Q: How do you say "fuck you" in Los Angeles?
A: "Trust Me"

The news and the pundits had me thinking about that old joke today, as we all learned that the operation of several American seaports was to be handed over to a state-owned company from the United Arab Emirates. Now, on the surface, that seems to be something we might want to look at very, very carefully, say with a fine-toothed comb or other such implement, before enacting. It loses nothing on closer inspection.

One of the million things that we take for granted, and shouldn't, is the idea that our ports are owned and managed by people whose main political and social loyalties lie with our country. People who wouldn't want ,say, a dirty bomb, or a bunch of nasty germs, or anything of the like to come into the country. People who are united in the President's call to perfect National Security, and defeat terrorism "over there" instead of "here".

So one might want to take a moment or two, possibly more, to examine a deal that put our ports in the hands of a country that refuses to recognize Israel but DID recognize the Taliban, and that served as home to two of the 9/11 hijackers as well as a source of funds for the operation. It's just the type of situation that gives one pause.

Criticism is bi-partisan, unless you get your news from Rush. A bill has already been written to stop the deal until Congress can get a look at it. Charges of racism are already being leveled at those who think that this might be a less than perfect deal. It has been clarified that the company will not be handling security, but not what the company's actual responsibilities and abilities will be. I'm guessing there will be plenty of security badges to go around.

"I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush said today. Well, I'm not certain that it IS okay, but since I just found out today that the Brits have already been doing it, I won't address it as we're on to something else now. I tend to feel better about the British since they haven't attacked us since 1815. There hasn't even been a song about it since Johnny Horton. There are legitimate reasons to have doubts about the UAE.

Among the Republicans to cast a doubtful eye on this plan was Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who said "although the UAE is an ally in the war on terrorism, the country has historically been used as a base of terrorist operations and financing."  Perhaps she is using a definition of "ally" that my dictionary is unfamiliar with, but is still made me think of what President Bush said in his 2001 State of the Union Speech. He said "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

But what did we get from him today? "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said. "I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

"They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

In other words, "Trust me."