kenderstest

Much has been said, and continues to be said, since the story that a company from the United Arab Emirates called Dubai Ports World was going to be handling business at six American ports.

Debate rages about whether letting a company owned by a foreign government is a wise move, especially a government that could change from a staunch ally to an avowed enemy with a coup. Certainly the UAE is a "progressive country", for being run by Arabs, but still it is a country that could conceivably be changed overnight.

At first glance, and first read, the idea of a foreign company running our ports causes one to scratch ones head in amazement. What next, one must wonder, a Mexican government owned company running the southern border? Security concerns, we have since learned, are under the purview of the Coast Guard, and of course, as always, U.S. Customs is in charge of what comes through the ports. If there is a failure in security of the ports, and terrorists manage to sneak through materials for a dirty bomb or biological or chemical attack, the failure would presumably be placed on Customs, as it is their area of responsibility to secure and check all cargo that comes through our ports.

None of that will change.

However, who can blame the American people whose first reaction, on both sides of the aisle, is to question rigorously the idea that a company owned and controlled by a country that is, at its' heart, run by people in the same group (muslims) as those that have vowed our destruction? Common sense demands that extreme scrutiny be applied to any deal that involves people that adhere to the same base ideals as our most vile enemy.

I am not saying that all muslims are bad. So don't take that away from the previous staements and dismiss this as a xenophobic rant. The same scrutiny would have to be applied if a member of the KKK was placed in charge of a civil rights group. I know that is an extreme example but you get the point. People that fall under the same general umbrella as those that murdered 3000 innocent people on 9-11 need that extra scrutiny. I am not about to adhere to this multicultural bullshit and stand by some utopian belief that people are good until they show otherwise. Give me an historical basis for trusting a given group of people and go from there.

For those of you that will claim this is racism let me head you off at the pass and say this; I have no problem with anyone that has proven they are an ally. The Japanese have spent the last half century being a serious ally. The French have, in theory, been our ally for longer than that, but I trust them much less than I do the Japanese. Same goes for the Germans. I don't trust them much either. Add Russia to the group of nations I view askance when discussing our true allies. Saudia Arabia goes on that list also. Time builds trust. We certainly haven't been allies with the UAE long enough to just hand them something as precious as control of major ports of entry. Even if they were a British protectorate before the went solo.

This whole brouhaha may be a kneejerk reaction, but better safe than sorry I always say, and the phrase "control of the ports by a UAE company" does NOT sound sensible when you hear it. In fact, it sounds like the fox guarding the henhouse. Who can blame Americans that shy away from the idea of a middle eastern company "controlling" anything to do with such a vital and strategic thing as a major port of entry.

What exactly will this company be responsible for? To those that remind us that the UAE has been a staunch ally, may I remind you that other countries have been staunch allies in the past, and a sudden and violent change of control of that country has left us standing with our pants around our ankles and hostages in an embassy. Who is to say that this will not happen in the UAE or any other of today's "staunch allies"?

It was suggested to me that the alternative may be to close our borders and become self sufficient, but that is pure poppycock. We have a moral duty to help peoples that are oppressed become free, so withdrawing from the world is not an option. Besides, most of the rest of the world would be at the mercy of a handful of petty tyrants if the U.S weren't standing tall and strong to guard against the darkness that is in men's hearts. I hate the fact that the U.S. is the only big kid on the block at the moment, and we wont be for long, as China is coming up fast, and once again America will be standing in the breach, upon the bulwarks, manning the guns of Freedom against the ever encroaching darkness of communism, but that is just the way it is.

We have a great system. But it is being undermined by forces on several fronts right now, and as much as I admire Bush for having the testicular fortitude to tell the world to sit down and shut up and let us fight those that would see us destroyed, I despise him for his failure to secure our borders from a rising tide of criminal aliens bent on the take over of the Southwest U.S. The amnesty proposal Bush is pushing should be considered as close to treason as I have ever seen a President come, as he is seemingly aiding our enemies by not securing our borders or throwing all possible resources into finding those that are here criminally and ousting them from our shores. If those 3 million criminal aliens were in uniform and armed you can bet that the military would be standing strong at the border to repel the invasion, or at least one would hope, but given Bush's apparent dedication to the forces of big business and their desire for cheap, exploitable labor, one really has to wonder if Bush wouldn't prefer to have the U.S. and Mexico merge. That is the way it seems to be heading anyway. Don't believe that last statement? Go google "NAFTA", "CAFTA" and "FTAA".

But I digress.

Border security and port security notwithstanding, the question remains; "Does a foreign goverment owned company have any business running any aspect of something so vital to national security?"

As pointed out earlier, security seems to stay under the purview of U.S. government agencies. But my question is this. Who is going to be working these ports once Dubai Ports World takes control? Will the union contracts stay in place? Or will DPW bring in union busting scabs from other countries to work the ports? In a battle between the Teamsters and the UAE who would win?

Big Agra, (the huge agricultural companies that now control most of the farming in this country), is well known for pushing for an amnesty, claiming that they don't have enough workers to harvest crops. Just two days ago I drove through farming communities outside of L.A. that had citrus groves for miles, and the lemons and oranges were laying on the ground everywhere and the trees were laden with them. I couldn't help but wonder why nobody was out harvesting these crops. In fact, stopping at a roadside fruit stand I purchased fresh oranges at 5 pounds for a dollar. Is this whole deal with DPW a plan to bring in thousands of new workers for the ports and undermine what few unions are left?

On that note, (and if you don't like this next statement keep your hate mail to yourself), there are a lot of people in this country that are homeless and on welfare....why can't we get most of them jobs working those fabled fruited plains of ours? Seems to me that you can build a better person with honest labor, and if you can live in the bushes on a freeway offramp and stand for 6 hours a day with a sign that claims you will work for food then certainly living in a warm bunkhouse while harvesting crops is something well within your abilities. But in America people have a right t be lazy and live in the bushes. We also have the right, as Americans, to tell those people to get a damned job and refuse to give them our hard earned money AND we have the right to demand that our government not be enablers to their slothful ways.

But again, I digress.

We cannot close our borders, of course, but neither should we turn a blind eye to who is controlling those borders. Profit above all else is just as evil a concept and pure cummunism or socialism, which is simply state santioned theft. Yahoo and google have whored themselves to china for money, agreeing to censor content in exchange for access.

This culture of profit for profits sake is evil, and leads to the same place as other failed and failing systems. When concepts such as patriotism, nationalism and loyalty are set aside in pursuit of profits above all else, justifications of all manner of evil under the "costs of doing business" naturally follow.

Yahoo and google in china, and wal-mart in maryland are just the beginning of this trend and the tip of a very large, and devastating iceberg.

So the question that arises here would be "Is this part of that culture of profit for profits sake?"

Is letting a company owned and controlled by a foreign goverment, even one that has, so far, been an ally, a smart move?

I don't know.

I do know this though:

If the Dems oppose it so rabidly, it may not be a bad thing.