SPP Just Means Cooperation Says Reynolds

Hey, convinced me. How I could have been so blind all these years...

What a dope...

Who would have thought that nationalism was the root cause of having to buy a different adapter for every rechargeable electronic product one bought or nice little birdies not having suitable breeding grounds because we, in our nationalistic fervor, destroyed their habitats.

Why couldn't I see that it was simply 'nationalism' that was preventing our ability to:

-- Develop compatible standards in the manufacture of auto parts.

Establish common specifications for containers used to transport dangerous goods.

Take steps to combat the North American trade in counterfeit and pirated goods.

Pursue greater market access for natural health products in North America.

Develop common labels for textile products.

Set compatible standards for the manufacture of pleasure craft.

Expand scientific collaboration among the three countries on energy - specifically, among other subjects, on the sequestration of carbon dioxide, on the use of carbon dioxide in the recovery of oil, on clean-coal technology and on renewable energy sources.

Establish ways to identify invasive alien species in North American waterways.

Develop and sign a declaration of intent on the conservation of North American birds and their habitat. --

To think that if it wasn't for the likes of Mel Hurtig and Sue, we could long ago have addressed such monumental issues as 'Set compatible standards for the manufacture of pleasure craft.'

Makes my blood boil.

The difficulty with defending 'Canadian sovereignty' as such is that it's patently obvious that it would be better if we were all just one big happy global family and the racial, religious, cultural, nationalist, etc., problems that have plagued since the dawn of recorded history were put behind us as we all happily co-existed while zipping across the galaxy on whatever starship Enterprise the future might bring.

I tend to think that Galbraith though in those terms, rather than the 'globalisation' we're presented with now. The pinions of our current 'globalisation' to my mind don't correspond to that from which 'Mr. Galbraith never wavered in his conviction that the need for social reform - to lessen poverty, income inequality and corporate crime - surpassed the need for economic efficiency.'

Reynolds is obviously intelligent enough to turn an idea on its head to support a concept totally opposite to that intended, and as such he should be ashamed of himself. But, perhaps he'd never understand why.

I love the 'only a leftist would ever oppose (this nonsense)' spin of the article, as opposed to the more obvious reality that only an idiot and/or sociopath could support the world and future we're presented with now. This goes way beyond political ideology.

The big fight we're in has nothing to do with 'nationalism'. It has everything to do with a world where democracy and the values most of us believe humanity should hold, or at least aspire too, are paramount.

Same fight every human has ever had, even if they might not have understood it as such.

Give me a 'globalised' world on those terms and I'll happily describe myself as a global citizen of Canadian heritage. Lacking it, I'd prefer to remain an 'uncooperative' Canadian.

But, maybe I'm just getting crotchety in my old age.

On a different topic, I'd like to note that this Geeklog version tells me that 'humour' is misspelled while 'humor' is not.

I'm so petty at times.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

Economic integration, especially globalization creates more waste and more pollution, but this might be too much to comprehend by brainwashed ideologues and paid propagandists.

The most energy and resource efficient economies are locally based, overlapping, self governing circles and not monstrosities governed by and for the benefit of multinationals, separating the producers from the users.

Somebody should tell this pathetic PR hack what democracy is supposed to be about. Definitely not about "competition" and economies ruled by the stock and money markets.

Ed Deak,