UAE acquired $1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler in 2005

With all the talk of the US selling it's eastern seaboard port
operations to a company owned by the UAE, I thought the following
nugget regarding DCX was interesting.

It used to be that OPEC countries would spend their petro dollars to
buy US military stuff. Seems they're turning away from those toys and
just buying up the USA, one piece at a time.

------------------------

http://www.uaeinteract.com/news/default.asp?cntDisplay=10&ID=12

UAE will buy overseas assets with oil gains
posted on 21/11/2005

The UAE plans to increase its investment from surging oil income by
buying more overseas assets and boosting infrastructure to attract
foreign capital inflows, said Sheikha Lubna Al Qasimi, Minister of
Economy and Planning. She said the global economy must stand ready to
tackle rising inflation from the high oil prices to sustain growth.

The energy sector in the UAE accounts for about a third of the
economy, less than for many of its neighbours, but profits soaring
from oil prices are pouring into stock and property markets, powering
an economic boom and feeding inflation.

At the same time, the government is buying international assets,
buying Tussauds Group, home to the famous waxwork museums, and
acquiring a US$1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler earlier this year.
When asked if the country will continue to look for overseas
investment opportunities, she said, "Of course. In the US, sometimes
you have great deals because opportunities are there and your money is
viable to go for that kind of investment.

 

As long as they are buying company stock that's fine with me. Property
is a bit dicy, but most overseas investors like that buy high dollar
properties
like skyscrapers and such, and very few people can afford those anyhow.

Stock is nothing more than a rich man's gamble. DCX could have a 10
year period of making cars nobody wants, like Ford is doing, and become
worthless. Then what does the UAE end up with - nothing but worthless
paper.

We want them spending petro dollars here. That is what puts money
back into the economy to replace the money we sent to them to buy
their oil.

Ted

 

Buying stock doesn't really help the USA or the company to which the
stock belongs (unless it's new stock issue I suppose).

Buying US-built vehicles (preferrably from a US-owned company) - now
that would help.

I suppose that Haliburton gets a good slice of Opec business.

 

They're acquiring a British company's interests in the US ports. A
transaction that's not likely to inject (new) money into the US
economy.

And there's more:

http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports
By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned
company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American
ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned
Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to
go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases
terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and
security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from
Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from
Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's
Web site.

President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation
designed to stall the handover.

"...the deal was reported on in major newspapers as early as last
October. But it did not get critical attention in the press until the
Associated Press broke the story Feb. 11 and the Center for Security
Policy, a right-leaning organization, wrote about it Feb. 13."

----------

A different slant on this pertains to how a story like that gets
traction in the mainstream media. I really think that web sites like
Drudge are playing larger and larger roles in driving the stories that
get traction these days. Drudge decides what's news-worthy, and the
big news players feel compelled to follow along. You want to know
that stories will be shown on the network news at 6:30 pm? Just look
at drudge's web site earlier in the day.

 

True but it's not going to take any more out of it, either. It's a rather
benign transaction. I was referring more to the comment about buying
up the US, than this particular transaction.

Don't you know that the billionaires of the world all go to the same clubs
and sit around playing cards with each other? Ownerships of things like
this are passed around like playing cards. This year it's UAE, the next
year
it will be some Italian firm. It makes little difference to us most of the
time.

I'm actually glad to read this for a couple reasons. First, I agree with
Bush
that it's not a security risk and that it's not fair to shitcan the deal.
But
more than that, I dislike Bush and I want to see him piss away political
capital on frittery stuff like this.

It would be no skin off Bush's nose to step back and let Congress
shitcan this deal. DP World isn't going to fight Congress, and some of
the most pissed-off people on this deal are the staunchest Conservatives
that supported Bush to begin with. Bush's threatening a veto is one
of the stupider moves he's made. All it does is make Bush look like
a moderate Republican and thus creates division within the Republican
party with the conservatives against the moderates.

The ultra conservatives have committed to their constitutes to be
as hard as possible on terrorism, and they cannot back down on
this without losing support. If Bush wins, the ultraconservatives
in the Republican party will be weakened, and they will want revenge
against Bush. That's good from my point of view since I think
the ultraconservatives are the worst members of the Republican
party. If Bush loses, it make him look weaker as a President
and that emboldens the Democrats and the moderate Republicans.
So, either way this plays out, my side wins.

It's not just them. These stories are timed to be released for certain
reasons.

Remember, this is an election year, and right now is when the candidates
are just getting rolling putting together their platforms and such and
running
around and getting support. This story was tailor made for the conservative
candidates to help them. The idea was Bush would have said something
like the "sneaky beaureaucrats tried to slide this deal in under my nose"
and it would have given all those conservative candidates plenty of
fodder to rail on and on against the career beaureaucrats who are
running wild, etc. You know, the usual boring old conservative pablum.

What I think took everyone by surprise is Bush defending the UAE.
It is really an amazingly stupid thing because now all those conservative
party supporters are going to be asking their conservative candidates
about it, and those candidates are going to be put in the bad position of
saying on one hand, Bush is doing the wrong thing, but on the other,
hey the Republicans are this wise and wonderful party and you really
need to vote Republican.

Makes me wonder if old Karl Rove has had a heart attack or something
that we don't know about. But then again, Bush has never had much
interest in insuring a Republican succeeding him in office, if he did, he
would have chose a more electable vice president than Chaney.

Ted

 

Maybe and maybe not. We'll never *really* know until after the fact.
On the down side - remember when Clinton had OBL in our sites, and we
didn't pull the trigger becaue their was Arab royalty in the area and we
didn't want that potential collateral damage? Guess who the royalty
was? Top brass of UAE. We secretly got a message to them what we were
trying to do and to get the hell out of the way. They responded by
getting the hell out of the way, but not before tipping OBL off, and he
escaped. (This is all spelled out in the 9/11 report.)

On the other hand, the UAE is somewhat of an ally in the every-day sense
of the word. They buy lots of commerical planes from the U.S., donated
many millions of dollars to Katrina relief (truly altruisitc or purely a
good overall political and economic decision? - that could of course be
an intense debate in itself), and interact in our economy in big ways.
But can we trust them when the chips are down in a post-9/11 world?
Maybe we can, maybe we can't - we will never truly know 'til
after-the-fact. This is one of those situations where you have to make
one decision or the other without having a real good feel about it
either way. There will be serious economic and political implications
*either* way. It is a very tough decision *IF* ones interest is what's
in the best interest of the U.S.

That's the whole problem with the country right now. People, including
many of our politicians and public figures, and apparently you, put
blinders on about what's best for the country and primarily do whatever
suits their political agenda and who's image and career they want to
crush at the moment.

I have very mixed feelings on this issue, but my decision criteria are
clearly different than yours. Most days I think that we should err on
the side of safety and kill the deal - but I also realize that there
would be serious political and economic unintended consequences that we
may have to absorb. But whichever way we go, we need to have our eyes
open about the negative implications of that decision - and there will
be some serious ones either way.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I am not quite clear what is so special about this. The investment funds of
the oil states have been investing in western assets for decades (where else
could they invest anyway?). The KIO (Kuwait Investment Office) used to
(still does?) own a substantial chunk of Daimler-Benz. So?

Just means mutual dependence. Not such a bad thing.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

 

Some of you that are not exposed to domestic US news coverage may not
fully realize the following.

US media and news networks have been beating the terrorism drum ever
since 9/11. The rhetoric and policies (domestic and int'l) of the
Bush admin has been feeding into this drum beat (because it serves
them).

One aspect of news coverage is the periodic stories of
security-related issues at large shipping ports. Every man, women,
and child in the US knows by know that only 4% of cargo containers
gets inspected, for example. The fact that practically no air-cargo
put on commercial airliners by shipping companies is screened is also
widely and periodically reported.

Bush never fails to remind people at any and all speaking engagements
(regardless of the topic or setting) that the US was attacked on 9/11
and is still "at war". The US has developed a collective distrust (if
not loathing) of all things arab, muslim, etc. Be it arab people,
their religion, their culture, their intentions, their countries,
their leaders, etc.

