By Judith Gayle | Political Waves
This is a week in which we’ve seen encouraging progress on important issues: the withdrawal of the Comcast/Time Warner merger after receiving heavy scrutiny from the FCC; the approval of our first black female Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, after over five months of stonewalling; the Supremes smacking down voting rights discrimination in North Carolina.
The passage of the Human Trafficking bill came with less enthusiastic applause from the left. Held up due to questions of abortion for trafficking victims, the Dems relented when a secondary funding stream was established that was not subject to Hyde Amendment restrictions (monies collected from fines, not taxes). Let’s call this one a draw, but a win, at least in terms of allowing a vote for Lynch.
Despite these advances, this has been a tough week for Obama, who went public with the death of two hostages killed during a drone strike on an al Qaeda compound. This was a CIA black-op in Pakistan, successful in targeting ‘bad guys’ but with insufficient intelligence about the ‘good ones’ being held in the encampment. Obama held a briefing, apologizing to the families of the hostages, one American, one Italian, but with no mention of the deaths of two other Americans-gone-rogue — al Qaeda operatives — killed by U.S. military in January, one in this operation.
This has drawn attention back to our use of drones crossing international borders in search of terrorists, once more spotlighting our everlasting gobstopper of a WOT (war on terror). While it seems a chilling process, it takes a collection of these reports in order to get our attention, and even more disheartening, a collective public outcry to impact the policy. Add another chalk mark on the wall then, for public debate about drones (rather than boots on the ground), which despite being at question ethically, have become a recruitment tool for Islamic radicals. And that doesn’t begin to account for the national shame of ‘collateral damage,’ arguably in the thousands.
While Obama announced that he took full responsibility for the deaths of these innocents, he has also taken personal responsibility for an argument that has erupted between him and the Progressive Caucus, including many Dems who fall into the moderate camp. They have endured what Senator Sherrod Brown called an “unprecedented” “full-court press” from the administration to wave through fast track legislation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP). This has caused a donnybrook between that champion of progressive fiscal policy, Elizabeth Warren, and the Prez. And as it turns out, it’s highly personal.
A bit of background: the TPP is a pending trade agreement, five years in the making, between nearly a dozen Asian Pacific nations, including Japan, Mexico, Vietnam and Australia. Obama is dedicated to achieving this agreement, nailing down the rules that keep Chinese dominance at bay while protecting intellectual property, among other things, but there are serious questions about how this will play out in our brave new 21st century. Unfortunately, negotiations have been accomplished far from public scrutiny and with the help of corporate lobbyists and Wall Street savants.
Here’s Katrina vanden Heuvel of “The Nation” to define that process:
The TPP is a classic expression of the way the rules are fixed to benefit the few and not the many. It has been negotiated in secret, but 500 corporations and banks sit on advisory committees with access to various chapters. The lead negotiator, Michael Froman, was a protégé of former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, and followed him from Treasury to Citibank, the bank whose excesses helped blow up the economy before it had to be bailed out. Although corporations are wired in, the American people are locked out of the TPP negotiations. And, as Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said, “Members of Congress and their staff have an easier time accessing national security documents than proposed trade deals, but if I were negotiating this deal I suppose I wouldn’t want people to see it either.”
Corporations have their fingers in this pie because of their inclusion on U.S. Trade Representative advisory panels. Corporate reps number about 500, while another hundred slots are set aside for (less fiscally influential) representatives of organized labor, environmental and other groups that have interest in global economic affairs. All are pledged to secrecy.
About two years ago we began to hear murmurs about these negotiations, at about the same time that income inequality became apparent as a defining political issue. We know how this works: these big issues hide in plain sight until enough people take notice to bloom into full-fledged public awareness. One of the first to give a warning shout was Florida Rep, Alan Grayson, who pursued the secretive negotiation documents after examining a leaked document in 2012 that put liberals on alert.
Grayson is a fearless progressive, a plain-spoken man who was primaried and beaten by a Bagger in 2010 but returned to the House in 2012. After examining documents of the TPP draft, he fired the first warning shot about the trade deal that got my attention. Said Grayson, in 2013:
“What I saw was nothing that could possibly justify the secrecy that surrounds it. It is ironic in a way that the government thinks it’s alright to have a record of every single call that an American makes, but not alright for an American citizen to know what sovereign powers the government is negotiating away.” […]
“Having seen what I’ve seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty. And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that’s fair to say from what I’ve seen so far. But I’m not allowed to tell you why!”
