The Myth of Security
I'm sure most of you know by now that a company owned and operated by the United Arab Emirates wants to own and operate 6 major seaports on the Eastern Coast. It just so happens that just about everyone in the country both economically and politically is against this idea, except the Bush Whitehouse, threatening for the first time in his presidency to veto an act of Congress. Bush has fumbled the ball on security yet again.
With all the rhetoric spewing forth from the whitehouse on security issues, I find it very peculiar where we fight our battles on this myth of security. In my opinion, the fact that everyone in the world knows that we have an epidemic problem with illegal immigration from Mexico should be our number one security issue. Terrorists, or other people that wish to do us harm, are not idiots. They read newspapers, watch the news, take in all information possible. If I were to strap a bomb to my chest and walk into a Starbucks, I better be sure that I'm killing myself for some reason. So, this being said, if I were a news savy terrorist, how would I get into the country? I would sneak through the US-Mexico border. There is little to nothing in the way of security checkpoints, no "no-fly" lists, no metal/bomb detectors like one would find with airplane travel; heck, you might even meet a few friends in the process (estimated 10k Mexicans cross the border illegally per day). So, what has our president done to ebb the tide and attempt to make America's most vulnerable entry site "safer?" Nothing. He has a buddy buddy attitude with the openly racist and arrogant Vicente Fox ("great" minds think alike!). Many people on both sides of the aisle disagree with this policy of active ignorance. But Bush is right, and everyone else is wrong.
This wiretapping bull crap, lets investigate this. Once again, I'm a newsavy terrorist. If I do happen to make it into America or want to contact anyone in America, you think I'm going to do it on a cell phone now?!? This is as if the police know a gang runs numbers with some kid running from building to building. They tell the newspapers who publish articles for three months that they are going to stop the kid running the numbers by arresting him. Three months later, they arrest the kid after the story has been in the paper everyday for the last three months. Now this would have to be the dumbest gang in the history of time; and equally, terrorists would have to be absolute morons to still use cell phone communications. So why still argue that you need the power to tap some one's phone without a warrant for as long as you want? Power. Clearly, any "terrorist" with a brain has moved on to email/IM/ or other forms of communication, why still argue you need to tap cell phones? For when the definition of "terrorist" is grayed to "citizen." Many people, both Republican and Democrat, believe that the president is overstepping his power. But Bush is right, and everyone else is wrong.
Now lets jump into this port issue. In this day and age of globallism and capitalism running most markets, is it really a problem for another country to own a business in another country? On the surface no, subcutaneously, yes of course it is, espeically when that country is in the hot bed of radically muslim ideology that is the Middle East. This country has went out of its way to hide information about Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts he kept in the country, thats enough for me to say, want to own ports in our country? Why don't you make like a tree, and get out of here!!!" Which brings us to another good point. It isn't a company who will own these ports, it is a company owned by the government of the UAE. This means that another country will own 6 huge ports on our Eastern seaboard. I have a problem just with that last sentence alone. Here is another problem. How can a President who is willing to bend and break the Constitution to show the world that he is willing to take a stand on terrorism be so adament about selling our ports to a country in the MIDDLE FREAKING EAST? For the first time in his presidency, he is stating he will veto any act of congress that tries to stop this sale from going forward. How is this more important to him than any of the other B/S that has come across his desk within the last 5 years? EVEN SEAN HANNITY THINKS THE PRESIDENT IS WRONG FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!! It is just a mystery to me how president Bush is willing to trample rights in this country to satisfy his desire to "monitor" terrorists but he is not willing to do anything to stop them from getting into the country!!! Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the UAE will all of a sudden open up our ports to terrorists. What bothers me is that news savy terrorists see the same statistics that I do, only 5% of containers coming into the US are actively searched. Those are pretty good odds to roll some dice on wouldn't you say? What bothers me the most is, this is clearly an issue of national security which Bush claims he is a strong president on, and he is clearly looking the other way. I don't care if Canada owns our ports, the fact is that another country which controls products into and out of that nation represents some threat to the security of the host country! Having a country which is smack in the center of the Middle East own these ports is clearly a mistake. Congressmen, Senators, Governors, citizens, and EVEN SEAN FUCKING HANNITY think this is a bad idea. But President Bush is right, and everyone else is wrong.
What will happen if everyone else is right you arrogant prick!?
14 Comments:
fuck you. you made me look up "subcutaneously" in the dictionary. Just say "under the skin" next time... jerk.
If you had read the 11 page article I posted, you would know that he was elected by God and that Bush is our messenger and messiah --- so he's always right.
Wow though... even Hannity? Is this like a first? Good article Pineapples.
