Lies about #freetrade and #TPP from the #MSM

Or rather, lies about "free" trade.

I like Chris Tomlinson. Never met him personally, but his book Tomlinson Hill" was quite good, and in general, his business column stuff for the Chron is decent, and with some degree of call-outs for the need for business ethics.

But, he's an in-the-tank free trader (and some sort of in-the-tank neolib in general), and his latest column is Example No. 1 of this.

He talks about "cowardly politicians" slow-walking the TPP. First, he claims a lot of them are unprincipled, but doesn't even mention Bernie Sanders among presidential candidates, who opposes TPP for principled reasons.

Second, he claims opponents are against it wrongly, in trying to save manufacturing jobs that will never return.

Well, Chris knows damn well, as do many of us, that the TPP is about intellectual property, environmental regulations and many other things besides manufacturing laws. When I cited, on Twitter, multinational corporations using trade deals to override national laws, he Tweeted back to "keep spinning."

I Tweeted back to HIM to keep spinning himself, while providing one link (of many available) about how in NAFTA, Chapter 11 of the deal has been used exactly as I described.

Let's look at the second link:

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism contained in NAFTA’s chapter 11 grants investors the right to sue foreign governments without first pursuing legal action in the country’s court systems, in order to protect foreign investors from discrimination. Drafters of the 1994 treaty included the provision to protect U.S. and Canadian investors against corruption in Mexican courts.  

Critics argue that the mechanism limits governments from enacting policies on legitimate public concerns such as the environment and labour or human rights, and that negotiations are often carried out in secret.

Exactly, and it was probably always eyed as having that as a backup benefit. The story goes on to note Canada's been sued more than the US or Mexico.

On the specifics of the first and third links? Give that Chris works for the Houston Chronicle, at Ground Zero of oil and gas interests in America, I'm pretty sure he knows full well exactly who the Ethyl Corporation is, exactly what MMT and MTBE are, etc.

And, he chose not to include that in his column.

I've busted his chops on the Export-Import Bank before, too, pointing out how it's been used to promote fracking in other countries, with even lower fracking safety and environmental protections than here in the US — and ours aren't great.

So, who's more cowardly — some politicians, or a columnist not telling the full story about trade deals?

And, yes, I know the header's a bit harsh, Chris. But, that's my opinion. The links out there show that multinational corporations do leverage free-trade language against national governments and will continue to do in the future. They also show that free-trade deals are, more and more, about more than manufacturing jobs. They're about copyright, "creative class" work, finances and services businesses and more.

It behooves nobody to pretend otherwise.

#InsideTheMopac media will go in the tank for the #TPP

For the unfamiliar, or those missing my post of earlier this morning, the Inside the Mopac media is the Texas state-level version of the Inside the Beltway media. I'll be blogging about it more and more in the future, Peter Principle and all.

In fact, in Dallas, the Snooze is already doing it, writing a puff piece about how much ranchers will like the Trans Pacific Partnership. The piece mentions none of the potential problems for the TPP, whose full text is here.

Among things the Snooze doesn't mention is that Japan is still reserving agricultural "safeguards." We've seen how restrictive Japan has been on exports in the past. If this opens the door to other countries doing the same, then it's not much advancement. And, per that link, Japan at least isn't cracking its doors open a lot.

And, the intellectual property rules could allow genetic research on livestock improvement to become more bottled up and pricey than now.

Your Democratic debate guide, the under the bus version

This should be a goodie.

Hillary Clinton can call Bernie Sanders a gun nut (because he is), Sanders can call Clinton a Trans-Pacific Partnership hypocrite (because she is, as Perry details) and if Joe Biden doesn't officially enter the race by then, Beau Biden's last tears can sit in a jar on stage (since they told Joe to run).

Cynical? Me? Noooo.

Not because Hillary Clinton has more campaign positions than Bill had sexual positions.

