Michael is right. I apologise for not stating whom he was quoting. ------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150 On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Michael Eisenscher wrote: > Bill and List: > > I would appreciate it if, when you reply to an article I have posted, you > identify the author rather than me or make clear that I am not the author > but only the person who posted the article. To read Bill's response, one > would think I wrote the comments on NAFTA. I will take full responsibilty > for my own thoughts and comments. I don't want to be held responsible for > the range of views expressed in articles I repost. The alternative is that > I simply cease posting other people's material to the list. > > Thanks, > Michael > > At 08:59 AM 9/9/97 -0700, Bill Burgess wrote: > >On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Michael Eisenscher quoted: > >> > >> 1) NAFTA has created new problems. > >> > >> Our food supply is less safe. Due to the increase in border traffic > >> in meat and produce, more food with dangerous pesticide residues or > >> bacteria is getting to our kitchens. Less than 1 percent of the imports of > >> fruit and vegetables coming from Mexico is inspected at the border. > >> > >> The diminished inspection rates along our border has resulted in an > >> unprecedented flow of illegal drugs. Along our southern border, the drugs > >> and uninspected foods are coming across in over-large, often unsafe trucks, > >> which have increased access to U.S. highways under NAFTA. > > > >> Instead of creating jobs, as the pro-"free trade" corporate lobbyists > >> predicted, NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. > >> jobs. > >> > >> Instead of cleaning up the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border, > >> water and air pollution have increased. A massive increase of industries > >> has pushed the border ecology to the breaking point. > >> > > > >Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary > >approach. Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA > >would be just fine. Citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico > >is incredible hypocracy. These are yuppie Perot arguments - lets oppose > >NAFTA for **good** reasons! > > > >Bill Burgess > > > > > >
