Playing the Muslim Card: More Ignorance from Old and New Media

So sayeth Kevin Drum over at Political Animal:

MORE PORTS....In principle, this doesn't really change anything, but it is disconcerting to learn at this late date that P&O actually runs operations at 21 U.S. ports, not six. Sure enough, though, if you go to "P&O Ports North America," rather than to the main P&O corporate site, you'll find descriptions of operations at ports from Freeport, Texas, to Portland, Maine.

The story about the acquisition of P&O by Dubai Ports World has been bubbling for a couple of weeks now, and has been in high gear for several days. Did no one really see fit to correct the media's misimpression that only six ports would be affected by the deal?

Drum asks a good question, and the answer is: OBVIOUSLY NOT.

That’s largely because as of today, virtually none of the supposedly informed, learned and knowledgeable journalists, pundits and bloggers who’ve dumped millions of words of “thought leading, tipping point” analysis onto paper and the internet have the faintest idea of the facts involved in the Dubai Ports World case. And by the way, if you actually go to P&O’s corporate site, you’ll find the same information was available there as at the P&O North America site. Had anyone looked there, they’d have found the 23 port locations (not 21 ports) where P&O conducts business.

The fact of the matter is this: You’ll probably find more primary source facts relating to P&O, DPW, port operations and port security at this particular site that you will at any web site operated by Old Media, New Media or the 'Army of Davids'. And it was all done by one Certified Public Accountant during tax season who was simply curious as to just what was actually involved in this issue.

Which is really pathetic when you think about it.

That’s the brutal reality of the matter. Neither Old Media, New Media nor the ‘Army of Davids’ of the blogosphere bothered to invest the minimal amount of effort to arm themselves with the facts of this matter before busily writing their ‘informed’ commentary. They were interested in running their mouths. Nothing else. I was well aware of the fact that the wire services had the story completely wrong by last Tuesday. I sat on it because I wanted to see when anyone would actually pick up on it.

If Old Media is incomptent, and they are, then all I can say is New Media and the 'Army of Davids' is just as awful. They are terrible at what they claim to do better than anyone else: Writing about facts.

And in fact, in many material respects neither media has got it right as of today. In the case of the “six ports”, Old Media has reported (and continues to report) that P&O operates, or operates in, six U.S. ports. That’s wrong. P&O has container cargo terminal operations in six North American ports... one being in Vancouver. So either Canada’s become the 52nd state of the Union (Senator Schumer alerted us to the fact that England is our 51st when he claimed P&O to be an American company), or nobody at the wire services, newspapers or television national news services bothered to check where P&O actually operated terminals. For the record, they are:

1. New York
2. Philadelphia
3. Baltimore
4. Miami
5. New Orleans
6. Vancouver

What nobody in either the media or the blogosphere has bothered to discover is that P&O provides general stevedoring services (if don’t know what that is, go look it up on Google... It’ll do you good) all along the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States, as well as the West Coast of Canada. These services would be available at the following ports:

1. Portland (Maine)
2. Boston
3. Davisville
4. New York
5. Newark
6. Camden
7. Wilmington
8. Philadelphia
9. Baltimore
10. Norfolk
11. Newport News
12. Portsmouth
13. Miami
14. Gulfport
15. New Orleans
16. Baton Rouge
17. Lake Charles
18. Beaumont
19. Port Arthur
20. Galveston
21. Houston
22. Freeport
23. Corpus Christi

And that doesn’t include the 13 port locations in and around Vancouver that are within spitting distance of Seattle.

Note that one doesn’t come up with the number 21 when the two lists are combined. That's because a number of port have are comprimed of facilities at different locations. If you read my post on the Port of New York, you'll see what I mean.

Not that any of that information provides the appropriate perspective for this issue. Note the following:

1. There are over 300 ports in the United States. P&O has operations at 23. That's less than 7.7% of our ports.
2. There are over 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals at those 300+ ports. P&O operates 13 cargo and 3 passenger terminals. That's less than one-half of 1% of the cargo and passenger terminals at U.S. ports. Here's the breakdown:

a)New York: 1 sub-terminal (within 1 of the 7 major cargo terminals of the port), 1 passenger
b)Philadelphia: 4 cargo sub-terminals (within 4 of the port's 7 major cargo terminals), 1 passenger
c)Baltimore: 3 cargo sub-terminals (within 3 of the 6 major public port terminals)
d)Miami: 1 cargo (of 9), 1 passenger (of 7)
e)New Orleans: 4 cargo (of 12)

I've been unable to find any statistics as to how many terminals P&O provides stevedoring services. I have also been unable to discover how many of the 300+ U.S. ports have cargo or passenger terminals operated by foreign-owned companies. Given that 24 of the 25 largest such operators in the world are not based in the United States, my guess is most, if not all, of our ports have a foreign presence. As A.P. Moller-Maersk is the largest single operator of terminals in the U.S., and they are Danish, I'm probably close to being right with such a guess.

So just what is the big deal here... once you look at the facts?

Finally, I haven’t really seen anyone pick up on the fact that P&O operates several major passenger/cruise ship terminals at U.S. ports and try to incorporate that fact into any discussion of security. Or the fact that Anderson Hughes and Beaufort Shipping, both subsidiaries of P&O, have specialized chartering and specialist shipping operations that could, theoretically, have “port security” ramifications...

So the bottom line is this, media people like Kevin Drum are going to be asking just the sort of question as he’s asked above until he actually takes the time and puts forth the effort to get on the internet and do some research. This isn’t brain surgery we’re talking about here. If I can do it, certainly your garden variety polymath journalist or Pajamahadeen can do it. Right?

That is, of course, if we assume anyone in either Old, New Media or the blogosphere are actually interested in the facts... And I'm not sure I'm ready to grant that assumption just yet.

Note: Let's remember that less than 3% of the 6,000+ commercial ships making the 60,000+ port calls in these great United States fly under our flag. That means, potentially, that 97% of the ships entering our 300+ ports and 3,700+ cargo and passenger terminals are owned, operated and crewed by "foreigners".

Comments

[Libby]

Well this small time blogger picked up on the discrepancy days ago and blogged it at the DetNews. I continue to think the real story here is that so many foreign corporations have what appears to be nearly unfettered access to our most vulnerable point of entry. For instance, my reading tells me that over 80% of the port services in LA are run by foreign corps. Rather disturbing when I'm told that only 6% of the incoming goods in the whole country are inspected. I think if we're serious about securing the ports we need to redirect our DHS tax dollars out of equipping every podunk town in America with surveillance cameras for their Main Streets and into beefing up port security. Maybe even change the way we run the port authorities altogether.

[dsquared]

Dennis; surely the six (five) ports where P&O runs operations are the important ones, because in as much as there is an issue at all, it is an issue over the maintenance and accessibility of the records, and P&O would not be responsible for the shipping records in locations where it was only providing stevedoring? So what I'm saying is that the MSM(tm) figure is actually more relevant than Drum's.

Although I maintain that by the time a ship carrying ten tons of uranium and anthrax has docked in New York, it is a bit late to be worrying about who is paying the man attaching the hooks to the container.

[Tim P]

"If I can do it, certainly your garden variety polymath journalist or Pajamahadeen can do it. Right?"

Actually, I've always preferred the term, 'pajamarazzi.'

[Cessie]

My concern over this deal, given the track record of this administration, is the gobs of goodies for his cronies hidden in the fine print.

One would hope that an independate review of the agreement could be done by, at the very least, a home office accountant.

[DennisThePeasant]

Cessie-

Actually, there has already been an 'inter-agency' review of the transaction. Which you evidently weren't aware of.

As to the whole 'cronyism' meme... it seems little more than a cover for those who wish to cover their reflexive, unthinking Anti-Bush stance with a veneer of pseudo-thoughtfulness. Given that virtually no-one on the internet or in the press has displayed the foggiest notion of the P&O/DPW sales and how it might relate to the reality of ports security, I remain more inclined to mock the doubters for ignorance than credit them for seriousness.

Show me what FACTS you have in the way of 'cronyism' as it relates to this transaction and then I'll take you seriously. Otherwise, join the great foul-smelling herd who are doing nothing more than running their mouths...

I have very little tolerance for memes at this point in time.

[FabioC.]

Good work... I think more on-topic than Charles digging up even more dirt about the UAE. Mind you, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the stories at LGF; only they do not seem so relevant to the specific port issue.

There is this article at Tech Central Station that makes in important consideration too: Securing U.S. ports at home should be our last line of defense.

[dsquared]

I confess I find it hard to see how Bush could have made a lot of money out of P&O being sold to DPW as neither of them have anything to do with them (and he is not exactly famous for having incredible acumen when it comes to making money).

The whole question here is the record-keeping, though; it's not so much about "port security" as about keeping the lines open by which US authorities gain access to shipping information for use in tracking down terrorists (shipping records are apparently really useful). The paper trail left by the truck which carried the bomb in the Hariri assassination went cold in a DPW-operated port, so it is not exactly an academic question.

It is, on the other hand, a question that could be solved really easily; whether the Hariri thing was the result of simple poor record-keeping (most likely; "poor" record-keeping is by far the most common kind, as any accountant will tell you) or something more sinister, all that would have to be done would be to put standard terms in port operator contracts requiring minimum standards of record-keeping.

Thinking about it this way, actually, the record-keeping thing has very little to do with DPW. If I was an American, I certainly wouldn't want to be trusting P&O either on an important matter like this with no contract, or indeed a domestic firm. Setting minimum standards for preservation of shipping data is exactly the sort of thing the Department of Homeland Security ought to have done about three years ago. I suppose that if they pull their finger out and do it, some good will have come out of this whole distasteful flap.

[wxjames]

The possibility has been born that al Qaeda or someone will try to bring a bomb into the country via the ports now just to bust our shoes. Of course, they would pick a non-Arab port for this surprise. So much ado about nothing has in fact exposed our massive underbelly. We have glaring omissions in border security; let's advertise.

[wxjames]

dsquared, You mean if Congress had pulled their fingers, etc. Congress, the source of all federal law, is the black hole of ideas and open debate.

[Terrye]

Speaking of cronyism there is that whole Longshoreman/Gambino thing, but what the hell they are gangsters and gangsters are romantic.

I think the biggest problem I have had with the whole silly business is that this is about a deal between two foreign companies. Bush did not "grant" contracts to anyone. The only thing the US could do would be to raise rad flags about Dubai taking over certain contracts in the US and that in turn might nix the bid..but if the guys from Singapore had won the bidding war we would not even be discussing this.

[PeterUK]

Cessie,
There was absolutely nothing stopping you from bidding on the P&O deal,if the deal does not go ahead with the UAE company,who else is in the running? P&O are still selling,now is your big chance.

[FabioC.]

I would be most ironic if say COSCO made a bid if DPW is rejected...

[joe]

Oh my god! there are foreigners on ships in our ports! Call the TSA! Let's blockade ourselves.

[DennisThePeasant]

I think if we're serious about securing the ports we need to redirect our DHS tax dollars out of equipping every podunk town in America with surveillance cameras for their Main Streets and into beefing up port security.

Best point made all day. A gold star for Libby (and I wasn't annoyed with you last time, I was just grumpy... Period.)

[Cessie]

Dennis,

I would love to be proven wrong but since nobody beyond the Bush appointees will ever see the documents it hard to show that either of us are correct.

BTW love Ronnie and Nancy

[DennisThePeasant]

Cessie-

Once again, you are in territory you have no knowledge of. The Coast Guard had lead responsibility for preparing all of the documents for review, and a number of the individuals from the different departments and agencies involved in the review process are career people... not appointees.

Drop the talking points and think.

[Cessie]

Dennis,

I have more containers coming into this country than anyone on this blog. I import and export Organic Food. What do you know about customs clearance and duties?

The fact remaines that no amount of vetting by Agencies will get to the fine print of these inside deals that Bushies are so fond of. Leopards don't change their spots.

My family is made up of Christians, Muslims and Heathens. I am very sensative to the bigotry in the world. As I've said before I don't have a problem with a foreign country operating ports in the US, just this corrupt administration.

As for thinking, do ya think this administration is not corrupt, that is more so than we normally see from any one in power?

[Staci]

Dennis, LOL, I was wondering the same thing... when would the truth be uncovered. I don't have a blog, but it would be funny to expose those flip flops of those opposing it and their relations with affected unions. It is people just like Cessie here who is blinded by the conspiracy of corruption of the administration than the actual facts of the deal. Big deal about a company shipping stuff in the import biz. Another point is what about the stuff that comes in from ports already owned by this company?

I work inside the port of Miami, have relatives in the USCG and Customs, and actually work for a company that operates a few terminals in the same ports. And customs and clearance, I would like to see what Cessie knows. Because it sure doesn't sound like much. I know when my company deals with customs AND clearance on just our goods, but our ships, we deal with the USCG and Customs, not some fricken company managing primarily containers.

And I'm sure they are waiting to invest all that money to blow it up for this port transaction. Having knowledge of our military ops INSIDE the UAE and sending our soldiers there for liberty visits since the 1980s was just smoke and mirrors for 20 years. Equating that company or even UAE as a threat is ludicrous. What would that say about US companies or even the USA itself? We have some terrorists right here. But don't let that get in the way of an opportunity to bash the evil neocon empire.

[Staci]

One more thing to note is why this company and not the other ones.

You said: "Given that 24 of the 25 largest such operators in the world are not based in the United States, my guess is most, if not all, of our ports have a foreign presence."

I'll tell you why. It is no secret that major unions run labor in these ports. They are known as a major pain to deal with. If anyone who has ever dealt with American unions even associated with anything touching the maritime industry, they'd know what I am talking about. Many of these companies don't even want to deal with this.

This company is known to be pretty progressive and also is known to run tight ops. They are also known to invest in top of the line offloading equipment, which make the ops MORE efficient AND.... require less labor. Ask yourself, is there more that these union protestors are concerned with besides security? Food for thought. I'll tell you, driving through this port for over 3.5 years, they always have something they are protesting.

[DennisThePeasant]

Staci-

The last refuge of a half-wit is to say something like, "I have more containers coming into this country than anyone else on this blog" or "My family is made up of Christians, Muslims and Heathens". What does that have to do with anything? What facts are presented?

And Cessie-

Just as an FYI, I was shipping in millions of dollars of merchandise in containers through U.S. seaports from China, Hong Kong and South America in the early '90s. I was also shipping stuff out to Russia. I was involved in the prelimaries of the buyout of a company that managed freight through Customs... and had a Customs office within their facility. And I know a couple of hundred Muslims. Does that mean my point of view prevails over yours? Because it appears mine is bigger than yours, doesn't it?

[Staci]

Dennis,

I have been thoroughly amazed at the headlines myself. They've screamed everything from UAE running our ports, Turning security over to Arabs, blah blah. I've been flabbergasted. I just shook my head and laughed. I work in the cruise industry and have been on the analyst side in the freight. Fricken Customs and the USCG are major pains in the A$$. It's terribly sad to see the half ass reporting of the facts. I mean, seriously, how many people really read the news or just skim the headlines?

The thing I think Cessie is pointing out that we are all missing is:

It's Bush's fault!!!

[Jim]

But Bush's Cabal of Cronies, Inc. IS corrupt, Staci. Michael Mooron, the Gorebot, "I did not have sexual relations with the chicoms" Clinton, panty Reid, dick Turban, Jesus Cartah, and the lost Kos kids tell us so.

And now Malkin is virtually admitting that Bush is corrupt. Either that, or too stupid to avoid playing into the A-Rabs' terrorist hands.

[DennisThePeasant]

Staci-

Bush's fault? I missed that...

Stop the presses!!!

[Staci]

Shoot, I don't want to be accused of leaving out the fine writing here. I guess I should also include the super-duper Rovian mind machine behind the scenes. It's all in the fine writing, ya know.

Seriously Dennis, I've lurked your site before, but there are great links from guys in the Navy describing their visits to Dubai. Then it is pretty simple to out people like Reid and Clinton concerning how much money they recieve from these unions. Funny, but they sure as heck didn't care about NSA and security. Then, another pesky point is WHY only 5.6% of containers are inspected in the 6 ports mentioned ONLY. Because if you look at how many overall, it's a much HIGHER %. It's in the equipment. It is minimal and I've seen it come out when I have to go through 8 checkpoints to park my car for work and show my badge every point. Then, look at how much Dubai invests in this equipment. It's not perfect, but it is a big deal. If this was a condition, they would surpass security that P&O was supplying.

That is another thing. The US Government does NOT pay for this equipment. The companies operating that HAVE to obey US laws do. Probably one of the reasons P&O is backing out. I wonder if Ms. Smartypants can educate me on APIS, let alone tell me what the acronym means. I should give her a hint about Google, since she doesn't seem to know what it is. Usually when it comes to looking this stuff up on, it won't lead her to trusted sites like DU or HT.

[Chessie]

Dennis,

NO it means your sterotyping of me as some lefly meme is off the beam. Your assumption that I have no understanding of the issues or biggots is unfounded.

It's one thing to know a few Muslims but try getting one into your family. My sister got a call from the Bishop of NA to tell her that her children would all go to Hell if she married a Muslim man. To her credit she converted to Islam on the spot.

And please a few million is nada.

I don't know why we are in a pissing contest since we agree on everyting but the corrupt nature of this administration.

Cheers