Coming up to speed, the negotiations have matured over the ensuing months, but information about the resulting deal is still scarce as hen’s teeth. A fast track option would give Obama authority to make the deal without congressional discussion or amendment, requiring only an up/down vote. One would think this to be unpopular with Pubs, but evidently not. As long as corporate needs are being served, to hell with their commitment to oversight.
Dems, on the other hand, are taking fits, as illustrated by Harry Reid’s comment on the topic: “Not only no, but hell no.” Ditto Nancy Pelosi, but in more elegant lady-terms, demurring on the “disappointing” bill — known as Trade Promotion Authority — proposed by two Pubs (Ryan and Hatch) and Oregon Dem, Ron Wyden, while “looking for a path to yes.” But it was Elizabeth Warren who defined the progressive position.
“Before we sign on to rush through a deal like that – no amendments, no delays, no ability to block a bad bill – the American people should get to see what’s in it,” said the senator. Privy to the particulars, the Dems question if the trade deal will, in fact, provide increase in economic objectives that boost the economy and provide jobs, as advertised, or instead exacerbate income inequality.
No longer trusting the plutocracy, the left “want obligations written into the law that trading partners must live up to, not just objectives.” Warren suggested that Obama seemed to be deliberately hiding the facts from the public, adding, “If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it, then that agreement should not become the law of the United States.”
Obama expressed his frustration with the process of herding the rowdy Dems into his corner on this project, having asked them to trust him and his record for middle-class advocacy. It was at that point that he called dissenters wrong on the facts, saying “I would not be putting this forward if I was not absolutely certain that this was gonna be good for American workers.” We got a taste of that Leo temperament of his when he added, “When people say that this trade deal is bad for working families, they don’t know what they’re talking about. I take that personally. My entire presidency has been about helping working families.”
OK. Now, pardon me if I stop a moment to ponder the emotion behind those words. I’m not a starry-eyed Obama supporter. Neither am I painting this administration with a “dark and dismal” brush, or one wearing a “happy face” either — I just want to know what changed, what Obama sees that I don’t and why he says Elizabeth Warren doesn’t know what she’s talking about. I’d like to hear Obama’s actual argument for it, not the rhetoric that gets repeated over and over, reported by the talking heads. And while we’re at it, I’d like to know what other coercive secrets lie behind the TPP curtain.
I know what establishment politics is about, but those words — “I take that personally,” –hit a different chord than, say, when George W. defended his positions by calling himself “the Decider,” or when Rummy held forth on the “known unknowns” or even when Big Bill attempted to re-write the definition of sex by rethinking what “is” is. Obama’s statement feels very real to me. He seems to feel as though he’s putting his reputation on the line with this agreement, which on its face looks too flawed for a progressive to support.
Politics is the process by which the people we hire, by vote, bring balance to our financial, cultural and international relations. Their efforts design the world we inhabit today and will live in tomorrow. Obama is taking his vision for America personally, and — as he’s changed that view on trade from the one he campaigned on long ago — he must have a reason to be pounding the pulpit so strongly. Some would say we’ve already seen that presidential turnabout, i.e., betrayal, in troops sent here or there, drone strikes and matters of national security, but that feels different to me. Being shoved around by the complexity of the military-industrial complex as elected-savior of the world has a different flavor, entirely.
Me, I’m taking these politics personally as well. I believe that we no longer live in that insular world where we can do without one another, globally, nor do I think the politics of this age have much in common with those Bill Clinton wrestled when he gave us a trade agreement that has proven so detrimental. Trade agreements are a necessity, as are allies in a dangerously fractured civilization, and by and large, when we look back, we will note that Barack Obama has changed the trajectory of this nation and the way we do business on a global stage. But what my progressive leaders say reflects my portion of this process. While Obama steers the ship of state on a different course, my job — and yours — is to keep him honest.
What we really need now is a lot of sunshine, showing up in politics and culture and business, as well as in our relationships, our work experience, our inner dialogue. We need clarity, and if we look at what is — not dwell on what was or what might be — we can catch glimmers of the essential facts that describe us. Offering a helping hand, the universe seems to be demanding truth as well, creating glitches and gaffes that pull back the curtains and reveal reality, even if some of us choose to look away. There must be other shoes to fall in this matter of trade, and as we all live with the result of NAFTA, Obama is going to have to pony up some proof that TPP has more to offer than “more of the same.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is only one of many groups advocating against this treaty, their interest primarily environmental. With 40 percent of the world’s economy at stake, and many undeveloped areas at risk, the NRDC point to leaked documents that propose giving multinational companies the right to sue the federal government if environmental laws impede their profits. And polluters would press their claims in trade tribunals, behind closed doors and far from public scrutiny. “The Nation” piece, above, details examples.
You can sign their petition against the fast track agreement here, although this legislation is moving through committee quickly due to GOP approval. If you are seriously interested in making your voice heard, contact your legislators (here) and let them know how you feel about fast tracking an agreement constructed in secret, influenced by corporations and bankers. Let them know you want sunshine on this process and the details of the agreement itself. If you are interested in other activist opportunities, Google “TPP Fast Track activism.”
Politics can’t get much more personal than jobs and bank accounts and growing inequality, than assaults to our mutual environment. Those reading this, living the result of political decisions of the past, can surely attest. As Joe Biden would tell us, the TPP is a BFD. It’s time to take this VERY personally.
Bless you Jude for laying out the big picture. Myself, I’ve gone back and forth over this TPP thing, knowing that everyone I listen to and whose thoughts I read knows just as little about it as I do, with the exception of President Obama. I think he’s coming from a place of competitiveness with China, and the rest of us are coming from a place of fear and distrust.
What I do know is that transiting Jupiter is no longer conjunct the President’s natal Sun, but Sauer is, and that asteroid was named after a rocket scientist who knew how to get a spacecraft to an asteroid.
What’s more, I know that transiting Neptune is conjunct the U.S. Sibly Nessus (in the Sibly 3rd house of communication) and still square the U.S Uranus, and that’s gonna bring out a lot of various poisons suppressed in the U.S. psyche. I know that transiting Eris in the U.S. Sibly 4th house is still, STILL quincunx the U.S. Sibly Neptune (in the 9th house of foreign things), which the President’s natal Mars conjuncts, and that’s gonna produce a lot of confusion and discord. Transiting Neptune will conjunct U.S. Nessus for almost 4 months, back off then come back again next February and March. U.S. Neptune will be pushed by transiting Eris for what seems like the rest of my life, but probably not that long.
I really, really want to trust the President, really I do. But he’s human like the rest of us, and he has a square between his Sun and his Neptune. What I believe is that all this Neptunian conflict (squares, conjunctions, quincunxes) is part of THE BIG PLAN the Universe has, and is meant to deliberately obscure something else going on during the confusion over what the TPP could mean for us all, including the planet itself. I continue to search for what the nature of THAT beast is.
Meanwhile, Loretta Lynch (who was born 16 days after Brian Williams, thanks for the dob Len), and her natal Uranus at 12+ Leo conjuncts the President’s natal Sun, which might prove to be a bit disruptive in and of itself. However, Loretta’s Uranus also makes a minor aspect to her Saturn, and another minor aspect to her Chiron which is conjunct the U.S. Sibly Moon in Aquarius.
Her natal Saturn also makes a minor aspect to her Chiron, and these 3 planets, Uranus, Saturn and Chiron are (in my opinion) operating together, transiting or in natal charts, to transform the way we experience Aquarius energies. Because they are minor aspects (Loretta’s) they are more subtle than overt, and because – at this point – Loretta is ruffling fewer feathers then her predecessor did, I believe she will activate this transforming process (of Aquarius energy) in a rather sublime manner. Perhaps the TPP kerfuffle is part of the obscuring effect that will allow Loretta to do her thing with less scrutiny then would otherwise be the case. I’m watching you Loretta!
be
Number One: Our (U.S.) Constitution consider Treaties the Supreme Law of the Land, so we must require transparency over the issue–the topic is not one of national security, it is trade. All relations regarding nations have always involved trade as an” under” if not “overtone,” so in that sense, nothing has changed.
Number Two: The American People does not require a Benevolent King, not in the form of President Bush on the Patriot Act–not in the form of President Obama on the TPP. Once we acquiesce and agree that we need to give up our power to let someone else decide, then we have done that entirely, that is chose to no longer be in charge of ourselves/independence. Pres. Obama will be leaving office, this we know for a fact, there is no retribution, there is no accountability regarding his action on TPP.
Number Three: We should take our cue from others: We already know the grasp that corporations have on the global economy and they favor TPP even more, what does this say about global labor reform, social justice, food reform and the environment? It’s about shareholder’s greed, 0f course the legal term of art is: “property rights.”
Bottom Line: We can give our authority intentionally by ignoring/acquiescing thus agreeing to give our authority to the Benevolent King or “Parental President” or actually take the power back and demand to have real dialogue and debate over the terms of the Treaty! Debate and Discourse is the very foundation of our Nation–“Transparency breeds Self-Correcting Behavior.”
What would Patrick Henry say? I don’t think it’d be, “Give me a Benevolent King or Give me Death!”
We have choice, we can acquiesce and give up our voice (and other rights) or use the links that Jude thankfully posted!
Where is Obama’s Damocles again? –when it comes to the TPP thing. It may indeed be personal, but from some perspective only he can see. Or discuss. (Having nothing to do with the TPP directly). I’ve often wondered where the knife to his back it being held? At his heart? (personal beliefs) His lungs? (what he can say) No doubt it moves around depending on the agenda. We can all remember when he lost that debate second election–his entire family looking like they had just been issued a death threat. Whatever that was hasn’t just disappeared. He’s still walking the tightrope.
Thanks, Jude. Keeping me up-to-date with the news that’s important, as always.
Why was Grayson not “allowed” to tell us “why”? Does he risk legal action against him for telling us exactly what he saw?
We should be able to see what’s in the deal. I don’t trust it at all. This deal is the sort of thing that should be broken down into everyday language, graphed, and charted for the American people to see and comprehend. Total transparency. Also, it does no good to have reps of organized labor, and environmental groups involved in the process of making this deal if they’re sworn to secrecy.
Just a quick vent..
The non-disclosure of the trade deal particulars seriously pisses me off,.. how the hell am I suppose to trust cats’ who won’t be openly honest?
If Obama is serious about taking ‘personal responsibility’ for murdering folk, where’s the prosecution? (Technically I like the dude, feel for him in his position, and realize he’s got a massive load on his shoulders.. but damnit man.. We truly require a shift in global policy that places concern for the well-being of everyone, and equanimity for all, at the forefront of any idea, discussion, debate or policy).
I would write to my representative, but he’s a dick. I’ve tried to vote the fuck out for days now, but democracy wins, and I lose.
It begins with “we’ll bring you into the secret, sign this, you must promise not to tell, and if you do, you will loose everything…oh yeah, everyone else signed it, and they won’t talk to you about it either, unless you join the club…you know how it goes, its just like a grand jury secret–we can have a frank and open dialogue without the press miring things up…and we’ll prosecute you now, because you did sign…”
We in the U.S. are not the only citizens upset about the secrecy, many others are too, especially those in Japan and Australia. From what I have read about TPP leaks, its very much about mega-corporations AND their equity backers and how they want to be guaranteed certain protections so that they can conduct their global business operations in a more stable business-friendly environment. How interesting, as Jude points out, that they can have such a strong voice at the table, where other interests–especially labor and environment– cannot. Perhaps President Obama feels he has a knife to some part of his body, it could even be his spine…
Because H. Clinton is not engaged in this process at this point, I will be looking at her leadership on this one–I think it may prove revealing, I am certain she will be strong on the IP side (especially given her closeness to Hollywood and their concerns with IP protections)…
But its the treatment of women and labor that will be very revealing, and of course the environment. As I understand it, an international tribunal will declare whether a nation’s domestic regulations are too intrusive upon a business (meaning the business is likely working at an internationally-agreed upon standard)…but we all know that regulations are more stringent in some areas either to raise standards to something minimally achievable (everywhere minimum wage for example) or to set the bar higher (California-organic food labeling, for example). If the standards are one and the same, business is stable and social progress is static, arguably, regressive in places.
