I've heard some things on the radio. I've read some things that are going on. But everyday you say the Bush administration can't get worse.
I'm talking to myself of course.
Everyday you say the Bush administration can't get worse
and worse
"The North American Union is a proposed international government encompassing the nations of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It could be considered the North American analogue of the European Union.
This proposed supranational government is also seen by many as surrendering US sovereignty, which undermines the United States Constitution. Because of these and other provisions that would be enacted if the NAU was put in place, it is considered to be nothing more than an illegal international treaty by many in the United States.
In recent times, the three North American nation-states have been increasing their economic ties, accelerating the process with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
In response to the demands of increasing globalization and shared concerns from abroad, such as the increasing clout of other economic spheres such as the European Union and China, the leaders of the three nations agreed in 2005 to work more cooperatively on shared North American concerns. To this end, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was established. [1]
It is likely that any future North American Union would continue to build on the work done through initiatives such as NAFTA and the SPP."
anybody else have opinions on this niffty peice of stuff bushy and the other "globalists" have been working on?
This proposed supranational government is also seen by many as surrendering US sovereignty, which undermines the United States Constitution. Because of these and other provisions that would be enacted if the NAU was put in place, it is considered to be nothing more than an illegal international treaty by many in the United States.
In recent times, the three North American nation-states have been increasing their economic ties, accelerating the process with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
In response to the demands of increasing globalization and shared concerns from abroad, such as the increasing clout of other economic spheres such as the European Union and China, the leaders of the three nations agreed in 2005 to work more cooperatively on shared North American concerns. To this end, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was established. [1]
It is likely that any future North American Union would continue to build on the work done through initiatives such as NAFTA and the SPP."
anybody else have opinions on this niffty peice of stuff bushy and the other "globalists" have been working on?
what's the problem? anything that would take the US closer to canada and mexico would be fine with me, if i were living over there. sorry to be smug, it is late in the evening.
but really, who needs the death penalty, guantanamo, the cia or government without opposition? your constitution does not protect against any of those things because you have nobody effectively protecting the constitution.
people blame so much on globalization but globalization need not be much more than trade, and trade can be fair if you want it to be.
but really, who needs the death penalty, guantanamo, the cia or government without opposition? your constitution does not protect against any of those things because you have nobody effectively protecting the constitution.
people blame so much on globalization but globalization need not be much more than trade, and trade can be fair if you want it to be.
and sovereignty is something that was gladly sacrificed until the new imperialists came along. the geneva convention restricts sovereignty: so what? so does the u.n.
the principle should be democracy and transparency. you can sacrifice democracy to big business, which is done, or sacrifice democracy to international cooperation. i have a big problem with the former and not much with the latter, if a sacrifice is for a greater good.
the principle should be democracy and transparency. you can sacrifice democracy to big business, which is done, or sacrifice democracy to international cooperation. i have a big problem with the former and not much with the latter, if a sacrifice is for a greater good.
yes, i know about the death penality. i would very much like this country to follow the lead of others in that regard. but i do not think the nau is the solution. there are multiple reasons, and globalization is definitely one of them. i'll try to explain.
i think the biggest problem so far is that the people as in --we the people -- know very little of this.
another problem is it's not been represented to our congress or voted upon that i know of.
"you have nobody effectively protecting the constitution"
yes, exactly. this is a decision being made by a person who is rumored to have said that the constitution was nothing more than g-d peice of paper.
and more than a few folks have noted that this part of our constitution, which protects us from more bush may be at risk:
"Amendment XXII
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
martino, right: "you can sacrifice democracy to big business, which is done, or sacrifice democracy to international cooperation. i have a big problem with the former and not much with the latter, if a sacrifice is for a greater good."
i understand what you're saying and i agree, but just based on what i've seen in my town and in other places . . .certain things i've believed have been really confirmed in the past year.
i'm not a fan of capitalist globalization because of what i have personally witnessed and then also what i've read. it creates building more shit and then leaving it behind when cheaper labor is found. it is a very short term money / greed method of business which creates more and more waste . . . a small example is when you have a company that formerly produced and distributed goods which now only distributes them. so they are produced somewhere else, shipped to this other plant, packaged and distributed from there. and there are even companies which just create packaging. so then you have one company making the cheap goods, one company making the cheap packaging, and one company cheaply packing and distributing the goods. hugely wasteful. it's counter to sustainability. i want to buy my goods in my neighborhood b/c that cuts down on waste -- there has been a little push in this country to buy locally -- and it's environmentally sound to do so.
globalization has made it incredibly easy for companies to glut the poor and move on. they call it fair trade, but what happens, as i witnessed with my own eyes in honduras is that companies move to places where workers have fewer rights and are desperate -- cheap labor . . . then when the workers want more rights, adios amigos!
it's very anti-labor, pro-big business. laborers work hard for their rights, they unionize they sacrifice and strike, then they are left behind. in china right now, the company towns of wal-mart are what we saw hundreds of years ago in this country before there were unions. it's not good. the things i've seen there make me cringe. workers with limbs chopped off, mutilated people who have zero way to sustain their families afterwards and who the companies give nothing to.
i think the biggest problem so far is that the people as in --we the people -- know very little of this.
another problem is it's not been represented to our congress or voted upon that i know of.
"you have nobody effectively protecting the constitution"
yes, exactly. this is a decision being made by a person who is rumored to have said that the constitution was nothing more than g-d peice of paper.
and more than a few folks have noted that this part of our constitution, which protects us from more bush may be at risk:
"Amendment XXII
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
martino, right: "you can sacrifice democracy to big business, which is done, or sacrifice democracy to international cooperation. i have a big problem with the former and not much with the latter, if a sacrifice is for a greater good."
i understand what you're saying and i agree, but just based on what i've seen in my town and in other places . . .certain things i've believed have been really confirmed in the past year.
i'm not a fan of capitalist globalization because of what i have personally witnessed and then also what i've read. it creates building more shit and then leaving it behind when cheaper labor is found. it is a very short term money / greed method of business which creates more and more waste . . . a small example is when you have a company that formerly produced and distributed goods which now only distributes them. so they are produced somewhere else, shipped to this other plant, packaged and distributed from there. and there are even companies which just create packaging. so then you have one company making the cheap goods, one company making the cheap packaging, and one company cheaply packing and distributing the goods. hugely wasteful. it's counter to sustainability. i want to buy my goods in my neighborhood b/c that cuts down on waste -- there has been a little push in this country to buy locally -- and it's environmentally sound to do so.
globalization has made it incredibly easy for companies to glut the poor and move on. they call it fair trade, but what happens, as i witnessed with my own eyes in honduras is that companies move to places where workers have fewer rights and are desperate -- cheap labor . . . then when the workers want more rights, adios amigos!
it's very anti-labor, pro-big business. laborers work hard for their rights, they unionize they sacrifice and strike, then they are left behind. in china right now, the company towns of wal-mart are what we saw hundreds of years ago in this country before there were unions. it's not good. the things i've seen there make me cringe. workers with limbs chopped off, mutilated people who have zero way to sustain their families afterwards and who the companies give nothing to.
one more thing then i'm off to bed. 
thanks for reading.
Beyond environmental and capitalist globalization issues, there are the issues of where the power was designed to lie in this country -- with its people; our constitution is a beautiful thing. It has the power to make this country great because of the way our three branches of government were created. Ideally, the checks and balances do give the people power when they educate themselves and act. It gives the people the power to take away the jobs of the president and the congress -- it reminds them that they work for us because we “hired†them with our votes.
The NEA is a huge union in my country. The IFA is another huge Union in this country and others "I" being international. Both unions represent my husband and myself. We are labor and we are part of a few of the unions left in this country. My union is lobbying hard to have No Child Left Behind changed because it is unfair to children in this country and has created huge money for publishing companies, who coincidentally or not, are friends with the Bush family, and the ever wonderful Lynne Cheney. This is a federal law concerning education in our country's public education. The only way that my union has a voice is if my constitution and my congress have power. And they will change it. It is slow but they will prevail if our country works the way it was designed to work. If the executive branch in this country usurps the power of the other branches then “we the people†through our unions and our congressional representatives have no power.
Martino, there is no way in hell we want this. According to what I've read, Bush has already signed into place something called the SPP without the authorization of congress.
The people have no power when things like this happen, and huge mistakes can be made by one person or office without any checking or balancing of that mistake. Among all the things Bush has done, I don't know what's the worst, but this is the most “anti-American“ as in the way the U.S. constitution was designed that I know of:
“the White House has established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, having no authorization from congress.
Corsi specifically has requested the partnership's membership lists, constitutive documents, meeting minutes, meeting agendas and meeting schedules as well as all findings, reports, presentations or memoranda.
He also wants all comments to representatives of the "Prosperity Working Groups" or other working groups, committees or task forces associated with the partnership along with internal and external interagency or intra-agency memoranda of understanding, letters of intent, agreements, initiatives and budgeting documents.
Corsi believes President Bush effectively agreed to erase U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada when he signed the SPP.
Geri Word, the administrator in charge of SPP, confirmed in a telephone conversation with Corsi that SPP.gov has not published the membership lists of the working groups or the many trilateral agreements the website documents indicate are being implemented.
"This is all being done by the executive branch below the radar," Corsi toldâ€
thanks for reading.Beyond environmental and capitalist globalization issues, there are the issues of where the power was designed to lie in this country -- with its people; our constitution is a beautiful thing. It has the power to make this country great because of the way our three branches of government were created. Ideally, the checks and balances do give the people power when they educate themselves and act. It gives the people the power to take away the jobs of the president and the congress -- it reminds them that they work for us because we “hired†them with our votes.
The NEA is a huge union in my country. The IFA is another huge Union in this country and others "I" being international. Both unions represent my husband and myself. We are labor and we are part of a few of the unions left in this country. My union is lobbying hard to have No Child Left Behind changed because it is unfair to children in this country and has created huge money for publishing companies, who coincidentally or not, are friends with the Bush family, and the ever wonderful Lynne Cheney. This is a federal law concerning education in our country's public education. The only way that my union has a voice is if my constitution and my congress have power. And they will change it. It is slow but they will prevail if our country works the way it was designed to work. If the executive branch in this country usurps the power of the other branches then “we the people†through our unions and our congressional representatives have no power.
Martino, there is no way in hell we want this. According to what I've read, Bush has already signed into place something called the SPP without the authorization of congress.
