Rally The Pundits!

Where is the clarity and vision in this Dubai Ports World debacle?  On behalf of a troubled world (or punditry, anyway) I peeked behind the Great Wall to see what the Wise Folk on the other side were thinking.

The results were inconclusive, but interesting:

David Brooks is adamant that we must engage moderate Arabs while punishing evil-doers:

This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades. First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage, it's been embraced by reactionaries of left and right, exploited by Empire State panderers, and enabled by a bipartisan horde of politicians who don't have the guts to stand in front of a xenophobic tsunami.

But let's be clear: the opposition to the acquisition by Dubai Ports World is completely bogus.

The deal would have no significant effect on port security.

Tom Friedman also favors engagement and free trade - no surprise there, but fans of Mr. Friedman will note that his Metaphor Masher is on overtime:

But while I have zero sympathy for the political mess in which the president now finds himself, I will not join this feeding frenzy. On the pure merits of this case, the president is right. The port deal should go ahead. Congress should focus on the N.S.A. wiretapping. Not this.

As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic profiling — looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked for commies. If we do — if America, the world's beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road — we will take the rest of the world with us. We will sow the wind and we will reap the whirlwind.

Paul Krugman is agnostic on the deal but reminds us that Bush is the root of all evil.  And did I mention Bush is evil, evil, evil?  And a lying liar?  He is:

Mr. Bush shouldn't really be losing his credibility as a terrorism fighter over the ports deal, which, after careful examination (which hasn't happened yet), may turn out to be O.K. Instead, Mr. Bush should have lost his credibility long ago over his diversion of U.S. resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda and into an unnecessary war in Iraq, his bungling of that war, and his adoption of a wrongful imprisonment and torture policy that has blackened America's reputation.

Maureen Dowd, as is her wont, favors hysterical shrieking (Shrieks about sheiks - hey, being MoDo is easy!  But wait, should that be "Quakes about sheiks"?  Maybe she *does* earn her big bucks):

It's enough to make you nostalgic for those gnarly union stevedores in "On the Waterfront," the ones who hung up rats on hooks and took away Marlon Brando's chance to be a contend-ah.

Maybe it's corporate racial profiling, but I don't want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.

What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was laundered for the 9/11 attacks? And that let A. Q. Kahn, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, smuggle nuclear components through its port to Libya, North Korea and Iran?

The other prisoners have yet to check in; I expect that John Tierney will be interesting, Bob Herbert will be useless, and Frank Rich will delight those who think Krugman was pulling his punches.

Meanwhile, here in the vast public plains of free info, Mickey Kaus is cogent as always:

If we're afraid of bad guys sneaking something dangerous into the U.S., it sure seems like there are lots of opportunities for mischief if you can infiltrate the firm that does the paperwork and runs the computer system and handles the "personnel issues"!

I hate to say, "Isn't that obvious", but well, isn't it?  Although I'll readily concede that my phrasing was less elegant when I wrote this a few days back:

That said, I have no idea what reality is on this issue, but it seems to me that a port operator ought to have some ability to smuggle contraband and do other evil things.  Wasn't this covered recently on "24"?

MORE: Davids Sanger and Cloud provide the straight news today.

Comments

[windansea]

("If you are worried about a bomb in a box going off in New York, you need to worry about who loads the container overseas rather than the terminal operator who unloads it in the U.S.," says someone who actually knows something about port security, Theodore Price of Optimization Alternatives, a Texas company that provides terminal-operating software.)

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022206H

[SteveMG]

If we're afraid of bad guys sneaking something dangerous into the U.S.,

I guess Kaus is arguing that once the dangerous stuff is already here on a ship that it will be easier to move the material from the terminal to its destination point. Not that it will be easier to place the material on the ships at the departure point.

And that because this company will have knowledge of when the ship comes in and where the cargo will be taken (and probably when port security makes it daily rounds to check things et cetera), that agents who have infiltrated the operations can more easily secret the material into the country.

Okay, but in the long list of potential dangers from terrorists using our open commercial channels, this is pretty insignificant. Certainly something more to worry about, granted.

But the benefits of having this arrangement also need to be considered. And those, it seems to me, outweigh the (apparent) risks.

Anyway, I hate the ocean.

SMG

[bandit]

'But the benefits of having this arrangement also need to be considered. And those, it seems to me, outweigh the (apparent) risks.'

This what I don't get. The benefits of friendly companies and friendly gov'ts in the heart of the ME is huge. To me the risk is miniscule. The whole Dr. Evil World Enterprises seems pretty unnecessary when all AQ really need to do is get past some half assed security guards or overstay a visa.

[larwyn]

TM
NAL - but I do have expertise in important aspects of containerized
shipping and hope this explains how we are using ship's manifests
to preemptively identify "problem containers" and most importantly
"problem STOWAGE MOVEMENTS of any container".
you wrote:
Wasn't this covered recently on "24"?

EXPORTING of WMD was the plot line - NOT IMPORTING into the USA.

We are checking cargo at Points of Origin, at Ports of Origin and we must have eyes on any stowage movements of suspect containers
at interim port en route.

FYI - Container ships must be stowed (loaded) to insure safety or the
balance of the ship - so it does not list to port starboard bow or stern.
Your don't put all of Allegheny Ludlum's specialty stainless on one
side of the ship and PPG's fiberglass on the other.

We need friends at each and every port along the route of any ship so
we know why of every stowage move that takes place enroute to the USA.

I tried to explain that a container coming from a shipper originating
from across the pond is addressed to Hugo Chavez. The container is
originally stowed at low level - ship is going to stop at European ports,
then U S A Ports before heading south to Venezula. At each port,
containers will off load/on load and and each port some pure "stowage"
container moves will be made.

Now we see that at Felixstow U K -the last stop on "other side of the pond"
with Port of New York the next stop - we see the operators moving the
"Hugo Chavez" container and placing on a the top tier, when access
to it is not neccessary until after stops in Baltimore,Charleston,
perhaps Miami and even the Dominican Republic before
getting to Venezula.

That is what they are talking about when telling the American public
about checking manifests. Manifests provide the stowage
plan - or you'd have tough time consuming costly effort to find any
specifice container, if you had
to eye ball the container numbers painted on the actual containers.

All the Dubai Ports were immediate cooperators in the identification
of containers at Ports of Origin and in supplying immediate ship
manifests (that map that tells you where each container is located)

Perhaps we will have to dig up the container ship models we used
to give to our best customers as they included Lego- like containers
that International Traffic Mangers could play with in spare time.

But then we don't want to give the whole game away.

Hope this makes very clear why terrific relationship with DP is so necessary.

And I do not put past the DEMS that they do want an incident in
a port - they can easily justify the sacrifice of a few (great LEFTY PRINCIPAL -
Pres. Kerry was more than willing to give up the shoppers) - and so
hope to win the HOMELAND SECURITY by building thick walls and deep
moats tactical battle - versus the "Raid the bastards while they are preparing
for an attack"

They also want to make GW look as impotent regarding Iran as the Clinton/Albright/Carter and the gang look on North Korea. So check your
Atlas and you see how important the UAE is in making that "stick" really
big, really strong and really efficient.

Next Subject:
Tommy, you gotta love him, and the rest of the gang exemplify most of
left with the now ingrained "Orwellian" misuse of language, Tommy goes
after our cherished cliches.

We will sow the wind and we will reap the whirlwind.

That is a definite saver - at least he didn't "sew" the wind.And to think in an earlier thread this week, AB accused me
of being"dyslecxic"for."your bizarre formatting of the English language?" AB criticized the UAE for having
relations with Iran, a very close neighbor just across the Persian
Gulf. I simply asked him if NY was in a similar
position with NJ would he cut off relations.
(The Left prefers words that they manipulate Vs opening a
damn Atlas!).

My point is that they are not only willing to play "race card"
but will attack disabled if on other side. A perfect example
of Selwyn Duke's ...."they are not governed by absolutes
but by expediency and what feels right at the moment".

[Big Worm]

Saying that the war in Iraq was a bad idea, bungled in the execution, and that the torture and derangement policy is also a bad idea is the same thing as saying Bush is evil, evil, evil? Now I know what people mean when they talk about Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[clarice]

So you think the UAE would plunk down $7 billion to blow it up?

Again, their is so much corruption in our ports linked to the Longshoremen and their ability to use their positions to steal and to traffic in drugs, I think we should recognize that they, not any security forces, are our first line of defense--they have every interest in keeping that golden goose alive.

[clarice]

Pardon my typos--I'm so tired today it's all after midnight rules as far as I'm concerned and it'd be too boring to bother to correct them all..

[Lew Clark]

What this is is political, not national security. These are Bush buddies, so they're bad. Not like those nice Palestinians who hate Bush and are good. Don’t for a minute think a political party and news organizations who can’t wait to get real national security secrets into the hands of Al Queda, care a twit about the security interests involved in this deal. But this is not dead and it will be approved. Especially now that the "knee-jerk" Republicans are seeing what the deal really is. And the Dems and MSM will have to go back to showing their racial tolerance by hosting minstrel shows and inviting Condi Rice and Michael Steele to come dance for them.

[Rick Ballard]

SMG,

You may hate the ocean but you have to love the Internet (thanks, Al).

When I look up competitors for P & O, I come up with American Stevedoring, Inc. which proudly proclaims itself to ba a "family owned business" - the Catucci family to be precise. (Click "Voyage Calendar" to see their clients - and how busy they are - then go here to see how busy P & O is.

Hmmm - Catucci - I wonder if they donate to pols? Why looky here! Gosh, they're Hillary fans. Whodathunk.

I wonder if ASI is a little nervous about losing their Saudi clients to a company owned by the UAE? 'Cause without those Saudi boats, they would be, well, sunk.

What's the old line - follow the money?

[The Unbeliever]

Who needs pundits, when we have polls? Rasmussen's latest shows only 17% approval for the Dubai port deal, with 64% against; plug in that polling point to our current crop of politicians, and we can easily predict how this will turn out.

Bush, who has no elections to win, will stand on principle and push the deal, hurting his poll numbers even further and losing more points to the Dems for national security. The Congresscritters, being the naturally spineless entities we know them to be, will call hearings, hold investigations, and throw temper tantrums until the deal is killed. The only question mark remaining is what will happen the first week of November--this is an election year, after all, and the thought of more anti-war Dems sneaking their way into positions of power genuinely frightens me...

[larwyn]

Rick,
Great research - that would explain all the mentioning, mentioning by Hillary plus another
Federal jobs program. Getting more dues into the Public Sector
unions is always a prime goal of the Dems.

Keep making point, a nuke on a
ballistic missile does not need to
be off loaded in a U S Port. Only
needs to be on a ship that can get
within the particular missile's range to hit what they want.

More "rent a cops" walking around the Port of New York have nothing to do with that.

I am going from utter disdain for the Dems and approaching the
I just hate the S.O.B's!

[Jeff]

Better add Ignatius to your reading:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022301412.html

[larwyn]

.....hate the evil deranged S.O.B.'s!

[noah]

Larwyn, on my computer I never hit the enter key unless I want a new paragraph or a blank line. This technique might clear up your text a bit.

:-)

[Lou Grunt]

"it sure seems like there are lots of opportunities for mischief if you can infiltrate the firm that does the paperwork and runs the computer system and handles the "personnel issues""

That is true no matter who is running the terminals. Money can get you in anywhere. What? Are we to believe this is all part of a master plan where UAE and their terrorist friends are hiding in plain sight? I would think the UAE company would be more careful than anyone else becuase the know if anything happened involving the ports chances are we would nuke them off the face of the earth. In fact, I am surprised they don't drop their bid for the U.S. ports.

Boy, there are a lot of hysterical people out there. The radical Muslims have us scared. Osama is smiling big right now (in his cold dark cave).

[Rick Ballard]

Noah - Larwyn has explained that she is forced to compose in an email program (if I recall correctly), the CRs are added everytime the text wraps.

I, OTOH, have no excuse for what appears.

[larwyn]

Noah and Rick,
Problems seeing and with finger movements - so hard to see and takes such a long time when I actually post comment in the comment box. I tried to not touch enter key when putting this in the comment box. And will do same with my email composing method - very annoying as I align and backspace to get the email to look good and then it all goes kafluey!

Lew:
We not only have the return address for the UAU, we share that address. In reality we would never have to invade them - we alreay occupy them FCS!

[AB]

I don't get it. The "radical Muslims hiding in caves" are supposed to be so dangerous that we need to submit unquesioningly government policies like suspension of habeas corpus, torture, and warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. In fact, even questioning these things in the open has been compared to treason.

However, the same people are now telling us there is NO reason to worry about a state sponsor of terrorism owning port operations in six cities. A country with gross human rights abuses, no democracy, no recognition of Israel, extensive ties to the 9/11 hijack plot,etc...is now magically a wonderful friendly government in the heart of the ME, a beacon of our plan to spread "freedom" to all those poor bastards. And anyone who thinks different is a "racist".

What this story illustrates is not JUST that we need to not sell our ports to a foreign government but that we need to drastically re-examine the national security implications of how our ports are being run and owned right now. We need some policy other than selling every last American asset to the highest corporate bidder.

Why is 'national security' so important that it gives our president the right to break - or at the least, interpret - the law at will, but it's NEVER more important than the global corporate interests of the rich and powerful? Why can FOREIGN governments own our ports, but not OUR government?

You can scoff at these questions all you like, but I assure you these are the questions average non-elitist Americans are asking themselves with this story. All the smug assurances that we shouldn't worry, because foreigners ALREADY own all our ports is not a comfort to Americans - it's a revelation.

[larwyn]

And just wish to point out the barrier that the robot filter on this and some other sites is to the visually impaired - that format
of the letters and number on the scribbled background - sometimes means 3 to 4 trys before a post.

I have lost the whole thing - no fun for a hunt and pecker.

Other sites filter with elongated
stylized letters in reddish orange,
which do not copy, and that are must easier to cypher out.

Now to see what the robot filter has in store for me.

[Rick Ballard]

AB,

You are the very definition of a useful idiot.

Read this piece or this piece and stop babbling about "selling our ports".

That meme died aborning.

[AB]

Good job, Rick, deflecting the honest questions of an American citizen and New York resident about something as idiotic as how the hell our Infallible Dear Leader is actually defending our national security. I know "trust me' works for you, but it's not selling too well out here on Main Street.

Cargo already is hardly inspected, only some small fraction of it. The Coast Guard does little other than review security procedures. You know what this story reveals? That we DON'T have any real port security and now, to improve matters, we're going to make sure a state sponsor of terrorism (all dressed up in juicy million dollar bills) is going to be given detailed knowledge of the physical logistics and procedures of our ports.

Just keep calling people idiots, Rick. I understand when the "lefty loonies" do that, it drives people into the arms of the Republican party. When wingnuts do it, do people just fall into a hypnotic trance and obey all commands?

The American people have become incredibly apathetic in recent years, that is a fact. And they can accept - however shameful it may be - that War on Terra allows their president to throw anyone deemed a terrorist into prison without charges, to torture him, to tap the phones of anyone he's ever spoken to, etc...But they aren't going to just sit down and shut up about this.

The national discussion about REAL national security - not bogus terror alerts and usurpation of powers - needs to happen. With any luck, this story will be a catalyst. Because people ARE listening on this one, and they're refusing to be herded into your left/right bunkers. This one is makeing them sit up and listen.

[larwyn]

AB
Another of your Absolutely Banal comments. It may go unanswered as:

... knowledge is not something to be treated lightly or disseminated to people who are not ready for it or will simply misunderstand or distort it. There are penalties for doing so. There has always been a recognition that one must make oneself a worthy receptacle of ________ knowledge. This is why most traditions insist on a strong foundation of moral principles before one even starts...
.....R. Godwin

Have a nice weekend.

[Rick Ballard]

Right AB, that great big ship is just hovering right there over the horizon - this is the one, this will carry us over the top!!!

"Useful idiot" has a somewhat different meaning than just plain "idiot". I know the difference and am completely unsurprised that you do not.

[Gary Maxwell]

Dont you love it? The New Yorker acts like he has some special right some absolute morqal authority on the issue of port security. Where pray tell do you think the busiest ports in the country are? Heres a hint, they aint in NY. Something like 6 ot 7 of the top 10 in the US are in Texas and Lousiana. So maybe I should be standing up on my soapbox screaming. But with AB? JayDee/Katrina its always something.

And Rick, in this instance plain idiot works too, although I do understand the useful idiot reference.

[clarice]

Ledeen offers what I think is a reasnable compromise:http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_02_19_corner-archive.asp#090942

[AB]

Babble all you want, larwyn, because you never make a lick of sense. You should all try and show a bit more respect, because your little orgasms of insults aren't going to change the fact that it's YOUR BASE that is most confounded by this. Well, actually it's the American people in general that are starting to ask questions. I wonder why you all think that sneering condescendingly at them is going to convince them all to go back to sleep and blindly "trust".

[Lew Clark]

AB,
You really don't have to take up so much bandwidth. You point can be made with much greater simplicity. "Bush Bad! Bush kill us, but first eat our babies!" Cut and paste that every time, we get your message.

[AB]

It's incredible. You sneering blowhards really think Americans DON'T have any right to concern themselves with their own security. And you're too right, Gary, being from the city that actually DID get attacked shouldn't mean a damn thing. After all, "terra" belongs to wingnuts as a partisan political cudgel, doesn't it? It's not as if we're supposed to look for logic in any of this. That would be loony.

[maryrose]

AB
You never answered my question; Who has kept you safe, snugg in your little bed for the last 4 years? That would be our REPUBLICAN president Bush who really is tough on terrorism unlike our dem friends who are SOFT on Terrorism and only TALK tough. All talk no action is the dem way that's why they can't win elections.

[Gary Maxwell]

I wonder why you all think that sneering condescendingly at them...

What we are taking our cues from the behavior of the Left? Well it has worked so well for the Left now hasn't it.

[ats]

Let's anticipate Krauthammer and turn over security to his Likud friends. After all, in CACI guise, they did us proud at Abu Ghraib. Abramoff could arrange it, if he hasn't already done so.

Let's make sure that the money our Indian countrymen gave to the West Bank settler sniper school wasn't given in vain.

[Gary Maxwell]

being from the city that actually DID get attacked shouldn't mean a damn thing.

They brought those planes in thru the Port Authority? Really I had no idea. How come that wasn't in the Paper of Record? I guess Bush probably withheld that news from them. Sheesh.

[Gary Maxwell]

Did I miss it? When did we suspend Habeas Corpus? During the Civil War if memory serves me at all. The rest of your post is almost as wrong and misleading.

[larwyn]

Has Absolutely Banal
gone undercover as:

all that's sheesh!

[AB]

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court. It's so odd how wingnuts bring that up repeatedly. They are reduced to using our history's darkest moments as justification.

mary rose, keep trusting Bush like he was your daddy. I think I'll try a different idea. How about Trust but Verify?....Hmm, now where did I hear that? Funny how we used to have to deal with foreign enemies that way, and now it's our own dear leader.

[clarice]

Reason also has a rational take on this--http://www.reason.com/hod/kk022406.shtml

And Mac'smind reminds us of BJC's praise of Dubai and arms sales to them..

[Gary Maxwell]

You, moron, brought up Suspension of Habeus Corpus. I was just acknowledging the only time it has happened in our entire history. You really are both craven and a fool JayDee,JDuffy.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

An agreement to leave current management in place - which is precisely what is being done - would have the same effect. I wouldn't cede a half an inch on this one. Leases on freight terminals are simply not a matter of national import. Freight terminal operators are only responsible for security in the sense that any warehouse operation is responsible - regular casualty operation. Fire, theft, that sort of thing. Playing into this meme doesn't make any sense. It's a definitional game and the press are going to wind up looking the fool after a bit.

[larwyn]

Looking forward to a perhaps doubled pleasures evening with Friday Night Live and the *2hrs of "24" on FOX beginning a 8PM EST.

Not going to let "the turkeys get me down" or riled. It is after 5PM
here......already TGIF!

*don't know if these are new or just reruns - it's hours 2 & 3 PM
Bauer-time.

[Karl]

FWIW, the UAE is not designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

I am sorta amused that many of the people up in arms about the UAE also tend to support putting the UN -- which counts among its members many countries that are anti-Israel and supportive of various forms of terrorism -- in charge of things.

[SteveMG]

Rick:
It's a definitional game and the press are going to wind up looking the fool after a bit

One would wish so but who will correct their errors?

I've heard all day on the news updates (mostly CNN but also other media organizations) that there will be protests organized by longshoreman unions to oppose "The turnover of port operations to a foreign company" (or words closely similar).

Port operations. Not terminals. The whole damned operations at the ports turned over.

Just horrific reporting. And this is four days into the story; not exactly breaking news where reporters can get things wrong in the fog of events.

Frankly, I'm surprised that only 64% of the public is against the sale. If I thought all operations at six key ports were to be turned over to a company owned by the UAE, I'd sure as hell be on the phone telling my representatives to nix the deal.

SMG

[clarice]

Rick, I'm getting really worn out trying to correct the lying MSM--It would be nice if the WH had a press office worth the name--ditto the DOD etc..I hate lies but there are a million new ones spun and played out every minute it seems.

[PeterUK]

"You should all try and show a bit more respect,"

AB respect is earned not owned.

As to this:-
"keep trusting Bush like he was your daddy."

Who else is there to trust?Your party is out of power,admittedly doing an excellent job of tripping their own side,yes their own side the Jihad hates all of you,"Little Liberals and Little Conservatives" alike.

So stop screaming and jumping up and down like a spinster who has been goosed,all this faux moral outrage isn't worth shit when someone is trying to kill you.

You might like to examine container traffic across the Canadian and Mexican borders,but oops,something as large as a container isn't needed for a nuclear weapon,better check trucks vans and cars.
Oh dear! Nuclear backpacks as well.
Meanwhile, anywhere in the US somebody can be putting together a powerful bomb based on commercial fertiliser.
Hell! It's a scary world isn't it.

[Rick Ballard]

"Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. There is no searching of His understanding. He gives power to the weak, and to those who have no might He increases strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall. But those who wait on the Lord shall renew their strength: they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint."

Good enough for Isaiah, good enough for me.

[larwyn]

COO of DP was on CNN yesterday.

"Iraeli shipping line is one of our
biggest clients"

We, the USA used UAE backdoor to Taliban government. Another rewrite of history is no one is mentioning that Clinton's admin was paying the Taliban millions for helping out the "drug war"!

If the idiots would just find the UAE on a map and then get out that little Monopoly ship, they could play the "I'm a tanker full of Iraqi oil. How to I get to Chirac's countrymen so they won't freeze this winter?"

{They care about France don't they?}

And finally, to want this tiny little country, that has bent over backwards building US operational airbases and port service space, to add "recognizing Israel" to the list.

These are the people who are afraid to publish the Danish cartoons but want the UAE to wave
even more red flags at the crazies
just across the Persian Gulf.

Show us your "stones" before you demand same from others.

[clarice]

All right, Rick, since you've made an iirestible appeal...

[JM Hanes]

AB

"With any luck, this story will be a catalyst. Because people ARE listening on this one, and they're refusing to be herded into your left/right bunkers. This one is makeing them sit up and listen."

Where have I heard that before? It has a really familiar ring.

"You should all try and show a bit more respect, because your little orgasms of insults aren't going to change the fact that it's YOUR BASE that is most confounded by this."

Are you telling me the wingnuts in here AREN'T the extremist Bush base after all? If it weren't for the orgasms of insults, that would be a real disappointment.

[AST]

Unbeliever,

I had the same thoughts, even before the poll.

All in all, I don't see any rational reason to oppose this deal, but there is a strong political one. So naturally the Democrats, those famous promoters of racial profiling and discrimination, are totally opposed to it.

[topsecretk9]

Because people ARE listening on this one,

This ONE? You give yourself away everytime. Oppose Bush to oppose Bush...because we have no ideas, agenda, platform what so ever. Sweet.

[topsecretk9]

oops,

because we have no ideas, agenda, platform what so ever. Sweet.

that is the agenda.