Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."
Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allows foreign investors to sue government when they feel expropriation has taken place. For example, a Canadian company had sued the United States for $970 million, under NAFTA's Chapter 11, because of a environmental regulation in California. Now this was not just some "hippy libs" trying to pass another law about the environment. It began over MTBE, a chemical added to gasoline to help clean the air. The problem with this chemical is that was found to cause cancer in lab rats. The major issue arose when the drinking water tested positive to MTBE contamination. The contamination was linked to several leaks in gas stations. American citizens living in or around the area did not feel comfortable with the idea of being exposed to MTBE through their water, and as much as the state tried to clean up the contamination, the tainted water spread. So the state enacted a regulation. This environmental regulation was passed on 25 March 1999, and it ordered MTBE be phased out of all gasoline sold in California. However, this was not welcomed by the Canadian company, Methanex, who is the largest producer of MTBE. A few months after the regulation was passed, Methanex sued the United States. Methanex explains their choice to sue under Chapter 11. Although, they do not mention the whole part about their product producing cancer in lab rats. They did not receive a settlement as of 2005.
Ok, we live in America, and one of the benefits of being an American is that anyone can sue the crap out of someone else for any reason whatsoever. So the aforementioned story on the surface seems like something acceptable by American standards. But the thing about Americans suing Americans is that it goes through the American court system. If the case goes to trial, American citizens are the jury. Wasn't it Lincoln who envisioned the future to have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people?"
With NAFTA's Chapter 11, another citizen or company from a foreign country who is part of NAFTA can sue the United States of America. The suit filed is then reviewed by a tribunal (mostly international law experts), who make a decision. No American citizen or legislation is admitted. If the US loses, the government is subject to pay out. Now who does the government get all its money from? That's right, us! The American taxpayer. Where has democracy gone? The American people, in this instance, have NO voice in a matter involving themselves. Where has democracy gone?
On the other hand, an American citizen, or an American company can sue a foreign company under Chapter 11 if they feel they have been expropriated. The first claim filed under Chapter 11 was by an American company, Metalclad, against Mexico. You can go here to read the rest of the story.
I would like to think that America has the right to get rid of a chemical that has been found to cause cancer in lab rats. I would like to think that Mexican citizens have the right to demand that a company cleans up their toxic waste dump, before they start to accept more waste. I think that Canada should have the right to ban deadly chemicals produced by US companies that are banned in America without the fear that they will be sued for expropriation. I think that countries should have the right to put warnings on cigarette packages without the fear of being sued for expropriation. I think that if a product sucks, it needs to be fixed or taken off the market. I think that it is ridiculous that Metalclad won its claim against Mexico because a tribunal thought it appropriate.
The following is an exert from a speech given by our President on 6 November 2003:

Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root.

All people deserve to be free. Democracy has been uprooted in this country, Mr. Bush. Should it not also be strategically important to build a firm foundation of democracy in our own country, before we try to impose this belief on others? Shouldn't we be a democratic country before we try to make other countries democratic? Would it not be a lie, a falsehood, Mr. President? But I suppose that because these countries are "of great strategic importance" we must not let them pass from our hands.

For your listening pleasure...

Heart Home Mayer

Man alive, it's been awhile since I posted anything. I finished up this year at school, I am proud of myself for finishing this much so far. I have moved back to New Port Richey, not under the best of circumstances. But whatever, some situations are out of my control. I just need to find a job and go from there. Anyway, back to my purpose:

The word "home" has always intrigued me. It is defined as "the place where one lives permanently, esp. as a member of a family or household." However, that definition seems un-proper. I remember as a child, my family had a plaque in the house that said "Home is where the heart is," and we all have heard this cliche before. To understand this cliche a bit more, one must define "heart." Heart is "a hollow muscular organ that pumps the blood through the circulatory system by rhythmic contraction and dilation..." or "the center of a person's thoughts or emotions, esp. love or compassion." Having never read these definitions prior to this moment, many thoughts are traveling in my brain. In reflecting on the word "heart" in the forementioned phrase/cliche:

• One could say that home is where a persons literal heart (the muscular organ that pumps the blood through the circulatory system by rhythmic contraction and dilation) is at any given moment. Which may be a comforting thought, being that one need not look outside oneself to find home. But then again, this may leave one closed off to anything outside themselves, when in actuality the connection between humans and the whole of the universe however seamless, are indisputable.
  
• One could say that home is the center of ones thoughts or emotions rooted in love and compassion. Now, love and compassion may both be directed inward, but one may not understand either love or compassion solitarily. Therefor, with this definition, one must look outside oneself to find home.

The second definition of "heart" clarifies a question I have asked myself. To prepare for this question, some information must be given. I believe that the creative arts is an invaluable tool to both express and receive understanding on multiple levels. I believe that there is no definite line between the sacred and the secular (meaning one may express truth of God or receive truth from God whatever and wherever the creative medium may be). I believe music goes much deeper than notes played or lyrics sung. I believe that music influences people in their thoughts and emotion. I believe that music allows the listener to understand the thoughts and emotions and the meaning of the artist on an unexplainable level. I believe that if the heart is the center of ones thoughts and emotions, than the creative arts, specifically music, is an expression of heart. Ergo, my question (I have said this for years): John Mayer's music is home for me. His music makes me feel home. It makes me feel as if whatever situation I am faced with and wherever I am located at a specific moment, for the duration of the song I am home. I can breathe. I can believe that things will be good. I feel secure. I feel safe. I find home in a song. Why? Is it sweet? Is it sad? Set the person of John Mayer aside (although he seems like a kick-ass guy). It is the music he creates. It is the feeling that his music gives to me. There is a validity of feeling. I find reflections of my heart in the chords and lyrics and rhythm of the music he creates. For that I am truly thankful.