The people have no power when things like this happen, and huge mistakes can be made by one person or office without any checking or balancing of that mistake. Among all the things Bush has done, I don't know what's the worst, but this is the most “anti-American“ as in the way the U.S. constitution was designed that I know of:
“the White House has established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, having no authorization from congress.
Corsi specifically has requested the partnership's membership lists, constitutive documents, meeting minutes, meeting agendas and meeting schedules as well as all findings, reports, presentations or memoranda.
He also wants all comments to representatives of the "Prosperity Working Groups" or other working groups, committees or task forces associated with the partnership along with internal and external interagency or intra-agency memoranda of understanding, letters of intent, agreements, initiatives and budgeting documents.
Corsi believes President Bush effectively agreed to erase U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada when he signed the SPP.
Geri Word, the administrator in charge of SPP, confirmed in a telephone conversation with Corsi that SPP.gov has not published the membership lists of the working groups or the many trilateral agreements the website documents indicate are being implemented.
"This is all being done by the executive branch below the radar," Corsi toldâ€
what i'm saying about big corporations and globalizationis not a sarah original. my husband constantly reminds me of ross perot, i didn't like him, when i bring up globalizatin, and ross perot was right in his giant sucking sound comment, and others have observed to what extent it sucks. several articles have explained that what the eu did is not the same as what the nau is going to do at all. the nau is sort of jumping off from nafta and nafta said "trade not aid."
i was looking around for information on the new special nafta-esq nau, and found this article written in 2001, explaining what i've seen in china and elsewhere. the great chase for cheapest labor:
The "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot used to talk about is back, only this time it is not Mexico sucking away American jobs. It is China sucking away Mexico's jobs. And jobs from Taiwan and South Korea, Singapore and Thailand, Central and South America, and even from Japan. Globalization is entering a fateful new stage, in which the competitive perils intensify for the low-wage developing countries much like the continuing pressures on high-wage manufacturing workers in the United States and other advanced economies. In the "race to the bottom," China is defining the new bottom.
This turn of events is difficult to see against the gathering threat of global recession, but in the long run it will be more meaningful. As one economy after another sinks into contraction, output subsides nearly everywhere -- more layoffs and closed factories, more unsold goods. So the migration of production to China will not become fully apparent until after the recovery, when some of the closed factories never reopen. While it is impossible to know the full dimensions at this point, the downdraft on wages and competing economies induced by China's ascendancy may produce a terrible reckoning. For many poor nations that thought they had gained a foothold on the ladder, the reversal will be quite ugly.
This is the "treadmill" that ensnares developing countries -- writ large. If they attempt to boost wages or allow workers to organize unions or begin to deal with social concerns like health or the environment, the system punishes them. The factories move to some other country where those costs of production do not exist. . .
http://www.alternet.org/globalization/12098/
i was looking around for information on the new special nafta-esq nau, and found this article written in 2001, explaining what i've seen in china and elsewhere. the great chase for cheapest labor:
The "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot used to talk about is back, only this time it is not Mexico sucking away American jobs. It is China sucking away Mexico's jobs. And jobs from Taiwan and South Korea, Singapore and Thailand, Central and South America, and even from Japan. Globalization is entering a fateful new stage, in which the competitive perils intensify for the low-wage developing countries much like the continuing pressures on high-wage manufacturing workers in the United States and other advanced economies. In the "race to the bottom," China is defining the new bottom.
This turn of events is difficult to see against the gathering threat of global recession, but in the long run it will be more meaningful. As one economy after another sinks into contraction, output subsides nearly everywhere -- more layoffs and closed factories, more unsold goods. So the migration of production to China will not become fully apparent until after the recovery, when some of the closed factories never reopen. While it is impossible to know the full dimensions at this point, the downdraft on wages and competing economies induced by China's ascendancy may produce a terrible reckoning. For many poor nations that thought they had gained a foothold on the ladder, the reversal will be quite ugly.
This is the "treadmill" that ensnares developing countries -- writ large. If they attempt to boost wages or allow workers to organize unions or begin to deal with social concerns like health or the environment, the system punishes them. The factories move to some other country where those costs of production do not exist. . .
http://www.alternet.org/globalization/12098/
wow sarah
pretty well put; very detailed arguments. i will study them and get back to you.
as to perot however, his "sucking sound" argument is widely perceived to be a bit of a joke. nafta didn't kill u.s. jobs; nafta contrinuted to the prosperity of the clinton years. (at least, you will be hard-pressed to find a respected economist who says nafta was a negative in that respect).
perot was and probably is a big-business demagogue who pretended to be for the little people, and used anti-trade arguments in trying to get elected. not a good figurepiece on your anti-globalism mantle, i would say.
as to perot however, his "sucking sound" argument is widely perceived to be a bit of a joke. nafta didn't kill u.s. jobs; nafta contrinuted to the prosperity of the clinton years. (at least, you will be hard-pressed to find a respected economist who says nafta was a negative in that respect).
perot was and probably is a big-business demagogue who pretended to be for the little people, and used anti-trade arguments in trying to get elected. not a good figurepiece on your anti-globalism mantle, i would say.
Good points Sarah! It's too bad the unions are so weak. We CAN partially blame people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who are not the people they pretend to be.
It's nice of them to give away 'their' billions if it was really 'their' billions instead of all the squashed companies and union workers whose money it really was. If unions had survived the 80's and competition had been allowed to exist in the software market maybe there wouldn't be so much poverty right now in the USA to fight against. Walmart employees make what, $8.00 per hour? Try to raise a family on that.
I believe America needs to impeach and jail Georgy Porgy. If they don't we are bound to get even more of these guys in the future who think they can shit on us and our constitution.
There are like 3 or 4 things this could happen for... but I would really like to see him go down for cooking up evidence to invade Iraq. I think a lot of people in the world lost A LOT of respect for them for that one. I know because I talk to them about it. It makes me want to never vote for anyone white or male again. That was a move reminiscent of Kruschev or dare I say, Hitler. Many people died for no reason. That is murder and that is a no-no. The whole thing was handled as poorly as one would expect someone like Bush and Cheney to handle a war.
The consitution is just a gd piece of paper... when the USA ignores its own poor and blows up poor people into a million little pieces on a routine basis, support Israel uniquivocally, trade embargos its neighbors, supports dictatorships over democratic elected governments in Central America, South America, and Pakistan (to name a few), and suppresses people's right to express themselves (free press, free speech, gay marriage, even marijuana). Is there anything left to protect except corporate profits?
On paper we have all these rights that we don't really have.
Today, America only feels free country for "Christian capitalists" (a true contradiction in terms). Maybe America is better than some other countries in some of these regards, but increasingly less so. And I have never been a fan of relativism. Life is not a contest for who sucks the least.
Europe does not brag about being free. I have never heard anyone blankly repeat, "I'm free" like an idiot over and over again like Americans routinely do. I swear the word 'liberty' to Bush probably means killing innocent people. In Europe we have national ID cards, high taxes, horrible hypocrital cunts in government, etc. But I plan to live here forever. I feel the government respects the humanity of people better here, wonderful USA constitution or not. And you can get good cheese here.
Although France passing laws against the iPod to prove their hipness when they need afformative action laws is a little like paying a Dutch kid to stick his thumb in the dyke before it floods the whole country. My feeling is that Bush is leading the whole world to shit. We need to get that guy and make him face the music... if only for the suymbolic value of the thing. When someone asks for your blind trust and then fucks you... well you have to make them pay for it. Bush has had freebies his whole life. He doesn't deserve a free pass for permanently ruining 220 years of good will.
It's nice of them to give away 'their' billions if it was really 'their' billions instead of all the squashed companies and union workers whose money it really was. If unions had survived the 80's and competition had been allowed to exist in the software market maybe there wouldn't be so much poverty right now in the USA to fight against. Walmart employees make what, $8.00 per hour? Try to raise a family on that.
I believe America needs to impeach and jail Georgy Porgy. If they don't we are bound to get even more of these guys in the future who think they can shit on us and our constitution.
There are like 3 or 4 things this could happen for... but I would really like to see him go down for cooking up evidence to invade Iraq. I think a lot of people in the world lost A LOT of respect for them for that one. I know because I talk to them about it. It makes me want to never vote for anyone white or male again. That was a move reminiscent of Kruschev or dare I say, Hitler. Many people died for no reason. That is murder and that is a no-no. The whole thing was handled as poorly as one would expect someone like Bush and Cheney to handle a war.
The consitution is just a gd piece of paper... when the USA ignores its own poor and blows up poor people into a million little pieces on a routine basis, support Israel uniquivocally, trade embargos its neighbors, supports dictatorships over democratic elected governments in Central America, South America, and Pakistan (to name a few), and suppresses people's right to express themselves (free press, free speech, gay marriage, even marijuana). Is there anything left to protect except corporate profits?
On paper we have all these rights that we don't really have.
Today, America only feels free country for "Christian capitalists" (a true contradiction in terms). Maybe America is better than some other countries in some of these regards, but increasingly less so. And I have never been a fan of relativism. Life is not a contest for who sucks the least.
Europe does not brag about being free. I have never heard anyone blankly repeat, "I'm free" like an idiot over and over again like Americans routinely do. I swear the word 'liberty' to Bush probably means killing innocent people. In Europe we have national ID cards, high taxes, horrible hypocrital cunts in government, etc. But I plan to live here forever. I feel the government respects the humanity of people better here, wonderful USA constitution or not. And you can get good cheese here.
Although France passing laws against the iPod to prove their hipness when they need afformative action laws is a little like paying a Dutch kid to stick his thumb in the dyke before it floods the whole country. My feeling is that Bush is leading the whole world to shit. We need to get that guy and make him face the music... if only for the suymbolic value of the thing. When someone asks for your blind trust and then fucks you... well you have to make them pay for it. Bush has had freebies his whole life. He doesn't deserve a free pass for permanently ruining 220 years of good will.
"On paper we have all these rights that we don't really have.
Today, America only feels free country for "Christian capitalists" (a true contradiction in terms)"
right. i know. i love our constitution. i hate what's not done with it. it is a very strange time for me to be in america. i don't blame people for leaving. but i can't.
you would not believe this thing i saw on television the other day it is called battlecry; it is supposedly a christian group and part of their propaganda is navy seals. they come out on stage and "fire" at the audience all the while part of the mission is protesting violence in video games, talk about contradictions. and this happened in f-ing philadelphia, not mobile! the guy that runs this show that thousands and thousands of us teens attend is in cahoots with bush too. it's just scary as hell some days.
"Oh yeah and Jesus was a gay black hippy jew."
add bastard to that list, don't forget his mom was "whore" who would've been stoned if she was caught preggers.
" nafta didn't kill u.s. jobs; nafta contrinuted to the prosperity of the clinton years. (at least, you will be hard-pressed to find a respected economist who says nafta was a negative in that respect)."
right, but again my question is prosperity for whom. sure on paper nafta looks great, but i'm talking about working class american people . . . you'd be hard pressed to find an american today that would not acknowledge that jobs fled the country and a few people made mega-bucks off it. it's like if you read my story from honduras on the plane ride back there were three guys who are higher up in "us" business -- hundreds of their former friends are without jobs back in the states . . . they in teguce (as they call it) are racking up money.
i don't necessarily blame anyone. and i certainly do not know all there is to know nor do i know all the ins and outs of the situation, but some things are just completely obvious. you'd have to have your head in the sand if you went into stores here and looked at the labels on things that once were made in the usa, today they are not. and americans like the owners of wal-mart reaped from it. it is just true.
lou dobbs will tell you all about it. he lost a lot big business friends and gained a huge audience when he started blowing the whistle on nafta.
and love him or hate him michael moore made one of the most telling and accurate documentaries of america when he created Roger and Me -- that one was brilliant; martino, if you've not seen it it will really illustrate the point of who the prosperity went to, and who it did not go to:
"Plot Summary for
Roger & Me (1989)
A documentary about the closure of General Motors' plant at Flint, Michigan, which resulted in the loss of 30,000 jobs."
and even though nafta did not go into effect until 1994 under clinton, it was george senior who designed it:
"The agreement was initially pursued by free-trade conservative governments in the United States and Canada, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and U.S. President George H. W. Bush."
the government of this country stinks like an oligarchy, "Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families," every time the hubby points out how many years a bush has been in the white house it scares the hell out of me.
martino and sloth, i definitely enjoy your perspectives. it is such a hot topic with americans -- it is good to see another perspective . . . from another country or from someone who has left this country.
i do wish we'd listen to other countries about a lot of our decisions, but i just wouldn't want people to think that the nau is the eu -- it's not. and from what i've read canadians are terrified and i don't blame them. i'd like to know what brett thinks.
Today, America only feels free country for "Christian capitalists" (a true contradiction in terms)"
right. i know. i love our constitution. i hate what's not done with it. it is a very strange time for me to be in america. i don't blame people for leaving. but i can't.
you would not believe this thing i saw on television the other day it is called battlecry; it is supposedly a christian group and part of their propaganda is navy seals. they come out on stage and "fire" at the audience all the while part of the mission is protesting violence in video games, talk about contradictions. and this happened in f-ing philadelphia, not mobile! the guy that runs this show that thousands and thousands of us teens attend is in cahoots with bush too. it's just scary as hell some days.
"Oh yeah and Jesus was a gay black hippy jew."
add bastard to that list, don't forget his mom was "whore" who would've been stoned if she was caught preggers.
" nafta didn't kill u.s. jobs; nafta contrinuted to the prosperity of the clinton years. (at least, you will be hard-pressed to find a respected economist who says nafta was a negative in that respect)."
right, but again my question is prosperity for whom. sure on paper nafta looks great, but i'm talking about working class american people . . . you'd be hard pressed to find an american today that would not acknowledge that jobs fled the country and a few people made mega-bucks off it. it's like if you read my story from honduras on the plane ride back there were three guys who are higher up in "us" business -- hundreds of their former friends are without jobs back in the states . . . they in teguce (as they call it) are racking up money.
i don't necessarily blame anyone. and i certainly do not know all there is to know nor do i know all the ins and outs of the situation, but some things are just completely obvious. you'd have to have your head in the sand if you went into stores here and looked at the labels on things that once were made in the usa, today they are not. and americans like the owners of wal-mart reaped from it. it is just true.
lou dobbs will tell you all about it. he lost a lot big business friends and gained a huge audience when he started blowing the whistle on nafta.
and love him or hate him michael moore made one of the most telling and accurate documentaries of america when he created Roger and Me -- that one was brilliant; martino, if you've not seen it it will really illustrate the point of who the prosperity went to, and who it did not go to:
"Plot Summary for
Roger & Me (1989)
A documentary about the closure of General Motors' plant at Flint, Michigan, which resulted in the loss of 30,000 jobs."
and even though nafta did not go into effect until 1994 under clinton, it was george senior who designed it:
"The agreement was initially pursued by free-trade conservative governments in the United States and Canada, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and U.S. President George H. W. Bush."
the government of this country stinks like an oligarchy, "Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families," every time the hubby points out how many years a bush has been in the white house it scares the hell out of me.
martino and sloth, i definitely enjoy your perspectives. it is such a hot topic with americans -- it is good to see another perspective . . . from another country or from someone who has left this country.
i do wish we'd listen to other countries about a lot of our decisions, but i just wouldn't want people to think that the nau is the eu -- it's not. and from what i've read canadians are terrified and i don't blame them. i'd like to know what brett thinks.
more of my opinion. i've got the day off and i enjoy this topic and learning more about it:
The aftermath of nafta -- ross perot joker or not, had foresight:
“SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Americans tend to view Mexico as a Third World country, which is technically
the case. Less appreciated is Mexico's rank as the 11th-biggest economy in the world. With an important economy so close to
the U.S., it's no surprise that Mexico is a player in the global market for IT outsourcing services.
