2d930432589b60f&hp=&ex=1140670800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

Gossip & Current Events: Mineta Majorly Miffed at Britney Baby Pics!

The photos of Britney fleeing the paparazzi with little Sean Preston on her lap have apparently attracted the attention of a government figure no less important than the Secretary of Transportation!

Gossip & the Law: Restraining Order May Wreck Paris' Partying Pursuits!

Since the guy who took out the restraining order against the Aristocratic Airhead attends a lot of the same social events as her, and since she must stay a certain distance away from him, depending as to its terms the order may genuinely put a crimp in her social life.

Odd Story: VODOU SKULL Seized at Airport

At first I wondered whether it was necessarily illegal to possess a human skull. Apparently, it is if you intentionally smuggle one into the country or otherwise don't have the proper papers for the skull.

Humor: Chronic of Narnia (SNL)

If this is not all over the internet yet, it soon will be. If it already is, then this post is moot. I watched this video about a dozen times over the weekend, and now the lyrics are totally in my head. thechronicofnarnia.com, which seemingly just sprang up overnight, has the lyrics but the video is sketchy. I found the link above to be the best because you can make it full screen view. Very funny!

Current Events: Arabs vs. Denmark

In response to a Danish newpaper's political cartoons with which they did not agree, Arabs throughout the world have not only boycotted Danish goods but have, unsurprisingly, turned to violence and destruction to voice their displeasure.--------

Should the newspaper have run the cartoons? No. Without actually having seen the cartoons (only reading a description of the most inflammatory one, a drawing of Mohammed with a bomb-like turban), the newspaper probably should not have printed them. With rights come responsibilities, and no one would, for instance, condone stereotypical, Jim Crow-era depicitons of blacks as a legitimate exercise of free speech.----------

Have the Arabs overreacted? Yes. Apparently drawings or deciptions of Muhammed are forbidden in Islam lest they lead to idolatry. Okay, fair enough. However, the publishing of such drawings neither justifies torching a Danish embassy, nor a wholesale boycott of all Danish goods. --------

Unfortunately, open political discourse, a free press and basic freedoms are unavailable in the Arab world, and thus people have no other outlet for their frustrations and discontents other than the blunt instrument of violence. (e.g. what good would it do to write a letter to the editor of a state-run paper criticizing government policy?). The fact that such cultures glorify the gun over the book, the knife over knowledge, only embeds the problem further.---------

The biggest outrage in regard to the Arab reaction to the Danish cartoon is this: the Arab press routinely runs vicious, derogatory anti-Semitic cartoons which depict Jewish people in a manner (malicious) and with an ultimate intent (murderous) no different than the Nazis. I don't think that papers should run any kind of anti-religious cartoons. Until the Arabs stop doing so, they have no right to complain whatsoever.

To read more about the transformation of Europe into Eurabia, see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/international/europe/08islam.html?ei=5094&en=102c025d3704270c&hp=&ex=1139374800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

Sport & The Law: Intellectual Property Dispute Pits Texas A&M vs. Seattle Seahawks

Sports: True or False??? - The Detriot Lions Once Were Good

Sports: Super Bowl Pick

As of this morning, Pittsburgh is a 4 1/2 point favorite with an over/under of 47. While I think that the Steelers will beat the spread, the o/u is more difficult to prognosticate; usually over is the wiser pick but in this case I am not so sure. That said, my pick for Super Bowl XL is: Steelers 28, Seahawks, 19.