Unbelievable about the lack of transparency and debate on such a critical policy matter–where is Jon Stewart???
aword, Obama Damocles 12+ Aquarius conjunct Pholus . Transiting Damocles (1st house) is opposite his natal Uranus and square his Vesta near IC (family). Good call. Also, transiting Neptune was trine (same degree different signs) his natal Neptune up until the 16th.
be
Jude You said
(OK. Now, pardon me if I stop a moment to ponder the emotion behind those words. I’m not a starry-eyed Obama supporter. Neither am I painting this administration with a “dark and dismal” brush, or one wearing a “happy face” either — I just want to know what changed, what Obama sees that I don’t and why he says Elizabeth Warren doesn’t know what she’s talking about. I’d like to hear Obama’s actual argument for it, not the rhetoric that gets repeated over and over, reported by the talking heads. And while we’re at it, I’d like to know what other coercive secrets lie behind the TPP curtain.)
Doesn’t anyone remember the astronomical figure it took to get him elected the first time around? Our elections are just expensive shows designed to make every president and senator beholding to the power that enabled. It is during the final two years of the presidency that payoffs are collected. I am unimpressed with either party as far as their rhetoric goes and their deeds always prove equally unimpressive.
We are hostage to our keepers and our survival as a democratic republic is teetering in the balance. It seems inevitable that we will be pushed beyond our tolerance soon; I hope we can muster the consciousness to make wise choices as to how we rewrite the public contract. Most of the time revolutions end badly.
I hold little hope for a political solution as long as we continue to be distracted into believing that there are two choices offered. There is only a façade of differing ideologies, surrounded by the most simplistic rhetoric, but truth is they are both on the same team.
First, about last week — apologies for being absent for such a rousing discussion. For whatever reason, I lost connection to the Interwebs and was down several days — here in the outback, no explanations are offered. Was relieved to get back on Thursday AM, so I got a nice long news fast (except for TV) but wasn’t able to comment in a timely fashion. Thanks to be for stepping up to ‘moderate;’ not to worry Lizzy if you change the subject, all comments welcome (and I see that funding has been tripled to help deal with the migrant problem in the Mediterranean;) welcome William — and thanks, everyone who offered their thoughts!
Speaking of changing the topic, I have some comments on the Sunday Pundits, who are completely preoccupied today with the latest Hillary-gate … this one to do with the international funding of the Foundation, while she was at State and now. She needs to bat back the accusations, which are pretty dire because this is being coupled with the missing e-mails (Benghazi, Benghazi!!) and they (as a family) need to do something to erect a high wall between the charity and Hillary, going forward.
Comments include the Arkansas governor saying this reminds the nation that dealings with the Clintons are “complicated” (they are) and Newt Gingrich, spouting controversy as only Newt can, declaring that this should bring indictment against Hil (Benghazi!) because her actions were unconstitutional and probably illegal — sez one can only take 300-some legal bucks from international players, not “ungodly sums.” Someone should have reminded him that Citizens United put that to bed, allowing corporations (with international ties and holdings) to act as a citizen and contribute as they will. Such are the challenges of the digital age (and reflective of the TPP treaty at question today, by the way.)
The specifics of the negotiations have been considered classified, Michael — and that’s Serious Stuff (with capital S’s) involving legality. This has not always been the case with these kinds of trade agreements, so it begs the question this time around. Bush did his treaty’s in full view of the public, but then he had his whole (corporate) party behind him, in lock-step; they wouldn’t have criticized him for love nor money! Just not acceptable, no matter how big a doof he was … even now.
Interesting astrology ahead for Obama and Lynch, be — and, by the way, Lynch has been criticized for being too easy on Banksters by Elizabeth Warren. It interests me how powerful Warren is becoming, hitting that same spot on the wall over and over again — it’ll bust open at some point, I suspect. I have two bumper stickers: one sez “Not A Republican.” Calculated to get a rednecks attention. The other reads “I belong to the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.” I don’t consider myself a Dem but the Warren wing? Absolutely!
