WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)
&
THINGS YOU
MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)
YEAR THREE
Published
|
|
OVERVIEW
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 14
|
Dec 18, 2012
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 15
|
Jan. 02, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16
|
Jan. 08, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16
EXTRA
|
Jan. 11, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 17
|
Jan. 15, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 18
|
Jan. 22, 2013
|
Gbtre OBOF & TYMHM PART 19
|
Jan. 29, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 20
|
Feb. 05, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 21
|
Feb. 14, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 22
|
Feb. 20, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23
|
Feb. 27, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23 0SPECIAL
|
Mar. 06, 2013
|
saOBOF & TYMHM PART 24
|
`
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25
|
Mar. 12, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25-EXTRA
|
Mar. 14, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 26
|
Mar. 19, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 27
|
Mar. 26, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 28
|
Apr. 02, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 29
|
Apr. 08, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 30
|
Apr. 17, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 31
|
Apr. 23, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 32
|
Apr. 30, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 33
|
May 07, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 34
|
May 18, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 35
|
May 21, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 36
|
May 30, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 37
|
June 05, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 38
|
June 11, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 39
|
June 18, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 40
|
June 25, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 41
|
July
02, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 42
|
July
09, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 43
|
July
16, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 44
|
July
23, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 45
|
July
30, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 46
|
Aug.
06, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 47
|
Aug.
14, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 48
|
Aug. 20, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 49
|
Aug. 27, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 50
|
Sept. 05, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 51
|
Sept. 11, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 52
|
Sept. 18, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 53
|
Sept. 26, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 54
|
Oct. 02, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 55
|
Oct. 09. 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 56
|
Oct. 16, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 57
|
Oct. 23, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 58
|
Oct. 31, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 59
|
Nov. 07, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 60
|
Nov. 14, 2013
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 61
|
Nov. 20, 2013
|
IN THIS ISSUE
1. From Floyd.
2. Why do we have to read about TPP on
Wilileaks?
3. TPP meeting in Salt Lake City
4. It's back.
The budget nightmare.
FROM
FLOYD:
These articles
are really important. They set, clearly,
some real problems we are facing and going to be facing. They are worthy of your time. In recent postings, I have been telling you
about TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) and TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership) and how they are both being developed in secrecy. It seems to me that both are being held in
secrecy for one reason - - they are damaging to jobs in the U.S.
These articles
bring you up to date and we all should be concerned about them to the point of
letting our elected legislators know how we feel. The more you know about what is going on
behind closed doors, the more you become concerned and desire to take some
action yourself. I urge you to check the
following link and learn what is really going on regarding "fair
trade" ha, ha.
Lori Wallach, Director, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
Lori Wallach Public Citizen.com
Lori M. Wallach has
been director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch since 1995.
Wallach is an expert on
the operations and outcomes of trade policies such as NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA and
more. She is steeped in the domestic and
international politics of current trade negotiations and disputes. Wallach
works closely with Congress and civil society, scholars, and activists in the
U.S and developing countries to foster the growing debate about implications of
different models of globalization on jobs, off-shoring, wages, the environment,
public health and food safety; equality and social justice and democratically
accountable governance.
~~~
Why
Do We the People Have to Read
TPP
on Wikileaks?
Dave
Johnson
Published:
Friday15 November 2013
We the People finally get to read one chapter of the
29-chapter Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “trade” agreement. If this agreement becomes law it will
fundamentally alter the relationship between our government, other governments
and giant multinational corporations, so you’d think America
Wikileaks Obtains TPP Chapter
Wikileaks
has obtained one of the chapters of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) “trade” agreement that is being negotiated in secret. This leaked section is the chapter about
patents, copyrights, trademarks, industrial design and other “intellectual
property.” Note that this has little or
nothing to do with “trade.”
This chapter is from August, and it is unknown how the
chapter may have changed between then and now. The chapter indicates that the US
WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange said this in
the announcement that Wikileaks had obtained the chapter text,
“If instituted, the TPP’s
IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as
ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen,
dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might
one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.”
A Process Designed To Reach A Certain Conclusion.
TPP is being secretly
negotiated in what appears to be a directed process designed so that the
outcome will represent the profit interests of giant, multinational
corporations but not the interests of … anyone else. 600 corporate
representatives are involved, with access to the full text. We the People are not involved and do not have
access to the text at all in full or in part. Even members of Congress are
restricted in what they can see and how they can see it.
The leaked section of TPP was negotiated with the
interests of companies that hold patents and copyrights and profit from doing
represented so at the table, while groups like the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, consumer groups, patient protection groups etc. were NOT at the
table. So it isn’t a surprise to read in
the leaked chapter that there is a one-sided, pro-giant-pharmaceutical and
-telecom result of this process.
Matthew Rimmer, an
expert in intellectual property law told the Sydney Morning Herald, ”One could see the
TPP as a Christmas wish-list for major corporations, and the copyright parts of
the text support such a view.”
So 600 corporate
representatives, lobbyists, etc. are part of the process, but:
·
Consumer groups are not at the table, so their
interests are not likely to be reflected in the outcome.
·
Democracy groups are not at the table, so their
interests are not likely to be reflected in the outcome.
·
Labor groups are not at the table, so their
interests are not likely to be reflected in the outcome.
·
Environmental groups are not at the table, so their
interests are not likely to be reflected in the outcome.
·
Patient health groups are not at the table, so their
interests are not likely to be reflected in the outcome.
·
Civil rights groups are not at the table, so their
interests are not likely to be reflected in the outcome.
·
Animal rights groups are not at the table, so their
interests are not likely to be reflected in the outcome.
·
Groups that advocate for the interests of pretty much
anything that isn’t about corporate profits are not at the table, so their
interests are not likely to be reflected in the outcome.
Not only are
non-corporate groups not at the negotiating table, last year they were stopped
from even giving presentations to the negotiators. Instead they have to get a table and hope
delegates will take a brochure. Read
this from April 2012:
Stakeholder registering
for the Dallas
Before this change negotiators would at least set aside a
day when groups could make presentations to all the delegates. Now they get a
table and they can hope delegates will take a brochure they hand out.
Two Examples That Make The Point
Here are two examples of what results from this one-sided
process.
First, you might remember that efforts to get rid of Net
Neutrality and pass the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) failed to make it through
our democratic, Constitutional process because people were able to become
informed, rally opposition and make their case to stop these terrible things
from happening. But this meant that the
giant telecommunications corporations lost some power sand profit potential. So TPP becomes a treaty that accomplishes
these same corporate goals by going around our democratic, Constitutional
process.
Second, while this
is not about this particular chapter of the agreement, there is an argument going on inside TPP negotiations
about whether to “carve out” tobacco from the treaty. The way the treaty is currently shaping
up tobacco companies will be able to sue governments that try to protect
their citizens with anti-smoking efforts. So some countries are trying to “carve out”
tobacco from those rules in TPP. Never mind other corporate products
that harm people, tobacco gets attention because it kills so
many people. But the corporations
are resisting this because it sets a precedent of allowing governments to set
limits on things corporations can profit from.
I think this second example should tell people all they
need to know about this and similar “trade” agreements. They are really about setting certain giant
corporations above government — and other corporations — restricting
competition and innovation so these giants can stay dominant, and keep
democracies and their citizens from meddling in the profit stream.
Fast Track
We the People were able to rally and defeat corporate
efforts to pass SOPA and kill Net Neutrality. It was a big fight, but we managed to win.
Democracy can work, and with a fight We the People can still protect ourselves
from the power of the giant corporations and make our lives better.
So if citizens were able to use democracy to fight SOPA
and keep Net Neutrality and other things, how can they expect to get TPP
through and undo what was accomplished? Here is how: they are trying to convince Congress
to pass something called “Fast Track.” Fast Track limits the objections Congress can
make to this treaty, forces them to vote “up or down” in a hurry so people do
not have time to sufficiently focus and rally opposition, and this will of
course happen in the middle of biggest corporate-funded “shock and awe” fear
campaign you have ever seen. If you think there is a lot of anti-Obamacare
fear-and-smear propaganda in the news today, or if you think there was a
well-orchestrated “run up” to sell the Iraq
Key point: They will try to push through “fast track” and
then launch a massively-funded campaign to pass the treaty. If we can block Fast Track we might have a
chance to head off this corporate takeover of the world.
You can read the
leaked chapter here, as a PDF document.
~~~
Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations Meet Protests in Salt Lake
Maira Sutton
Occupy.com / News Analysis
Published: Wednesday 20 November 2013
The U.S.
