If I was to try to enumerate the number of times I've changed lanes without signaling, I'd run out of fingers and toes. In heavy traffic, I always signal, but on a lightly-traveled highway, it's easy to become lax.
The incidence of over-stressed, poorly trained, and sometimes bigoted cops --- hopefully, still a minority of all sworn officers --- brutalizing and sometimes even killing people of color is becoming as American as apple pie. Self-anointed vigilantes have occasionally contributed to the carnage with their own toxic brand of hatred. Remember George Zimmerman, the wannabe-cop who gunned down Trayvon Martin? Also not to be forgotten: Michael Dunn, the 47-year-old bigot who shot into a car full of black teenagers, killing one because he decided that their radio was too loud. There have been others by the score in recent years.
As a straight-looking white guy with some mileage on my anatomical odometer, I have no idea what it would feel like to be profiled day after day. But I can try to imagine. On more than one occasion, nonwhite friends and co-workers --- mild-mannered individuals --- have expressed to me the irritation they've sometimes felt in the wake of traffic stops without meaningful cause. Also worth mentioning are the retailers who select customers of a darker hue for the eagle-eye treatment, white pedestrians who tighten the grip on their handbags, laptops, etc., when approached by someone a few shades darker.
According to her family, Sandra Bland often voiced her concern regarding issues of social justice. When Texas State Trooper Brian Encinia curbed her white Hyundai, on a fateful July day last summer, she didn't hesitate to express her sentiments. She was cited for failure to signal for a lane change. As a dash-cam video in the squad car indicates, she switched lanes specifically to allow the officer to pass her. She also stated such.
The dash-cam in the trooper's vehicle captured the first ten minutes of the traffic stop and the ensuing confrontation. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpSEemvwOn4
It's painful to watch, but this ten-minute video clip clearly demonstrates who threw the tantrum. At 2:33, Officer Encinia, sworn to uphold the law and preserve the peace, cast all sense of decorum to the winds, and morphed into a raging goon within thirty seconds. Following four minutes of manhandling --- including a threat to "light her up" with a Taser --- he told Ms. Bland that her citation was only a warning, but that "she started creating a problem." (6:25).
Back to 2:33: Officer Encinia really blew it! Ms. Bland assumed --- legitimately so --- that she was being charged with a moving violation. All he needed to say, at that moment, was, "It's just a warning. You're free to go. And please remember to use your signals." Instead he asked her to extinguish her cigarette without offering a reason, thereby exceeding the limits of his authority. She rightfully refused.* The officer then went ballistic, leading to Ms. Bland's arrest and incarceration. Three days later she was found dead in her cell.
County officials claim that she committed suicide. Their only evidence is a written report claiming that she had mentioned a suicide attempt during her intake interview. But there's apparently no audio. Ms. Bland's family stated that she had been very upbeat when they last communicated, having just begun a new job which she loved. So who's telling the truth? The US Department of Justice really needs to investigate.
Suppose Officer Encinia had curbed a sassy southern belle with a peaches-and-cream complexion. Would he have manhandled her and threatened to "light her up" with a Taser? Of course he would! And Donald Trump is my fairy godmother!
Events of this type, both historical and contemporary, happen all the time. Does anyone really believe that we're living in a "post-racial society"? If so, they need to burst their cocoons and step out into the real world.
* Definitely worth the read: A Talking Points Memo opinion piece by Seth Stoughton, a University of South Carolina law professor and former police officer. Here's the link: talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing
Update: Earlier today, a grand jury indicted Encinia for perjury, for lying about the circumstances leading to Sandra Bland's arrest. (He had claimed that he tried to de-escalate the situation. The dash-cam proved otherwise).
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Monday, December 21, 2015
Stray Thoughts About the Republican Debate: No Grownups in the Hall After All.
I had anticipated the recent GOP debate on CNN with some apprehension. Was Donald Trump's rhetoric becoming so toxic that the rest of the Republican field might appear as rational human beings?
Not to worry! As The Hate-and-Fear-a-thon progressed, my concerns were soon relieved. Even Ohio Governor John Kasich, who's often cited by pundits as being the most moderate candidate, seemed a tad unhinged at times. About halfway through the debate, he harrumphed that the President and other world leaders attending the climate change conference in Paris should be focused on ISIS instead. Later on he growled, "It's time we punched the Russians in the nose."
Let's not forget New Jersey's Chris Christie. He seems to have anointed himself heir apparent to onetime New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's 9-11 mantle. Remember him from 2012? Elect me because .... 9-11! During a discussion focused on the use of air power against ISIS, including the establishment of a no-fly zone, Christie roared that we should shoot down any Russian plane that would dare invade "our" no-fly zone, no questions asked.
Without missing a beat, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, addressing the audience and gesturing toward Christie declared, "If you want World War III, there's your candidate." Yep, there he stood! Rand Paul, a voice of reason in the GOP wilderness, at least in the realm of foreign affairs. He later offered a spot-on rebuttal to a Donald Trump rant focused on "taking out terrorists' families" if necessary. Paul sagely stated, "There's a such thing as the Geneva Convention, which we'd have to pull out of." However, his closing statement propelled me back to the somber reality of Republican domestic policy. The Good Senator insisted that the national debt is our greatest threat, not the day-to-day struggle to survive and thrive faced by much of our nation. Among the GOP contenders, none of those concerns rated even a squeak. (As far as I know, no particular issue priorities were specified in the debate format).
I'm not suggesting for a moment that national security isn't an issue of vital concern. The Democratic candidates did address it during their most recent debate along with domestic priorities.
In the meantime, at the United Nations, diplomatic efforts continue with the intent of settling Syria's 5-year-long civil war. At the same time, all concerned parties including the United States --- represented by Secretary of State John Kerry --- are focused on weakening and eventually eliminating ISIS.
It's a slow, but productive process. The Democratic contenders support this effort, although there's some disagreement over tactics.
With the exception of Rand Paul, the GOP rivals insist that the only way to vanquish ISIS is by charging forward with guns a-blazin', 21st Century style --- with the good ol' USofA at the head of the wagon train. We all know how well that worked in Iraq.
Come November, we'll be facing a stark choice at the ballot box. Will we send a grownup to the White House, or a juvenile bully whose volatile hatreds could poison us all?
The whole world will be watching, folks.
Not to worry! As The Hate-and-Fear-a-thon progressed, my concerns were soon relieved. Even Ohio Governor John Kasich, who's often cited by pundits as being the most moderate candidate, seemed a tad unhinged at times. About halfway through the debate, he harrumphed that the President and other world leaders attending the climate change conference in Paris should be focused on ISIS instead. Later on he growled, "It's time we punched the Russians in the nose."
Let's not forget New Jersey's Chris Christie. He seems to have anointed himself heir apparent to onetime New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's 9-11 mantle. Remember him from 2012? Elect me because .... 9-11! During a discussion focused on the use of air power against ISIS, including the establishment of a no-fly zone, Christie roared that we should shoot down any Russian plane that would dare invade "our" no-fly zone, no questions asked.
Without missing a beat, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, addressing the audience and gesturing toward Christie declared, "If you want World War III, there's your candidate." Yep, there he stood! Rand Paul, a voice of reason in the GOP wilderness, at least in the realm of foreign affairs. He later offered a spot-on rebuttal to a Donald Trump rant focused on "taking out terrorists' families" if necessary. Paul sagely stated, "There's a such thing as the Geneva Convention, which we'd have to pull out of." However, his closing statement propelled me back to the somber reality of Republican domestic policy. The Good Senator insisted that the national debt is our greatest threat, not the day-to-day struggle to survive and thrive faced by much of our nation. Among the GOP contenders, none of those concerns rated even a squeak. (As far as I know, no particular issue priorities were specified in the debate format).
I'm not suggesting for a moment that national security isn't an issue of vital concern. The Democratic candidates did address it during their most recent debate along with domestic priorities.
In the meantime, at the United Nations, diplomatic efforts continue with the intent of settling Syria's 5-year-long civil war. At the same time, all concerned parties including the United States --- represented by Secretary of State John Kerry --- are focused on weakening and eventually eliminating ISIS.
It's a slow, but productive process. The Democratic contenders support this effort, although there's some disagreement over tactics.
With the exception of Rand Paul, the GOP rivals insist that the only way to vanquish ISIS is by charging forward with guns a-blazin', 21st Century style --- with the good ol' USofA at the head of the wagon train. We all know how well that worked in Iraq.
Come November, we'll be facing a stark choice at the ballot box. Will we send a grownup to the White House, or a juvenile bully whose volatile hatreds could poison us all?
