Boy Scouts vs. CAFTA

[fgoodwin]

Boy Scouts vs. CAFTA

 

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/boy-scouts-vs-cafta-2005-07-28.html

 

Thursday, July 28, 2005

 

By Vivian Greentree

 

Picture this: A group of over 600 Boy Scouts marches onto a field singing and then sits down in the grass to wait for President Bush. But hours later, the news that Bush couldn't make it is drowned out by sirens and shouts as hundreds fell ill because of the high temperature.

 

While Boy Scouts waited at their annual Jamboree for Pres. Bush to come and tell them about what it means to be a good citizen, he was busy twisting arms, old school style, on Capitol Hill. The Pres., who was scheduled to give a speech yesterday to the Scouts, had a more important issue on the table....passing his pet project CAFTA.

 

You have to read various news stories to put this scenario together, but damned if it isn't true...

 

Ironic isn't it?

 

Playing by politics as usual, the Pres. knew he had to pass CAFTA or be seen as a whipping boy for the rest of his (thankfully short) administration. During debates yesterday, when the pressure was really on to get CAFTA passed (it passed by 2 votes) GOPers fell back to the old play book by calling anyone and anything that opposed them pinko-commies.

 

"We must not neglect the anti-democracy, anti-American forces that are at work in Latin America," said Republican representative from California David Dreier in support of CAFTA-DR during the two-hour debate before the vote.

 

Whatever Dave, we all know your interests are much more oriented toward your own wallet. The CAFTA legislation is more about institutionalizing cheap labor than about...no, I take that back...it is about institutionalizing the free trade of cheap labor...

 

But the Pres., as usual, completely turns common sense on its head (while skillfully incorporating his 2 favs, morality and national security):

 

"CAFTA helps ensure that free trade is fair trade by lowering trade barriers to American goods in Central American markets to a level now enjoyed by their goods in the US," he said.

 

We have a moral obligation and a vital national security interest in helping democracies of Central America and the Dominican Republic succeed, and CAFTA furthers that goal," he added.

 

What he didn't mention, though, is that CAFTA actually allows businesses here (i.e. his friends) to sue the Federal Govt. for damages that they feel are caused by having to follow Fed. regulations?!?! Figure that one out.

 

Oh, and don't think I am not going to track down those 15 Democrats who crossed over to vote for it either...all of Lefty Blogdom is going to be out for them!

 

Anyway, just thought it was interesting that the Scouts got shafted so the U.S. could get CAFTED....

[NJCubScouter]

So fgoodwin, I assume what you are saying is, we should all be angry at the President for his rudeness to the Boy Scouts?

[fgoodwin]

Assuming is a dangerous thing. I didn't say anything. Do you have any reaction to the author's thesis?

[NJCubScouter]

fgoodwin opines:

 

Assuming is a dangerous thing.

 

I actually wasn't assuming anything. I was being sarcastic. Humorously so, in my own mind, anyway.

 

I didn't say anything.

 

I noticed that. In fact, I have noticed that about a number of the articles that you post. Perhaps it would be a better conversation-starter if you actually do say what you think about the articles, so we don't have to guess at what your point is. Though, of course, that's up to you.

 

Do you have any reaction to the author's thesis?

 

What exactly do you think that "thesis" is? I don't really see a thesis. What I see is sort of a cheap shot at the President, but a rather mild one as political writing goes, and certainly much milder than most of the commentary that I see and hear hurled from the "other side of the aisle" on a regular basis. I did think it was kind of funny, though (unlike the "satire" that you posted around the same time. And I mostly share the writer's opinion of "free trade legislation" which I personally think is a scam on the American worker, but that's probably best reserved for a different forum.)

[Trevorum]

Fred, only your friends will tell you ...

 

... massive cut-n-paste jobs are tiresome in a forum. If you want to bring attention to an article, just post the link with a short description. Readers can follow up or not as they choose.

[fgoodwin]

Nick, I've already explained why I cut and paste the entire article. Many web articles are archived after a week (or a month, or whatever the local editorial policy is).

 

At the time the link goes dead, future readers will have no way to read the actual text and decide for themselves if quotes were lifted out of contaxt (for example, as I've been accused of doing -- one of the things that prompted me to adopt this policy).

 

Its possible you missed my explanation -- so don't take my first statement as chastising.

 

And to answer NJCS's question: it seems to me that the author's thesis is that President Bush cancelled his appearance just so he could see that CAFTA was passed.

 

And it doesn't appear to be satire -- I think the author is quite serious, but of course I could be wrong.

[evmori]

I'm sure there is probably a point somewhere that isn't getting through my thick skull! All these articles about bad Boy Scout this & bad Boy Scout that! You'd think this is an ACLU site! Like I said, I'm almost probably sure there is a point likely somewhere.

[fgoodwin]

Ed, I don't believe this article says anything bad about the Boy Scouts. But it does give an interesting theory as to why the President may have cancelled his initial Jamboree appearance.

[CA_Scouter]

"But it does give an interesting theory as to why the President may have cancelled his initial Jamboree appearance."

 

I dunno, but I'm thinking he may have been kidnapped by space aliens. I have my theories too, ya know. :-)

 

OK, sarcasm aside, how is President Bush's "arm-twisting" and "business as usual" any different from any other President or politician?

 

Thankfully this article seems to be written with the intent on presenting a reasonable representation of the facts, not an op-ed piece intended to present a slanted point of view.

 

< you may now wipe the dripping sarcasm off of your keyboards >

 

Sorry, guess I'm in an ornery mood tonight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

My theory is George Bush was still reading that book about a pet goat.

[Trevorum]

"The great thing about books is sometimes there is pictures!"