Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Ports, continued

So the deal with the UAE is still going on, should we or shouldn't we allow a middle eastern country control several of our ports. It comes down to this and I worded that very carefully. The argument that it's a state run company and not an independent, doesn't hold any water as I talked about already. The real reason comes down to this, do we trust middle eastern countries with important commercial assets? Security is run by the US government, the ports are still owned by the states so there's really no security risk. I also doubt that when this company gets transfered over to the UAE everyone will be fired and the company will be shipping arab longshoremen over here.

But here's what it comes down to: Appearances. Do you want to be (republican or democrat) on the wrong side of this issue? I don't mean do you want your veto overruled or do you want to come out against this only to change your mind. I mean, do you want to allow this deal to go through only for a terrorist attack to come through the ports. Even if it comes through a port run by an American company the appearance will remain the same. Secondly, security is such an important issue for republicans that they don't want the appearance of being lax. Similarly dem's see a great opportunity here and they're shooting for it.

Here's what I wish would happen, in a perfect world. First we could look past the fact that the company running several ports happens to have middle eastern board members. Second, if there is a terrorist attack we are smart enough to realize that it might not be connected to this decision. Why do I wish these things? Because right now I view this political play as a racist one and I'm not a fan of that no matter which party it's coming from.


Post a Comment

<< Home