April 30, 2004

CAFTA - The Trojan Calf The year is 2030 AD, somewhere in Central America: Luis: "Grandma, tell me a story." Grandma: "Which one?" Luis: "Tell the one about the trojan calf." Grandma: "Ah, si, CAFTA, the Trojan Calf. This story is muy importante Luis. This is the story of how things came to be as they now are." Requires Flash.
  • Now that's not a bit sensationalistic at all... I like the headlines on the newspaper on the main page. "Vanilla Ice performs at Deaf College Student body represents primary fan base"
  • So, what are the details behind this scary proposal? Other than helmeted and suited corporate types invading curiously square cities.
  • I really hope no one's pulled to sign anything just by seeing that flash. Here's a little context for those who are, understandably, doubtful.
  • Oh - I'm not really doubtful, Zemat. I'm Canadian - hating free trade is a national duty, even if NAFTA was good for us or not - I gather that it's a really mixed bag, and that often when we are screwed it's when the US decides it doesn't feel like honouring free trade that disadvantages it. But free trade generally benefits the economically powerful more, whether those are countries, or just companies - the rest of society be damned. I am especially pissed off by the type of clauses the article refers to as being "similar to NAFTA's Chapter 11, which allows corporations to sue governments for regulations (including the enforcement of local environmental laws) that they believe infringe on their rights." (Too lazy to type, love cut and paste quoting). Economies exist to serve our societies, and not the otherway around - you can't put economic demands always above societal. Anything that takes power to set policies away from democratically elected governments to give it to profit-oriented undemocratic companies is officially nasty in my books. So - that would be a long thank you very much for the information :)
  • More NAFTA bashing! Yay! Am I turning left? Seriously, jb, it's a sad state of affairs. I was totally pro-NAFTA back in the 90s and had high hopes that it would raise Mexico out of it's shackles of poverty and social injustice (I was an quite and idealist, you know). I'm still pro-globalization. Since I see no other good way in which true progress, both social and technological, can be attained. But I blame weak governments and democracies that are easily controlled by special interests for not being able to regulate rampant corporations in their search for more profit. I think there's something wrong with democracies. The people are still powerless but now they are dazzled by the illusion of having a voice, when what they really need is... cheez, I don't know what we need. Sometimes I believe we know what we want, but not what we really need. Can truly a well informed population take the best decisions for a nation? Can populations be very well informed? When I participate in elections I feel overwhelmed by the weight of my decision since I don't believe I have enough reliable information to make it. I'm not an expert on any of the issues being discussed by the different political plataforms and all candidates seem so full of it I just can thrust them. So I just give my vote to the one I feel it's least worst option, just to be latter disappointed by my poor judgement. I see all the voters faces and see the same poor judgements whoever they voted for. Can all the poor judgements be summed up to be a good one? Maybe I should get my own blog... Oh wait, I already got one, I'm just to lazy to update it.