Time Travel

So I am reading "The Time Traveler’s Wife" again, because it is a sweet/sad/beautiful expression of life. After the preface of the book there is a poem that I seemed to linger over. I did not do this the first time I read the book, because I was super-interested in finding out what happen. But as I read the this book for the second time, I will allow myself to sit back, relax, enjoy and linger over every word that seems to "spark my interest." Anyway here is the poem (think about...it...linger...and...allow yourself to understand the deeper meaning behind the words that are typed on the page):

Oh not because happiness exists,
that too-hasty profit snatched form approaching loss.

But because truly being here is so much; because everything here
apparently needs us, this fleeting world, which in some strange way
keeps calling to us. Us, the most fleeting of all.

...Ah, but what can we take along
into that other realm? Not the art of looking
which is learned so slowly, and nothing that happened here. Nothing.
The sufferings, then. And, above all, the heaviness,
and the long experience of love,--just what is wholly unsayable

~from The Ninth Duino Elegy
Rainer Maria Rilke
translated by Stephen Mitchell

Oh, the Joy...

Since Saturday, yours truly has rollebladed a combined total of almost 30 miles. There is nothing better than putting on the blades and listening to a little Matt Chandler while going as fast as you can against the wind for the first half of the ride. Then on the way back the wind seems to push you on. A little help for a weary soul, if you will. It has been wonderful and stretching and wonderful. I have been somewhat afraid to go to Fort Fraser Trail, because of the closeness of the trail to US Hwy 98 S. But my worries were suppresses with the realization of the fact that there are a couple of people who drive, in a golf cart, up and down the trail. The most amazing part of the whole thing is being able to smile at each of the people I ride past. In my mind it is like you are saying to each other, without words, "Hey, good for you. We are doing this. We are taking care of ourselves; improving our health. You can do this. I believe in you." They may even be thinking that that I am crazy for smiling so big on this hot, windy day, and that they just want to smile and pass quickly so I will stop looking at them. The thing about that is I don't really care. In my head we are encouraging each other, and nothing says community more than that.

I just got tickets

As it turns out I got pretty good seats at an amazing venue, Ruth Eckerd Hall, to see what will be a great show. I have seen Motion City Soundtrack once before, a few years ago, when life was peaches and people really didn't know that much about Motion City. They were doing a campus craw tour with The Matches and From First to Last and Matchbook Romance and a couple of other bands. I went with my brother, Josh, to the show in Tallahassee at FSU. My brother somehow got into contact with the band manager and we were able to listen, on their tour bus, to their then newly master album, "Commit this to Memory." Anyway, I am super-excited to see them again. They are going on tour with The Hush Sound and Phantom Planet. Oh, and Panic at the Disco is headlining. And this is my exciting news for today.

Oh, also, did anyone know that Wal-Mart sells a rake that you have to assemble? I didn't even know that it should ever be necessary to assemble a rake. Well, I guess that is what you get when you shop at Wal-Mart and spend $6 on a rake. Fact: I took it back today and was schooled about the whole rake assembly thing.

Fact #2: Jason Schwartzman was the former drummer for Phantom Planet. He chose to leave the band to peruse his acting career. I can't be the one to say that he made a wise choice, but I will say that I enjoy his acting ability immensely.

Questions that must have answers, but are there any definitive answers?

My heart is heavy as I sit here at Panera Bread in Lakeland. I am about to travel that two hour journey to my hometown of New Port Richey, which has been delayed because I have been reading blogs all day. It struck me in the past couple of days how utterly confused I am in regards to our government. I live in America and enjoy its freedoms, so on one level I feel somewhat unjustified in the opinions that I have. Yet on another level my freedom is to have opinions and to voice them. This is the reason I am grateful to live in the country that I do. I think that one of the most important things somebody can do is to question? For how else will one know the reasons one believes what she (or he) actually believes? Now, I do have legitimate questions in regards to the nation that I live in. As I got kicked off the internet at Panera because you are only alloted one half hour to use the internet during peak hours, I thought about all the legitimate questions that I have:

• Can you truly support the troops and be in opposition to the reasons that we are fighting the war?
  

• What about the people who acquire financial gain as a result of many people dying (i.e. Halliburton, Blackwater...etc.)? Is is not morally criminal to make even a cent off of war-- off of the death of any person?
  

• Is it America’s job, or right even, to police the world? Are we fighting someone else’s battle?
  

• How about during the 80s and 90s when we knew that Iraq (Saddam Hussein) had used chemical weapons on Iran and the Kurdish people? Why did Rumsfeld not mention that when he spoke to Suddam back then (29 November 1993)? Why were we on Saddam’s side then and not so much now?
  

• How do you legitimately fight a war against “terror?” When can this war end if we are not fighting a "war on terror" against a nation itself, but in a nation of people who are not all terrorists?
  

• If we were fighting a group of people, why did we not just attack them (i.e. terrorists)?
  

• What is the desired outcome of the war (for both the Americans and the people in Iraq)? Do we want to fight terror or do we want Iraq to be a democratic society or is it both?
  

• What is America gaining as a result of the war?
  

• Can we even pull out now? What would be the repercussions of doing that?

• Who are we becoming indebted to (China?) as a result of the war (over $9,371,546,240,411.65 so far)? Is it possible to even get out of that much debt? Who will even pay for this debt?

• Are we over there so we will not be attacked again? If so, are we any safer now (by fighting a war over there) than we were before?
  

• What if we sent aid instead of war and attacked just the terrorists?
  

So there you go. Those are the questions I ask, and I encourage whoever reads this to answer to the best of there ability, with the understanding they possess at the present time. Or at the very least, how about think them through...

If you do not want to comment, you can just to e-mail me your answer at nemni01@gmail.com