I sent this to David Brooks in response to his opinion piece today in the Times... I can't post the original, because it's premium content... :-(

Hi David,

A note on Dubai and why their government should be banned from direct investment in the USA... Dubai allows slavery and exploitation of children, as young as 4, who are abducted or purchased from South Asia and forced to jockey in camel races. If we put sanctions on South Africa for apartheid, then the least we could do is keep Dubai from trading with us, right? Child slavery is totally unacceptable, right??

I seldom agree with you. In the case of Hillary and the ports deal, I have to agree with your assessment of her character. She's not presidential material. I also agree that McCain or Warner or Hegel would be better choices. Speaking as a Democrat and an activist, I think it likely that one of those three will end up being President in '08... especially if we can get a Democrat Congress. Personally, I miss the days of ticket-splitting.

I do take some issue with your characterization of the Dubai purchase as being merited by the facts. I've read your defenses of it and seen you on the News Hour defending it. On one hand, I agree with you that there is an element of xenophobia or, at least, suspicion of Arabs at work here and you are correct to call attention to it. For doing that, you get my applause.

On the other, however, you are overlooking the source of this outcry. The Bush administration has used 9/11 as a scare-tactic/wedge issue since the attack. Also, the Bush administration used 9/11 to generate a nationalist backlash which they used to sell the war in Iraq. They also fostered the confusion over who attacked us... was it Saddam or bin Laden?

Now, any student of history call tell you that nationalism is a wild, destructive, and unpredictable force. Bush did everything in his power to fuel it and manipulate it to his ends... he owes his re-election to nationalism. Why should anyone be surprised that he can't control it when it's no-longer convenient for him politically? This ports deal debacle is a direct result of Bush's reckless leadership.

On a side note... I wonder if we're really talking about free-markets and globalization when state-owned "businesses," such as the ones from Singapore, China, and UAE, are allowed to buy up assets on the free market. Forgive me for being skeptical, but I somehow doubt that these "businesses" are going to allow much competition and a free-market when they no-longer have to do so. The expression "state-owned businesses" sounds like a euphemism for mercantilism to me.

John T. Korab
Albany, NY