The president says that the deal for the Arab company to operate major US ports has nothing to do with the security of the ports. The head of Homeland Security says there are provisions to ensure this, though, of course, he can't tell us what they are. (To be fair, perhaps he really doesn't have a clue about it. There's a track record for that.)
I don't think either of these people gets it. Operating a port may have nothing to do with its security, but you can screw it up just as badly with a spreadsheet as with a bomb. And all the secret provisions in the world won't help when a major port -- or a series of major ports -- are shut down. When our economy takes a hit because a port is shut down, all of George's pious speeches and scrunched up deer in the headlights looks won't help a whit. If John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi had suggested this, George would be on the horn immediately trumpeting how important it was to keep America secure, and handing over control of major ports was no way to do that. But he's not. He's in favor of the idea.
Wonder why?
2 comments:
I believe that the Roman Empire collapsed virtually overnight because of a collapse in its econonomy. The reasons for the collapse are well documented. It was not lack of military preparedness, or workers, or goods, or food. It was the economy which slipped...
I also think that foreign ownership of any large industry is a recipe for, well, not disaster, but trouble. As a Canadian, I see plenty of US ownership of major corporations which has resulted in trouble. Nothing really BAD, but trouble. It is possible that enough foreign ownership will have a serious effect on your economy, same as it did on ours. That effect may be good (provide jobs) or it may be bad (move more US currency out of the US) or both. As a Canadian, I have witnessed much of the former from foreign ownership. Lately, I have noticed what happens when you no longer control your own economy.
Example....US interests bought up lumber mills in Canada, until now, virtually all the lumber sawn in Canada is owned by US corporations. The amusing part is that illegal softwood duties are levied on US corporatons by the US government, and the Canadian government is risking international good will by complaining about it.
Another example...very efficient US corporations bought up most of the meat packing plants in Canada. When the BSC scare came out, they discovered that there was no money in Canadian beef, and so they closed their Canadian divisions. Now that the borders are open to cut meat, there is no way to cut it to ship it! Its temporary, I know, but like I said, its trouble. Trouble caused in a large part by foreign ownership of large companies. And somebody has to fix the trouble somewhere down the line.
I don't like that Petro Kazakastan (a division of Petro Canada) was bought by China. I don't like that China (as a country) is purchasing huge blocks of apartments in Burnaby and Vancover British Columbia, and I don't like how many Canadian companies are being bought out by China. At least with the US, it was family! We looked at it as "uppity older cousins movin' into our space", but now we are seeing much more foreign ownership, less US ownership and no free trade agreement in place to solve the problems. Trouble has a way of growing....
Good observations, all of them.
It's possible that what Bush says is true -- that this really is a non-issue. If so, this could have been presented in a calm manner that acknowledged its sensitivity. And once it blew up, they could have acknowledged that people were alarmed, and addressed that. Instead, we got Daddy Knows Best, shush now.
Calming influence, fah.
Post a Comment