Reading about China and trade agreements reminds me of the discreet march towards political globalization. We had the Roman Empire, et al, and in more modern times the dissection of post-war Europe, the EU, AAAAAAAND . . . .
The newest proposal is called the NAU, which means that our soverign political and economic borders will be trampled from within and without; it means that Canada, the United States, and Mexico will be one big blob on the new political cartography. Do we really need this? Is this for survival against the uncertainty of scarce resources, or is it the part of a more sisister agenda?
Next thing you know, we'll have the Amero for money, metric system for measurement, and probalby have to learn both Spanish and French to be citizens. Ouch!
NAFTA and Afta
I don't see any problem with a new form of currency or the metric system. FYI, all science professions already use the metric system. It makes much more sense to use a worldwide standard unit of measurement instead of being one of the few countries to use the English system.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
I think the metric system would be an improvement. But if the price of getting the metric system is becoming part of some sort of tri-lingual amalgamation of countries that share very little in common, then my answer is "No Thanks!"
I don't want either the Canadians who are committed socialists or the Mexicans who have a long history of endemnic corruption in their government playing any role in making the laws that I live by. I find our own Federal Government to be corrupt, incompetent and unresponsive. I think that situation will only get worse if it (or some new entity) tries to take on governing an area that is twice the size, has 50% more people and has vast disparities in economic development and very different cultures. It would be a disaster.
If we have trouble competing economically with the rest of the world, most of the problems are CAUSED by our government. I don't see how an even larger government could possibly be the solution.
Aude sapere . . .
I think jackbenimble has a good point: if we can't run our own country well enough, then making it bigger will probably magnify the problems.
Some might say that the United Nations will one day be the executive and legislative ruling bodies for this new amalgam; as per an old design, our military will be whittled down to "internal security forces" which to some means "secret police". But all conspiracies aside, will such a new union really ensure our political or economic security? Or will we be diluted to the lowest common denominator?
Anyway, it looks like this won't happen anytime soon: we're too busy with our noses in the Middle East.
As for poop, poop is as poop does, Ma'am.
Confucius said: "Poop happens."
I agree with your point. I'm not an expert in that kind of thing, so I definitely wouldn't call my opinion an authority in international matters. I think that at some point in time, it could be to our advantage if our government and theirs could get all the ducks involved in a row....but good luck.
As for the metric system, one funny point I'd like to mention is that I remember reading somewhere that we were supposed to be converted to metric by the year 1960. Talk about taking care of business.
Poop is beautiful.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop