RAND SIMBERG: “David Gregory, I revoke my proxy.”

A CAT PIANO? I wonder if they can do that with puppies?

SO NOW BUSH IS THREATENING TO VETO any legislation that would block the Dubai ports deal? Either this deal is somehow a lot more important than it seems (a quid pro quo for, well, something . . . ) or Bush is an idiot. Your call.

UPDATE: Here’s an argument that there’s less to the port deal than meets the eye. Of course, that makes me wonder why the White House thinks it’s so important.

Don Surber, meanwhile, emails to castigate me for suggesting that Bush is a crook. But that’s not what I meant by the quid pro quo remark. I was wondering if there wasn’t some diplomatic importance to this deal. That seems somewhat more plausible now. There must be something important here to get Bush to threaten a veto — had he done more vetoing, of course, that wouldn’t be quite so obvious.

On the other hand, maybe the whole thing is just a clever ruse to get Chuck Schumer to endorse racial profiling.

Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg observes: “I agree entirely with the now-obvious consensus that the UAE deal is bad politics. I’m even somewhat convinced that it’s bad policy. But I can’t help but get the whiff of hysteria in all of this.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Robert Ferrigno, author of Prayers for the Assassin, emails:

Bush is going to take some ugly political flak for a better cause. The USA needs to strengthen ties with Arab nations. Period. The UAE is not Switzerland, but it’s not Afghanistan either, and yes they recognized the Taliban government. They’re politicians too. If we can do business with Pakistan, and we must, the UAE is as good an Islamic business partner as we’re going to get.

To take away the deal from the UAE now, for no other reason than their religion, would rightly insult all Muslims, and do irreparable damage to our long term interests. This would not even be an issue if the ports were secure. That should be the focus of conservative attention, not who gets the deal to run the port.

Several other readers also think that this wouldn’t be such an issue if it weren’t for the cartoon riots.

John McCain is also backing Bush here. So is Will Collier, who pretty much takes the Ferrigno line. But the Bush Administration set itself up for this, in part, with its response to the Cartoon Wars, as reader C.J. Burch emails:

When you combine the Dubai thing with the administration’s very lame reaction to the Danish cartoons…well, I’m one dissatisfied customer.

I think that’s part of what’s going on here. That limp response cost them credibility that they need now.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt:

Majority Leader Frist just told my audience that an override of a presidential veto of legislation blocking the port deal was possible. Looks like a showdown, and it isn’t one the president can win.

What is the White House thinking? If this deal is that important, they should have been ahead of the story, not behind it.

A.J. Strata, meanwhile, thinks that Bush is right and bin Laden is laughing.

MORE: John Cross emails:

Professor, the UAE has been our ally since the 80’s. I was there during the Iran-Iraq War, and when we hit the Iranians during Operation Praying Mantis, the Iranians responded by going after the UAE oil platforms.

They are a moderate Arab country that we need to maintain economic engagement with. And they occupy a strategic point. Bush isn’t an idiot…we need to get past the knee-jerk reaction here.

Much more at his blog.

And finally, Tom Maguire says that the fuss over this deal from the right undermines the “authoritarian cult theory” espoused by some lefty bloggers.

Plus, extra points for Bush as “a uniter, not a divider.”

STILL MORE: Former InstaPundit Afghanistan Correspondent John Tammes emails:

I managed some cooperative efforts with the UAE Special Forces troops stationed at Bagram. They did some patrols in the area I was responsible for, and more importantly, they did some humanitarian assistance missions. The Afghans absolutely loved the UAE troops. They were thrilled to have SOMEBODY from the Arab world (besides our excellent Egyptian hospital) come out and HELP, rather than hinder.

We had a lot of supplies come from UAE based concerns too – if they were good enough to serve along side us in the field, and good enough to supply bottled water, food and the like to our troops..well, that sure sounds like a friendly nation to me.

Good point. And reader Eric Bainter makes a similar one:

I don’t know squat about the details of the port deal, but I did spend a rather hot humid summer in the emirate of Abu Dhabi, quietly camping out at a UAE air force base that hosts an USAF unit. Prior to 9-11, there was a tanker squadron there, but within a few weeks after 9-11 the US presence ramped up dramatically, eventually becoming an expeditionary wing, and in time to support the Afghanistan effort. It is unusual for large, dramatic changes to happen quickly in Arab-dom, so for us to multiply the base footprint that rapidly means the UAE must been very supportive of our efforts. At the time I was there we did not publicly associate the name of the base with our mission or the type of aircraft we had, as our hosts preferred to remain low-key about our presence, so I won’t go into details of that. However, I will note that while I was there we dedicated the biggest aircraft ramp the USAF Red Horse units (special construction outfit, kind of like SeaBees) had constructed since the Vietnam war. Now it is also true that the city of Abu Dhabi hosts some kind of anti-Israel/Jew outfit, like the Center for the Study of Zionism or somesuch. I do not consider that to be a mark in the “plus” column. However, it is also true that I got a beer ration while stationed there, which was purchased in downtown Abu Dhabi, and on more than one occasion I noticed that my bottle of Corona (yes, the Mexican beer in the clear bottle) was printed entirely in HEBREW, except for the name “Corona” and a statement in English that said the beer was distributed by an Israeli company. So, as is so often said about the Arab world, one thing is said in public, something else is done in private.

I don’t know if the port deal has a big behind-the-scene quid-pro-quo, but it would not surprise me a bit. Oh, and BTW, I recall that the UAE seemed to regard Iran as a primary threat, which might be a handy confluence of interests. (Of course, this did not stop them from advertising a lot of holiday packages to Iran.)

You’d think the White House would have been ready with stuff like this, wouldn’t you?

A PACK, NOT A HERD:

Anton Faur is a migrant pickpocket. When he recently showed up for work in Venice, his hopes were high: Every year, around 12 million tourists throng and jostle through the city’s narrow streets. This time, though, the target-rich environment didn’t bear fruit. In just five days, the 17-year-old Romanian was arrested twice. “Venice is beautiful, but not for work,” he complained as police booked him.

But it wasn’t the police who caught him. Faur was nabbed both times by a civilian antipickpocket patrol called Cittadini Non Distratti, or Undistracted Citizens. Members, who call themselves “Citizens,” walk around Venice looking for pickpockets. As thievery spikes during Carnival, when tipsy tourists mob the streets, the group increases patrols. . . .

Plainclothes cops like to think they blend right in. Artful dodgers think otherwise. “You can tell right away who’s undercover,” says a 28-year-old female pickpocket from Bosnia who requested anonymity. (Her hint: Look for the men in jeans, blue T-shirts, running shoes, and fanny packs roaming about with cell phones and indiscreet eyes.) Guessing if a passerby might intervene is next to impossible. After a recent wallet-snatch, a bystander seized her and held on until the uniforms showed up. She went to jail.

Rome Police Chief Aldo Zanetti says this “participative security” is increasingly common in Italy, and this new culture seems to be working. According to numbers in a 2005 Interior Ministry report, pickpocketing and purse-snatching have declined nationwide every year since 1997. The authors attribute part of this success to “reciprocal collaboration among the citizenry, law enforcement and institutions.”

Read the whole thing. Somebody should write a book on this kind of phenomenon. Oh, wait. . . .

LOTS OF VIDEO FROM THIS WEEKEND’S INTELLIGENCE SUMMIT is up over at The WMD Files, including interviews with James Woolsey, Richard Miniter, and Bill Tierney.

UPDATE: I’ve watched it all now. Very interesting, and well worth your time. (Bumped)

ANOTHER UPDATE: Byron York has more thoughts. I confess that I, too, found Tierney less than convincing.

BILL FRIST is unhappy with the seaports deal.

