A Cup of Sand

In 1995 a wonderful romantic comedy appeared on the big screen titled “The American President”. Written by Aaron Sorkin, who would later become better known as the mastermind behind the hit “West Wing”, the movie was full of poignant relationship drama and American political observations. My favorite character was not the spunky lobbyist who falls in love with the handsome President, or even the attractive and charmingly human President himself. My favorite character was the President’s harried speech writer, played by Michael J. Fox. A section of dialogue from that movie has been echoing in my head these past few weeks. (Thank you imdb.com for the quote text.)

President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-
Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

With regards to the Dubai port deal, both these fictional politicians had it right. The so called “vast majority” of Americans who oppose this deal are listening to the only people who are talking- and simultaneously drinking the sand because they do not know the difference. Ask the next person you pass in the hallway or on the street what exactly DPW will be in “control” of if this deal proceeds. The most illuminating answer you are likely to receive is “The ports.”
Unless you work on the waterfront, in government security, or have bothered to do some research- and by that I mean reading scholarly articles, visiting the ports and reading the security documents ( classified or otherwise)- about this deal, it’s doubtful you have any clue what you are or are not opposed to.

Much has been made about how security of our nation’s import and export lifelines cannot be entrusted to a government that once recognized the Taliban and even now shows sympathy, if not out-right support, for the causes of radical Islam. If the government of the UAW or the controlling partners of DPW were petitioning to take over the US Coast Guard or manage the audit trail for the Department of Homeland Security, I might be worried.

The simple fact is, our leaders in Congress and the Americans answering the pollsters phone calls have been drinking the sand so cleverly provided to them by rabble rousing politicians seeking an issue to exploit during an election year.

There are legitimate security concerns at American ports. Too much of our funding for security operations goes to paying analysts salaries in Washington and too little to the inspectors charged with opening crates and tracking shipping manifests. The turnover of operations of port terminals will not affect this gross negligence in any way. In order to be privy to the details of port security an individual needs a security clearance. People with security clearances have to be US citizens. Those US citizens, having obtained that clearance, must report any and all dealings with foreign nationals, even day-to-day business contacts.

Will controlling terminal operations make it easier for the forces of radical Islam to slip a shipping container full of WMD past customs officials? Probably not. The ability right now is staggeringly present. But, then why bother with the risk of detection of a shipping container when you can walk enough anthrax across the US-Mexico border to wipe out the entire US Congress?

Scarlett says: Stop playing into the demagoguery that assumes you are uneducated and as easily led as toddler with a lollipop. Stop drinking the sand, people.