posted on July 30, 2005 10:13:59 AM newLiberals wear the white hats, conservatives were the black hats na na na na nanana
What makes a Liberal...what makes a Conservative?
The terms Conservative and Liberal gives a false perception that there are only two sides to any issue, and to politics in general. If forced to label myself, I'm more liberal than conservative, but really, neither label truly fits.
But it is human nature that we all want to classify everything into categories so that we can divide them further.
posted on July 30, 2005 10:24:43 AM new
Maggie, I don't agree that is the truth anywhere but on these boards.
There are actually disagreeing factions within BOTH parties at this time....the hard-core liberals [kerry, dean, reid, pelosi etc] vs...those more moderate dems like b. clinton was, Liberman is, etc and they ARE fighting for power within their party. Don't fool yourself.
But here, yes, I agree....it appears we are either one way or the other...with no in between to be seen.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 30, 2005 10:35:40 AM new
But the thing is that the average Joe is a pedestrian. They have to have right and wrong, black and white, etc. They get confused if things aren't neatly classified and packaged and bundled.imo
posted on July 30, 2005 10:43:09 AM new
What makes a Liberal..
1. Liberals have larger brains and sit on them all day and are more intelligent than Conservatives because they can only concentrate on one thing at a time.
2. Liberals have bigger hearts because they hate exerciseand are more loving and kind than Conservatives a lession learned at clinton's feet.
3. Liberals are way better looking than Conservatives because of all the plastic surgery they have had
.
4.Liberals have better vision and see the world in color,and wide screen mode, thanks to the use of LSD. Conservatives use tunnel vision mode, in black and white only because they refuse to use LSD.
5.Liberals are free thinkers because anything they get from the government for free is better always looking ahead because they dont want to see what is catching up to them from the rear, Conservatives are followers of what is right who feel more comfortable within tight guidelines of what is right and oppose change if it works, why change it.
6.Liberals are more generous with other peoples money, Conservatives are penny pinching and selfish a penny saved is a penny earned.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on July 30, 2005 01:22:59 PM new
MAgs - do you really believe that? I mean is this board filled with people that are the except to the rule for society at large in that most do see shades of grey? I mean, even Linda, who is frequently accused of seeing only black or white was able to see the sides of the CAFTA issue and recognise that there is not an absolute right or an absolute wrong on the issue.
I mean, don't get me wrong...I'm not denying that I am exceptional, but do you really think that we all are?
On a completely unrelated note - Doing inventory SUCKS!!!
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 30, 2005 01:59 PM ]
posted on July 30, 2005 03:28:02 PM newChanging positions because they both want a chance at the Presidency in 2008. Whereas to this President polls don't change his views....values.
People can change their minds over time and I do not see anything wrong with that if it is for the right reasons.
I think the President does listen to the polls and the last State of Union address was proof of it. He had to give the speach because the people of this country were growing impatient with this war and most of American was thinking the Iraq War is wrong.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 30, 2005 03:39:15 PM new
You Might Be A Republican If...
You think "proletariat" is a type of cheese.
You've named your kids "Deduction one" and "Deduction two"
You've tried to argue that poverty could be abolished if people were just allowed to keep more of their minimum wage.
You've ever referred to someone as "my (insert racial or ethnic minority here) friend"
You've ever tried to prove Jesus was a capitalist and opposed to welfare.
You're a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty.
You think Huey Newton is a cookie.
The only union you support is the Baseball Players, because heck, they're richer than you.
You think you might remember laughing once as a kid.
You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie.
You call mall rent-a-cops "jack-booted thugs."
You've ever referred to the moral fiber of something.
You've ever uttered the phrase, "Why don't we just bomb the sons of bitches."
You've ever said, "I can't wait to get into business school."
You've ever called a secretary or waitress "Tootsie."
You answer to "The Man."
You don't think "The Simpsons" is all that funny, but you watch it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense.
You fax the FBI a list of "Commies in my Neighborhood."
You don't let your kids watch Sesame Street because you accuse Bert and Ernie of "sexual deviance."
You scream "Dit-dit-ditto" while making love.
You've argued that art has a "moral foundation set in Western values."
When people say "Marx," you think "Groucho."
You've ever yelled, "Hey hippie, get a haircut."
You think Birkenstock was that radical rock concert in 1969.
You argue that you need 300 handguns, in case a bear ever attacks your home.
Vietnam makes a lot of sense to you.
You point to Hootie and the Blowfish as evidence of the end of racism in America.
You've ever said civil liberties, schmivil schmiberties.
You've ever said "Clean air? Looks clean to me."
You've ever called education a luxury.
You look down through a glass ceiling and chuckle.
You wonder if donations to the Pentagon are tax-deductable.
You came of age in the '60s and don't remember Bob Dylan.
You own a vehicle with an "Ollie North: American Hero" sticker.
You're afraid of the liberal media."
You ever based an argument on the phrase, "Well, tradition dictates...."
You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch "lives in a trash can because he is lazy and doesn't want to contribute to society."
You've ever urged someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when they don't even have shoes.
You confuse Lenin with Lennon.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 30, 2005 05:57:46 PM new
"""""What makes a liberal?
Someone who gladly spends someone else's money, wants things they haven't earned and is easily swayed into believing people on the opposite side are evil. """""
(I am a Liberal and have never spent anyone else's money. The conservatives act evil and do evil things, hence, I believe them to be evil....if it quacks like a duck.....)
"""Claim to be self thinkers but are the biggest koolaid drinkers of all."""
(Nope, wrong again, since I got involved in politics I noticed that Liberals are more likely to look past the bumper stickers and try to find out what really happened instead of blindly believing everything politicians say.)
"""Claim to be tolerant but show the least tolerance of all."""
(Liberals are not tolerant of things like the president lying, committing treason, lying, supporting torture, lying, letting corporations pollute freely, lying, rolling back minority rights, lying, giving huge tax breaks to the ultra rich, lying, being too cowardly to fight for his country but happily sending others off to be killed and maimed with his lying, lying, .....yes,we are intolerant of these things that the neocons lovingly embrace.)
"""Liberals claim to care, but only if they get the some sort of recognition for it."""
(HUH, where'd that come from...and you mean conservatives never brag about the things they've done? really?)
posted on July 30, 2005 07:56:57 PM new
You could be a liberal if:
You had a Vendio user name of Crowfarm, were suspended inumeral times and came back with the new ID Mingotree.
If you think the answer to ANY crime, infraction, or injustice is counseling.
If you think the criminal has more rights than the police who arrest this criminal, unless the crime is sexual harassment, or racism.
If you use the term 'open-minded' and don't care that it can't be defined in absolute terms.
If you think only white people can be racist.
If you think that the Constitution is a living document and should be changed but the writings of Karl Marx are "written in stone".
If you think burning the United States flag should be Constitutionally protected but burning a cross should be outlawed.
If your idea of hell is having to mind your own business and not meddle in other people's lives.
f you believe that posting the "Ten Commandments" in schools will hurt the children, but putting "Heather Has Two Mommies" or "Ask Alice" (on the internet) won't.
if you think that conservatives have no sense of humor then shudder at the idea of a Clinton joke.
If you think that the only way the tragedy in Littleton, CO could have been avoided was to restrict the access of the guns, two of which were bought on the black market.
You're a liberal if you can't see the irony in your own beliefs.
f you want to make the rich "pay their fair share" but leave Ted (more people have been killed in my car than in an American nuclear power plant) Kennedy and Dick Gebhardt out of the definition of the rich.
You're a liberal if you think what Hitler did to the Jews is horrible but the "Christian Right" is dangerous and needs to be done away with.
f you think that bombing on Iraq couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the impeachment vote... then why did they stop as soon as the vote was done?
You get mad when rape victims' sexual history is plastered all over the news media, but think Paula Jones' sexual history "must be made public."
You hate Hillary jokes.
You want to outlaw cigarrettes and legalize marijuana
You want to legalize cocaine and outlaw handguns. You think cops are pigs and criminals are products of their environment.
You believe the National Rifle Association helps criminals while the American Civil Liberties Union protects the innocent.
Jesse Jackson makes sense to you. Barbra Streisand makes even more sense.
Lastly, you're a liberal if - you don't get the points above.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on July 30, 2005 08:21:16 PM new""You had a Vendio user name of Crowfarm, were suspended inumeral times and came back with the new ID Mingotree.""
I'm amazed that this is so fascinating to some posters here.
The poor things sure don't have much of a life if this is of any concern to them.
And, like the rest of bear's post, is totally without any proof whatsoever. Just a bunch of droolings from another Alzheimer's victim.
posted on July 30, 2005 09:14:04 PM new
mingotree, I hear what you are saying. Who the heck cares who you are or what screen name you use or don't use.
The problem with people like Bear and Linda_K is they really don't have anything left in defense of their failed President.
We all know its a well known republican trick to try to discredit someone when they don't like what that person is thinking or saying. I.E. Carl Rove.
Bear and Linda_K better get ready for a long swim against the tide. Both are on a quickly sinking ship and the tide against them is getting stronger.
posted on July 31, 2005 05:09:07 AM new
Liberals believe in a one's right to change their mind after having thought things through and after having gathered information from both sides of the fence. Prof did just that. Is there something wrong with that?
Liberals are about what's fair for all. Not what's fair for a few or even fair for the majority. Fair for all.
We're supposed to share this planet. Not scramble over the top of one another for a better place on it.
posted on July 31, 2005 05:36:46 AM new "Bear and Linda_K better get ready for a long swim against the tide. Both are on a quickly sinking ship and the tide against them is getting stronger."