"There is a very large, educated, young population. There are plenty of people available for the work, including skilled
technical people," says Raymond Duran, an account executive in the Juarez, Mexico, office of GECIS Americas, an
outsourcing vendor that's part of General Electric Co.
"The talent pool is similar to the U.S. for a much cheaper price, at least a third the price," says Gary Taylor, controller for
KPMG International's Dallas Accounting Service Center, which outsources accounting services and some programming to
GECIS in Mexico.
David Mard has a somewhat different view of Mexico's cost advantages. The director of IT at Mexico Express, a regional
courier service in La Mirada, Calif., says he finds that on larger IT projects, outsourcing to Mexico saves 50% to 60% of the
cost of doing the same project in the U.S. But on smaller projects, there's little or no savings.
"The price for an application developer in the U.S. is $100 to $125 per hour and $20 to $30 per hour in Mexico, but it takes
four times as many people do to the project in Mexico." When asked why, he says, "I don't know. I just know the larger the
project, the more the cost savings."
Lower costs are, of course, a driving force behind outsourcing to any country,â€
And this is exactly the same thing that Thomas Friedman has made a buttload of money parroting and why he makes me want to throw up. Martino, have you ever heard of the world is flat? Bill Gates recommends this piece of crap book that Thomas Friedman wrote. I'm like no shit Sherlock we don't need a whole fucking book to know that outsourcing exists. He's such a fuking jackass. And Friedman is the king of stating the obvious. Not only is he the king of stating the obvious he's great if you're marketing technology to the masses -- one of the best fucking scare tactics I've seen in years to get people to buy this shit -- so stupid, the middle american / half moneyed sheeple.
This explanation comes from an international encyclopedia concerning the Clinton/american economy -- NAFTA is not even mentioned as a possibility for the “boom†in our economy during that time.
“The reasons for this growth are hotly debated, but Clinton supporters cite his 1993 tax increase which they believe assisted in reducing the annual budget deficits every year of his tenure. These deficit reductions stimulated consumption and consumer spending and strengthened the dollar, which encouraged foreign investment in the United States economy. Alan Greenspan supported the 1993 tax increase, which was approved by Congress without a single Republican vote.[11] Critics of Clinton point to Alan Greenspan's strong chairmanship of the Federal Reserve, 1995 spending cuts and the Republican Party's Contract with America initiatives as alternative reasons for America's strong economic growth of the late 90's. Critics also argue that the economic recovery had already begun before Bill Clinton took office and did not pick up momentum until 1995 and 1996, after the GOP took over Congress (despite the fact that GDP growth was higher in 1994 than in either 1995 or 1996). Many economists attribute massive growth to the dot-com boom which just happened to come during Clinton's term, thus adding many new jobs which may not be directly attributed to policies of the Clinton administration or Republican Congress.â€
It was neither Bush lite nor Clinton who designed NAFTA; it was big daddy Bush
The “boom†that was seen in Clinton's years in the unemployment rate, would appear to be continued throughout the bush lite years; it doesn't tell me much in terms of the quality of jobs; a lot of Americans are hard-working and proud, they'll work where-ever and with little to no benefits if push comes to shove b/c they have to.
The aftermath of nafta -- ross perot joker or not, had foresight:
“SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Americans tend to view Mexico as a Third World country, which is technically
the case. Less appreciated is Mexico's rank as the 11th-biggest economy in the world. With an important economy so close to
the U.S., it's no surprise that Mexico is a player in the global market for IT outsourcing services.
"There is a very large, educated, young population. There are plenty of people available for the work, including skilled
technical people," says Raymond Duran, an account executive in the Juarez, Mexico, office of GECIS Americas, an
outsourcing vendor that's part of General Electric Co.
"The talent pool is similar to the U.S. for a much cheaper price, at least a third the price," says Gary Taylor, controller for
KPMG International's Dallas Accounting Service Center, which outsources accounting services and some programming to
GECIS in Mexico.
David Mard has a somewhat different view of Mexico's cost advantages. The director of IT at Mexico Express, a regional
courier service in La Mirada, Calif., says he finds that on larger IT projects, outsourcing to Mexico saves 50% to 60% of the
cost of doing the same project in the U.S. But on smaller projects, there's little or no savings.
"The price for an application developer in the U.S. is $100 to $125 per hour and $20 to $30 per hour in Mexico, but it takes
four times as many people do to the project in Mexico." When asked why, he says, "I don't know. I just know the larger the
project, the more the cost savings."
Lower costs are, of course, a driving force behind outsourcing to any country,â€
And this is exactly the same thing that Thomas Friedman has made a buttload of money parroting and why he makes me want to throw up. Martino, have you ever heard of the world is flat? Bill Gates recommends this piece of crap book that Thomas Friedman wrote. I'm like no shit Sherlock we don't need a whole fucking book to know that outsourcing exists. He's such a fuking jackass. And Friedman is the king of stating the obvious. Not only is he the king of stating the obvious he's great if you're marketing technology to the masses -- one of the best fucking scare tactics I've seen in years to get people to buy this shit -- so stupid, the middle american / half moneyed sheeple.
