I know what's being transferred, and I know it's not fee simple title to our ports, but an ownership interest in the company that currently has the contract on running certain ports. They will essentially own the right to run those ports. It's no different than me saying a leased car is 'mine.'
But the quibbling over this irrelevant semantic issue is starting to piss me off. I have seen corrections by the same side of the argument on different occasions that yes, DP World will own the ports, or no, it won't. But I don't care if they own it, lease it, rent, lease-purchase, REIT it, or mow the f'in yard--the UAE company will control it enough to present a security risk after this deal is done, and that's the point, that shouldn't be happening. I wish the port action defenders (I could have meant ownership or not there, booga booga) could get their act together and present a more cogent argument why we should do this, but I'm sure many will coalesce again around their usual practice of just slinging insults at the people against the White House's foulup dujour. I appreciated discussing it with John Valentine, who has been reasonable in his support of the President if a tad obvious in his own frustration with the opposition to this move. But reasonable discussion has not been the rule.
One of the other threads tries to identify an American corporation in the business that has the size to do this piece of business, but it appears there are none. Anyway, this issue is about done. We're on to the events of the day.