In trying to get into O’s head space — trying on the scenario’s to see which feels right — I stumbled across the one where he makes a Faustian bargain to do the deal in the dark, protecting American interests and ‘superiority’ for the long run because, given his experience of the last six years, he realizes that at least half the American public is bat-shit crazy and unable to bring credible intelligence to the issue. He can’t help but be wary of the disinformation campaigns about anything he attempts, charged with paranoia, chilling intelligent conversation. This scenario doesn’t reflect the full picture but I dunno — I could see it, given the weight of having to save the world and run a trillion(s) dollar company like America Inc.. There’s the “Benign King” consciousness you suggest, Pisces Sun — and some of that may play into his mind-set on this, but … that’s not all of it.
Speculation about who’s holding a gun to whose head makes more sense — I think that’s true on lots of levels on the Hill, as you mention, aWord. No question that blackmail is just business as usual. A fascinating but dangerous game, politics. And, an aside, I’ve had to laugh lately, at just what a Keystone Kop affair the Secret Service turned out to be — remember how worried we were about the First Families safety at the beginning (and still?) Happy that they were being watched by “the best?” Turns out the guards need guarding more than the Prez does! What a bunch of buffoons! Ya can’t make this shit up!
I have the same problem with my Reps, Jere — real pieces of work. One Senator that’s #3 in the Pub party, a Boss Hog in these parts; and a House Rep that left the Mennonite church because it was too liberal. A pair to draw to, for sure. They send me canned letters in response to mine, telling me, in closing, that they will take my thoughts into consideration. I’d feel a lot better about that waste of paper if they’d just sign “Fuck off, Hippy.” Candor! So welcome. Clarity! So invaluable.
You make some good points, Cowboy, and I won’t fight you on the problems we face as a functional democracy or the fact that the Republic needs a major re-working. But we DO have a choice between reasonable and unreasonable leadership, even working under the constraints they all face. I don’t know a single Democrat that thinks the world is only 6000 years old, that science is a ‘point of view,’ that women shouldn’t have access to contraception or that poor people got that way because they deserve it.
Can we say that all politicians are alike in their inability to get things done, at this point? Yes. Can we say they’re ruled by money and outside influence? Sure. Can we acknowledge that they probably have egos the size of Texas with some to spare? Yeah. But are they the same? No, they’re not — at least not at this point in history.
The big challenge is to find our commonality, agree on that portion of our value system that we treasure mutually, and work from there. I can believe that will happen at some point, if enough of us attempt that interaction but at this point, I can only think of one party that would be flexible enough to MAKE that attempt.
I was raised in the church, by Republicans, but they ain’t what they used to be. They’re either zealots now, or remain silent on the issues (which is not a respectable position to take, in my opinion.) I’m surrounded by Republicans here, who take pride in behaving just like their Daddy and their Daddy’s Daddy, and I can tell you that if I play THEIR game, they have time for me. If I let them know I can think for myself, and it doesn’t look like what they’re thinking? They’ll turn on a dime (damn hippy!)
Still, I think we’re getting where we need to go, Cowboy. I think be named it in her comment; the Universe is conspiring for our good. And another choice we all have is how we think about this issue — this is my way. Thanks for stopping by.
And here’s a bone for the Tinfoil Hat crowd — an interesting piece from conspiracy archive, showing Obama’s failure to comply with the Bilderberg agenda. Proves that even after all these years trying to pigeon-hole this guy, he just doesn’t fit into the box.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/05/31/obamas-bilderberg-no-show/
Next, Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown wrote a letter to the Prez, found at this link. Here’s a clip …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/25/elizabeth-warren-tells-ob_n_7142850.html
“Members of Congress should be able to discuss the agreement with our constituents and to participate in a robust public debate, instead of being muzzled by classification rules,” Warren and Brown wrote in the letter obtained by The Huffington Post.
Democrats and some Republican critics have been particularly frustrated by Obama’s decision to treat the TPP documents as classified information, which prevents them from responding to Obama’s claims about the pact in detail.
“Your Administration has deemed the draft text of the agreement classified and kept it hidden from public view, thereby making it a secret deal,” the letter reads. “It is currently illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement. And while you noted that Members of Congress may ‘walk over … and read the text of the agreement’ — as we have done — you neglected to mention that we are prohibited by law from discussing the specifics of that text in public.”
