Friday, August 10, 2007

Three Cheers to the NAU!

A few weeks ago I was forced to sell my soul to the local cell phone service provider. All right, so I forced myself, but nevertheless, I ended up in Chester at the local Edge office, signing away two years of my life so that I might more easily communicate with whomever I wish. Of course there was plenty of time for conversation while things were set up, so myself and my father (who was also signing away his freedom) found ourselves the captive audience of the very helpful and rather interesting salesman there. He began chattering away about Digital Angel and how we're loosing our privacy etc. I had just seen Enemy Of The State so I was semi-up to date (I knew what he was talking about generally). But then he started talking about the United States, Canada and Mexico merging. In a very loose sense of course, the three nations would still be seperate, but there would be no borders in between. Federated, as it were. Not only that, but there were plans to create a common currency among these three nations. Any guesses as to what it would be called? That's right.... just like the Euro in Europe, this would be called the "Amero". I chuckled to myself and thought "heh, this is incredible... and rather frightening". By then I had spent more than I intended to and we were set up for the most part, so we left, leaving our thanks and our laughs.

Sure, it's incredible. After talking to a few gentlemen from my church directly after leaving the shop, I began thinking how ridiculous it sounded. Why would the American Dollar and the Mexican Peso merge? How could they? We're closer to the Canadian Dollar, but still, the American Dollar Bill is a symbol that is known by dang near every human being on the face of the globe. How could it suddenly cease to exist?

Well... I suppose I stand corrected. Poke around the net a bit... it all looks legitimate. The plan is that by 2010 there will be no border between the U.S. and Canada and Mexico, only a border surrounding the three nations. The three countries will be refered to as the North American Union (like the European Union) and the Amero will be installed soon after (why can't we be original?).

Honestly, I can see how people would have problems with this, but I think it's kind of neat. The brotherhood of the nations, as it were. Maybe I'm a traitor, maybe I'm just un-patriotic, but I'm for the idea. If someone else starts dictating the actions of the U.S., I'd help to liberate ourselves.... again. We rebeled for our liberty once, I think that we will again if we need to. But... at the moment I'm just open-minded. I wouldn't mind just considering myself a Californian....

Thursday, August 02, 2007

The Thursday Post: Week 13: Change of Course

I was pondering the amount of new, exciting, and utterly intelligent matter being put forth from my lowly brain these days, and my conclusion was alarming. Aside from having to use my math skills in my newly acquired carpentry job and my somewhat regular research on the production of methanol, it seems as if I have been shunning the very idea of thinking these past two months entirely. So I said to myself: "self... to bloody heck with what I've been doing on this blog! I can't expect a good turn out when all I post are school essays brought back from the shadowy depths of my folders." No my dear reader(s)! I told myself that I must come up with something fresh, new and provoking, with a colorful flourish to it and great sense of verbal play.

In conclusion! I have decided to turn The Thursday Post into a social/economical/political/ethical commentary. Suffice to say I have no idea how this is really going to turn out. I'm on a bit of an intellectual high right now, with the desire to be excessively wordy and rather rebelliously dubious. Perhaps in a few weeks I will settle down into my old habit of posting regurgitated class work... we shall see.

First order of business: Bill Clinton

Having spent some time with my politically liberal employer (one out of the two I work for the most), I have been exposed to not quite Republican views, and, heaven forbid, socially-commentating-country-western-hick-bands from Alabama (or somewhere nearby). That's right, now I spend a good amount of my laboring days listening to groups such as Steve Earle, James McMurtry, and The Drive-by Truckers. I enjoy most of it, but the music adds a completely new element to my life. It's as if a group of radical hippie protesters with guitars poetically broke into my brain.

One song by The Drive-by Truckers sparked a bit of an interesting conversation betwixt myself and said employer. Pardon my French, and I know that this will sound very, very strange, but the song is entitled (divert your eyes right about now ladies) "The President's Penis is Missing". Basically, the Drive-by Truckers argue, and my employer and many others agree, that a President who is helping our economy ought not to be discarded based on his sex life. In a nutshell, that's what they are saying. The media had their eye on the President's social life more than on what he was doing for the country. The argument my boss made was that, if the C.E.O. of a major corporation could be as promiscuous as he likes without endangering the stock of the company, why isn't it the same for the President? Why should we care?

First of all, let me be quite frank in saying that I have no idea what Clinton did for our country. All that I hear about him is regarding the scandal. I haven't done my homework and I am in no ways ready to critique Bill Clinton as an economical ruler. HOWEVER, I can in theory respond to the statements set forth in the previous paragraph. Why SHOULD we care? Well, I'd like to think that a leader's private life will influence his public life. The Truckers would like to say that personal morality has nothing to do with how great of a public leader the President can be. They would like to say that the office of the President is strictly a public job, and thus his private life is irrelevant (note to the band and to anyone else to whom it may concern: correct me if I am mistaken). But are not the public and private lives of the President but two different views of the life of the same man?! How can one separate the two?! To do so would be to cut a man in half, which is ridiculous! How can we trust a man who cheats on his wife not to cheat on the nation which he serves? Is this too harsh? Too unreasonable?
The Creator