Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

We political bloggers pride ourselves on our integrity, our firmness of purpose in writing our blogs, our incorruptible natures. We can’t be bought. If credibility is the coin of the realm, so the argument goes, why would we tarnish it by using counterfeit currency?

Well, apparently a number of bloggers are so sure of their incorruptibility that they feel they CAN accept tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees from politician’s they cover and still be seen as critical and independent political bloggers. I have profound doubts about their judgment.

The NY Times published a terrific rundown of political bloggers who accepted varying sums from various candidates (mostly Democratic, but a few Republicans were included). The genius of the column was to present it as a graphic (left-click once within image area to expand size)which featured the blog name, author, consulting fees and a sample comment about the said candidate all in an easy to read format. It’s eye-opening. Take the entry on Jerome Armstrong of MyDD and Daily Kos fame. He collected $115,000 plus” from Sherrod Brown and $65,000 from Mark Warner. Here’s a sample of what he wrote about Warner:

“Warner’s been a terrific governor for Virginia. I watched him during the 2001 governor’s race and like what I saw. He was able to attract people from rural areas who hadn’t voted Democratic in a long time–a non-ideological big-tent Democrat who can sit down and relate with just about any ordinary American.”

Don’t get me wrong. It’s likely that everything he said about Warner he meant genuinely. And Armstrong has revealed his relationship with those campaigns who fund him. But money works in extremely subtle ways. And when you accept it you’d be a fool to think that the politician is giving it to you simply because he admires your acute analysis or probity. No, he’s giving you money because he believes you can help deliver a certain demographic to him. And the only way to do so is by writing about the candidate. And you can’t write in any other way than full-throated praise. Otherwise, why would he pay you?

While I haven’t done a survey, I’d wonder how many of the bloggers in the Times list had written anything critical of the candidate sponsoring their blog. I’d bet the number would be zero or damn near close. And it stands to reason. But how could this be: a political blogger known for critical thinking and the ability to analyze campaigns both for their strengths and weaknesses cannot speak ill of his sponsor? It’s the money, stupid.

I’d be posting this at DailyKos myself for all the netroots to read but a funny thing happened on the way to the Kos. I was banned. That’s right. I’d published diary entries criticizing Armando and Kos for a potential conflict of interest (Armando because until recently he was a lawyer representing corporate clients while potentially promoting their political agenda in his blog; and Kos because of his one-time acceptance of such consulting fees–which he no longer does). And I got the axe for my troubles, being accused by the raging Kossites of being a “troll” and enemy of all that is good. You can see how open those folks are to examining their own attitudes and behaviors.

I know I could rejoin Kos by creating a new profile, but so much outrageous venom was spewn at me by the Kos-acks last time I did this–I simply don’t have the energy or inclination to sink into a sewage pit once again. So hopefully people will find their way here to read this. Maybe I’ll republish it at My Left Wing since Mary Scott O’Connor was so unbelievable wonderful that last time I was smeared over at Kos.

Finally, I say here what I said at Kos (and which was treated with acid disdain there)–if we don’t ask these questions of ourselves and act according to the lessons we learn from such self-examination, then our readers eventually may act for us initially by questioning our objectivity; and then perhaps by turning toward blog sources that may not be tainted by the whiff of conflict of interest. These bloggers and their hellions can yell and scream all they want about this issue and say, as they have, that it’s a non-issue. They can take umbrage with me for allegedly questioning their righteousness. But I predict it will eventually become a more serious problem than it is even now. And it could hurt them. It could even hurt all the rest of us writing political blogs if the practice becomes more commonplace and readers come to believe that they can’t fully trust anyone’s objectivity.

tags armando, daily-kos, jerome-armstrong, mark-warner, markos-moulitsas, mydd, netroots, political-bloggers-harm-reputation-by-accepting-fees-fr, sherrod-brown

MaxSpeak alerted me to a Forward article about the supposed silence of the liberal blogs about the Lebanon crisis. The article’s author interviews a few of the “major players” in the liberal blog world and nary a one felt comfortable taking on the issue. But one of the dumbest statements came from Kos in his Why I Won’t Write About the Israel/Lebanon/Palestine Fighting. He writes that he is:

…Steering clear of this morass of a mess of a disaster of a quagmire of a sinkhole of a clusterfuck that is completely FUBAR.

Did you notice how a guy who says he “won’t write about” the Lebanon crisis has just made quite a statement about it? So if you’ve bothered to go that far, why couldn’t you actually take a minute away from Democratic political campaign analysis to write about a subject which could conceivable envelop the world in war? I call this a cop out.

Me? I grew up in a war zone. And there was one clear lesson I learned — there will never be peace unless both sides get tired of the fighting and start seeking an alternative.

I take it back. With platitudes like that maybe it’s better he doesn’t write about the Mideast conflict.

It’s clear that in the Middle East, no one is sick of the fighting. They have centuries of grudges to resolve, and will continue fighting until they can get over them. And considering that they obviously have no interest in “getting over them”, we’re stuck with a war that will not end in any forseable [sic] future. It doesn’t matter what we bloggers say. It doesn’t matter what the President of the United States says. Or the United Nations. Or the usual bloviating gasbag pundits.

This passage is so monumentally stupid (MaxSpeak calls it “idiotic” which suits me fine), so patently cynical, so absolutely wrong. It makes someone like me–who’s devoted a good part of his life and blog to the proposition that bloggers CAN make a difference in this conflict; and that what the President of the U.S. and the UN certainly can make a difference–so mad I could spit. Kos’ defeatism is a recipe for inaction, silence and continuing the morass of a status quo that currently reigns.

I take special umbrage at Kos’ statement: “It doesn’t matter what we bloggers say.” It DOES matter what bloggers say about the Lebanon crisis as well as any other important social or foreign policy issue. If what Kos said were true then what would be the point of anyone writing political blogs? Liberal bloggers should be writing about every important issue of the day including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we heed Kos’ advice then we basically cede the territory to the partisan pro-Israel blog world, the Pajamas Media and Little Green Footballs. Is that what we want: a blog space free for their propaganda to go unanswered and unchallenged? Whatever happened to presenting a policy alternative to the right?

When two sides are this dead-set on killing each other, very little can get in the way.

And I, for one, sure as heck have no desire to get sucked into that no-win situation. I just hope that war-fatigue sets in at some point.

Why is Kos’ cynicism so damaging? Because of his huge audience. When he talks people listen. Sometimes they shouldn’t, but they always do no matter what he says. If he got off his duff and devoted some time and space to this issue he could open hearts and minds. But enough about what Kos could do but won’t. That’s a waste of time.

The Israeli-Arab conflict IS solvable. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter believed it and made enormous strides toward that end. Neither one succeeded completely (Clinton especially saw great disappointment). But their efforts meant something. They provided something that their successors will build on when they finally DO solve it. And I hope no one pays attention to Kos’ statement: “We’re stuck with a war that will not end in any forseable [sic] future.” That’s bullshit. The war in Lebanon will end. The entire Israeli-Arab conflict WILL end sometime in the foreseeable future. And those who help end it will do so despite the inanities of people like Kos.

I think his attitude toward the current crisis derives to some extent from his political orientation. He and his site are committed to the Democrats taking back Congress and the White House. Anything that does not contribute in some tangible way to that goal is of low priority. The Democrats have a very serious problem when it come to Israel. They do not present an alternative to current White House policy. That’s because the Democrats are bought lock, stock and barrel on this issue by Aipac and its donors. Since the Dems can’t score points against Republicans over Lebanon, Kos’ position is “let ‘em all go hang themselves for all I care.” As Max Sawicky so cogently says:

The unified Democratic response of support for Israel points up the limitations of the uncritical anti-war “netroots.” You can’t be serious about politics if you’re not serious about policy, particularly in the realm of potential problems percolating in the ME.

I couldn’t agree more.

tags daily-kos, israels-war-in-lebanon, markos-moulitsas, max-sawicky, maxspeak, u.s.-israel-relations, u.s.-mideast-policy

Disclosure: I recently wrote a diary at DailyKos in which I called for more disclosure from political bloggers of their political affiliations (consulting, advertising, etc.) in order to maintain credibility in the eyes of our readers. Some DKos members, Armando chief among them, detested my post. So I’m disclosing my rather heated interaction with him so that anyone reading this may place what I write below in that context.

One of the commenters on the diary which I cross-posted here noted that Armando, who is an anti-trust attorney, has Wal-Mart as one of his clients. Let’s leave aside our personal feelings about Wal-Mart since it isn’t really relevant to the point I want to make here. But Armando’s profession and its interconnection with his political blogging raise interesting ethical issues.

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway published two interesting posts on Armando’s ‘outing’ by the NRO. The only part of his post that I want to relate to is his discussion of issues of disclosure for political bloggers. To his credit, Joyner has thought long and hard about the issues for himself (much harder than Armando judging by the quality and tenor of his remarks in the comment thread for my diary):

In my own case, my affiliation with the Defense Department is mentioned in my About section and I write about defense issues, routinely, without mentioning it in a separate disclosure. I only disclose it as a potential “conflict” if I’m writing about the program or agency employing me (which is almost never) or the issue of contractors working for the federal government (maybe once or twice in the history of the site). Regular readers know that my wife is a VP at a polling firm that does work for numerous Republican candidates. I typically only disclose that if I’m criticizing the work of a competing polling firm or lauding one of their candidates (I say nothing if I’m criticizing one of their candidates, as I frequently do). That satisfies my sense of ethics on the matter;

I wondered why Armando came down so hard on me regarding my diary accusing me of being a “troll” and of attacking Kos’ good name merely because I suggested that all political bloggers should prominently disclose any relationships which might cloud their credibility with their audience. Could Armando’s hostility have something to do with the scrutiny he’s received both from the right and left blogosphere over his own professional affiliations? And if it did, isn’t there a great big dose of hypocrisy in his anger at my so-called attack on Kos (an attack in his mind and the mind of the Kos acolytes only). I think it may be important to take Armando’s criticisms with a great big grain of salt because in cases like mine I think he’s the pot calling the kettle black.

I should make clear that I don’t have a problem with a political blogger/attorney representing corporate clients and writing about those clients in the context of one’s blog. I don’t have a problem with Kos taking money from political advertisements on his site or even if he chose to resume consulting (which he has said he has no plans to do). Not as long as you do what James has done by disclosing those relationships prominently and regularly when relevant. So I have a pointed question for Armando: will you reveal your corporate affiliations whenever you write about clients and major legal issues for which you represent them? If not, why not? He says he’s never written about his corporate clients. Fair enough. But when he writes about anti-trust law at Daily Kos but doesn’t reveal he is an anti-trust attorney representing corporate clients doesn’t that potentially undermine his credibility? And let’s even give the benefit of the doubt and say that for this particular post disclosing corporate affiliations wasn’t necessary. But how can he be so sure that this will always be the case? Let’s throw out an example: Microsoft is a corporate client and you write about intellectual property issues at your blog without mentioning the company at all. Disclose or don’t disclose? I would. But whether or not you would, I hope my readers can see that this can become a tricky issue. Perhaps your views about intellectual property as expressed at your blog are entirely independent of your Microsoft relationship. Perhaps they’re not. Isn’t it better to err on the side of caution and disclose?

MaryScott O’Connor has also contemplated the conflict of interest issue regarding accepting paid political ads at one’s blog. She writes:

My Left Wing does not now, nor will it ever, accept paid advertising by individual politicians, be they campaigning or sitting. Any ads you see for such individuals is advertising freely offered by me, Maryscott O’Connor, as the proprietor of this blog, as a campaign donation.

In case it needs further clarification: I do not ever, EVER want to be in the position of having accepted advertising revenue from a candidate whom I might later be in the position to criticise — because I may not have the fortitude to follow through with the criticism, if the politician in question is a source of INCOME for me.

This is the kind of thoughtful anticipation of ethical issues which I call for from all political bloggers. I should add that I also don’t accept paid political ads (not that one has ever been offered!) from candidates.

Returning to Armando’s ‘predicament,’ I don’t want to make this out as if I feel absolutely black & white about this issue. There are good reasons to disclose & there are also good reasons not to. But the good reasons to disclose appear, at least to me, to revolve around maintaining high standards for our blogging. While the good reasons not to involve protecting our professional lives as lawyers, journalists, bloggers or whatever. If you want to be a political blogger you should be prepared to disclose. If you’d rather protect your clients & your relationships to them then you shouldn’t be blogging or shouldn’t be blogging about issues for which you might appear to have a conflict of interest.

I also don’t want to be too much of an absolutist about the issue. This blog has nowhere near the influence nor viewership of Daily Kos. I am no star of the blogosphere. Advertisers are not banging down the doors to plaster my sidebar with ads. I don’t know what it’s like to be a Kos or Armando. There must be great pressures and responsibilities that I’ll never face. I don’t know how I’d react if I were in their shoes. But as Maryscott O’Connor wrote in her post, I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they face their responsibilities squarely and willingly. That’s why I’d like to believe that they spend time considering the issues that James Joyner, MSOC and I raise. I’d like to but dare I believe it given how sharply Armando attacked my diary’s premise?

I write this not out of animus to political bloggers on the left (after all I AM one). I do this because the right (in the form of people like the NRO journalist who outed Armando) are out there gunning for us. If we anticipate what they might use against us & pre-empt them then we only strengthen our own message. Not to mention that there is an actual ethical consideration as well. I think people like Armando do themselves and all political bloggers a disservice when they sweep the issue under the rug.

tags corporate-law, daily-kos, ethical-disclosure, james-joyner, markos-moulitsas, maryscott-oconnor, my-left-wing, NRO-Outs-Kos’-Armando, outside-the-beltway, political-blogging-and-conflicts-of-interest, political-blogs, wal-mart

Maryscott O’Connor is a blogging angel. In my battle against the Cult of Kos I never expected anyone to come to my aid. I never expected anyone to blog about my battle there. Which made me all the more amazed to discover yesterday that she’d written a powerful post, Something is Rotten in Blogmark at My Left Wing not only defending me and my Kos diary, but formulating my ideas much more persuasively and cogently than I had. She, of course, has been an intimate member of the Kos community and I haven’t. She knows much more about Kos than I. That’s why I was so pleased and amazed to read how well she framed and echoed my own thoughts:

The diary in question is civil, respectful and well-thought out. There is nothing offensive about it. There are no accusations, no undocumented claims. It is a sensible approach to the issue, which WILL NOT GO AWAY simply because some people don’t think Markos should be held to the standards that he WILL, ultimately, BE held to.

I’m sorry, but if you run a political website and if you have clout that results in lots of people following your lead and sending donations, if your endorsement translates to positive cash flow and footwork for candidates or causes by a large contingent of your website’s membership, then you MUST be transparent. You MUST, or you begin to lose credibility — or, put another way, there begins to be the “appearance of impropriety,” no matter how benign and blameless you may actually BE…

It’s not going to go away. The questions will continue to be asked. And, in my view, the worst possible approach is to respond to the questions with the kind of ludicrous defensiveness and childish displays in the aforementioned diary (at one point people were adding scatological and absurdly offensive tags to the diary itself).

This is what happens when you crash the gates. All of a sudden, you’re not just a pajama-clad kid in his parents’ basement; once you’ve demonstrated your power and influence, people start demanding accountability and transparency. They want to know, for instance, that you aren’t pushing a candidate MERELY because you (or your friends) have been paid by that candidate to do so. It LOOKS bad if you haven’t made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that this isn’t the case…

Which brings me back to the diary that inspired this: do people actually think that loudly and viciously attacking the questioners will make the questions go away? Is DKos supposed to remain a Doubt Free Bubble, where the big bad world and its realities are to be ignored when they do not fit a certain Fairy Tale outlook we wish to maintain about our “home?”

…I want to be able to open up someone’s well-written diary that brings up issues which make me uncomfortable, makes others uncomfortable — and read a levelheaded discussion thereof; perhaps passionate but still rational. I want to be able to declare myself a full-fledged member of the community of Daily Kos without having to QUALIFY that declaration.

I want to stop cringing in embarrassment — for DKos, for myself –every time I read a discussion of a hot button topic where the diarist falls into the minority opinion.

I blog about Israeli-Palestinian peace and I’ve become accustomed to far worse levels of vitriol than the DKos gnats hurled at me in my diary. Nevertheless, I would’ve thought that the progressive community wouldn’t feel the need to eat its young as some at DKos apparently feel the need to do. Why can’t progressives openly discuss tough issues about how we function in the world? Why can’t we question our behavior and try to do better? Why do people like me have to take shit because we’re trying to prevent problems from happening down the line to political bloggers who aren’t transparent enough about their political liaisons?

I only feel badly about one thing. Maryscott did a brave thing in taking on Kos’ acolytes. But she took some horrible shit for it. The insults flung at her where apparently as bad or worse than what they tossed my way. While I know she didn’t do this for me (but rather for the ideas I was trying to raise) I still feel badly that she went through the ringer in a far worse way than I.

I have received some really hateful bilge at this blog for my views. But I can’t remember anyone rising to my defense in as stirring a way before. I am deeply grateful to her both for her defense and for setting my (and her) ideas before a much wider audience than I could’ve done through this blog and my diary at DKos.

Among other choice things, Armando wrote at DKos that I am a “troll.” Undoubtedly he and his fellow thought police think I’m a Republican or at least Democratic fellow-traveler out to do their dirty work for them. They resent what I wrote as an attack on Kos and the left in general (neither of which it is or was meant to be). In fact, one commenter here thought I’d be proud that Mickey Kaus linked to my Cult of Kos post. All I can say is if the cretins who vandalized my tags, troll rated my diary comment and told me to blow my diary out my ass had thought better of their asinine behavior then I wouldn’t have written my post complaining of it, Maryscott wouldn’t have read it and written her own post, and Mickey Kaus would’ve found something else to pick on Kos about. They have only themselves to blame. Sometimes in life if you treat someone like shit you’ll be made to pay for it. This is one of those times. Not that Armando and his merry band of Kosites will see it that way. No doubt they feel infinitely comfortable in their smug self-righteousness. As Kos’ enforcers, they must feel they’re doing the greater good for the cause when in fact they’re injuring it.

tags cult-of-kos, daily-kos, markos-moulitsas, maryscott-oconnor, my-left-wing, political-bloggers, political-consulting, something-rotten-in-blogmark

Some of you may’ve followed a controversy of a few weeks ago in which Markos Moulitsas asked members of a private discussion group not to discuss a pending SEC investigation against his friend and sometime business partner, Jerome Armstrong. The New Republic seized on Moulitsas’ missive as if was marching orders from the Don himself. From there, David Brooks and Chris Suellentrop (both of the NY Times) picked up the story and ridiculed Kos for what they viewed as his George Patton-like performance. None of this struck me as particularly important or interesting.

But Suellentrop at The Opinionator did broach what I thought was an important issue. He pointed out that Kos at one time (working for Sherrod Brown), and Armstrong even now (Mark Warner) do political consulting while running/writing political websites. So the obvious question, at least to me, is how does a political blogger who endorses candidates at his site create a transparent environment when he may also be consulting for–or have some other undisclosed relationship with–some of these same candidates? Peter Daou has gotten himself into the same potential pickle (at least in my opinion) by announcing he would join HIllary Clinton’s campaign while still maintaining his Daou Report at Salon. All this strikes me as a conflict of interest waiting to happen. Perhaps not the most heinous or troubling conflict of interest. But given the level of hackery and puffery in politics (including online politics), I feel it’s important that bloggers fully disclose such relationships.

I wrote a post about this and republished it as a diary at Daily Kos. To be clear, I explicitly said that I wasn’t raising this issue in order to attack or criticize Kos. Rather, I was raising it in an attempt to keep the entire playing field as level as possible. I also, in this post, specifically criticized John Thune’s behavior in hiring political bloggers to create sites which savaged Tom Daschle without revealing their affiliation with Thune. I added that I found this Republican behavior even more troubling than that of Armstrong or Kos.

In short, I expected some might not like what I wrote. But I simply wasn’t prepared for the onslaught. There were of course the gratuitous insults, deliberate distortions and other doo-doo humor in the comments thread. There’s this from Boadicea:

You’re missing a tag “Things blown out of my butt about which I am completely, utterly clueless”.

And there was this delightful one from Opendna of the (I kid you not) Socal Cossacks Network, which only proved the validity of my code of ethics concept:

You’re a prostitute, eh?

Are you suggesting that I must be willing to compromise my ethics for a couple thousand dollars in consulting fees?

Are you suggesting that I’m such a cheap intellectual whore that I’ll endorse someone because they take out advertising on my blog?

Them’s fighting words, bitch. Say’em to my face and I’ll put you on your back.

That you’d even ask these questions suggests you have no respect for your own integrity - it’s for sell cheap, eh? Would you lie to America $10K? Evidently, you would.

Some of us put a higher value on their integrity. slutSome of us make our living on our integrity. Just because you’re a $1000 ho, doesn’t mean the rest of us are. So, yeah, maybe we get a little agitated when someone challenges it with nothing to back them up.

In short: You ain’t shit. Try again.

To hear an ass like this talk of “integrity” and “ethics” makes a mockery of the very terms. He may “make a living” but certainly not on his integrity.

And there was oh so much more. First, in the Kos diaries anyone may add tags to a diary entry. So some of the ‘really mature’ site members take it upon themselves to police diaries they don’t like by adding malicious tags. That’s what a delightful schmuck named Boadicea did. [UPDATE: Boadicea below claims she did not engage in this behavior. Apparently, when she suggested to me (in the comment quoted above) that I add a tag that would've been malicious in nature, this gave another Kos coward the brilliant idea to do so. But the 'credit' for the above quoted comment is still all hers.] So I edited my diary entry to remove the malicious tags. Then, I contacted the site admin to report the tagging behavior and ask that the tagger not repeat this behavior.

Since the overall tone of the comments were so distressing and uniformly insulting I let the diary slide for a week or so and only yesterday visited it again. I found new malicious tags (”Concern Troll, Blah, blah, blah, schmuckery”) to replace the earlier ones. The effect of wiping out real tags and replacing them with insulting ones is that your diary is no longer available for searching since the real keywords which a reader might search have disappeared. The bad apples have essentially “disappeared” your diary (at least from the search process). I’ve replaced them yet again with legitimate tags. But of course the diary is now so old that it won’t matter.

In the diary’s comment thread I wrote a comment just after posting the diary replying to some misunderstandings/distortions raised by other commenters. Since commenters were claiming I was ignorant of Kos’ record on this issue, I asked readers to post links to any statements he might’ve made so that I could educate myself. Wonder of wonders, that comment too has disappeared.

Yesterday, I wrote another post to the site admin asking for an explanation of this behavior. So far, neither of my two e mails has received a reply.

And the final oddity of this whole episode is that several commenters told me in no uncertain terms to delete my diary (”This diary should be deleted”). I simply couldn’t believe it. Given what I thought was the nuance I tried to add to my post, why would Kos’ protectors and defenders get so indignant that they’d insist that I delete the post. What was my crime? What was so damaging about the diary?

I want to make clear that I am a progressive Democrat (which is why I’ve posted diaries at Daily Kos for quite some time) and I have no love for David Brooks or the New Republic. But I have to say that behavior like what I’ve described above–not just behavior by members, but apparently behavior aided and abetted by the site administrator/s–allows me to understand some of the criticism of Kos and his site flung at him by his critics. My treatment made me feel more like I was participating in a cult in which I’d insulted the chief leader and was receiving the deep six treatment in response.

We Democrats critical of precisely this type of rigid, censorious, know-it-all behavior on the part of conservatives? What is wrong with questioning our standards and behavior once in a while? Must one be labelled a “concern troll” and political enemy for suggesting that political bloggers observe a code of ethics? What are the people at Daily Kos afraid of?

tags armando, blogs-and-political-consulting, boadicea, daily-kos, ethical-conflict-of-interest, markos-moulitsas, the-opinionator

In a controversy almost too complicated to describe, The New Republic attacked Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas for asking his supporters not the dignify the report that Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD and ally of Kos, was subject to an SEC investigation with a response. The political hatchet men at TNR and Slate's Mickey Kaus have had a field day with histrionic overstatement in attacking Kos' alleged "silencing" of his supporters. The entire story reeks of being a non-story kicked until it feebly attempted to raise its head off the ground. Markos Moulitsas: do political bloggers need a code of conduct? In my opinion, the NY Times' political blog, The ...

Justin Raimondo (photo: ColoradoCollege.edu) Justin Raimondo attacks the motivations of hysterical Republican and Democratic lawmakers braying for a pound of Arab flesh in the Dubai ports controversy in Hating Arabs: Arab-haters target Dubai port company at Antiwar.com. Anyone who's read my posts here in which I've featured blogs and MSM pieces supportive of the deal has read most of the arguments in favor. But Raimondo does add a new emphasis and perspective on the issue: Phony reason number one: Two of the hijackers were born in Dubai. This is completely bonkers: Dubai is a city of over one million, a major financial and industrial center, and an increasingly ...

The NY Times reports that Governors George Pataki and Robert Ehrlich have joined the anti-Arab chorus against Dubai Ports World which will assume control of the leases of several major east coast ports: The Republican governors of New York and Maryland on Monday joined the growing chorus of criticism of an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports. Both raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," Gov. George E. Pataki of New York said in a statement. The only problem is ...