This explanation comes from an international encyclopedia concerning the Clinton/american economy -- NAFTA is not even mentioned as a possibility for the “boom†in our economy during that time.
“The reasons for this growth are hotly debated, but Clinton supporters cite his 1993 tax increase which they believe assisted in reducing the annual budget deficits every year of his tenure. These deficit reductions stimulated consumption and consumer spending and strengthened the dollar, which encouraged foreign investment in the United States economy. Alan Greenspan supported the 1993 tax increase, which was approved by Congress without a single Republican vote.[11] Critics of Clinton point to Alan Greenspan's strong chairmanship of the Federal Reserve, 1995 spending cuts and the Republican Party's Contract with America initiatives as alternative reasons for America's strong economic growth of the late 90's. Critics also argue that the economic recovery had already begun before Bill Clinton took office and did not pick up momentum until 1995 and 1996, after the GOP took over Congress (despite the fact that GDP growth was higher in 1994 than in either 1995 or 1996). Many economists attribute massive growth to the dot-com boom which just happened to come during Clinton's term, thus adding many new jobs which may not be directly attributed to policies of the Clinton administration or Republican Congress.â€
It was neither Bush lite nor Clinton who designed NAFTA; it was big daddy Bush
The “boom†that was seen in Clinton's years in the unemployment rate, would appear to be continued throughout the bush lite years; it doesn't tell me much in terms of the quality of jobs; a lot of Americans are hard-working and proud, they'll work where-ever and with little to no benefits if push comes to shove b/c they have to.
kickass!
meet the real neat new left, who may president of mexico, lopez obrador, i think the american fat cats are going to like him about as much as they like hugo chavez. i'm crossing my fingers:
"The United States is not happy over the latest challenge to its faded hegemony over Latin America but is keeping a discreet profile. The only well-known American consultant involved with the candidates is ex-Clinton advisor Dick Morris, who assists the conservative Calderon.
The United States is not happy over the latest challenge to its faded hegemony over Latin America but is keeping a discreet profile. The only well-known American consultant involved with the candidates is ex-Clinton advisor Dick Morris, who assists the conservative Calderon.
Lopez Obrador benefits immensely from popular approval of his tenure as mayor of Mexico City, where he fought successfully for the elderly and ran a more efficient administration than most of his predecessors. As a candidate he promises to stop privatization of oil and gas industries and to offer free medical care and food subsidies for citizens over 65. He has tapped a passionate popular solidarity with his modest lifestyle and outspoken preference for Mexico's poor, who are more than half the country's population. Speaking under the blazing sun rather than the shaded canopies usually reserved for the powerful, he is often paralyzed by the frenzied joy of the crowds he draws.
Mexicans close to the campaign said in interviews that Lopez Obrador would insist on basic revisions to NAFTA, the trade pact that has only widened inequality in Mexico since 1994. As the Los Angeles Times noted in 2002, "few would argue that NAFTA has been anything but devastating for Mexican farm families." In 2003, farmers stormed the doors of the Mexican legislature on horseback and threatened to seize customs checkpoints at the U.S.-Mexico border (L.A. Times, Jan. 1, 2003). With the situation worsening, Lopez Obrador would preserve subsidies for Mexican farmers that were set to expire under the NAFTA agreement.
He would make a priority of labor standards for immigrant workers, turning every Mexican consulate in the U.S. into a procuraduria, a kind of legal aid center. He also opposes the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border as an inhumane affront.
There would be major consequences for the American immigration debate with a new Mexican government that forcefully defended workers' rights and blamed NAFTA and U.S. multinationals for the conditions forcing Mexican workers to emigrate northward. Pro-immigrant and anti-corporate forces here would be fortified. A majority in the U.S. Congress might consider seriously reforming NAFTA for the first time. Right-wing conservatives would become more frenzied about the radical "threat" on the border."
"The United States is not happy over the latest challenge to its faded hegemony over Latin America but is keeping a discreet profile. The only well-known American consultant involved with the candidates is ex-Clinton advisor Dick Morris, who assists the conservative Calderon.
The United States is not happy over the latest challenge to its faded hegemony over Latin America but is keeping a discreet profile. The only well-known American consultant involved with the candidates is ex-Clinton advisor Dick Morris, who assists the conservative Calderon.
Lopez Obrador benefits immensely from popular approval of his tenure as mayor of Mexico City, where he fought successfully for the elderly and ran a more efficient administration than most of his predecessors. As a candidate he promises to stop privatization of oil and gas industries and to offer free medical care and food subsidies for citizens over 65. He has tapped a passionate popular solidarity with his modest lifestyle and outspoken preference for Mexico's poor, who are more than half the country's population. Speaking under the blazing sun rather than the shaded canopies usually reserved for the powerful, he is often paralyzed by the frenzied joy of the crowds he draws.
Mexicans close to the campaign said in interviews that Lopez Obrador would insist on basic revisions to NAFTA, the trade pact that has only widened inequality in Mexico since 1994. As the Los Angeles Times noted in 2002, "few would argue that NAFTA has been anything but devastating for Mexican farm families." In 2003, farmers stormed the doors of the Mexican legislature on horseback and threatened to seize customs checkpoints at the U.S.-Mexico border (L.A. Times, Jan. 1, 2003). With the situation worsening, Lopez Obrador would preserve subsidies for Mexican farmers that were set to expire under the NAFTA agreement.