STANLEY KURTZ: “Appeasing tyrants is a bad idea. That’s what the Summers fiasco teaches.”

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION will go before the Supreme Court.

I hope they’ll address the rather serious federalism problems with Congressional regulation of abortion, but I rather doubt they will.

TERROR INDICTMENTS IN OHIO: “Three men were charged in Ohio with conspiracy to kill people and planning attacks against U.S. forces overseas, a federal law enforcement official said on Tuesday.”

UPDATE: The Counterterrorism Blog has more.

IN THE MAIL: Rod Dreher’s new book, Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers, and their diverse tribe of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican Party). Looking at the list of “crunchy con” characteristics on the back cover I’m quite sure I don’t fit the description (can you be a libertarian transhumanist crunchy-con? I doubt it), but it’s an interesting thesis.

MY TCS DAILY COLUMN IS UP: “So which is it? Are blogs too commercial, or not enough? Just taking off, or doomed?”

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Here’s more on that “secret” appropriations meeting.

THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS:

The old story of technology in business was a trickle-down affair. From telephones to computers, big companies came first. They could afford the latest innovations, and they reaped the benefits of greater efficiency, increased sales and expansion into distant markets. As a technology spread and costs fell, small businesses joined the parade, though from the rear. . . .

The second-generation Internet technologies — combined with earlier tools like the Web itself and e-mail — are drastically reducing the cost of communicating, finding things and distributing and receiving services online. That means a cost leveling that puts small companies on equal footing with big ones, making it easier for upstarts to innovate, disrupt industries and even get big fast.

The phenomenon is a big step in the democratization of information technology. Its imprint is evident well beyond business, in the social and cultural impact of everything from blogs to online role-playing games. Still, it seems that small businesses, and the marketplace they represent, will be affected the most in the overall economy. Long-held assumptions are suddenly under assault.

Hey, somebody should write a book about this!

UPDATE: Speaking of which, here’s another Army of Davids blog review! Scott Schmidt isn’t as taken with the nanotechnology, etc., in the book as he is with the more near-term stuff, though I would note that those advanced technologies are included not just because I think they’re cool (as he correctly guesses), but also because they represent things that will vastly amplify the trends I describe earlier in the book. That’s a point I thought I made pretty clearly, but I guess I was wrong.

THE KELO AFTERMATH CONTINUES:

In a rare display of unanimity that cuts across partisan and geographic lines, lawmakers in virtually every statehouse across the country are advancing bills and constitutional amendments to limit use of the government’s power of eminent domain to seize private property for economic development purposes.

The measures are in direct response to the United States Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision last June in a landmark property rights case from Connecticut, upholding the authority of the City of New London to condemn homes in an aging neighborhood to make way for a private development of offices, condominiums and a hotel. It was a decision that one justice, who had written for the majority, later all but apologized for.

As I’ve said before, I think that this will be like the aftermath of Bowers v. Hardwick — a loss that galvanizes the opposition.

AUSTIN BAY looks at another declassified Al Qaeda document.

I WASN’T IN THE CAR MUCH YESTERDAY, but every talk show I caught a bit of was going on about the UAE port takeover story I mentioned a while back, so I think it’s going to be big. Here’s the latest:

Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said yesterday that he is considering legal moves to either delay or “simply void” the federally approved business deal that would give an Arab company control of operations at the Port of Baltimore. . . .

New York Gov. George E. Pataki, also a Republican, made a similar threat last night, saying he was “very concerned” about the purchase, which also would cover five other ports, including New York.

I don’t know much about the underlying facts here, and its certainly true that not every Arab-owned company is a terrorist front, but I’m guessing that the politics of this, with criticism coming from both Democrats and Republicans now, are likely to scuttle the deal.

DOESN’T SOUND LIKE A GUY WHO’S WINNING: Osama is vowing death before capture. I’m okay either way, actually, but Osama may just want to end it all right now after reading this entry from Donald Sensing. (Via Michael Silence).