The whole world will be watching, folks.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
A Suggestion for the Republicans' Theme Song
Back in 1951, a youthful crooner named Eddie Fisher topped the charts with a number known as Turn Back the Hands of Time. It was a lament for a time long gone. Here's the refrain:
Turn back the hands of time
Roll back the sands of time
Bring back the dream divine
Let's live it over again
Sixty-four years later, it's just as timely, unhip vibes notwithstanding. I can't imagine a more appropriate theme song for any and all events held on behalf of the Republican Party: fund-raisers, primary debates, even next year's convention in Cleveland. What could be more fitting in light of the Grand Old Party's retrograde priorities and values?
It's worth a listen. Without further ado, here's Eddie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kp-yN7KeFQ
Turn back the hands of time
Roll back the sands of time
Bring back the dream divine
Let's live it over again
Sixty-four years later, it's just as timely, unhip vibes notwithstanding. I can't imagine a more appropriate theme song for any and all events held on behalf of the Republican Party: fund-raisers, primary debates, even next year's convention in Cleveland. What could be more fitting in light of the Grand Old Party's retrograde priorities and values?
It's worth a listen. Without further ado, here's Eddie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kp-yN7KeFQ
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Not All Clowns are Harmless & Fun: Consider The Donald
Although never as popular as surreal cartoonist Gary Larson, creator of The Far Side, a gentleman who went by the name "J. Kliban" was almost as prolific. One of Kliban's single-panel works showed a circus clown heaving a pie at an unsuspecting guy in a suit, smashing his face into smithereens. The caption underneath read, "Using the Cement Pie".
A more contemporary clown has the potential to be just as dangerous as the one pitching the cement pie, only on an exponentially greater scale. His roof thatch resembles a deceased monkey and he likes to plaster his name on stuff. If he was to have his way, such stuff might include The White House, maybe even the grand edifice known as The Capitol.
Like many of my friends and kindred spirits, my initial impulse is to dismiss him as a buffoon. Yet according to every reliable poll, this self-anointed icon known as "The Donald" is ranking well ahead of his fellow Republicans. Many pundits will shrug off his numbers as a protest vote, a flash in the pan. They'll assert that he's peaking too early, that as the pool of candidates shrinks, someone else will emerge. Maybe so, maybe not. I'm not so sure that we should be relying on precedent.
Me? I'm concerned. Trump's toxic rhetoric is being taken seriously by many among this nation's most belligerent citizens. During one of his recent tirades, he accused Mexico of sending us their criminals and rapists. Not long afterward, a Latino male was brutally beaten by two white guys in South Boston. Then they urinated on him. Upon their arrest, one of the thugs hissed, "Trump was right. 'They' gotta go." An isolated incident? An aberration? I'm not so sure.
As far as I'm concerned, The Donald's unbridled racism in tandem with his fame/notoriety isn't the only thing that makes him dangerous. His juvenile tantrums and playground-style bullying make his Republican opponents appear to be the grownups in the room --- just by dint of the fact that they don't call female reporters bimbos. Sure, a Jeb or a John Kasich might have more respect for the process of governing, but their policy priorities could turn out to be nearly as deadly as Trump's. (For example, every single Republican candidate promises to cancel the agreement with Iran. They also insist that they'd "repeal Obamacare").
A guy who seriously believes that, as the leader of the planet's most muscular nation, he can rule by proclamation, with total disdain for the Constitution and the legislative process may sound like a buffoon. But consider the message that we'd be sending to the international community if we were actually to elect such a toxic clown.
Clowns are supposed to be funny. But I ain't laughin'!
A more contemporary clown has the potential to be just as dangerous as the one pitching the cement pie, only on an exponentially greater scale. His roof thatch resembles a deceased monkey and he likes to plaster his name on stuff. If he was to have his way, such stuff might include The White House, maybe even the grand edifice known as The Capitol.
Like many of my friends and kindred spirits, my initial impulse is to dismiss him as a buffoon. Yet according to every reliable poll, this self-anointed icon known as "The Donald" is ranking well ahead of his fellow Republicans. Many pundits will shrug off his numbers as a protest vote, a flash in the pan. They'll assert that he's peaking too early, that as the pool of candidates shrinks, someone else will emerge. Maybe so, maybe not. I'm not so sure that we should be relying on precedent.
Me? I'm concerned. Trump's toxic rhetoric is being taken seriously by many among this nation's most belligerent citizens. During one of his recent tirades, he accused Mexico of sending us their criminals and rapists. Not long afterward, a Latino male was brutally beaten by two white guys in South Boston. Then they urinated on him. Upon their arrest, one of the thugs hissed, "Trump was right. 'They' gotta go." An isolated incident? An aberration? I'm not so sure.
As far as I'm concerned, The Donald's unbridled racism in tandem with his fame/notoriety isn't the only thing that makes him dangerous. His juvenile tantrums and playground-style bullying make his Republican opponents appear to be the grownups in the room --- just by dint of the fact that they don't call female reporters bimbos. Sure, a Jeb or a John Kasich might have more respect for the process of governing, but their policy priorities could turn out to be nearly as deadly as Trump's. (For example, every single Republican candidate promises to cancel the agreement with Iran. They also insist that they'd "repeal Obamacare").
A guy who seriously believes that, as the leader of the planet's most muscular nation, he can rule by proclamation, with total disdain for the Constitution and the legislative process may sound like a buffoon. But consider the message that we'd be sending to the international community if we were actually to elect such a toxic clown.
Clowns are supposed to be funny. But I ain't laughin'!
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Li'l Brother Jeb: The Tail That Wagged Big Brother Dog
As he aspires to be the GOP's standard-bearer next year, Jeb Bush has been asked about his position on Iraq; would he have supported the United States' military intervention back in 2003, knowing all we know now?
During the first few days of being queried, it seemed as if Jeb was skittering all over the planet in his quest to find a comfortable response: yes, maybe, it depends, and ultimately settling on a less-than-sincere-sounding "no".
Having to endure living under Big Brother Dubya's shadow, Jeb has been heard to declare, "I am my own man". You know something? I believe him. Here's why.
Consider The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think-tank funded largely by military contractors. The most prominent among these arms merchants were the Bechtel Corporation --- once headed by Donald Rumsfeld --- and Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation, which also held significant oil interests. PNAC was established in 1997 --- a year with no significant unrest requiring military action. Those military-industrial heavy-hitters and their Pentagon pals were hot to trot to rediscover meaning to their existence. Enter PNAC, stage right. Extreme right!
Established as a non-profit educational organization, their reason for existence was "to promote American global leadership" with an emphasis on "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity": In other words, American Exceptionalism. Their policy priorities were so intensely centered on the above tenets, they were totally tone-deaf to the needs and values of every other nation on earth.
When PNAC was launched, 25 of its strongest supporters cosigned the organization's "Statement of Principle". Ten among those 25 became prominent foreign policy advisors during the presidency of George W. Bush. Among those ten were the principal architects of our nation's tragic misadventure in Iraq: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. I think it's safe to assume that everyone in PNAC was totally on board with this. Other signatories of note included J. Danforth Quayle (otherwise known as "Dan"), and yep, a fella named John Ellis "Jeb" Bush). No, not Big Brother Dubya! Jeb!
So, returning to the original question: What would Presidential Candidate Jeb have done vis-a-vis Iraq? Because he was such a gung-ho acolyte of PNAC, there shouldn't be any doubt. I believe it would be fair to assume that Jeb read that "Statement of Principle" before he signed it. After all, he's widely considered to be "The Smart Bush".
So there's precious little doubt in my mind that Jeb is his "own man" as he insists. But I'm not sure that the same could be said for Big Brother Dubya.
Former President Cheney would probably concur.
During the first few days of being queried, it seemed as if Jeb was skittering all over the planet in his quest to find a comfortable response: yes, maybe, it depends, and ultimately settling on a less-than-sincere-sounding "no".
Having to endure living under Big Brother Dubya's shadow, Jeb has been heard to declare, "I am my own man". You know something? I believe him. Here's why.
Consider The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think-tank funded largely by military contractors. The most prominent among these arms merchants were the Bechtel Corporation --- once headed by Donald Rumsfeld --- and Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation, which also held significant oil interests. PNAC was established in 1997 --- a year with no significant unrest requiring military action. Those military-industrial heavy-hitters and their Pentagon pals were hot to trot to rediscover meaning to their existence. Enter PNAC, stage right. Extreme right!
Established as a non-profit educational organization, their reason for existence was "to promote American global leadership" with an emphasis on "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity": In other words, American Exceptionalism. Their policy priorities were so intensely centered on the above tenets, they were totally tone-deaf to the needs and values of every other nation on earth.