And I know you’ll want to hear what Ralph Nader thinks (gulp!) here; it’s not pretty
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/corporate-free-traitors_b_7139646.html
As well, the boon this trade agreement offers to Big Pharma needs to be swatted down, pronto! Giving them any more profit is not only obscene but should be criminal, especially at the cost of human health and Third World patients! Bah humbug! Here’s a piece from Down Under, where TPP isn’t popular either, spelling some of that out:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/tpp-pill-difficult-to-swallow-for-pharmaceuticals-20150424-1msgds.html
Hillary has to tread very lightly on this issue, Pisces Sun, given her husbands culpability in NAFTA, and — like it or not — the two are joined at the hip politically, considered a pair. She’s going to want to steer away from both Big Bill and Obama on this, as the vast majority of American’s don’t like TPP, but she’ll have to thread the needle carefully, since she really IS part of that vast Wall Street conspiracy (tongue in cheek, but just barely) she’ll have to rail against to get the job she wants. I loved the part where she went after derivative traders — her son-in-law IS one. And nobody seems to be talking about Chelsea, despite the fact that she is one of the players, now, and largely responsible for Hil’s unusual roll-out a few weeks back. She’s charged with bringing the youth in … and Hillary will need them energized.
Meanwhile, Rubio is candidate of the hour on the right but by tomorrow, all that will change. Fiorina, Huckabee — and it looks like Ben Carson’s jumping in — all at the first of the month. That’s about 25 candidates while the left has one, and, at this point, with a target on her forehead. But, at Newt said today, the right will shake out a candidate by next April, at least.
A YEAR OF THIS! Crikey!
Jude, so glad you weren’t hit by a truck or anything! Computers et al . . those problems are just to keep us from forgetting what being dependent on them can lead to. And don’t forget to add Caintucky to the list of A-Real-Piece-Of-Work senators.
Thanks for the LOL’s which I sorely missed, but did get several hoots out from Obama’s routine last night! Now off to read some of these links you’ve provided us with.
be
Geezus Be, a truck?!? I was thinkin’ lightning, or a tree that decided to fall during a moon-less stroll!.. Good to read you Jude, I was sitting on the hence.
I’ve been trying to figure myself out forever (no avail as of yet), and the best I can come up with is a “communistic democratic socialist”. (I really hope no crack-headed govt. already copyrighted it, but I wouldn’t be surprised). Democratic is the scariest word in that string, only ’cause a bunch of dumb-asses could vote democracy out the window or some dumb-ass in the door. I do realize that communist is poison to most folks ears, a total lack of understanding that the shit that passes today or at any other point in time is not communism, but a plutocratic oligarchy that preys on the poor and disenfranchised (was it Franklin who mentioned the huddled masses?.. Good ideas can go awry, with assholes fondling the mechanisms of power).
Now, I’m not sayin’ I’m a stickler for screwin’ with other folks’ business, but damnit, I’m kinda sick of pricks.
I’m still searching for the internal means of shifting the energies. (I only got this one little body). I can’t help but pay attention to the global-communal activity, even if it kills me.. I do feel a massive under-tow, and I smile at the thought of the wild and crazy ride I’ve embarked on. Hell, I may get my ass kicked, but I’ve nothing better to do but participate while I’m here.
Thanks for the space. And thanks to the voices that participate.
Love, Peace, and (..”get that freakin’ hippy,.. Taze him!!!”)
Good grief, you guys — you’re KILLIN’ me (figuratively!)
I wouldn’t forget Cain-tuck, be — here’s a link you’ll appreciate; consummate dickery of the McConnell type.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/03/dickipedia-mitch-mcconnell_n_6996308.html
And Jere, I didn’t forget you — here’s a little rock ‘n roll dickishness.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/dickipedia-ted-nugent_n_7036444.html
I think I’m happy with the same description Bernie Sanders uses — democratic socialist (weighing in as an Independent.) I’m not ready to give up on democracy (yet) and anybody who doesn’t recognize how much socialism is ALREADY written into this system when it’s working well doesn’t know their history.
Make a great week, everybody.