Not because Bernie Sanders not only IS a gun nut, but he's actually a Democrat who's a selective war hawk and more. (Or "less," to riff on Ted Rall, as I did).

Not because the Democratic rogues gallery is so geriatric that if Biden runs, he still wouldn't be the oldest candidate.

Not when other Dem possibilities are weak tea, indeed. And that includes the Al Gore weak tea.

To complete the debate lineup, we'll have an empty suit named Martin O'Malley, a saltine named Jim Webb, preferably the traditional version (think about it, on both parts of that), and a man looking like Lincoln Chafee who, unfortunately, will be Lincoln Chafee. (Al Gore will be backstage with a massage therapist.)

And your debate drinking game?

Shots for either "Benghazi" or "socialist, as I note in my more serious guide as well.

The #TPP arrogance, and lies of Obama

The man who has redefined and taken to new heights the phrase Just.Another.Politician.™, President Barack Obama, recently called Sen. Elizabeth Warren, an ardent foe of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, "another politician" for her criticisms of his bromance with TPP.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown then called Obama to task for this.

And now?

He expects Sherrod Brown to apologize for calling him out.

Yes, read that again.

White House press secretary Joshua Earnest said Wednesday he’s confident Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, will “find a way to apologize” once he takes another look at Tuesday remarks he made about President Obama’s criticism of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat.

Brown has nothing for which to apologize.

In fact, he's right about one thing. Calling Warren just by first name might not be something Obama does regularly to male senators; if nothing else, HE needs to apologize. 

But he won't.

Here's what he said, in an interview with the man apparently trying to appoint himself the media high priest of neoliberalism, Matt Bai:

“The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else,” Mr. Obama had said in a weekend interview with Yahoo News.

Yep, that's at least at the edge of sounding sexist. 

As for Earnest's claim that he does that with male senators, I doubt so, not in a first reference as a third party.

Meanwhile, Bai, doubling down on his apparent self-defined role as neoliberal court jester (I've had a Twitter exchange with him over his new Gary Hart book and related matters, and I stand by this take) talks about Obama and the "professional left."

Remember how, about a year into office, Obama asked progressives to challenge him from the left, then, only weeks later, then-press secretary Robert Gibbs showed this was all a crock?

Of course, Obama flat-out lies elsewhere in that interview, like about "standing up to Wall Street." If  he had, "Elizabeth" would be running the Consumer Finance Protection Agency. Dick Cordray's not bad, but Dear Leader refused to push Warren into the position.

Beyond that, the reality is that a lot more people than Elizabeth Warren — including unions and environmentalists — oppose Dear Leader on this one and rightly so.

And, we need to keep more Dems besides Obama feeling the heat. Even free-trading sellout Ron Wyden voted against Senate cloture on fast track. He knew that the currency-manipulation issue was a no-go, and besides, Congress has had years to address that elsewhere and hasn't. But, he knows he needs fig leaves, and he'll back three to negotiate away one or two. Obama is either clueless or unaccepting of such ideas. See friend Perry for more.

Even Crooked Timber, which should know better, can get Obama wrong:

The result has been a significant shift to the left in the second Obama Administration, reflected in more populist rhetoric, the abandonment of the search for bipartisanship and in some substantive policy shifts, for example on minimum wages. The big exceptions are issues like the TPP and the security state, where Obama was captured by the permanent government almost from day 1, and has never shifted.

Erm, no.

His summer 2008 flip-flop on the telecoms showed that Dear Leader had voluntarily surrendered to the "permanent government" long before his official day 1. 

The arrogance is nothing new, either, certainly not on this issue. Note his appearance in front of an American flag at Nike HQ last week. The company basically makes nothing in the US; what it does make is made largely by international sweatshop labor in physically and environmentally unsafe conditions. And, more of that is supposed to help Americans how?