When PNAC was launched, 25 of its strongest supporters cosigned the organization's "Statement of Principle". Ten among those 25 became prominent foreign policy advisors during the presidency of George W. Bush. Among those ten were the principal architects of our nation's tragic misadventure in Iraq: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. I think it's safe to assume that everyone in PNAC was totally on board with this. Other signatories of note included J. Danforth Quayle (otherwise known as "Dan"), and yep, a fella named John Ellis "Jeb" Bush). No, not Big Brother Dubya! Jeb!
So, returning to the original question: What would Presidential Candidate Jeb have done vis-a-vis Iraq? Because he was such a gung-ho acolyte of PNAC, there shouldn't be any doubt. I believe it would be fair to assume that Jeb read that "Statement of Principle" before he signed it. After all, he's widely considered to be "The Smart Bush".
So there's precious little doubt in my mind that Jeb is his "own man" as he insists. But I'm not sure that the same could be said for Big Brother Dubya.
Former President Cheney would probably concur.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Removal of the Confederate Flags: A Feel-Good Gesture, But Also a Distraction.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad those rebel flags are gone. They represented a painful reminder of the old southern way of life, that made ownership of human beings not only legal, but desirable: symbolic of wealth and status. (Anybody remember when Dubya, during his second term, tried to promote an alternative to The Great Society? He touted it as "The Ownership Society". Different intent, but still an indication of his tone-deafness toward this nation's history).
The recent murder of nine African-American men and women --- pillars of their communities --- at the hands of an emotionally toxified, hatred-laden white kid inside an historic church in Charleston, South Carolina stunned the nation. In the wake of this tragedy, that state's governor, Nikki Haley ordered the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouse grounds. Public officials in other states including Mississippi followed suit.
Such actions were long overdue. Several states began flying the rebel flag in the 1960s --- not the 1860s --- in defiance of the budding civil rights movement: the ultimate neener-neener toward everyone intent on asserting their basic human rights.
So the act of scuttling this oppressive symbol made a lot of folks feel good. Rightfully so. But it also provided a distraction. Voting rights and gun control have been conveniently sidelined as vital issues.
Both urgently need to be addressed, yesterday if not sooner.
The recent murder of nine African-American men and women --- pillars of their communities --- at the hands of an emotionally toxified, hatred-laden white kid inside an historic church in Charleston, South Carolina stunned the nation. In the wake of this tragedy, that state's governor, Nikki Haley ordered the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouse grounds. Public officials in other states including Mississippi followed suit.
Such actions were long overdue. Several states began flying the rebel flag in the 1960s --- not the 1860s --- in defiance of the budding civil rights movement: the ultimate neener-neener toward everyone intent on asserting their basic human rights.
So the act of scuttling this oppressive symbol made a lot of folks feel good. Rightfully so. But it also provided a distraction. Voting rights and gun control have been conveniently sidelined as vital issues.
Both urgently need to be addressed, yesterday if not sooner.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership Redux: Obama's Support of the Fast-Track Option a Head-Scratcher.
President Obama recently voiced his seemingly heartfelt concern over climate change during a visit to the endangered Florida Everglades. Yet despite heavy criticism from many fellow Democrats, he's been spearheading the effort to ramrod the Hatch-Ryan-Wyden Act, promoting the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP) through Congress without any opportunity to either debate or amend it. (In more genteel circles, the term fast-tracking is preferred). Among other things, it would stifle many of the efforts to combat climate change. So why is he contradicting himself?
The TPP bill has been a work in progress for at least the past two years. It's been conceived in quiet rooms with ample input from corporate poo-bahs and their lobbyists. No advocates for the environment / human rights / labor rights / economic fairness, or dogs allowed!
Everything associated with this measure is designed to be a deep, dark secret unfit for compassionate eyes. However, it appears as if parts of this proposal have been exposed to daylight on WikiLeaks.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the TPP's most persistent critics was recently interviewed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. The Good Senator said that members of Congress are able to read the bill, but are forbidden to copy or discuss any part of it. Assuming that the information in WikiLeaks is accurate, the effort to scuttle the TPP --- at least its most toxic provisions --- appears to be justified by well-founded concerns. Senator Warren knows what she's doing and has plenty of company, including fellow progressives such as Senators Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders as well as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Possibly the most lethal provision in this act falls under the heading, Investor-State Arbitration: a.k.a. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). It apparently allows an investor, most commonly a massive multinational corporation, to sue a sovereign government for profits lost, by dint of the enforcement of laws designed to enforce fair labor standards, protect the environment, prevent price gouging, and maintain net neutrality, among other things.