He would make a priority of labor standards for immigrant workers, turning every Mexican consulate in the U.S. into a procuraduria, a kind of legal aid center. He also opposes the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border as an inhumane affront.
There would be major consequences for the American immigration debate with a new Mexican government that forcefully defended workers' rights and blamed NAFTA and U.S. multinationals for the conditions forcing Mexican workers to emigrate northward. Pro-immigrant and anti-corporate forces here would be fortified. A majority in the U.S. Congress might consider seriously reforming NAFTA for the first time. Right-wing conservatives would become more frenzied about the radical "threat" on the border."
Calderon is now in the lead. 
I will try to explain why Chavez and Obrador are important to me -- they are nationalists and are definitely a part of the global justice movement . . . Not that I think they would tell you that, but nationalists by nature are anti-globalization so are a great deal of environmentalists, which is part of what confounds me still about gore, how could he be such an environmental supporter and globalist/nafta supporter at the same time? . . . But the article below explains how a person usually ends up anti-globalization.
Anti-globalization (Global Justice)
Critics of the economic aspects of globalization contend that it is not, as its proponents tend to imply, an inexorable process that flows naturally from the economic needs of everyone. The critics typically emphasize that globalization is a process that is mediated according to elite imperatives, and typically raise the possibility of alternative global institutions and policies, which they believe address the moral claims of poor and working classes throughout the globe, as well as environmental concerns in a more equitable way. [7] In terms of the controversial global migration issue, disputes revolve around both its causes, whether and to what extent it is voluntary or involuntary, necessary or unnecessary; and its effects, whether beneficial, or socially and environmentally costly. Proponents tend to see migration simply as a process whereby white and blue collar workers may go from one country to another to provide their services, while critics tend to emphasize negative causes such as economic, political, and environmental insecurity, and cite as one notable effect, the link between migration and the enormous growth of urban slums in developing countries. According to "The Challenge of Slums," a 2003 UN-Habitat report, "the cyclical nature of capitalism, increased demand for skilled versus unskilled labour, and the negative effects of globalization – in particular, global economic booms and busts that ratchet up inequality and distribute new wealth unevenly – contribute to the enormous growth of slums." [8]
Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists. This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term; it can lead to some confusion, as activists typically oppose certain aspects or forms of globalization, not globalization per se. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice. Indeed, the global justice movement is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondialisme in French.
There are a wide variety of kinds of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations, the working class, and the environment into account.
The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, anarchists, those in support of relocalization and others. Most are reformist, (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some such as Noam Chomsky have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
the hubby was going to talk to the guys last night about this and the nau . . . one of the biggest problems in the us is that the voting population, the real meat and potatos of the conservative voters have no idea how far from conservative ideals our government has come. . . which is one of the reasons all this is in my brain of late, that and the elections in mexico and there effect on the nau -- calderon will undoubtedly support it, just as fox did. . .
I will try to explain why Chavez and Obrador are important to me -- they are nationalists and are definitely a part of the global justice movement . . . Not that I think they would tell you that, but nationalists by nature are anti-globalization so are a great deal of environmentalists, which is part of what confounds me still about gore, how could he be such an environmental supporter and globalist/nafta supporter at the same time? . . . But the article below explains how a person usually ends up anti-globalization. Anti-globalization (Global Justice)
Critics of the economic aspects of globalization contend that it is not, as its proponents tend to imply, an inexorable process that flows naturally from the economic needs of everyone. The critics typically emphasize that globalization is a process that is mediated according to elite imperatives, and typically raise the possibility of alternative global institutions and policies, which they believe address the moral claims of poor and working classes throughout the globe, as well as environmental concerns in a more equitable way. [7] In terms of the controversial global migration issue, disputes revolve around both its causes, whether and to what extent it is voluntary or involuntary, necessary or unnecessary; and its effects, whether beneficial, or socially and environmentally costly. Proponents tend to see migration simply as a process whereby white and blue collar workers may go from one country to another to provide their services, while critics tend to emphasize negative causes such as economic, political, and environmental insecurity, and cite as one notable effect, the link between migration and the enormous growth of urban slums in developing countries. According to "The Challenge of Slums," a 2003 UN-Habitat report, "the cyclical nature of capitalism, increased demand for skilled versus unskilled labour, and the negative effects of globalization – in particular, global economic booms and busts that ratchet up inequality and distribute new wealth unevenly – contribute to the enormous growth of slums." [8]
Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists. This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term; it can lead to some confusion, as activists typically oppose certain aspects or forms of globalization, not globalization per se. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice. Indeed, the global justice movement is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondialisme in French.
There are a wide variety of kinds of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations, the working class, and the environment into account.
The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, anarchists, those in support of relocalization and others. Most are reformist, (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some such as Noam Chomsky have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
the hubby was going to talk to the guys last night about this and the nau . . . one of the biggest problems in the us is that the voting population, the real meat and potatos of the conservative voters have no idea how far from conservative ideals our government has come. . . which is one of the reasons all this is in my brain of late, that and the elections in mexico and there effect on the nau -- calderon will undoubtedly support it, just as fox did. . .