And, for all he irritates some Republicans, Harry Reid is showing why Dems will miss him as Senate Majority/Minority Leader. In part, for all he irritates some Republicans. Obama should have been taking notes years ago. Dana Milbank notes that a mix of contempt for, and past failure to lobby, Congress, is coming home to roost. Calling yourself, indirectly, "the smartest guy in the room" will piss off other politicians. (The piece is actually good for him; I guess he's done writing stupidity about DC craft brews or whatever.)

The fact that Obama expects Sherrod Brown to apologize is another example of his arrogance. Far beyond this issue, so is the "smartest guy in the room's" use of "folks" so often, so jarringly.

The fact that he doesn't care that he might be perceived as arrogant is itself part of the arrogance too. Let's go meta!

Update: With Sherrod Brown doing a semi-cave just a day after the Senate's initial vote, maybe he DOES owe an apology — to the American public. Having side issues delinked from fast track itself is toothless. And, if those side issues fail to pass the Senate, or even pass cloture, themselves, what are you going to do, Sen. Brown?

I mean, weren't those side agreements on NAFTA unbundled from the main body, so that even though they were passed, that made them easier to not enforce? It's not buying a pig in a poke, if you've looked in a similar poke before and know you were actually buying a skunk, and still bought it.

#TPP — we're officially on a fast track to hell

Sen. Ron Wyden,
corporate whore

Yes, we're slouching yet further toward neoliberal Gomorrah, as both the House and Senate have given President Barack Obama "fast track authority" for the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Ross Perot wasn't totally right about "sucking sounds" in NAFTA, but the TPP appears to be not a lot more than a giant sucking sound for Beijing.

Oh, but there’s this pretty bit:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, had to agree to stringent requirements for the trade deal to win over Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the finance panel. Those requirements included a human-rights negotiating objective that has never existed in trade agreements, according to lawmakers involved in the talks.

Yeah, right.

Hey, Wyden, remember NAFTA and the environmental provisions? Well, the executive branch is who has to enforce those, and Slick Willie (let alone  Shrub) never did.

And, this isn’t even a provision. You’re just asking Obama to make it a trade negotiating objective, which you know China will never accept, unless it’s even more toothless than the environmental deal it inked with Dear Leader a few months back.

And, once again, people have to actually wonder why I vote Green whenever I have the chance? When the answer is right in front of your face?

Oh, folks, politics may involve compromise at times. It doesn’t require compromise all the time. And “capitulate” is not the same as “compromise,” either.

Labor and environmental standards were also part of NAFTA, too. And never enforced.

And, given that Wyden was in the House from 1981-1996, he knows all this. Mainly because he voted to approve NAFTA.

I mean, this is the same Ron Wyden on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has repeatedly claimed that he's wanted to reveal all about the NSA's snooping programs, but, somehow, despite the Constitution legally allowing him to spill the beans, since:

(F)or any Speech or Debate in either House, (members of Congress) shall not be questioned (as in criminally interrogated) in any other Place.

Wyden just hasn't gotten around to finding any guts in his body. Wyden, like Obama, exemplifies Teddy Roosevelt's dictum about not having the backbone of a chocolate eclair.

And, for the final sardonic laugh in that area, I have to go to the "about Ron" page of his Senate website:

Whether he’s taking on powerful interests, listening to constituents at one of his famous town hall meetings or standing up for Oregonians on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Ron Wyden is an effective leader on the issues that matter most.

Really?

He's a sellout to powerful interests. Per Puff Hoes, he's hurting his re-election chances by this, so he's obviously not listening to constituents and he's of course not standing up for Oregonians.

Sidebar to "Democrats first" types: This is why I don't believe what Hillary Clinton says. Why do you?

(That includes Democrats now thinking that Hillz might do differently than Obama on TPP when her husband not only signed NAFTA but pushed for it! I guess I must, once again, tell you to read Doug Henwood. Specifically, on labor issues, there's page 5, detailing how she and the Slickster picked a fight with the Arkansas teachers union; and there's page 8, which details how she was a primary backer of almost zero major legislation while in the Senate.)

You know the answer: Vote Green, or Socialist, every chance you get.