China begins to take control of U.S. banks.

[HairOfTheDog]

What are your primary objections to it?

I believe it threatens the US sovereignty a bit... it restricts certain ship movements that could hamper national security and it would impose taxes on economic activity that is currently not taxed. Those taxes aren't paid to the US... they are paid to an international body that decides how they are levied and how they will be spent.

That said, it will likely get ratified eventually. It use seems like one of those useless treaties that isn't really needed. :/

My primary concern with LOST is also on putting some decision making regarding US naval activity in the hands of the UN or its independent governing body. I'm also concerned about it adding extra cost to off-shore drillers via royalty paid to the independent body; this will be passed on to consumers.

Having said that, I typically support globalization measures and think we are sometimes too American-centric in our views. This treaty has been kickin' around the White House and Congress since the Reagan days, without ratification. I don't think it's designed to solve a problem so much as to establish a fair official governing of the world's oceans and provide some equitable redistribution of wealth from what's produced therein. Obama, Kerry, Lugar, and Hilary Clinton are pushing it like crack. Over 150 nations, including the European Union, have signed the treaty. Makes me wonder, "what am I missing?".

It will be interesting to see how this develops over the next month. I have concerns, but it's been difficult to find unbiased research fairly covering the "pros" and "cons" imo; maybe more detailed coverage will be available as it approaches vote.