Eco and Occam

From the Washington Times:

The White House is obviously not listening to the congressional uproar over Dubai Ports World. Lawmakers want to know why a federal panel allowed a state-owned United Arab Emirates shipping firm to pay $6.8 billion to acquire six major American ports — including critical ones in New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia — despite its home country’s glaring ties to international terrorism. But the White House is yawning.

The issue interrupted this week’s House Ways and Means Committee hearings on the budget, and Treasury Secretary John Snow’s non-answer — he explained to curt questioning from Rep. Mark Foley, Florida Republican, that the Commission on Foreign Investment in the United States followed its regular processes — simply won’t cut it. Yesterday, Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, asserted flatly that “We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted.” National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said that it was “rigorously reviewed.” In other words, the White House considers it a done deal.

But why? Why must the United States let a state-owned firm from a hotbed of radicalism own the major ports of the Eastern seaboard? No one has answered this to our satisfaction.

Occam’s Razor states that the simplest logical answer is usually the correct one. In this case, it would indicate either that the adminstration is in favor of terrorism in the United States, presumably because it would allow the government to speed up its current centralization program, or that it knows for a certainty that turning over the ports to the Islamists will create no genuine risk to the American people.

In an old essay published in his Apocalypse Postponed collection, Umberto Eco wrote about the symbiotic relationship between government and terrorist. He was writing about the European governments and the Red Brigades at the time, but the same logic appears to be increasingly at work here in the United States.

I’m not impressed by those who aren’t willing to at least consider the possibility that American presidents are less than perfectly loyal to their country. Clinton was in bed with China, Bush appears to be even more closely bound to his Wahhabist friends. I’m quite open to listen to alternative explanations, but instead, all I ever hear are assertions of how impossible it is that the current administration could possibly have anything but the best interests of the American people at heart. Even the most staunch Three Monkey must admit, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that the president has proven to be utterly disloyal to the Constitution he swore to defend.

This is, of course, laughable to anyone who has studied a decent amount of history and knows how unusual it is for any government of any type to harbor even a minimal amount of concern for its population, so long as they remain passive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: