...it stopped in 1998...

I saw this link at DrudgeReport.com. Funny how science and religion are getting along rather well and science and politics are at odds. Read it all as they say.

Where are the American Flags?

Did anyone see any American flags at the public gatherings celebrating illegal immigration?

Just say wait a minute there bub

The Bush administration completely bungled this one and has some serious explaining to do to the American people.

I will consider these two points:

1) UAE is an ally in the war on terror.

2) DPO is a stevedoring company bidding for work from the Port Authority.

Just say NO!

Dear President Bush,
Please put a stop to transferring port operations to Dubai Ports World.
Respectfully,
Tim Hanafee

Just what we need some sort of Arab financial engine running our ports - I wonder if these ports are where the oil comes in. Wouldn't that be the cat's meow; OPEC threatens oil supply, DPOW slows our ports, and not to mention the basic fear that the next terror attack comes via a port security infiltration.

What is the administration thinking?

Get back to:
1. War on Terror
2. Secure our Borders
3. Trade Policy
4. Cut Taxes

UPDATE: Look if the administration thinks we should do this deal then it is up to the administration to make the case. If UAE is a good partner then have them renounce the jihads against western civilization, cancel the validity of the fatwas, and basically stop the radical fundamental Islamic drive to place free societies under Muslim rule. If they can't do that, what exactly is the point of having a Arab/islamic trading partner - OPEC hasn't been so great for society though I admit retirement funds that are energy centric seem to be working out well.

PS: The cartoon outrage removed the last bit of credibility you had with me.

Laugh and the world laughs with you!

http://www.michellemalkin.com/mt/oct05-tb.cgi/3869

Ah I am not worried

Regarding Jeff Chester's article: Hijacking the Internet. Clever title but the premise is lost on me. People hijack communication all of the time, it is the implicit nature of ideas.

1. The article reminds me that many people confuse access with speed including the author.
2. I agree with the article that there is no reason why communities can't be ISPs.
3. The Internet is a free market and to the extent content can be sold, it is a retail engine. That is what makes it work. Linking targeted marketing, URL traffic with the NSA in some dark conspiratorial sense doesn't resonate.
4. The vast majority of content I consume is created by private enterprise and bloggers. I pay for speed. I pay for access. I pay for content at WSJ directly, and everything else by advertising or purchase of service. The Internet isn't owned by the people it is paid for by the people. The civic-minded content I get is all created by private entities like Kos, Instapundit, and Gawker.
5. Nobody goes on the web for free. Nobody gets a URL and access to the Internet for free either. So if network providers think they can charge more to Internet companies maybe they are right. And if Blogger wants to charge me for this lame mostly inactive blog I will quit! That is the market in action.
6. The only role for government is establish law determining digital property rights. It's fun to think about the constitutional applications of digital property law.

I guess I am pretty much a free market guy. I worry more about what UN control of the Internet or another campaign finance reform law will do to civic-minded private voices than what happens if Google's bandwidth rates go up or Comcast wants to deliver original content on their network.

PU on the EU (and the UN for good measure)

hattip to rhythm master for THISfor a thought provoking read.