United We Stand?

There’s been a lot of hysterical ranting recently about something inaccurately called the North American Union, brought to my attention by a loyal reader. There seems to be a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about what’s really been proposed, and the conspiracy freaks are too busy frothing at the mouth about secret meetings, black helicopters, etc. to take a breath and digest what it really is. I haven’t quite figured it out myself, but if Lou Dobbs and the John Birch Society are both against it, it can’t be all bad.

The most ridiculous claim is that it would be a merger of the USA, Mexico, and Canada. Aside from the fact that anybody who thinks such a merger could really happen is certifiably insane, how bad could it be? I’m one of those aging hippies who grew up with the chant “Make Love, not War” and thinks the world woud be better off with fewer borders.

There’s no doubt in my mind that, if the Canadians and Mexicans had voted in our last two presidential elections, there’s no way GW Bush would ever have been elected. And, if he was still back in Texas where he belonged, the Mexicans wouldn’t be so anxious to take it back from us.

I think that idea beats the hell out of the proposed alternative of a Blue State Secession. That would just create yet another artificial boundary among the population of a single continent. Even worse, it would leave me behind in the blighted Red(neck) States of America. Rather than dividing us yet again, let’s include some more voters to dilute the ignorance of my geographic neighbors.

I suppose the big question about such a conglomeration would be what each nation brings to the table. It reminds me of the joke about heaven vs. hell. Heaven has British police, French cooks, German engineers, Swiss bankers, and Italian lovers. Hell has German police, British cooks, French engineers, Italian bankers, and Swiss lovers. I’m not sure what Canada and Mexico could bring us. It’s been said that Canada already screwed up big-time. They could have had American industry, British democracy and French culture. Instead, they got British industry, French democracy and American culture.

But seriously, the proposal isn’t really an international merger, but a Security and Prosperity Partnership, more along the lines of the European Union. I suppose it’s NAFTA on steroids. And I don’t think I like NAFTA. It’s hard to be sure, because people who know far more about it than I do, and whose intelligence and moral values I trust greatly, are on both sides of the issue. If Jimmy Carter and Dennis Kucinich can’t agree on whether NAFTA is good, how the hell am I supposed to judge it?

The only thing I know for sure is those Blue Staters got one thing wrong. They don’t get all the good pot. We grow some right fine stuff right here in KY … at least that’s what I’ve heard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *