If, in years past, you came along with me on my daily commute from the Jersey Shore to Manhattan via rapid ferry service, you would undoubtedly have seen something like the picture to the left.   That's a freight vessel bearing the markings "NSCSA" - The National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia.   I'm not sure that any one day passed when I didn't see a Saudi national vessel either navigating the water of New York Harbor or parked at a terminal.   Freighters and tankers from many other nations are represented as well but the Saudi one stuck out since not very long ago some folks from that country, and others, were responsible for the interruption of a near perfect day's view of the NYC skyline.   Yet we allow these ships access to our shipping terminals every day.   Actually we must since a huge amount of the goods we take for granted each day arrive similarly.

These freighters come right up the bay into the various harbor areas and pass within a very close distance to land.   If some terrorist really needed to gain access to this country, it would be a small matter to board a Saudi ship and then jump while the vessel slowly made its way to port.   If there were concerns regarding the man overboard's survival it would be even more simple to arrange for a small recreational vessel to pick him up.   Nobody would be the wiser.   Even if one of the many fisherman who drop anchor or troll the area did spot a man jumping ship, it would be unlikely they would be able to alert the authorities in time to stop the pleasure boat before it brought its cargo to shore.   That is the reality of the situation near our ports.

I think this was along the lines of what I conjured up when I first heard the news that "management" of a number of ports including New York's would be acquired by a company owned by the government of the UAE.   There were UAE citizens aboard those planes on Sep 11.   While the Bush administration says the UAE has been a good partner inn the war on terrorism, they did supply some hijackers and al Qaeda's money did pass through their financial institutions.   If we turn over management of our ports to the UAE, aren't we providing a secret back door for terrorists to use for private entry into our country?   Well, as usual it turns out not to be so simple.

For one thing, what exactly does "port management" mean?   And if Dubai Ports World were actually to be a branch of al Qaeda themselves, what additional would they have gained by acquiring the operating rights in some of our terminals?   The first thing I decided to try to figure out in order to sort out this mess was how exactly is the local port operated. So I checked out Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA)'s web site and found:

"The Port Authority directly oversees the operation of seven cargo terminals in the New York-New Jersey region.   Each terminal offers comprehensive shipping services, a qualified, highly productive labor force and competitive pricing."

"The Port Newark/Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine Terminal complex (NJ), the PA Auto Marine Terminal (NJ), Brooklyn Piers and Red Hook Container Terminal (NY) and Howland Hook Marine Terminal (NY) handle most of the cargo and these facilities are managed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.   In addition, there are private operators such as Global Marine Terminal and a number of marine terminals operated by private bulk cargo operators."

So my first conclusion is no private company is an outsourced solution for port management.   The PA handles what would ordinarily be called "management."   And that management involves leasing usage rights to private companies, some of which are actually not all that private as they are owned by governments of countries which still have nationalized industry like China, several South American countries, and even France.   So I conclude the British company which owns the rights at the center of the controversy must operate some freight terminals which the PA really "manages."   But as you go through the PA web site it becomes increasingly obvious that the rights at issue are hardly even close to being in the ballpark of total "management" of the port facility.   The PA's site says:

"In addition to terminals owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Port of New York and New Jersey depends on the stewardship of private operators to help manage the port terminal network. Private operators such as Global Marine Terminal, the City of New York's South Brooklyn Terminal, and a number of marine terminals operated by private oil companies along the southern New Jersey coastline, handle loads such as imported liquid bulk crude oil.   The NYC Passenger Ship Terminal is operated by P&O Ports North America."

"The NYC Passenger Ship Terminal is operated by P&O Ports North America."   P & O is the company DPW is acquiring.   We're (including me) getting our bowels in an uproar because a UAE company is going to be operating a passenger ship terminal?   Why did I have to go digging for this?   Is this not a material part of the debate about whether this deal should go through?   What are we concerned with?   Is DPW going to kill cruising customers so they can steal their identities for use by terrorists?   How long are we going to have to go until the news media gives us a complete and accurate picture on this?

When I run across an inconsistency, that usually drives me to find more of them.   That's what I like to call my "auditor mentality."   So I set out to see if I could find more.   Here is what I found by port:

Baltimore

This piece involves a six-year contract to manage two facilities which expires in 2007.   According to the Baltimore Sun, the operations being acquired in the Port Of Baltimore involve a grand total of 65 employees.   65 employees?   To me that just doesn't seem like a very big operation.   I used to do the books for a small foreign-owned Orange Juice extract company at Port Elizabeth, New Jersey which had a larger payroll.

Philadelphia

The Philadelphia port operation is a 50% joint venture partner in Delaware River Stevedores (DRS), which provides stevedoring and terminal services in Philadelphia, PA, Camden, NJ, and Wilmington, DE).   The lease for space at the Port of Philadelphia expires this year.   It is impossible to convey just how huge the Port of Philadelphia and Camden actually is.   If you've ever driven by or through the area, you know what I'm talking about.   No single private company manages a single facility as large as this anywhere on the planet.   If you want to take a look, check out their 2004 annual report.   Bridge tolls alone bring in $200 million per year.   The number of persons employed by Port of Philadelphia and Camden exceeds the number of worldwide employees of P&O.   So, it is hard to imagine they are "taking over management" of the port facility.

Miami

The property acquired by DPW here is a partnership interest with Eller & Company of Miami in Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company (POMTOC) which has annual volume of freight of 600,000 containers.   This represents almost half of total freight handled at the port which is certainly impressive.   But Miami is more a cruise ship terminal than it is a freight port.   According to the Port of Miami web site, the organization which actually manages the port employs about 98,000 people.   I can't find anything about how many POMTOC employs but it's half partner is suing for $10 million in damages over the acquisition.   Based on that figure I don't think you can call POMTOC a major piece of the "management" of the Port of Miami.

New Orleans

According to P&O's web site, the New Orleans operation is pretty large and includes "400,000 sq. ft. of open wharf" and "waterside and city-side tracks with rail capacity in excess of 130 rail cars."   While that is certainly a nice sized facility, I suggest to you that it doesn't rise to the level of the "management of the Port of New Orleans."   According to the Port of New orleans web site they have 22 million square feet of cargo handling area and more than 6 million square feet of covered storage area.   The port is services by 6 discreet railroad services - I guess handling P&O's 130 rail cars barely registers.   I guess you could say P&O's size is roughly akin to a pimple on the Port of New Orleans butt.


So now I've got a real problem opposing this thing.   Ports throughout this country and throughout the world are managed by governments because they are so large.   One of the bigger sources of revenue for these ports comes from leasing facilities to "foreign" companies who want to operate port facilities.   these private businesses create much of the infrastructure which makes ports work.   I'm not surprised that a hayseed like Hillary, from land-locked Arkansas, doesn't understand that ports are dependent on foreigners, but somebody in the media ought to at least explore this.   The UAE is not buying into the management of this nation's ports.   It is buying up operations which rent space at a number of ports.   Oh, and by the way, this port thing is not DPW's first venture into U.S. business.   The company already owns CSX World Terminals.   I guess it's already too late to protect ourselves from them.

Compare and contrast these two stories posted just three and a half hours apart:

AP: Coast Guard Worries Reanimate Ports Debate

"Republican congressional leaders had hoped to curtail bipartisan outcries over a United Arab Emirates-based company's pending takeover of some U.S. port operations by brokering an agreement for a new investigation of the deal's potential security risks.

Then came the disclosure that the U.S. Coast Guard had raised concerns weeks ago that, because of U.S. intelligence gaps, it could not determine whether the UAE company, DP World, might support terrorist operations."

Newsmax: Coast Guard Denies Port Security Fears

"The U.S. Coast Guard in denying a wave of media reports claiming it concluded that having Dubai Ports World run several dozen shipping terminals at U.S. ports poses a national security risk.

'What is being quoted is an excerpt of a broader Coast Guard intelligence analysis that was performed early on as part of its due diligence process,' said Coast Guard Commander Jeff Carter, in a press release issued late Monday.

'The excerpts made public earlier today, when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis performed by the Coast Guard. That analysis concludes 'that DP World's acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets''"

Note that the AP article appeared after the press release issued by the Coast Guard stating that its comments were taken out of context and, as a result, on the whole, were interpreted incorrectly.   Why did the AP article not include the Coast Guard's official response?   You make the call!

"Once the herd starts moving in one direction, it's very hard to turn it, even slightly."
      Dan Rather

According to UPI via Newsmax, the Dubai Ports World deal to acquire Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. may actually involve operations at 21 ports, far more than initially reported.

It has been nearly two months since I suggested to you that to Hollywood tolerance is just not good enough.   If we really wanted to consider ourselves enlightened, we really must go see a gay cowboy romance.   I suggested that there were about 3 million gays in the US and it would be surprising if most did not go see the film.   I also figured there would be a fair number of fag has and "progressive" women who might be cajoled into seeing it.   I predicted the movie would gross around $50 million but I never counted on the volume of advertising promoters did.   There was virtually no venue where you could escape ads for this sure-fire Oscar winner.   I heard radio spots on conservative talk radio, saw TV commercials on, of all places, Fox News, and even macho sporting events were peppered with Brokeback moments.   I know "progressive" women considered it to be a must-see hip film.   And I never even considered that some folks would go see the thing twice, even three times.   Yet my figures were not all that bad.   I said 50 and to date the film has grossed about 72.   It won't be in the theatres for much longer, however, as per screen stats show about 25 people in each theatre showing it now.   Maybe that's the new standard for success in the film industry but it is not a profitable trend.

At last we can stop hearing about this very much non-mainstream film.   Well, we will have to hear all this hype again during Oscars.   But perhaps the film industry has learned its lesson.   Reuters had an interesting postscript for the film.   They consider it to now be part of popular culture.   They looked to the number of jokes and comics it resulted in as indicative of an embrace.   Right!   Just like derogatory jokes about ethnic groups show we have gotten over racism.

If you are interested in this US port / DPW deal and haven't yet read Charles Krauthammer's take on it, you should.   Here it is:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022301393.html

Hillary Clinton is happy this DPW deal deal has been delayed.   But her blasting of the deal has very little to do with some fundamental interest in defending the homeland.   Rather her voice in this plays to her New York constituency in this election year.   But it also plays into her fund raising activities which according to reports yesterday have stepped it into high gear, possibly more for any future run for president rather than this Senatorial campaign.   Monies collected now can be applied to the 2008 presidential race if she chooses to go that way.   And the Clintons have tapped the deep UAE well in the past so perhaps Hillary's intellect can be persuaded to see the big picture on this provided thatn somebody directs a few bucks in her direction.

But Hillary expressed more than pleasure at the delay in the deal.   She also said, "We cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure like our ports. This is a job that America has to do."   That comment drew applause but, as Hillary knows, there is no American business enterprise which is in this business.   So what the heck is she talking about?

Hillary also said, "America has lost some of its can-do spirit.   We have?   That's news to me as I'm sure it is to Intel, Apple Computer, Microsoft, Google, Wal-Mart, and hundreds of other rising business stars which were started up in this country.   If anything the state of the American economy remains the envy of the world.   We don't make nearly as much stuff as we used to but the rest of the world still uses our intellectual power.   that may not last with the current state of affairs in the nation's schools but with more effort we can turn that around, no thanks to the liberals and teachers' unions.   But how can someone claim we have lost our spirit?   That is dispiriting to the common man and not true.   We remain as strong a country as ever.   Sure we have problems and let's talk about those so we can develop solutions.   But don't put us down.   We've done nothing to deserve being disrespected in this manner.

"Our democracy, our constitutional framework is really a kind of software for harnessing the creativity and political imagination for all of our people.   The American democratic system was an early political version of Napster."
      Al Gore

You just gotta love liberals, they're so well intentioned.   And they love to hold ceremonies to present awards to their friends.   Nowhere is the need for public recognition more obvious than the entertainment world which feels it necessary to recognize the achievements of ever growing numbers of its membership every single year.   Not only that, they have to hold multiple ceremonies for the same thing like the SAGs, the Oscars, and Golden Globes, just in case you missed one or the other.   But among liberals there is no higher award than the Nobel Peace Prize.   Entertainers do not generally earn this but they are frequently nominated.   This year the lucky recipients of nominations include Bono and Bob Geldof.

I'm still at a loss for words to describe how I feel about the past several attempts by entertainers to create an organization to do charity with other people's money.   These are among the most wealthy individuals in the world but when it comes time to give, they give something important more than their considerable fortunes, they give themselves.   They give themselves to plead and beg us and make us feel guilty enough to fork over as much money as we possibly can.   Then we are allowed to go our separate ways with the warm feeling inside of having cared, having given a piece of our much smaller "fortues," having contributed to solving the world's problems.   It is only years, perhaps decades, later that we learn how a few cents of each dollar we contributed actually reached its destination and from there was misdirected to some contrary purpose.

Still we hold the organizers of such self-agrandizing ceremonies as Live 8 in high esteem.   We even give the organizers nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.   What a hoot.   But that's no more of a hoot than many other interesting nominations for the prize.

Some notable past nominees:

Adolf Hitler
Josef Stalin
Benito Mussolini
Slobodan Milosevic
Stanley "Tookie" Williams

I guess it doesn't hurt one's chances of being nominated to be a murderer or even espouse genocide as the path to peace!   And sometimes even the winners of the prize are rather interesting studies in what the human world considers peaceful behavior.   Last year's winner of the peace prize was the UN's IAEA and its director Mohamed ElBaradei whose purpose in life has been to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms.   I guess they got the peace prize because, to all observers, they tried really hard even if they didn't accomplish the goal or even make serious inroads.

The UN and its organizations are frequent nominees and often winners of the prize.   The UN's peacekeeping forces won the prize in 1998.   I suppose their tendency to not accomplish their mission while committing rape of women, including the very old and, of course, the extremely young, as well as other well-documented atrocities was not general public knowledge when the prize was awarded.   In 2001 Kofi Annan and the UN itself won the prize but that was before the largest corruption scandal in the history of the planet, the oil for food scandal, was uncovered.   yet what exactly did the UN accomplish that year?   What Earth changing accomplishment warranted the award?   But before I leave you, I want to remind you of another noteworthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Yasser Arafat.   Was he involved in less killing that year so they figured they better give him the prize to encourage such behavior?

Is it not appropriate that the founder (post-humously) of the Nobel Prize, Swedish inventor, Alfred Nobel, was the inventor of dynamite.

I have heard far too many people including this nation's President declare that international terrorists have hijacked Islam for their own evil objectives.   A number of people of stature in the media and elsewhere have claimed that only "radical fundamentalist" Islam is implicated in the current state of international terrorism.   Yet I wonder what are the roots of Islamic terrorism, what are its goals and when did those first manifest themselves.

I'm sure many a college student today knows very little about the history of Islamic international terrorism.   Ask a college kid and they might say something like it started before 9-11 but that was mostly in Israel.   A really clever student might cite the attack on the USS Cole or maybe, if they've been to the cinema recently, one might even suggest the murder of Israeli athletes in Munich was the beginning.   Obviously that was not the roots of the movement.   They started even before the state of Israel was founded.   The pogroms and riots in Palestine of the 1920s and immediately subsequent decades all predate the founding of Israel.   Yet during those pre-Israel decades, Arabs targeted Jews for murder, killing a couple hundred and injuring thousands.   There is nothing which even suggests that a radical fundamentalist islamo-fascist ideology was at work during those times.   In fact, most Arabs of the day held similar views.

In more current years, the key organizations, which by the way predate al Qaeda, include Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Abu Nidal Organization and others.   Many of these organizations have members who are Islamo-fascists or fundamentalist but this philosophy has little to do with the foundations of these organizations.   Yes, they are all Muslim organizations but they do not espouse something which is radical when compared to "moderate Muslims."

The goals of all Islamic terrorists have always been the removal of Jews, Christians and all other non-Muslim others from what they view as land given them by God.   They set out to accomplish this goal by terror which they believe will ultimately result in "the removal of Israel from the map."   They advocate the complete anihilation of Jews - translated genocide.   They also advocate the same fate for anyone who gets in their way including us.   These organizations have never been outside the mainstream of Islamic thought.

Where did we ever get the notion that Islamic terrorists have ever been the one percenters - the radical extremists among the most fundamentalist Muslims?   Where did this idea that a few radicals hijacked a religion come from?   It just ain't so.   It is a complete fabrication.   It is a lie.   The next time you hear someone refer to a few radicals who have hijacked a religion, call them on it.   The concept does not withstand historical scrutiny.

Last night before I closed my eyes for the evening, I happened upon the AP story which will undoubtedly fill the news and talk radio today.   That news was generated when the AP obtained certain documents regarding the UAE-owned company buying up operational rights at 6 US ports.   Apparently the Bush Administration had imposed some double secret conditions on DPW, the company buying the rights, before it permitted the deal to go through.   According to AP, DPW "agreed to reveal records on demand about 'foreign operational direction' of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said.   Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment."

But as the AP pointed out, the administration "chose not to impose other, routine restrictions."   For example, they did not require DPW to keep copies of certain records in the US, "where they would be subject to court orders."   They also "did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests."

So while it seems that those who looked the deal over did consider security, they just didn't go far enough.   And that's really the problem here.   This is not an everyday business deal.   This is an exception.   It should have commanded greater scrutiny from higher ups, possibly even the President himself.   This is not an example of just another agency handling its responsibilities.   This is not an example of something which should be delegated and resolved without adult supervision.   This is one of those things that you take and run with, gather up all the relevant details, make recommendations, etc. but then take before your boss for final evaluation.

I know I spent a considerable amount of time working in a mid level "executive" positions at a large company for many years.   One of the things you learn once you become a manager is the ability to discern when something really needs the big boss's "pee" on it.   I have no doubt that this is one of those circumstances.   Also as a mid level exec, you have to make sure that whatever you do, you have to make sure you never make the boss look bad.   That did not happen here.   Basically lower levels of the administration thought they were big enough to run with this thing.   In so doing, they made the boss look bad.   This thing should never have gotten this far without at least consulting the President.   I expect that in the coming weeks and months, perhaps after this storm has passed, we will learn of a few "mid level exec.s" deciding to pursue other careers outside of public service.

At one point in my life I thought I knew what the flu was.   I think that's because the term is so overused.   Almost everyone refers to every ailment from a slightly severe rhino-virus induced cold to food poisoning the "flu."   I learned the hard way what the flu was all about a few years back.   In about the middle of my experience, I recall feeling as if death might be preferable.   (The chart to the left compares and contrasts flu with the common cold.   Click on the image to see a full sized version.)   Anyways, my experience with the "real flu" caused me to contemplate the flu shot and, this year, actually get one.   Today there is news regarding flu immunizations which everyone ought to at least consider.

The news today is that the US CDC's immunization advisory committee came to a unanimous decision that all children from 6 months to 5 years should be vaccinated against the flu.   The decision is curious, at least to me, given certain facts about the disease and the shot meant to prevent it.

First off, influenza can be many things.   There are a lot of different strains and these constantly mutate.   One type of flu kicking off the season might become a completely different strain by the time it reaches your nose.   That's why it is very difficult to predict the precise strain which most people are at risk of getting.   There just is no way to predict what mutations will take root.   That's why scientists are divided over whether the "bird flu" dominating the news will mutate into a type passed from human to human, and if it does, whether that strain will be anywhere near as deadly as the "bird flu" itself.

The ever-mutating nature of influenza complicates the creation of immunizations since the manner in which these are manufactured requires lots of lead time.   The CDC is assigned the task of coming up with a strain prediction each year so that immunizations can be manufactured.   It is a lot like predicting on December 1 whether it will rain, snow, be sunny, warm or cold on March 17 using current weather science.   Meteorologists can say with absolute certainty that there will be weather on March 17 and that's about as accurate as things get.   So the bottom line is the flu shot is really a shot in the dark in terms of actually preventing the flu.

If you look around the web, read your local newspapers or talk to the family doctor, you will learn that while the flu shot may not prevent the flu, it makes the illness milder.   One place on the web I found said:

"The best way to avoid getting the flu is to get the influenza vaccine each fall, before the flu season.   The vaccine is available by shot or by nasal spray.   The vaccines work by exposing your immune system to the flu virus.   Your body will build up antibodies to the virus to protect you from getting the flu.   The flu shot contains dead viruses.   The nasal-spray vaccine contains live but weakened viruses.   You cannot get the flu from the flu shot or the nasal-spray vaccine.

Some people who get the vaccine will still get the flu, but they will usually get a milder case than people who aren't vaccinated.   The vaccine is especially recommended for people who are more likely to get really sick from flu-related complications."

Yet, if you look hard enough you will eventually find some troubling contradictory comments coming from disease experts.   I've seen several comments in the news stating that the current flu shot will do nothing against the "bird flu" because it doesn't address the same strains and it will not even make a case of it less severe.   I've never seen what I would think of as solid proof supporting the claim that getting a shot will really make a case of the flu milder.   That seems to be more in the nature of conjecture or mythology than hard science.   Until I see something definitive, I just don't believe it.   Could it be disease experts are administering a placebo?

So, why should we take our 6 month to 5 year olds in to get a flu shot?   The CDC group noted that 153 US children died from influenza in the 2003-2004 season which represents more than chicken pox, whooping cough, and measles combined.   But chicken pox, whooping cough, and measles have other long-lasting health implications while influenza does not.   And we inoculate against these diseases which is why there aren't more deaths associated with them.   Influenza is not just as bad as these three.   And if the immunization cannot really prevent the disease unless those making the predictions "win the lottery," how would this work to children's benefit?   Until there is real proof that getting the shot makes a case milder, getting one seems beneficial only in the manner of a placebo.

Dr. Carol J. Baker, president-elect of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, confounded my confusion when she said that vaccinating children has side benefits since "these children are significant spreaders of influenza within the household."   If the shot cannot prevent them getting the disease - only really makes it milder, presumably it doesn't prevent "these children" from spreading it to others in the classroom or household.   So that's just double speak.

The Reuters article I read announcing the CDC committee vote closed with:

"Many studies have found that adult vaccination rates for influenza fall well short of guidelines in the United States.   Fewer than half the 185 million Americans who are supposed to get flu shots actually ever do.

This is complicated by frequent shortages of influenza shots and trouble distributing them.   Vaccine makers have dropped out of the market, citing uncertainty, difficulty making the vaccine and fear of lawsuits.

The CDC hopes that by broadening the groups vaccinated, vaccine makers will be encouraged to get back into the business."

Now we're getting closer to the truth.   Our government feels vulnerable since so many companies have exited the immunization manufacturing business.   There isn't room here to get into that but let's just say it was a piece of legislation from a few years which precipitated that.   And this is their solution to the problem rather than working to repeal the cause of the problem.   Let's trump up the demand for vaccines and thereby make it profitable again!

I despise when government or anyone else tries to make me do something I wouldn't otherwise do.   But what really makes me mad is when anyone tries to coerce me into doing something by either using lies or dealing out partial information.   If the CDC really believes we should all get flu shots, let's have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
      Albert Einstein

Well, as the Winter Olympics comes to an end, I am left wondering why I ever watched this in the past.   The word which comes to mind is boring.   Apparently the rest of the country saw things the same way.   NBC reports ratings are down significantly from previous games.   But they will make a tidy little profit of about $50 to $75 million on airing the games.   And while network ratings are down, cable is doing quite nicely.   Not only are the company's cable stations seeing much higher ratings for Olympic coverage, there is apparently a residual effect.   Other cable shows are also drawing more viewers.   For example, "Hardball With Chris Matthews" is up more than 50% from 408,000 viewers to around 635,000.   Chris Matthews was averaging 408,000 viewers per night?   On a national broadcast?   I thought local radio stations went out of business with audiences that size?

Well, anyways, there was one positive note to the Olympic coverage.   I thought the curling was pretty interesting.   How about you?

The blow hards are bloviating in response to Bush's threatened veto of any congressional effort to stop the UAE state-owned company, DPW, from buying up operational rights at six US ports.   Democrats think Bush has painted himself into a corner.   Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats alike are almost united against the deal with just a few individuals arguing in support or at least calling for more rational discussion.   Democrats are working hard to claim it as their own - seeing it as an opportunity to move to the right of Bush.   This thing has become a political football.   And while I doubt the administration can score any points, I do think there are strategies which might yield better field position on the next possession.

Senatorial second-stringer Bob Menendez said, "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."   Sen. Joseph Biden said bipartisan opposition to the deal indicated "a lack of confidence in the administration."   Rep. Peter King, a Republican and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Her Majesty, Hillary Clinton have joined forces to introduce emergency legislation suspending the deal.   (Talk about waking up in a strange bed, looking over to the other side, and swearing you'll never drink again!)   The only Democrat voice not in total opposition to the deal is former President Jimmy Carter who, while a lousy President, was at least politically astute enough to win the office.   I didn't watch the show but apparently Bill O'Reilly came out in favor of the deal.   Conservative guru, Rush Limbaugh, while acknowledging that this thing will likely have a life of its own, did call for a more reasoned approach to analyzing the deal.

One wonders who the "we" is in Menendez's statement.   We should "test" the resolve of the President makes it pretty clear he means Democrats.   Republicans have no desire to test the resolve of the President, at least not in public.   Then he says we're securing the safety of our people.   He should be asked what exactly he means by that.   It is a pretty strong statement from a liberal who has clearly stated (in his campaign to be elected to the office he holds now by inheritance) his opposition to the Iraq war, saying he would never agree to a war he wouldn't send his "own son or daughter to fight."   If Saddam was not a big enough threat to go to war, it is very difficult to argue that a UAE business is any sort of threat.   If anything, the government of the UAE has been a great partner in the war on terror but let's save that for later.

Biden's statement is laughable.   There is no lack of confidence in the administration by anyone in conservative circles nor in the Republican side of Congress.   If that isn't clear to Biden by now, you have to wonder what he spends his day doing or what he is drinking at night.   If anything Republicans learned via the Harriet Miers thing that this is an administration which listens to them collectively.

Schumer is one of those Democrats who cries foul if the President blows his nose so anything he says is immediately suspicious.   Hillary has always been just along for the ride so nothing she says ever sheds any light.   King is in the difficult position of being a conservative hawk on homeland security and located in one of the places which feels most vulnerable in this thing.   If he doesn't come out against this deal, he will need to find new office space and enter into private practice.   He has to sleep in the same bed with the enemy just to keep his job this time.   He can either take a leadership position opposed to the deal or follow the Democrats - not a comfortable position to be in.

When Democrat figurehead Jimmy Carter comes out in favor of the deal, I wondered whether that shouldn't immediately call its sanity into question.   I haven't changed my mind on that.   Anything I have heard Carter utter in the past many years has been downright stupid from a practical point of view but often consistent from a philosophical one.   I think that's what's going on here.   He recognizes that the only way to be opposed to this is to proceed from the most base, knee-jerk, racist point of view.   When one thoroughly examines this thing, one is left recognizing that the overwhelming reason to be opposed to it is really a lumping together of all Muslims into the terrorist basket.   But I'm getting ahead of myself.

There are some very good arguments for allowing the deal to go through, or more accurately, not being opposed to it.   The arguments against it are largely based on a sort of black and white thinking that cannot be reconciled with the any sort of reason.   The reasons President Bush gave for allowing the deal coupled with comments of a few others are pretty solid.   Two of the 9-11 assailants came from UAE and much of al Qaeda's funds went through the country's banking system.   But UAE is a banking center of the Muslim world.   How much money from criminal and terrorist enterprises moves through New York's banks or the financial systems of other important international banking centers?   Do we prohibit New Yorkers or Swiss companies from working sensitive homeland security functions because al Qaeda used their banks?   Do we similarly prevent residents of Newark, NJ or Boston, MA from being exposed to anything sensitive because that's where the hijackers took off from?   No, that would be totally ridiculous.

Most importantly, the UAE has been perhaps the best Muslim partner in the war on terror.   UAE security authorities have captured numerous important al Qaeda operatives including its "operations chief" in the gulf region and a leader of a radical Islamic group Harkat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami.   A UAE official said, "We have handed over a number of high-value al Qaeda suspects either to their home countries or to the U.S."   What's more, there is a good reason the UAE has been so helpful, they hate the terrorists as much as we do.   And that feeling is reciprocated by al Qaeda.   As much as they hate the US, they hate secular governments in Muslim countries far more.   Their objective may be to destroy Israel, thereby causing them to hate the US, but before they get that far, they want to establish theocracy within their own world.   If the government of UAE is to stand, the terrorists must be defeated.

While the business doing the acquisition is a state-owned company, much of what comes out of the UAE is state owned.   their's is a utopian sort of country in which citizens don;t really have to work because the revenue from oil supports absolutely everyone.   they have so much money they literally don't know what to do with it.   As a result, they have created the most modern sort of city in Dubai.   Just ask someone who as been stationed over there what it is like.   loads of our military personnel have spent considerable amounts of time in Dubai and mostly have great things to say about it.   The UAE is no Afghanistan with tribal rulers financing private militias and practicing regional Muslim fundamentalist governments.   The place is as progressive (I don't mean the liberal sort of progressive) as anywhere in the Middle East.

And let's remember that this is a business venture.   These folks making the acquisition are not spending their billions in order to see it washed away from a terrorist attack.   They are in this to make money and, therefore, have almost as much vested in these things being operated with high levels of security as US citizens do.