Damn you Matt!!! I was gonna blog about the ports, so I will take my time to throw my two cents here. What Bush is doing (threatening a veto any legislation that will block the purchase of the ports) is the FIRST AND ONLY THING BUSH HAS EVER DONE THAT I AM COMPLETELY 100% FOR!!!! We have foreign countries running many things here, but why not allow a UAE company (an ally in the war against terrorism)to run the ports? I'll tell you why everyone is against this. Good old fashioned American racism at its finest!!! That's all there is to this deabte. These are brown people who live on the other side of the world, they MUST be terrorists!!! Weren't 2 of the hijackers from UAE? That means they're all no good sons of bitches. Most of the hijakcers were Saudi and the Saudis have so much money invested in our country it is ridiculous (read House of Bush, House of Saud). All this UAE company would do is run the administrative ends of the port's management, not security. The Coast Guard and Port Authority have the ultimate say in security. They always have had it and they always will. I'm surprised you don't feel this way too. You are Mr. Capitalist, do anything for a buck, aren't you? We've been outsourcing jobs for years to save money, isn't this the American capitalist way? Blocking a legal purchase just because we take offense to the color of the buyer's skin and assume they are terrorists is FLAT OUT WRONG!!!
It's not about race for me:
--Asians--
I have no problem with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or Hong Kong.... but not China and especially not North Korea
--Africans--
I have no problem with South Africa, Italy, or Morocco, but not Libya.
--Caucasians--
I have no problem with Britain, Russia, Poland, Germany, France, or Spain, but the evil dope smoking Dutch. Anything but the Dutch... kidding.
--Persians--
I have no problem with... hmm.. can't think of a stable country there not controlled by religion... does India count? I'd let them control our ports
--Arabs--
I have no problem with hmm... can't think of a stable country there not controlled by religion... does Turkey count? I'd let them control our ports. I'd let Israel control them too even though they are religion controlled... to a degree
--Latinos/Hispanics... whatever the PC term is--
I have no problem with Brazil and Mexico, but not Venezuela or Cuba. Not Equador either because of you Depressed Writer.
All the countries I don't trust are not because of race. It is because they pose a threat to us. If anything you could call it religionist or communist-ist, but not racist.
The 45 day inquiry is not his idea... its the law
from here
a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.
As for China... great point.
As for Venezuela... I mentioned it cause it would be a hot button issue for depressed writer. He loves his communism.
I had another thought as to why its not racism, rather security from a nation that is not secure.
Lets say I have a Cadillac. Lets say I'm going to downtown Detroit (we'll discuss why I would go there at a later time). Now, I want my car to be secure in Detroit so I decide to lock the doors.
Am I locking the doors because the area is 95% black? Nope! I'm locking it because 98% of the popualation (white, black, muslim, and eminem) are shady ass poor mother fuckers that would steal nickels from a one-legged bum.
It's easy to point the race finger, even when it's not true.
Depressed Writer,
You are a stupid left wing liberal that simply hates America.
Sincerely,
Sean Hannity.
Personally, I don't think any country or business outside of the United States should own something like a port.
My point was, Bush is so hot on security, but this call is at best questionable.
If every nation just practiced Communist Basketball, then the whole world would be a better place because of it...
And, speaking of race, that is one of my biggest problems with Affirmative Action... while, I completely understand why it exists, and realize that in most cases a suburbanite, Caucasian male has more opportunities than an Afican-American, inner-city female... but I, being a suburbanite, Caucasian male, does not have more opportunity, than say an African-American, Lower Merion suburbanite male named Kobe Bryant or the same kid that works at my girlfriend's company and does no work, but won't be fired so they can stay diverse and keep whatever quota they have.
I think Affirmative Action is necessary, however, rather than race... why don't we base it on social class and staus, geographic region (possibly), and annual household income. This will, by default, include, probably 75% minorities, at least... however, it also won't exclude that poor white kid who grew up in Oakland, CA. And, before anyone mentions it, no... Stafford Loans, traditional Government Aid, and public/private scholarships aimed at under-priveledged students, don't count. They are either too few and far between (scholarships), or not substantial enough (Penn Grant, etc.). Besides, AA is mostly an issue of acceptance/hiring practices, not money.
In addition, I am fully the whole stipulation of AA is race, and that is exactly what makes it Affirmative Action. I am saying we need to change that.
Finally, I know this is completely off-topic, but for some reason reading through these comments made me think of it.
-Bizz
Dave, if the issue here is security than there is no reason at all to worry if this Dubai company takes over the ports, because the Port Authority and the Coast Guard will still have control over security. It doesn't matter who's running the administrative end of the ports, but the good ol' USA will still have control over security. Security will be the same if Dubai runs it or if Mickey Mouse and Ron Jeremy run it. So why the big deal? Refer to my eaerlier post for the answer.
By the way, you misspelled Ecuador.
Now if we were socialist, this would not even be an issue. The people would own the ports.
Personally, I think the timetraveler should be in charge of both port security and homeland security... I mean, you can tell by his pic that he doesn't mess around, and he carries weapons. Besides think about it, if anything goes wrong he can always go back in time to correct the problem... we just need to hope he doesn't see himself in the past and create a time paradox before he gets back to the future.
In fact, I think the real debate is how, in fact, he achieves time travel... with a delorian? by flying around the Earth in reverse really, really fast? Through other people's bodies like in Quantum Leap? Does he appear in a big blue explosion like Terminator when he achieves time travel? Is he actually a T-100? All very relevant questions... I mean imganine if we had a real life Terminator to run our Security?
Security?... just push it to the limit.
I think he just strokes his mullet and a portal opens transporting him back to 1985. I mean, he has already done this once as the ad implies.
True... and safety is not guaranteed...
it's never guaranteed...
Post a Comment
<< Home