Giving The Keys To The Fox

When I consider the metaphor of giving the fox the keys to the hen house, what immediately comes to mind is this ludicrous proposal of allowing the UAE (United Arab Emirates) control over our ports.

In this time of heightened security procedures, with all the attempts to circumvent the constitution and trample on the personal liberties of U.S. citizens, it seems very "twilight zone-ish" that [we'd] be seriously considering turning over control of our ports of entry to the UAE. Sure, not all Arabs are responsible for the terrorists attacks around the world, and I don't mean to suggest that the UAE is not ethical and trustworthy, but really...

Yeah, yeah! I know it's all about our god, "commerce" ...and worshipping [it] takes precedent over all else, even though those in power profess otherwise. It's one thing to say it's not economically feasible to inspect each piece of cargo that comes into the U.S. It's another to put that responsibility directly into the hands of the foreign powers who, even though not directly involved, share the home soil and basic beliefs and who knows what other affiliations with those who'd relish the opportunity to completely annihilate the U.S. and all of its inhabitants.

I've been monitoring [many] of the reports covering this proposal, and looking at the men making statements to the effect that "the UAE has been thoroughly scrutinized and that there's nothing irregular about the deal". The point being that we as ordinary people don't know the intricacies of how these ports work and that's why we're all being so paranoid. If we did [know], we'd understand that there is nothing irregular about this kind of thing. We should just trust those "in the know" to handled things properly ...yeah, right! And of course the 100 millions ducats given to the Katrina "relief effort" has no baring on this transaction.

Sorry, but if it looks like a Trojan horse, and it's parked at the gates of your city like a Trojan horse, than it may very well be a Trojan horse.

This is very reminiscent of the hearings when the cigarette company CEOs put on their best [sincere] faces and stated that cigarettes were definitely not addictive. All you had to do was look at the speaker to know that even he, himself, was unconvinced of what he was saying ... if not outright lying. It's like watching "Dubya" making one of his speeches. How do you know he's lying? 'Cuz his lips are moving. BTW, I love the way his claim ...that [they] didn't anticipate the level of destruction caused by hurricane Katrina... has come back to bite him in the ass.

And speaking of "Dubya"... All this isn't helping his case around here. San Francisco already is not a Bush-friendly town, which is probably why he's never come here. No, not ever. San Francisco is the only city among the nation's 25 largest that Bush has not visited during his presidency.

There's even been some talk ...at the grass roots level... of renaming our "Bush Street" to something else, as a political statement of sorts. This started me thinking, "But what about the person for whom the street was originally named? Wouldn't it be a disservice to [him] to un-name the street?"

I did some research to find out who, in fact, was the source of the street's name. I came across several sites that listed San Francisco street names and their sources. However, the data was incomplete, with myriad typographical errors and lots of contradictory and incorrect data. In my usual obsessive-compulsive manner, I re-vamped the list. It's now become an ongoing project to verify the information and fill in the missing streets ...as many as I can. Yes, a lot of the data is blatantly plagiarized [from the other lists I found], but that's all right. I'm not publishing this on any website; it's merely for my own edification. However, for the purpose of this post, I'm offering this [temporary] "link" ...for anyone who's interested.

Quote of the Week: "Be wary of the man who encourages an action in which he himself incurs no risk."