Let us also not forget that this very same company already operates numerous ports which ship goods to this country every day and much of our shipping security apparatus works there with them.   We don't simply sit here checking containers as they arrive in our ports.   That would be ludicrous.   We examine freight before it enters our waters.   That is accomplished all over the globe and guess who is in charge of operations at those ports.   This company already has a huge track record of being extremely helpful to American homeland security efforts.

Finally, what we are talking about here is a high level financial transaction.   we are not talking about Ali Musab buying out the local 7-11 convenience store so he can poison your food.   If you've ever been involved in a corporate acquisition, you realize that on the day and month and year after the acquisition, the faces at the store seldom, if ever, change.   Sticking with the analogy, if Southland Corporation were to be purchased by Saudi Arabia, the guy you pay for your morning coffee wouldn't be replaced by some Saudi national.   While ports are unique in that they do employ foreigners, port operations would not replace all the current employees with new staff following a corporate acquisition.   Did you ever notice an influx of Brit.s when these operations were owned by the British company which is selling the business to the UAE?   That just doesn't happen.

The only thing opponents are left with to defend their position is a general distrust of Islam and a particular distrust of Islamic countries.   But, no, I don;t think that's the end of the issue and, no, I'm not going to come out and support the deal.

As I said, this thing has become a political football.   I doubt the administration can ever score any points with it so they are eventually going to be forced to punt.   If they do not, they are most assuredly going to fumble.   The only way you want to fumble a political football is if you are in your opponents red zone.   Right now the administration has the ball on its own five yard line, second down and 25.   And while the administration is known as a great defensive team, their offense is suspect and their passing game is almost non-existent.   And it is clearly the administration's fault both that this has become a football and they are pinned down deep in their own territory.   they failed to recognize the issue for what it is, a deeply emotional one.

I think I have stated why Bush is in favor of the deal but for the life of me I don't understand why he took such a hard stance so early in the controversy.   At the outset of the first negative reports in the press, it seemed apparent that Bush wasn't all that familiar with the deal.   His underlings approved the thing months ago but it was never communicated to the American people leading one to believe that the politically astute inside the administration weren't involved.   Had they been consulted, presumably some sort of public communication would or should have taken place.   But now the cat is out of the bag and the results are fairly ugly proving yet again that communication is always the answer.

Had Bush vetted the deal with Republican Congressmen, somebody might have raised the fact that the American people just would not tolerate it.   This is midterm election time and the last thing conservatives and Republicans need is to provide Democrats with ammunition with which to take back Congress.

Americans are largely unafraid of engaging in racism with respect to the Muslim world.   Just as a white person who was mugged by a black, or asian, or mexican assailant would not particularly be concerned about making racist statements, the American people may in polite circles engage in PC speak but, behind closed doors, most are completely wary of any middle eastern people.   that's the way it's going to be for a while so politicans might just as well get used to it.   We all have some element of "pre-jugement" in us.   That's as much a part of human nature as avoiding a hot stove.   We see a situation arising that has caused us harm in the past and we react without taking the time to fully analyze the facts.   that's called a survival instinct in other circumstances.   We see storm clouds on the horizon and hear what might be a clap of thunder.   Our next instinct is to get inside rather than running to consult the doppler radar and determine whether there really is a storm in the area.

Turning over our port operations to a Muslim country seems as if it runs the risk of providing entry to our most sensitive areas for terrorists and their weapons even if that is not realistically the case.   We are not "over" 9-11.   We may never be.   I know I'm not over 9-11.   My knee-jerk reaction was in opposition to this deal.   And even now that I have contemplated some of the facts, I'm still opposed to it.   I realize I am being a racist on this one but I don't care.   Somebody in the administration should have realized this was going to be a problem and done some advance PR if they really wanted this thing to fly.

Yet one is left wondering why Democrats feel it is appropriate to lambast this deal.   After all, one must essentially declare economic war on all Muslim countries in order to declare this deal dangerous.   I thought Democrats believed Bush was demonizing the entire Muslim world and that is, of course, immoral in our enlightened secular world.   I thought he was seeing things in black and white and not thinking things through rationally.   Wasn't that because he and most conservatives are rather stupid?   Here Bush is making the rational choice and democrats are reacting with racist slurs.   But the Bush Administration did make huge mistakes on this one.   They allowed the thing to become a football when a few intelligent steps would have short circuited opposition.

They've got the ball, second and 25 from their own 5.   They'll try to run a play and see if they can get within striking distance of a first down.   Most likely it'll be a run leaving third and twenty.   But sometimes trying a quick kick on third down can surprise the other team and allow the ball to roll deep into their territory.   There's always the next possession on which to score.   We have the lead right now so let's not blow it by fumbling at our five.

Kim Curtis of the Associated Press writes today that the City of San Francisco is launching a pilot project that could have residents powering their ranges with dog poop gas.

They're going to send a team of dog poop collectors into one of its popular dog parks and haul the pieces of canine caca to a special poo-poo fermentation facility. There the bacteria will fester and produce methane gas.

The gas then gets piped into peoples' homes for domestic use.

However, Curtis went on to report that this solution is too expensive to be effective:

Some experts believe methane digestion must become more attractive economically before it gets popular. Landfill space is relatively cheap, and natural gas and electricity also remain fairly inexpensive.

Not to forget the costs of hiring dog poop collectors!

(Wasn't it the liberals that coined the phrase, "jobs Americans don't want"?)

The former chairman of NYU's journalism department who still teaches at the university claims that the Cheney fiasco was deliberately intended to keep other more damaging stories off the front pages of the nation's newspapers!

Read more but only if you need a good laugh or a conspiracy theory.

Remember, this guy is teaching your sons and daughters to be journalists!

Just about the entire US political establishment has come out against this UAE port deal.   Dem.s are agin it.   Rep. s are agin it.   Frist said something about putting forth a bill to prevent it.   The President, according to some web sites and radio shows, has threatened a veto if such a bill comes before him.

Mr. President, I am not against you.   Many of those opposed to this transaction are not against you.   But this is a far bigger loser than Ms. Miers nomination was.   Please give it up.

You go ahead and veto this and the result may very well be a unanimous overthrow of your veto.

Conservatives have screamed loudly and for quite some time that the mainstream media is left-biased.   Liberals reacted to this by saying, "No it's not.   If anything it is biased to the right.   Conservatives have sanctioned all sorts of studies which break down the news shows by content and demonstrate the specifics of this bias.   Heck this is a cornerstone of many conservative radio talkers' programs.   And it doesn't take a genius to see the smirk on Dan Rather's (or anyone else's) face when a conservative position is stated.   A pure counting of appearances by conservatives and liberals doesn't nearly tell the whole story.

Any of the alleged journalist seen on the nightly network news can be shown for his or her true political leanings by a careful examination of what was said and how it was said.   But we don't need to go that far with respect to the Sunday morning show hosts.   That's because these folks have political allegiances which are clearly on display for all to see.   Very, very few of these guys ever shows their face at anything even remotely conservative but unashamedly support democrat and liberal causes by the barrel full.

Now Media Matters is jumping into the fray by claiming "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative."   the thrust of their argument is that the sheer numbers of conservative politicians who appear on the all-important Sunday morning news shows overwhelming outnumbers the number of liberals.   They point out that during those happy times when the Clintons were King and Queen, there was more balance.   But those days are over and now the ratio is something like 58-42 in favor of conservatives.

Which shows are they talking about?   ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press.   This Week is George Stephanopoulos' show.   Face the Nation features Bob Schieffer.   And Meet The Press is Tim Russert's domain.

Stephanopoulos was one of Democrat President Clinton’s key political advisors.   He is undeniably not only liberal but truly a Democrat.   There's nothing to even suggest he has any sort of interest in being even reasonably fair to conservatives.   He is completely hooked into the democrat party and likely would appear as a member of the next Democrat president's staff.

Bob Schieffer does a pretty good job of hiding his political views.   I think he really values the institution of the "independent journalist" but he works for the CBS news apparatus which is so clearly left leaning that one must wonder how Schieffer could possibly rise to this level without having the same fundamental philosophy.   And, perhaps more telling than anything else, Schieffer insisted that Democrat attacks on VP Dick Cheney followingthe hunting escapade were legitimate.   That pretty much does it for me.

Russert is a whole other ball game.   His personal background is laid bare for all to see in his memoir "Big Russ & Me."   He was and is a traditional Irish, Catholic, liberal Democrat who revered the Kennedys.   He served as counselor in New York Governor Mario Cuomo's office in Albany in 1983 to 1984 and was chief of staff to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from 1977 to 1982.   Russert's wife is Maureen Orth who is a reporter who has done work with Newsweek, Vanity Fair, and Vogue.   As far as I can tell, today she pretty much works for Vanity Fair, one of the leading lefist (not left leaning) media outlets in the world.   Russert has been accused of bringing his "A" game for Republicans and, at best, a "B" game for Democrat guests.

As lefty blog Slate Magazine once pointed out, the "Sunday shows have evolved into crucial rituals of democracy in which elected and appointed officials expose themselves publicly to whatever form of humiliation the anchor and a couple of colleagues may devise."   So it makes absolute sense that the sheer number of conservatives which appear on these shows would outnumber liberals.   How can you humiliate conservatives without having masses of them on the Sunday shows?

Thanks to Media Matters for showing us so clearly that the MSM is indeed liberal biased.

I second Michelle Malkin's motion:

This should be on the front of every newspaper

By way of contrast, the following quickly catapulted to among the top stories today:

"Anti-Muslim Riot in Nigeria Turns Deadly"

Funny how one series of events is a "protest" without even the whiff of Muslims MURDERING Christians over freaking cartoons, while Christians reacting to their slaughter is called an "anti-Muslim riot!"   Why does the MSM still not get it?

Ports are large, apparently chaotic places.   The US, like most nations, has a huge amount of import activity which passes through its ports.   The volume of stuff moving through our ports doubled in the past ten years.   US Customs officials processed freight from 214,000 vessels in 2001.   Each year nearly 20 million containers arrive in US ports representing more than a trillion dollars worth of goods.   To me that's chaos.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection employs about 40,000 people.   Of these about 11,000 are border control agents, some are dedicated exclusively to air freight and obviously a fair number work in the bureaucratic structure of this large agency.   So, what are we left with?   Maybe 20,000 people (that's generous) checking freight at the ports?   So each agent would be responsible for something like a thousand containers per year?   Given a normal number of work days excluding two days a week off, some time for vacation, etc., and of course some days for training, what does that yield?   Each agent must inspect 5 containers a day?   The truth is we know Customs only really inspects a small number of these.

We operate our port security based on a statistical sampling approach.   This works because we use a fair amount of technology and few people know how containers are chosen for inspection.   Those who would do us harm have a difficult time finding opportunities to observe the process.   If we give a UAE owned company, which might very well hire agents of the terrorist organizations, the opportunity to see just how Customs does its job, they are going to find the holes which exist in the system.

Thankfully, governors and congresspersons of both parties are coming out against this business deal.   Some of them are sounding rational.   Others are making stupid comments.   New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich have expressed serious concern and plan to attack the deal on legal grounds, if they can find them.   Democrat Senate newcomer Robert Menendez and Hillary Clinton plan to introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.   But how do you word that one?   The acquirer in this deal might very well be owned by a foreign government but so are many "private" businesses based in France, China and elsewheres.   As I pointed out yesterday the company currently running the ports which was acquired by the UAE owned company was publicly traded and foreign based.   It will be extremely difficult to try to regulate foreign based, publicly traded comnpanies.   And where was Hillary for all the years our ports were run by these foreign business concerns?   This is merely sophomoric political pandering.

It is time for the Bush Administration to recognize that this deal just cannot go through.   if they won't recognize this on their own, the rest of our national and state politicians of both parties must make them recognize it.   We do not need some stupid law sponsored by one party which won't get the job done and probably either won't be workable or won't be able to stand anyways.   We need reason and coordinated bipartisan efforts to put a stop to this.

Follow-up Post

If Jimmy Carter is in favor of the deal, you really have to wonder - it must be a bad idea.

President George Bush said on Monday that the US is on the verge of technological breakthroughs in energy that would startle most Americans.   But inquiring minds would like to know what those startling breakthroughs are.   We all watch the discovery channel and get excited about various possible new technologies until, at the end of the show, they tell us "and this will only cost double what we pay now for oil today."

During my entire life I have heard nothing but the fact that we are reliant on energy pulled from the ground by middle eastern countries who basically hold us hostage to their natural resources.   For decades I have heard politicians pay lip service to developing new sources but none of this has ever come to fruition.   Windmills produce energy but they are not cheap to build on a large scale.   Solar power has been the mantra of environmentalists for as long as I can remember.   As a home owner, I routinely check it out to see if it can save me a few bucks on my energy bill but whenever I do so it becomes plain that the capital outlay will never be recovered.   Fuel cells sounded great until I realized that while the "fuel" may be the most plentiful resource in the Universe, the process to turn the resource into fuel requires large amounts of ... energy.

I remember driving an automobile which got 35 miles to the gallon and began taking that for granted.   When I purchased my last car I never even checked the label to see what the mileage estimate was.   I was shocked when I realized it only got around 18.   Now I hear about the wonderful hybrid cars which claim 40 or even 50 miles to the gallon but I've seen the reports which make that closer to the 35 I got nearly three decades ago.   What's up with that?

Nuclear seems dead on arrival because environmentalists just don't care what the reality of that technology is.   They decided long ago they don't like it.   Their religious fervor is possibly the most extreme on the planet so there is no changing their minds.   There is nothing they like more than a good protest and they've learned how to gum up any advances with good old fashioned lawsuits so we're screwed on that one unless and until we can put them in their proper place.

We are not addicted to oil.   We use it because it is cheaper than the alternatives.   It is an entirely rational decision.   Coal might be cheaper and we have plenty of it but the environmental religionists are even more against that than they are against nuclear.   Heck, they don't even want it pulled from the ground.   But they hold no sway in the countries which sell us oil.   Those countries would be more apt to imprison environmentalists or execute them than they would be to listen to them.   So they continue to explore and drill, barrel and sell for cheaper than anything we have been able to develop.   It would be really nice if we could develop something to compete with that but I don't think any of us have seen what this could possibly be.

Raising fuel efficiency standards by governmental regulation to what the market caused them to be 30 years ago doesn't seem to be the answer.   Fuel cells do not seem to be the answer if the fuel for them requires large amounts of existing conventional energy resources.   Windmills sounds good but it doesn't look quite as good once the realities of constructing perhaps hundreds of thousands of them hit home.   If there are important breakthroughs right around the corner, let's see'em.

There isn't much in the news today.   There wasn't much over this holiday weekend either.   But one story is perhaps more important than all the rest.   That is the story about a corporate takeover of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., by Dubai Ports World.

The Bush Administration seems to be in favor of the deal.   Michael Chertoff hit the Sunday TV shows to defend the plan.   He said, "We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint."   That may very well be true but this "business" is owned by the UAE government.   It is not private business.   Just as I was opposed to a Chinese government-owned business acquiring a US-based energy business, I have to be opposed to this.

Perhaps the mere operation of ports could not possibly endanger the country.   The operator of the ports has nothing to do with the cargo inspection process.   That remains a Homeland Security Department function and Chertoff, the guy in charge, says there's no reason to be concerned.   Maybe opposing this is merely embracing racism or profiling wherein we lump all Muslims together and call them at least potentially terrorists.   But knowing what is going on at our ports potentially gives our enemies a leg up - they won't have to conduct surveillance to determine the best way to ship in WMD for use by their US based cohorts.   They'll just have to place a few of their members into positions with this country.   We'd never know what happened.

There is no practical reason to allow this deal to go through.   The Bush Administration needs to do an about face on this one.

Sometimes I wonder why I go off and get so upset merely from reading mundane news stories.   Then something comes along which seems at first to make sense until I contemplate what is being said.   Today that occasion caught me by surprise when I came across a BBC report quoting a lecture by Shripad Tuljapurkar of Stanford University.   The substance of what Tuljapurkar had to say was the age of retirement should be raised to 85 by the year 2050 because rising levels of life expectancy would place severe strains on the world's retirement pay systems and economies.   Tuljapurkar also told attendees at the meeting that 50-year or 75-year mortgages may not be unusual in the future.

I imagine a bunch of professors transfixed as the professor made his comments, each scratching at his beard then nodding in agreement.   I found myself in a similar state but then something did not sit right with me.   What of these 50 and 75 year mortgages?   Is there a benefit to such a financial arrangement?   I just had to calculate the thing out and see for myself.

As pure (standard) mortgages (excluding taxes, fees, etc.) go, there are really just two factors, interest rate and duration.   As interest rates rise, the mortgage payment rises.   But as duration rises on a set interest rate, payments do not fall below a certain point.   That is because the borrower must always repay all current interest and a bit of principal.   Your typical 15 or 30 year mortgage involves a 180 or 360 period payment schedule of accrued interest plus a relatively small amount of principal.   Over time, the payment of principal causes the base on which interest is accrued to shrink at an ever increasing rate.   On a $100,000 loan, you might start out by paying $50 of principal but by the time the loan ends, you are repaying mostly principal and just a tiny piece of interest.   This means, unless you get one of those special arrangements, your monthly payment must always be at least as much as the accrued interest.

If you extend this principle to a hypothetical 30, 50 and 75 year mortgage of, say, $100,000 at 8% interest, you come up with some interesting findings.   The interest on the loan would be something like $667 the first month.   Regular mortgage payments are never lower than that first month's interest.   The payments on these loans would be: 30yr $733; 50yr $679; 75yr $668.   In other words it is beyond ridiculous to arrange yourself a 75 year mortgage.   Your cash flow savings would be 11 bucks a month per each $100 grand to extend the repayment period 25 years!   But more telling than that simple stat is the amount of overall interest you would pay which is: 30yr $165,030; 50yr $305,983; 75yr $501,910.

Now the reason I go into this level of detail is to prove a simple point.   No human being in their right mind would decide to extend a normal mortgage from 50 to 75 years.   It would be a bad decision to extend a 30 to 50 and impossible to believe a thinking person would extend a 30 to 75.   I suggest to you that your average person would be thought a moron if he bragged about his new 75 year mortgage at a cocktail party.   It is beyond understandable that a college professor of such stature and with, one would expect, the ability to perform such a simple calculation would even suggest that 75 year mortgages, even 50 year ones would become "common."

So this venture into the absurd by esteemed Shripad Tuljapurkar of Stanford University before his audience of, one imagines, highly intelligent professors gathered to chart the course of humanity for the next 50 years really bugged me.   It caused me to contemplate the other elements of his presentation with which I originally agreed.   Of course life expectancy, especially in the developed world, is rising.   of course many people are able to work beyond the current retirement age of somewhere between 62 and 65.   In fact many can probably work up to their early 70s.   But after the age of say 70, what are we really talking about?

My grandmother had a hand in pushing the life expectancy rate higher.   She moved on at the age of something like 88 but the last ten years of her life were spent in a place with varying degrees of care required.   Before that she would not have been able to perform a daily commute to work for I would guess about 15 years.   I think the same sort of observation is true of many I know today who are aged older than 70 years.   They'll likely live well into their late eighties, perhaps nineties or beyond.   But they have not been able to work since they reached 70 and perhaps even that is a stretch.   My very own uncle has cheated death in such a fashion that he has managed to live for 27 years after doctors said he had ten percent heart function with no possibility of recovery.   Now he has actually recovered quite a bit of that unrecoverable heart function but he could in no way have held down a full-time job during that time.   He's also pushed the life expectancy rate a bit higher and continues to do so.   So before we conclude that the retirement age should be directly correlated with life expectancy, perhaps we ought to be careful.

Perhaps we ought to take a good hard look at the level of functioning for those who we claim can be expected to work until the age of 85.   Yes, college professors, with their taxing schedules of five hours of class time each week to discuss a subject they were expert in 35 years ago, can be expected to work until they are 85 but many of us cannot.   Autoworkers, typists, etc. are unable to function right now much beyond the current retirement age.   Before we make everyone do as the college professors do, a little rational thought ought to be applied.

Never take anything a college professor has to say on any subject as an example of a well thought out argument.   Most of the time they are quite wrong.

AP reports Hundreds of Muslims tried to storm the U.S. Embassy on Sunday.   There was no word whether this was due to a few privately owned businesses publishing those comics or whether they were simply displeased with the billions of dollars in aid the US government, military and private citizens sent there a little more than a year ago.

YOU'RE WELCOME!

The time has come to recognize that it is not about "HATE."   Non-Muslims can do nothing to educate Muslims that their religions are just different yet somehow co-equal.   Islam, at its very core, does recognize many other religions.   It recognizes them as failures.   Failures waiting to be corrected by God as revealed to them by Muhammad.   It isn't about "HATE."   It is about "TRUTH" as Muslims understand it.

The Qu'ran specifically discusses "religions of the book" but says they are unfulfilled - in short, they need Islam in order to fulfill their promise.   Never before has the Earth experienced a religion which is entirely based upon the effort to convert.   Often armies have marched holding the banner of a religion but always that religion was at best secondary to other considerations.   Triumphant armies have indeed converted the defeated side to their systems of idolatry but the reasons for marching in the first place rarely had anything to do with religion.   That is not the case today.

Christianity holds an evangelical principle but that principle instructs adherents to convert by educating and by living a positive example.   Islam tells its adherents to do similarly but if that doesn't work, try the sword.   The entire history of Islam is filled with examples of armies marching, even if sometimes one side gives up without a fight.   The fact of the ultimatum is laid bare by the presence of armies.   Christians also marched on others and converted along the way but most often conversion was used as a means of control by Kings who were only marginally religious and more interested in conquest than salvation.

I just heard two scholarly religious leaders talking on the radio with a woman caller who claimed this is the crusades.   She said the crusades never ended for the Muslim world.   She claimed Muslims as a whole were at war with us and we better wake up.   The religious scholars, one Catholic and one Jewish replied, "what would you have us do?   Kill all Muslims?"   They also started to say that only a few radicals were the cause of the current state of affairs but knowing that not to be true, the Rabbi said something like sure there are many, many, many Muslims who want to do us harm, many, many of them but we can't kill the innocent moderate Muslims in the process.   He could not bring himself to state the lie that most Muslims are not militant against all non-Muslims because he knew it not to be the truth.   He went so far as to say "there are a few" Muslims who don't want to kill us.   But he didn't want to take the next step and say we should annihilate them because he couldn't condone violence on that level, that's not what the religion he has chosen to live would tell him to do.   It is hard to disagree with that line of reasoning but it does ignore the fact that Islam is out to rule the world just as much as Nazism was.   As the woman caller said clearly, "there are no moderate Muslims, only quiescent ones."

