insomnomaniac

Logic 101

The only comment I've had in weeks, to a post I slapped up in a minute or so about the Dubai ports deal and this is what it says:

So THIS is your logic?

"We've already turned control of our airport over to an anti-american, Islam-controlled tyranny; let's hand over the sea ports as well!" ??

Past mistakes don't justify repetition. The appropriate response to such information is "throw ALL the bums out."

UGH!

OK, let's talk about "logic" for a second.

Is it "logical," for example, for not one, but TWO NY Senators to get all exercised about a foreign Arab-owned company owning leasing rights to terminals AT our ports (emphasis to stress distinction between reality and what you've heard these same Senators saying about them "owning" or "controlling" these ports), but NOT to utter a peep about the same entity owning the same rights at our airports?

Is it "logical" for these same two clowns to vigorously oppose ANY (and I do mean ANY) racial profiling of the passengers or workers at those same airports, but to openly practice racial profiling in a business deal? Last time I checked they were claiming that despair and poverty caused people to turn to terrorism, not having multi-millions of dollars and the desire to make more (even though we all know neither is the case--radical Islam is the cause, economic circumstances have little to nothing to do with it).

Is it "logical" (or should I say "reasonable") to rant and rave about how "diplomacy" could have and should have kept us out of war in Iraq (or anywhere for that matter), while simultaneously slapping our best middle-eastern ally in the face by essentially telling them in plain English "we don't want your kind here--we don't trust you"?

Is it "logical" to canonize internationalists like JFK (the man for whom the airport is named in the first place) and then turn around and insist that the USA can and should keep foreign investors out of our country, especially if they are brown skinned and come from a place that has "A-RAB" in the name of the country itself?

Is it "logical" to turn a blind eye to the fact that Bill Clinton is an EMPLOYEE of the leadership in Dubai, whose "salary" is desposited into the JOINT bank account he shares with his blowhard wife, but to praise her (and/or her Republican partners in crime) for "saving" us from the terrible security risk of foreigners A-RABS knowing what we're doing with our critical infrastructure?

Spare me. There is nothing "logical" about anything that has gone on with regard to this deal. I was in no way suggesting that we should allow Dubai to own the leasing rights to these terminals just because they've done so in the past. I think we should have allowed the deal to go through, but for much more "logical" reasons (e.g., there is no LOGICAL, or should I say "rational" reason it shouldn't have).

There might be good and rational reasons to oppose the ports deal, but political opportunism isn't one of them. In my opinion, neither is a fear of Arabs or Muslims, especially those from Dubai, one of the most westernized places in the Middle East, second only perhaps to Israel! They wanna be Western like Eminem wants to be black. I don't love the fact that they boycott all things Israeli, but we've done (and continue to do) business with countries whose policies towards Israel are far worse, and the French, Chinese, Russians and Germans were all doing business with Saddam even AFTER we went to war in Iraq. Should we force divestiture of their interests here too?

As for foreign investment in the US in general, we want it. We ought to want it, especially in big il-liquid shit like ports, big buildings, etc... Let them own shit they can't take with them, why not? If we need it, we can just take it back, what are they gonna do about it? In the meantime, we get their money. And frankly, given the size of our deficit these days, we could use it.

Posted by insomnomaniac at March 15, 2006 3:14 PM | TrackBack