Priveliged, Rich, and White

MORE GARDEN VARIETY GOVERNMENTAL LIES

According to Congressman Meeks, ‘TPP is a force for positive change across the board for all countries, whether or not they belong to TPP,’ although this transformation will require rigorous action. Countries in Central and South America understand that economic reforms and harmonized trade rules are only one side of the coin. On the reverse side, they are committed to addressing socio-political demands, inequality issues, violence, and the informal sector in the economy.

He’s referring there to the uniform standardization that these deals would impose upon all participating countries regarding regulations of food-safety, product-safety, drug-safety, environmental standards, workers’ rights, protections against the defrauding of investors, etc. He is saying that this international uniformity will bring “positive change across the board for all countries.”

What it will actually do is to raise the standards in some countries and lower the standards in others, in order to achieve uniformity across international borders.

So: let us assume, for the purpose of argument, that, for the most part, the net average result will indeed be to raise standards. This is what he is implying (even though it’s false). But there is a deeper problem than whether environmental and other standards within various nations are set higher; and it is that they are, in effect, to be set in stone by these agreements.

Just as it is vastly more difficult to update a provision in the U.S. Constitution by means of its Amendment-process than it is to enact a new mere law that updates an old mere law; so, too, it is vastly more difficult to change an international treaty-provision than it is to change a mere single nation’s regulatory standards and laws.

Whereas to change a law or regulation requires only intra-national, or inside-the-nation, process, changing a treaty-provision requires a vastly more difficult international process, which demands the unanimous consent of all member-nations of the given treaty or international agreement.

These ’trade’ deals are set up, far more fundamentally, to transfer the power over the decisions concerning such matters, away from democratically accountable national governments, to, instead, panels of ‘arbitrators’ consisting of three lawyers, each one of whom is appointed by international corporations — i.e, by the very same parties whose interest is to lower workers’ wages and rights, to lower environmental standards, to lower protections against defrauding stockholders, to lower protections against global warming, to lower protections against toxics in foods, etc.

The system in these ’trade’ deals does not allow nations to sue international corporations, but it does allow international corporations to sue any signatory nation that, a given suing international corporation alleges, has violated the treaty’s international standard — in other words, that has applied or instituted a standard higher than the international treaty allows.

If subsequent scientific research indicates that a given global-warming matter requires a higher standard than was formerly thought, or that a given product-safety or food-safety standard was actually dangerously low and must be raised, then, that’s just too bad, because there won’t be any realistic way in which the given standard, in any participating country, will be able to be raised. The international corporations that have lobbied so successfully for Obama’s ‘trade’ deals to get them as far as they already have, will easily be able to block at least one of the participating countries from going along with a treaty-change to enable increasing the then-established set-in-stone international standard.

So: what’s really at issue here is a transfer from national democratic sovereignty to, instead, international-corporate sovereignty, in which international coporations will have locked-in an international dictatorial control over a large portion of what it is that national governments do, and necessarily must do, in order to serve the public good.

The whole thing is a corrupt con-job.

What is at stake here is nothing less than whether the future of the world will be national democratic governments, or instead an international fascist government. Regardless of whether the old ideal of an international democratic world-federalist government (the old idea of a world government) was a good one, the bringing-about of an international corporate dictatorship is a monstrosity: the very opposite of an international democracy.

Barack Obama wants to bring the world into international fascist control more than has ever yet existed on this planet. If he succeeds, he will thus be the most harmful political leader in world history. His deals must be stopped. They are horrendous.

A L E C - AND RIGHT-WING POLITICS

Today’s date is June 8^th.   ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council- - is sponsoring the repeal of “prevailing wage laws” instituted by Franklin Roosevelt.  This was to discourages contractors cutting wages in order to get a bid award on a contract if the wage was below the average wage.  Scott Walker and several other states are working to get this law passed.  Also Rand Paul is still lacking a billionaire to fund him because he’s finding out how hard it can be to get ahead in the campaign without your own billionaire- - and Rand Paul has been falling in the polls.  If there is one area where I have evolved more than any other over the past twenty years it’s this area of Big Money in politics.  I used to think this sort of “capitalist competition” was a healthy thing in politics.  The trouble is if someone like Rand Paul can’t get votes for want of funding, what chance does someone like Bernie Sanders have against Hillary.  In Wisconsin among the democrats Hillary drew 49% of the votes but Sanders scored a respectable 42% of the vote.  There is still a media black-out of Bernie Sanders.  Net Neutrality is a topic you will never hear discussed in the lame-stream news media.  Most of the ISIS rulers of Ramadi now are ex Bathists.  That’s why I think we need a policy of containment to encircle the ISIS people with some kind of a non agression peace treaty.  Thom Hartman was explaining all of the tribal loyalties - - and talked about Mideast cultures being “hospitality cultures” where you gain status by what you give to others as gifts, and how it’s a major insult to refuse a gift you receive from a host.  Rick Perry believes Social Security and Medicare and all the rest is unconstitutional.  He believes environmental and occupational safety legislation is also unconstitutional.  This explains the remark about the three cabinet posts Perry would eliminate.  Hence there is a lot of radical libertarian influence in Gov Perry.

WHITE PRIVILEGE AND WEALTH PRIVILEGE

According to Thom Hartman, we have never had a case in the entire history of the country where a white cop was convicted of killing an unarmed black person.  This case in South Carolina may therefore be a first.  And because it’s a first (if it is) it may not signal a “new era” any more than Barock Obama’s election as President signaled a “New Era”.  But it will be something that conservatives will point to (the conviction of the officer if it happens) to say that “You see, we are a post racial society now”.   For pledge drive Thom Hartman is advertising the “Bernie Bear” right now, which is sponsored by the Vermont Teddy Bear Company.  Stephanie Miller has her new auto-biographical book out today, which supposedly is highly pornographic.  Walt Disney is firing high performing computer technicians in Disneyland- - to be replaced by people here in a special visa from India, and these victim employees are forced to train their replacement but then are bribed with a severance package, where they promise not to criticize Disney Corporation.  I would not sign that but fight it using any legal or media channel available to me.  Thom Hartman says that a white family out of Apalatia who decides to move to the big city to make a success of himself- has a much better chance of success than someone with Black skin whose IQ is twenty points higher.   Family wealth is more a predictor of future success than an absent father is.  Thom Hartman said, “As wealth goes up, altruism goes down”.  I’ve wondered about that myself.  It’s counter-intuitive but sad if true that giving becomes less “sacrificial” the more money you are endowed with.  There is White Privilege where often when a White person intervenes on behalf of a Black person it’s a shock- - even to the Black victim because he may note “I’d never be able to get away with talking to an officer like you just did”.  For instance - no Black home owner says to an officer "Get off of my property" or "What are you doing here?"  In Texas it seems that mixed swimming parties of black and white are still a little taboo and that the cops were called who began throwing black girls to the ground, rescued by the white girls there.  (?)  Apparently there is a video of all of this.

SOMETIMES CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT

 I made the decision to come back here and turn KEIB on after eleven o clock.  Mark Stein is confused why Dennis Hastert should even be in trouble with the federal government, and so am I.  All he did was legally withdraw money from his legal bank account and not inform the government, as if he had to get their permission or something.  But I also don’t understand why these people running their own business such as Judy have to issue “quarterly estimated earnings” and send in the tax due for one quarter to the government.  Why can’t you just send in your tax forms around March of the following year like a normal person and pay that amount.  When you have a refund coming the government doesn’t pay you any interest for keeping your money.  Yet if you earn money not due till next March or so, you’re a criminal if you don’t “estimate” the amount.  I think the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution is stretched out of perportion to any intent the constitutional framers had.  Eating food grown on your own farm is not "Interstate commerce" but the government claims it is.  In like manner, growing marijuana on your own property and selling it or giving it away to close friends is not "interstate commerce", either.