But here's my thought for the day.   How would the world react to the following made-up news story.   Christians all over the world rioted against the caricatures of Jesus Christ run in cartoons in newspapers across the Arab world.   They stoned and burned to the ground numerous embassies of Arab countries killing dozens.   In one country Christians stormed several mosques and killed 40 Muslims.   In one case they put a tire around a man, poured gasoline on it and burned the man alive.   The story may be made up with Christians as rioters but that is exactly what Muslims are doing these days.   They are rioting and burning embassies.   They are killing Christians.   And they did burn a Christian man to death by putting a tire around him, filling it with gasoline and lighting him on fire.   That is an awful thing and NOBODY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD HAS COME OUT AND SAID SO!   Oh, and yes, cartoons and "news stories" mocking and ridiculing everything Christian, Jewish and non-Muslim do in fact run in newspapers everyday in the Arab world.   They depth and breadth of lies told by Islamic press outlets within the Muslim world are staggering - far stronger than the few absurd cartoons which ran originally in one obscure publication nowhere important in the world, which maybe a few thousand might have seen had it not been for the rioting.

We cannot just willy nilly declare war on a billion people though they have declared war on us.   Just as Israel does not simply blow the Arab world into oblivion - something they have the capacity to do right this very moment - we cannot drop all available nuclear ordinance on Muslim countries because that would be immoral.   They and we recognize that this is no way to live with one's neighbors.   But the neighbors have no such inhibitions.   What they lack is means.   And that has everything to do with why we had to go into Afghanistan and Iraq, and now will likely have to defeat Iran.

Perhaps the religious leaders do not want to be the ones calling for World War III.   Perhaps they merely hold faith that God will intervene to protect us so we must remain steadfast in our moral attitudes which prevent us from bombing the Muslim world into oblivion.   Perhaps that attitude will only hasten the "day of atonement."

Bill Clinton was in Pakistan today saying that the Danish cartoon blasphemizing Mohammad was a mistake...

"I strongly disagree with the creation and publication of cartoons that are considered blasphemous by the Muslims around the world. I thought it was a mistake."

Does Bill Clinton not champion freedom of expression? Is he saying that the deaths of so many innocent people at the hands of muslims is the cartoonist's fault? Excuse me?

Clinton said that it was mistake to both create and publish the cartoon. The cartoonist is free to create whatever they want, and the publisher is free to publish whatever they want. But just because you are offended by the cartoon doesn't justify murder.

If a political cartoonist like, Ted Rall, for example, were to depict U.S. Soliders in Guantanamo Bay torturing detainees and having fun doing it, would it be ok for a soldier to murder him? And would Bill Clinton also blame Ted Rall as well? By the way, Ted Rall actually created such a cartoon.

And also by the way, why did the Associated Press entitle their latest report as "At Least 15 Die in Nigeria Cartoon Protest"? Shouldn't it have been entitled, "Muslims Murdered 15 Christians in Nigeria"?

Since when does a protest marginalize murder into "people losing their lives"?

Did you see the 1000 speed skating race in which Shani Davis became the first African-American winter games gold medalist?   Speed skating is one of the few events I like to watch in the winter games.   Shani skated a great race and beat the field easily.   But afterwards when he was interviewed, he seemed to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder.

I understand he is a black man in what has always been a white man's sport.   I understand that things were said about his decision to not participate in the idiotic pursuit race.   I understand if he thinks the media has betrayed him to a certain extent.   But Shani, this is your time.   You've got the world, or at least America, by the short hairs.   Forget about all the garbage.   280 million people don't really care what Bob Costas or any other sports catser has to say.   Similarly we don't care about the pursuit event which is a stupid attempt to make an individual sport into a team one.   Being black means nothing.   The only thing which matters even a tiny bit is you accomplished the worthy goal of being the fastest man on skates in this olympics.   Congratulations.   Make the most out of your time on the grand stage.

There were a number of demostrations today within the United States about those Danish comics depicting Muhammad "disrespectfully."   I saw something about the protest which took place in New York City on my local news telecast.   One man said something like "They depict the prophet inaccurately.   They depict the prophet as a man of war.   He was not.   The prophet was a man of peace.   Where on Earth did anyone get the notion that Muhammad was "a man of peace?"

There are many things about the man's life which are in historical dispute.   Being a "man of peace" is not one of them.   Of the things we can be certain of, the prevailing facts indicate that he was very much the warrior king.   He was born in Mecca, was a businessman, and was described as being religiously devout.   he prayed a lot and in these prayers claimed that God came to him and revealed the Truth.   He claimed the Angel Gabriel told him he was the "final prophet" and commanded him to memorize and recite the verses sent by God.   He claimed he had been sent by God in order to complete and perfect the teachings of Christianity and Judaism.

At some point, it became dangerous for Muhammad to stay in Mecca so he left and lived with a community of followers in Medina.   Relations between Mecca and Medina deteriorated until a state of war existed between them.   Muhammad and his followers routinely attacked caravans and stole their property, presumably killing all persons, so he and his followers would have something to live on.   Eventually an army was sent to defeate the thieves but Muhammad and his followers supposedly overcame terrible odds and defeated the army.

Following their great victory which many saw as a miracle, Muhammad and his followers expelled a Jewish clan from Medina and the rest of the people there converted to Islam.   Muhammad became ruler of the city.   The Meccans continued to send armies out to defeat Medina and the Muslimns continued to repel them.   After a particular battle, many Muslims believed a Jewish tribe had aided the Meccans so the entire male population of the tribe was beheaded and all women and children were taken as slaves.   After that, Muslims converted and captured the surrounding cities and solidified their power.

In 630, A. D., Muhammad marched on Mecca with an army of more than 10,000 men.   Mecca surrendered without a fight.   Muhammad destroyed the idols in Mecca's religious places.   Almost every person in Mecca converted to Islam.   This is the historical bases for the annual haj to Mecca.   At this point "the prophet" was tyhe most powerful man in Arabia.   The rest of his life and for long after he died, the primary activity of the Muslim faith was extended the empire's control outwards.

During his life Muhammad owned and even married slaves.   He had ten wives when he died.   It is said that he was a moral military leader.   yet the basis for war in the Muslim tradition includes:

• You may kill those who wage war against you
• You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice.
• You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely.

When someone is "waging war against you," what constitutes justice, and how far you should go to worship God freely are open questions.   Muslims of today claim the US is openly waging war against them because it protects Israel's right to exist.   Justice is a relevant term when those who sell oil drilled form their land at open market prices claim the US steals their property.   The "free exercise" of Islam is not always an easy thing when the religion preaches that all who do not embrace it are of the devil.   How can you freely exercise your religion standing next to the devil, Israel.

It is amazing the way language can be twisted about to make a merchant, thief, warrior, slave-owner, and beheader stand as the rough equivalent of a man who preached that when another slaps your cheek, turn and display the other so he may slap that one as well.   But there is no way one can stand within the world of reason and claim that Muhammad was a "man of peace."   Ignorance sure is bliss.