In light of this revelation, and considering the devastating consequences of recent trade agreements, particularly NAFTA, it boggles my mind that any executive or legislator with a heart, especially Obama, would endorse the TPP as it stands. We all know what transpired in the wake of NAFTA; onetime presidential candidate Ross Perot referred to "a giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US. A few weeks ago, the President insisted that, in so many words, no more jobs would be outsourced as a result of the TPP because employers interested in shipping jobs elsewhere had already done so under NAFTA. Huh? That was 22 years ago!
An alternative to the fast-tracked TPP has been offered by Congressman Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. He calls it The Right Track for TPP Act of 2015. (The full text is available on Representative Levin's website: levin.house.gov/press-release/levin-offer-tpa-substitute-put-tpp-right-track ).
Among other things, it would allow Congress some input, in effect scuttling the fast-track option. Labor, environmental, and human rights activists would also be included in the negotiating process. Above all, the most toxic component of the TTP as presently constituted would be disabled: The ISDS (described in Paragraph 5). In addition to an expanded role for other --- presumably more humane --- stakeholders, corporations would be restricted from overriding widely-accepted international standards.
The majority of Democrats have indicated that they'll give the original TPP bill thumbs down. They could well be joined by many Republicans, especially those who have expressed concern about executive overreach as well as issues compromising US sovereignty.
Maybe the Levin alternative bill could gather traction, if it's ever brought to a vote. If so, will the President wake up and smell the coffee?
(An earlier TPP-related post can be eyeballed on this blog:
See TPP: Another Deal Under the Radar, dated 4/8/13).
The TPP bill has been a work in progress for at least the past two years. It's been conceived in quiet rooms with ample input from corporate poo-bahs and their lobbyists. No advocates for the environment / human rights / labor rights / economic fairness, or dogs allowed!
Everything associated with this measure is designed to be a deep, dark secret unfit for compassionate eyes. However, it appears as if parts of this proposal have been exposed to daylight on WikiLeaks.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the TPP's most persistent critics was recently interviewed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. The Good Senator said that members of Congress are able to read the bill, but are forbidden to copy or discuss any part of it. Assuming that the information in WikiLeaks is accurate, the effort to scuttle the TPP --- at least its most toxic provisions --- appears to be justified by well-founded concerns. Senator Warren knows what she's doing and has plenty of company, including fellow progressives such as Senators Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders as well as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Possibly the most lethal provision in this act falls under the heading, Investor-State Arbitration: a.k.a. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). It apparently allows an investor, most commonly a massive multinational corporation, to sue a sovereign government for profits lost, by dint of the enforcement of laws designed to enforce fair labor standards, protect the environment, prevent price gouging, and maintain net neutrality, among other things.
In light of this revelation, and considering the devastating consequences of recent trade agreements, particularly NAFTA, it boggles my mind that any executive or legislator with a heart, especially Obama, would endorse the TPP as it stands. We all know what transpired in the wake of NAFTA; onetime presidential candidate Ross Perot referred to "a giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US. A few weeks ago, the President insisted that, in so many words, no more jobs would be outsourced as a result of the TPP because employers interested in shipping jobs elsewhere had already done so under NAFTA. Huh? That was 22 years ago!
An alternative to the fast-tracked TPP has been offered by Congressman Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. He calls it The Right Track for TPP Act of 2015. (The full text is available on Representative Levin's website: levin.house.gov/press-release/levin-offer-tpa-substitute-put-tpp-right-track ).
Among other things, it would allow Congress some input, in effect scuttling the fast-track option. Labor, environmental, and human rights activists would also be included in the negotiating process. Above all, the most toxic component of the TTP as presently constituted would be disabled: The ISDS (described in Paragraph 5). In addition to an expanded role for other --- presumably more humane --- stakeholders, corporations would be restricted from overriding widely-accepted international standards.
The majority of Democrats have indicated that they'll give the original TPP bill thumbs down. They could well be joined by many Republicans, especially those who have expressed concern about executive overreach as well as issues compromising US sovereignty.
Maybe the Levin alternative bill could gather traction, if it's ever brought to a vote. If so, will the President wake up and smell the coffee?
(An earlier TPP-related post can be eyeballed on this blog:
See TPP: Another Deal Under the Radar, dated 4/8/13).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)