So collectively, Americans know that US ports remain vulnerable from a
terrorism point of view. The US president continues to say they are
at war. To many Americans, they are at war with arabs or muslims.
The media has dutifully informed Americans that 2 of the 9-11
hijackers came from UAE, and that the UAE was a mediator of funds
transfered to the 9-11 hijackers in the US.

The awarding of oversight/control/operations of (many) US ports to an
Arab company could not illustrate any better a complete collision
between the security and priority perceptions of US citizens vs their
political masters.

The US news media like a bulldog with a bone on this issue. This
could be pay-back for the fact they were shut-out of the initial
coverage of the Cheney gun-shot event.

But the issue has traction, possibly because of the mid-term
congressional and senate elections that are about a year away, and
sitting republicans are vulnerable to a growing public backlash
against the Bush admin. If the public doesn't like how the Bush admin
handles this UAE/port thing (among many things), it is sitting
republican congressmen who will lose (at the polls).

I'm listening to Lou Dobbs right now, and he's questioning/attacking
this UAE thing from every possible angle. You people outside the
USA/Canada don't see the same CNN that we see.

 

I haven't read that but I don't doubt it. In any case, I would be surprised
if
OBL didn't have a spy or two in the diplomatic offices of every major
Arab state, so I would suspect that even if the top brass at UAE didn't
tip off OBL deliberately, that it would have been spied out.

No it's not. If UAE comes in and starts wrecking port security, there
will be plenty of watchdogs both within and outside of government that
will be pointing it out. They could easily be legislated right out of the
country so obviously the risk is minimal for us. In fact, they take a lot
more risk since once they have a stake here, if they screw up
and are forced out, they will be firesaling those ports and losing money.

I would also guess that within 10 years UAE will sell the ports to
someone else anyway. You know how investors are, there is always
a better investment on the other side of the fence. It's just not in
their nature to put their money into a good investment and sit on it
the rest of their lives.

Bill, that example is set by the very top. What would be best for the
country is to put in some moderate Supreme Court justices, not a bunch
of political hacks like the President just got finished doing. What would
be best for the country was once our objective of catching Saddam in
Iraq was met, that we got the hell out and let the factions self-determine
their own future. So they seem to want to fight a civil war over it,
well both sides want to kill each other, it's not our right to tell them
they can't do it, any more than it is their right to tell us we shouldn't
be settling our differences nonviolently. We chose civil war ourselves
about 150 years ago after all. It was one thing when it was
Saddam opressing his own people - well those people aren't opressed
anymore, we are done. We need to git.

If Bush was really more willing to work with the Democrats in Washington
and actually did it, and made a few concessions, then so many of the
politicians and public figures wouldn't be out there doing what suits
their political agenda and working to crush him at the expense of the
best interests of the country.

My criteria are the same as the Presidents, actually. Observing how
Bush works, he has clearly extracted a bunch of secret concessions out
of UAE that the general public doesen't know about in exchange for
approval on the deal. Since Bush seems to like spying so much, my
guess is he got carte-blanche to roam through all the employement
and personnel records of every port employee in every port that
UAE takes over, without having to get a warrant.

What your going to see in the next month is all the high-ups in
Congress both the Republican high-ups and a few Democrat
high-ups are going to be brought into Bush's little secret war
room and told exactly what those concessions are. Then those
people will suddenly lose stomach for continuing the argument,
and will go try to stomp on the younger members of their parties
to shut them up, and the whole thing will end up being slid
through under the carpet.

In short, this deal was purely a political deal for the President,
just as I'm looking at it as a great political deal for the Democrats.
Since the general public cannot be told about the secret concessions,
the out-of-office Democratic politicians will be free to slap the
officholding Republicans around during the next election, and those
people will be unable to answer the charges.

Now, is it a good thing for the country in the long run to have these
kinds of secret deals? Well that depends on what you regard as
National Security. My observation over the years is that government
officials on both sides of the aisle are very quick to use the excuse
of National Security to hide wrongdoing. I simply do not have faith
in secret deals like this being policed by the very people involved in
the secret. That is why I like to see incumbents tossed out of office
on a regular basis. Naturally I would rather see incumbent Democrats
be replaced by new up and coming Democrats.

Ted

 

All that is true.

That is not true.

This isn't true either. What it could not illustrate better is a complete
collision between what security priorities are of US POLITICIANS
that they are telling the US citizens, and what they are actually DOING.

Ever since Watergate, US citizens have been very sensitive to political
leaders who say one thing and do another. The reason that this is
big news here now is that it is an election year and all the politicians
up for reelection are being put under a magnifying glass.

All of this is a Good Thing, by the way. It may also happen that
this is the last straw for the people for some of those politicians,
and as a result some people won't be reelected. This is also a Good
Thing.

They are 9 months away, not 12.

But you also forget that there's a lot of pent up frustration with the
continued practice of outsourcing. There are a lot of lower economic
people who lost good jobs due to those jobs going to India. Now you
can argue all you want that the US economy is no longer willing to
pay a premium for a blue collar telemarketer sitting in a phone bank
all day long, and those jobs were going to go away anyhow, but
this is lost on these people. All they know is that the job they were doing
and getting paid 10%+minimum, is now gone and they either have to
go on food stamps, or try to retrain. And besides those people there's
a lot of union people that lost jobs and had to take lower paying ones,
and a lot of blue collar technology workers in the same boat, etc.

I think that people in this boat might be taking some comfort from the
fact that while their job went to India, at least the profits from the job
are going to an American country. But now they are hearing not only
are the jobs going overseas, now the profits are too. And at the back
of everyone's mind is the fear that pretty soon, there won't be much
of an economy left in the US.

Of course, that doesen't stop them from running out and buying the
latest Made in China electronic toy. I would bet money that there
is not a single piece of American-made electronics in between Lou
Dobbs microphone, and the picture tube his pablum is being displayed
on to the masses.

Ted

 

Huh? Need to get you up to speed here. "The US" is not selling
anything. A British Company (P&O, formerly Penninsular & Oriental which
ran the Princess Cruise line, among many other ventures) is being acquired
by a UAE company. This British Company, P&O, happens to have concessions
for the operations of several ports that are located in the United
States. P&O acquired these concessions in the late 1990s. Some other
ports in the US have operating concessions held by other countries,
including China.

It looks like the UAE company knows a good investment when it sees one.
If you're afraid of UAE, (which services the most US Navy ships outside of
US ports), consider something far worse, it could be the American company
Wal-Mart gaining the concessions!

 

It's not a big deal, other than ignorance of the deal ("The US is selling its
ports!!") is being used for political gain by numerous interests. Knowledge is
the antidote.

 

Actually he was asked what would he do if a bill to prevent this was presented
before him. He answered the question in a way that I believe was direct and
honest, he said he would veto it. It's not the first time he's said he would
veto something, even though he hasn't had to go through with that yet.

Hmm, interesting that the Democrats (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Charles
Schumer) are in complete agreement with those "ultra conservatives" you disdain
so much.

"Ultra conservative" today means that you don't think illegal aliens should be
given carte-blanche to avoid the law and you believe allowing citizens to keep
more of their money in their pockets so they can spend or save it as they feel
fit is good for the economy.

That's swell. So ignorance and/or stupidity is good for "your side." At least
you admit it, many others will not. Unfortunately a lot others think like you
and like to propagate more ignorance for political gain. The Clintons, for
example, aren't even going to stop with that. While Hillary is shouting how
terrible UAE is, Bill is cashing the big checks he receives for advising UAE how
to do business in USA.

 

If you're going to campaign against outsourcing and put up walls, remember you
are also campaigning against insourcing and your walls will stop that as well.
The USA "gains" far more from insourcing than it "loses" from outsourcing, so be
Very Careful what you wish for. Can't have it both ways. It was hard for India
when they lost a huge handmade cloth industry to giant textile mills in England
as the Industrial Revolution got underway. Somehow they figured out how to
reinvent themselves, and so will others.

 

Huh? Where are these "hacks" that you are referring to? Justice Roberts?
Justice Alito? Have there ever been supreme court candidates with higher
qualifications? They both have impressive credentials and extremely successful
careers. You make the charge of hack, when have they ever worked for Bush? I
know, it's a horrible thing when judges follow the law and then detail exactly
what their line of reasoning was. By the treatment they both received from the
likes of Messrs Schumer and Kennedy you'd think they were just short of child
molesters. If you're concerned with "hacks," than I am curious what you thought
of when Bill Clinton nominated a very liberal judge named Ruth Ginsburg, who was
also top lawyer of the uber liveral ACLU. Oh yeah, Republicans still
overwhelmingly voted for her. Is Ginsburg a "hack" in your eyes too then?
Breyer? Why not?

Who is 'we'? I certainly wasn't around 150 years ago. But I wouldn't look at
the USA Civil War as a model for anyone to follow. The prospect of civil war
in Iraq is greatly overrated, although outside interests, especially Iran are
trying hard to make it happen. They don't want a stable government in the
neighborhood. For the most part, democracies don't fight each other and sponsor
terrorism.

So should USA have just left Japan right after the Emporer was toppled? Was the
Marshall Plan a Huge Mistake in Europe after Hitler's bunker was raided? By
following your line of reasoning, the answers to to these questions is, YES!

Bush has tried to work with Democrats again and again and again, to a fault. He
allowed Ted Kennedy to author the education bill that he championed. He invited
Democrats to help out with Medicare overhall again and again. Recently
Democrats have cheered (Cheered!) the fact that Congress still hasn't taken any
action to prevent a massive disaster in the making with social security. Bush
even invited certain Democrats to the White House for informal socializing and
conversing. All he got was slurs and personal ad hominem attacks, which he
never returned.

"Clearly extracted a bunch of secret concessions." Of course!

 

------------------

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002853363_islampoll09.html

Thursday, March 9, 2006
Islam's image fares poorly in U.S. poll
By Claudia Deane and Darryl Fears

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing
proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and
a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to
violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll found that nearly half of Americans — 46 percent — have a
negative view of Islam, 7 percentage points higher than in the tense
months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and
Washington, when Muslims were often targeted for violence.

The survey comes at a time of increasing tension, as the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq show little sign of ending and as members of
Congress seek to block an Arab company from managing operations at
several American ports. Also, Americans are reading news of deadly
protests in the Arab world over Danish cartoon depictions of the
Muslim prophet Muhammad.

According to the poll, the proportion of Americans who believe that
Islam helps to stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than
doubled since the attacks, from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33
percent today.

The survey also found that 1 in every 3 Americans has heard prejudiced
comments about Muslims lately. Forty-three percent reported having
heard negative remarks about Arabs. One in every four Americans polled
admitted to harboring prejudice toward Muslims, the same proportion
that expressed some personal bias against Arabs.

Although the two groups often are linked in popular discourse, most of
the world's Muslims are not of Arab descent. For example, the country
with the world's largest Muslim population is Indonesia.

A total of 1,000 randomly selected Americans were interviewed March
2-5 for the Post-ABC News poll. The margin of sampling error for the
overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Americans who said they understood Islam were more likely to see the
religion overall as peaceful and respectful. But they were no less
likely to say it harbors harmful extremists, and they were also no
less likely to have prejudiced feelings against Muslims themselves.

James Zogby, president of the Washington-based Arab American
Institute, said he is not surprised by the poll results. Politicians,
authors and media commentators have demonized the Arab world since
2001, he said.

"The intensity has not abated and remains a vein that's very near the
surface, ready to be tapped at any moment," Zogby said. "Members of
Congress have been exploiting this over the ports issue. Radio
commentators have been talking about it nonstop."

 

And he's stupid for doing that. A President of all people needs to be
circumspect.
Bush could have just as easily said "I really can't say right now it would
depend
on the circumstances" and ignored further questions to pin him down.

I have a lot of respect for a President who takes his time to formulate his
views
and then gets on national TV and elucidates them in a forum and setting that
is,
well for want of a better word, Presidential. I might disagree with those
views
but I definitely respect him or her.

But I have no respect for a President who seems happy to answer serious
foreign policy questions while walking to his golf game or while on the deck
of
a battle ship dressed in a flight suit that this would be the only time in
his
life he would put on a military uniform. If said President is on "my side"
and
pushing the right course of action, I would overlook it, even though I still
would have no respect for him.

I remember cringing when Clinton got elected and was filmed eating
McDonalds fries and all of that, and thinking God I hope he doesen't
screw this up.

Yeah, well this is going to be the last time that he will be able to use
that
threat and be believed.

They don't believe it's a problem any more than the President does, they
just see
it as an opportunity to take him down a peg. Duh.

It also means inprisoning flag-burners and having a state-sponsored Religion
(Christianity, of course) and not allowing people to have any privacy. And
it also
means running up the national debt into trillions of dollars to pay for your
pet
projects.

As for illegal aliens, some of the staunchest ultra conservatives hail from
the
great old State of Arizona, which has some of the highest number of illegal
aliens
paid under the table for work.

It's about time. The Ultraconservatives have used the American
people's ignorance and stupidity to get their agenda passed, it's
poetic justice to be able to get some of that agenda torn apart
using the same techniques.

Absolute rubbish. I personally do not propagate ignorance for political
gain, why
do you think I'm explaining everything? I am happy to outline the real
reasons that politically motivate each side to do nasty things because I
know that when you boil it all down, there are still 2 sides to the issues
and
the person has to choose one.

Take abortion. I know that the biggest lie of the Republican Party on
abortion
is that they oppose it because they think it's baby killing. The real
reason they
oppose it is because the conservative Christians in the US have all decided
that
abortion is wrong because they have interpreted various biblical passages to
say
that life begins at conception, and the conservative Christians are the
largest
donors of money to the Republicans. But it would be a complete violation of
the Constitutional principles of freedom to worship for the Republicans to
say
that they follow the Christian principles on abortion in their party plank,
so they
lie about it and use some euphasims.

And the biggest lie of the Democratic Party is that they are pro choice
because
the role of government is not to interfere with people's private lives. The
real reason
they are pro choice is because they get a huge amount of support from people
in the New Age movement, and a lot of religions, like Scientology, Wiccan
and such, are part of this movement. People don't realize how large this
movement
is because it has not been around long enough to have a few major religions
kill off all the minor ones, like what happened with Islam and Christianity
which killed off dozens of smaller offshoots hundreds of years ago, so it
kind
of falls under "all those other religions" label. For example, just about
all religious
gay people are part of the New Age movement.

So, in summary the Democrats and Republicans will both lie like dogs when
arguing over abortion. But, you and I still have to choose a position. The
fact
that I choose the Pro Choice side because I just happen to believe that
strange
fantasy that government must not have rights in the bedroom, and not because
I am a New Ager (which I am not) is not diminished by the fact that my party
officially lies about it, and gets support from a lot of groups I consider
threats
(such as the Scientologists)

I am fully aware that the folks of my side fighting the war in the trenches
often
will resort to lies to win battles. But, just because they are doing so,
does not mean
that I do so. I'll be glad to point out the lies in both my and their side,
but just
because both sides are lying, does not mean that you personally can abrogate
your responsibility to make a logically based choice on an issue. You still
must choose, even though everything anyone on either side tells you may be a
lie.

The Clintons, for

In case you didn't notice Hillary and Bill don't ever seem to have talked
all that
much about anything of consequence.

The simple truth is that the UAE losing the ports is a real non-issue, it
only affects a
few billionaires, and the billionaires in the UAE will simply spend their
billions on some
other investment that will be as equally rich as the ports in the US, and so
they will
suffer nothing. The ports have to be owned by someone, so someone else will
buy them and the ports will also suffer nothing. This whole issue is merely
nothing
more than a bad card dealt at some billionaires card table somewhere. But,
the
loss of status of Bush is by contrast something that is amazingly important.
You don't
seem to understand that we have a dictator in the White House right now and
until the US Congress shows some spine and starts pushing back on some of
what
he wants, we will continue to have a dictator. If it takes a few
billionaires being
inconvenenced at their high stakes card table to teach the US Congress that
they
do indeed have some powers guarenteed to them by the Constitution and are
not
simply an apparatus of the Executive branch, then I say absolutey fragging
fantastic.
No one got hurt, no one even lost any money, yet Congress has come out of
this learning an immensely valuable lesson, which is they do in fact have a
governing
role to play and they need to start doing it and stop playing follow the
leader.

Ted