Wednesday, November 28, 2007

News Review: Excellent Article on Myth of the NAU

My groundbreaking work debunking the myth of the North American Union has, once again, been snubbed. Nevertheless, this article by Drake Bennett of the Boston Globe is excellent. The author not only discusses the facts but also the political and social reasons that the myth persists and is gaining traction.

While we're at it, David Brook's recent New York Times piece covered similar ground and, more important, took a much needed pot shot at Lou Dobbs.

Finally, here is more on the great Honduran sock debate.


Anonymous said...

This is really funny. Do you belong to the flat earth society as well?

Bush just signed an agreement with Canada and Mexico called the SPP, and he also signed an agreement that Canadian soldiers can be used on American soil.

Plus they just did a program on the highway and how it's taking land from people in Texas on the mainstream media.

You are too funny.

Larry said...

The right thing to do is to ignore this comment rather than engage in a debate. But, it's my blog and I get to have the last word.

No, I am not in the Flat Earth Society because I am able to engage in critical thinking based on the evidence presented. All the evidence points to the Earth being round, natural selection leading to new species, and Lee Harvey Oswald being the loan shooter.

On the other hand, people who believe in the myth of the NAU seem to reject the notion that roads are a public good, bring merchandise to market, let people commute to jobs, and otherwise support civil society. Yes, it is too bad that major highway projects often require the loss of private property via eminent domain. So the Trans Texas Corridor people want better highways. Call it the NAFTA Superhighway if you want. I don't care if you call it the "Foretold in Revelation One World Government Road to Hell," it is still just a road. Roads are not threats to sovereignty.

On the SPP: The NAU believers insist that this inter-governmental coffe klatch is a sinister cabal. It's not. It is functionaries (and occassionally leaders) from the three North American Governments talking about and proposing solutions to common issues with the goal of improving security and prosperity for all three countries. That is not the same thing as plotting to merge the governments.

Look at how the EU came together in 1992. It took years of very public planning, lobbying, referenda, and administrative infrastructure building. It did not happen because they built a highway from Portugal to Poland. Even today, the EU is not fully integrated (for example each country has its own customs authority) and Ireland seems bound and determined to keep it that way.

Relax. If the NAU moves from the theoretical bogeyman to a real proposal, we'll all know about it. As far as I am concerned, and I freely admit I might be wrong in the very long term, that will happen when pigs fly out of the rump of the Statue of Liberty.

Last thing: No one asked me, but I'll say it anyway. Further integration with Mexico and Canada would be a good thing. How much money, time, and effort would be saved if certain non-partisan governmental functions could be shared? Why not have a North American food and drug approval, patent and trademark registration, aviation authority, and communications authority? If your answer is that you don't want foreigners or Mexicans approving your drugs, you need to look more deeply into your motives.