The newest round of
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations began Tuesday in Salt Lake City , Utah
Last week's publication of the controversial
"Intellectual Property" chapter by Wikileaks confirmed our worst
fears: the TPP carries draconian copyright enforcement provisions that threaten
users' rights and could stifle innovation well into the 21st Century. Public opposition to the TPP continues to grow
as a result of the leaked document; an opaque policymaking process that seems
geared towards appeasing Big Content does not provide much in the way of
legitimacy.
In the past week, 23 Republicans and 151 Democrats in the
House of Representatives wrote letters to the Obama administration indicating
their unwillingness to comply with the Executive's request for power to
fast-track trade agreements through Congress. Fast-track authority, also known as Trade
Promotion Authority, limits congressional approval over trade agreements to a
yes or no, up or down vote.
If a bill granting fast-track were to pass, hearings
would become extremely limited, and lawmakers would have no ability to make
amendments. It would give the Obama administration unchecked power to shape TPP
and other agreements like the EU-U.S. trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP).
There are some Congress members who are actively pushing
for fast-track and are vowing to introduce legislation to enact it by 2014. Thankfully, these letters from the House show
the White House is going to have difficulty in finding support in Congress to
pass such a bill. Still, the Obama administration is going to push hard for the
passage of fast-track.
The U.S.
Without fast-track, it's inconceivable that the TPP would
survive congressional debate. And that's
the point of all of this secrecy: the TPP's myriad harmful provisions for users
wouldn't survive the sunlight of transparency, so it's being negotiated in the
dark. And since negotiators only get to hear corporations' concerns while
drafting these policies, it only makes sense that its agenda would exclude
users' interests.
So we need to demand that our lawmakers oppose
fast-track. Let's ask them to call for a hearing and exercise their
authority to oversee the U.S.
Meanwhile, as
reported in this article by Tom Harvey writing for the Salt Lake City
Outside Salt
Lake City United States and 11 other Pacific
Rim nations perhaps discussed imports and exports, profits and
products, prices and patents. The exact
topics aren’t known. The talks were closed.
And that concerns critics most of all as parties from the
Trans-Pacific Partnership launched a 19th round of negotiations — this time in
Utah — in search of a sweeping free-trade agreement.
Tuesday’s rally, organized by a coalition called the
Citizens Trade Campaign, of Washington, D.C., drew 100 or so protesters, who
worry that the high-level talks have been conducted behind closed doors with
only multinational corporations given access to proposed provisions.
Watched over by a small contingent of Salt Lake City Alliance
One group held a U.S.
Among Utahns who spoke were Dale Cox, president of the
state AFL-CIO; Wayne Holland, a United Steelworkers Union representative; and
former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson.
Cox pointed to the North American Free Trade Agreement as
a model for the proposed Pacific accord, which he warned would lead to the loss
of more U.S.
Holland echoed those remarks, saying, “We cannot allow
NAFTA in the Pacific.”
Raphael Cordray, of Utah Tar Sands Resistance, said her
group fears a final agreement would allow
foreign corporations to sue local or state governments that pass laws affecting
businesses’ profits.
“That’s what people don’t understand about these trade
agreements,” Cordray said in an interview.” They
can actually take away some of the sovereignty that we have in our local
communities.”
Carol Guthrie, senior adviser for media affairs of the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which is negotiating for the United
States, said her office had worked hard to introduce “unprecedented
transparency” into the negotiations. She
also touted the importance of foreign trade to Utah
“More than 100,000 jobs in Utah Utah Utah
Besides the United States ,
nations belonging to the Trans-Pacific Partnership are Australia , Brunei ,
Canada , Chile , Malaysia ,
Mexico , New Zealand , Peru ,
Singapore , Japan and Vietnam
Groups plan to protest throughout the week, with the
talks set to last through Sunday.
~~~
It’s Back: The Budget Nightmare
Robert Borosage
Campaign for America’s Future / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 20 November 2013
It's back. Another manufactured budget
crisis. Another threatened government shutdown. Another failed
negotiation. And, like Freddy Krueger springing from your nightmares to
lay waste with his bladed glove, another Nightmare on Elm Street
Sequestration is one of those high-tone legal words
designed to be opaque. What it means is mindless, automatic,
across-the-board cuts in both domestic and military programs that do not
discriminate between the vital and the useless, the muscle and the fat, the
starved and the bloated. It is the horror movie version of budget
discipline: just lay waste to everything in reach.
The simple truth is
that sequestration should never have been adopted and should be repealed.
Immediately. Completely. Period. The following outlines only
some of its inanity. If you’d like to join in sending this message to
your legislator, go here to learn about a December 12 call-in
sponsored by many groups, including the Campaign for America
1. Sequestration cuts were designed to be
repellant.
Sequestration cuts were designed to be so repellant and
so wrong-headed that both parties in polarized Washington
In theory, this would
never happen. The Democrats would blister at cuts in programs for the
vulnerable; the Republicans not abide mindless cuts of the military. So
the threat would force the parties to agree on something less inane and
destructive.
Got that
wrong. Turns out the Tea Party wrecking crew doesn’t care if infants are
deprived of nutrition or if soldiers are deprived of training or schools are
shuttered. Sequestration went from abhorrent to embraced. Now, Iowa Senator Chuck “death
panel” Grassley says, “sequestration is working.” Ohio Rep. Jordan says
sequestration “has been one of the good things that has happened,” pledging for
the House Republicans that “we’re not going to break the sequester cap.”
The House Republican budget calls for sustaining sequestration levels of cuts,
but taking them from domestic programs, not the military. The parties
won’t agree on that so the mindless cuts go on.
2. Sequestration
offends reality: Out of control spending isn’t the problem; mass
unemployment is the problem.
Sequestration cuts assume that spending is out of control
and must be slashed with a meat axe. But federal spending has been
falling, not rising. And the deficit has fallen below the targets that
sequestration cuts were supposed to force.
Instead of helping
the economy, sequestration cuts cost jobs and weaken the faltering
recovery. We are five years into a lost decade of high
unemployment, stagnant wages and a declining middle class. The
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, an institutionalized voice for
balanced budgets, estimates that getting rid of
sequestration in FY 2014 would generate 1.6 million jobs and boost the recovery
dramatically.
3. Sequestration cuts are cruel and
indiscriminate.
Americans may feel the pain, but few know the
source. Sequestration cuts have had the ugly effect they were designed to
have. They have hurt the most vulnerable and the most valuable, while
ignoring the most indefensible. 57,000 poor preschoolers shut out of Head
Start – while the tax dodges that GE pay nothing in taxes went untouched.
Shutting kids out of Head Start will cost taxpayers more in the future – in
truancy, school dropouts, depression, and jails.
The elderly who are homebound get fewer visits from Meals
on Wheels – while billionaires still enjoy lower tax rates than their
secretaries. Budget cuts leave the poorest schools with even more crowded
classrooms, while subsidies keep flowing to big oil and agribusiness
companies. Scientists have been forced to cancel research projects, and
fire researchers who search for work abroad. Low-income families are
denied housing vouchers, insuring that more children are left without a secure
place to sleep at night.
The Full Horror Show: Will Congress end up
continuing the nightmare?
The real nightmare for Americans is that Tea Party
Republicans are so perverse that the cruel inanity of sequestration could
survive the budget negotiation.
Republicans refuse flat out to consider closing overseas
corporate tax havens or shutting down billionaire tax breaks. So there
will be no “grand bargain” in the budget negotiations. The two parties
disagree strongly on how much to spend and where to spend it. So the
budget negotiators are unlikely to come up with an agreement by their mid-December
deadline. That will lead to backroom negotiations to avoid another
government shutdown, scheduled for January if no agreement is reached.
This time, Republicans don’t want a shutdown. They
plummeted in the polls in the last shutdown, and they don’t want to get in the
way of the self-inflicted wounds Democrats are suffering from the botched
launch of health care reform. They’ll push for a deal that shields the
military from sequestration cuts and offer to “pay for” that by taking more out
of domestic programs or cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits. If
Democrats don’t agree, it wouldn’t be surprising to see a continuing resolution
cobbled together that funds government at or near sequestration levels.
Like the monsters in old horror pictures, sequestration may be destructive,
mindless, and abhorrent but somehow continue to haunt us.
And of course that
is the lesson of Nightmare on Elm
Street
~~~
If the good Lord is willing and
the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again next Tuesday or Wednesday November
26 or 27, 2013.
God
Bless You All
&
God
Bless the United States of
America
Floyd
No comments:
Post a Comment