Right, Bigpeepa. Gallup, a very conservative polling organization announced July 27 that the Bush Approval rating has dropped to the lowest of the Bush presidency...only 44% and his honesty rating is still at the lowest level of his presidency. Americans are aware that he is a liar, and a lousy president...in his own words, an "evil doer".
posted on July 31, 2005 05:45:12 AM new
Hibbertst posted this impressive list of programs, laws and improvements "championed by liberals to which the short sighted, self serving conservatives objected.
Social Security, Medicare , Medicaid, Women's right to vote, GI Bill, Marshall Plan, NATO, Americans With Disabilities Act, Minimum Wage Law, Bank Deposit Insurance, Earned Income Tax Credit, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Family and Medical Leave Act, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Public Broadcasting, Universal Public Education, National Weather Service, Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws, Morrill Land Grant Act, Rural Electrification, Public Universities, Peace corps, Civil rights movement, The Tennessee Valley project, Labor Laws, Environmental Laws, Food safety laws, Workplace safety laws, Space Program, Operation Head Start, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Interstate Highway System, 8-hour workday, Water Quality Act, Clean Air Act, First Man on the Moon, Women's Suffrage Amendment, Workers Compensation Act, Unemployment Compensation Act, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Home Loan Program, Securities & Exchange Act, Guaranteed Student Loan Program, School Lunch Program, Motor Voter Act, Balanced budget in 1998 as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1993, etc., etc.
posted on July 31, 2005 06:48:46 AM new
Sorry fenix, LindaTwelveK just blew a hole in your
""I mean, even Linda, who is frequently accused of seeing only black or white was able to see the sides of the CAFTA issue and recognise that there is not an absolute right or an absolute wrong on the issue. """
In the CAFTA thread she just posted with smilies all over the place how happy she is that CAFTA passed....delighted that more Americans will lose their jobs, delighted that the poor in South American countries will now be abused even more, delighted that the rich in South American countries will become even richer on the broken backs of the poor laborers there. NAFTA did it and now LindaTwelveK is sooo happy CAFTA will do it , too.
SEEING both sides of the issue ? Maybe. But we all can see both sides.....I chose the correct side, she favors the nasty side, of course.
posted on July 31, 2005 07:53:43 AM new
Cheryl - What is it about
After listening to both sides and their arguments....I don't know which way I'd vote [had I the opportunity to do so]
that you think I did not understand?
Sounds to me as though this was someone that saw pro and cons on both sides of the issues. As for Mingos interpretations of the results of the law, I give those as much credence as I give to Bers insistance that anyone that does not fall into lockstep with Bush is a America hating pinko commie.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 31, 2005 08:00:00 AM new
According to Bear:
If you use the term 'open-minded' and don't care that it can't be defined in absolute terms.
Open minded is not being able to see things in just black and white like Republicans do.
[i]You're a liberal if you think what Hitler did to the Jews is horrible but the "Christian Right" is dangerous and needs to be done away with.
[/i]
The Christian right is just as bad. Both Hitler and the Christian Right use fear to manipulate people and try to control people.
If you think that bombing on Iraq couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the impeachment vote... then why did they stop as soon as the vote was done?
No we just believe the current Iraq War was started beacuse Bush wanted to finish what his father was not able to do or did not want to do
Jesse Jackson makes sense to you. Barbra Streisand makes even more sense.
I dislike them both, so what does that make me
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 31, 2005 08:13:48 AM new
Thank you very much, fenix. It's a pleasure to know that you can at least comprehend what you've read. I, for one, very much appreciate that.
The other two hotheaded liberals [cheryl and crowfarm/mg] don't appear to me to EVER understand what is written....and then they even take it one step further and start making things up that they think others have said.
But they just lose their own credibility each and everytime they do this 'twisting' of what's actually said, imo.
posted on July 31, 2005 08:44:14 AM newI do believe there will be more jobs lost because of this....but maybe the long term benefit of trade will help those underdeveloped countries do better and we won't have more seeking to live here....since they'll be able to earn a decent living in their own countries.
This comment is not speaking FOR Cafta? Is it not your opinion on it? Did you not take up sides with that comment? Doesn't look like an "I don't know" comment to me.
posted on July 31, 2005 08:53:35 AM new
Uh on fenix's comprehension skills...no better no worse than others...
""The document proposes an explicitly Islamic state with a strong Shiite Muslim identity and less progressive laws for women than existed under Saddam Hussein.""
Had a real hard time comprehending "less than".
Happy and proud to be a hot-headed Liberal ! Thank you LindaTwelveK !
Better than a hateful, nasty, shriveled up old sheep(who believes torture is great ...for anyone else, hates the poor, loves the ultra-rich, hates anything that will protect the environment that her grandchildren will have to live in, believes abusing workers in other countries is , as Tom Delay says, a shining beacon of American enterprise", believes anyone who is not HER is wrong) ....""baaa, baaa! I love Our Dictator Bush baaa!""'
CAFTA—More False Promises
By John J. Sweeney
Increasing jobs. Raising the standard of living. Spreading the wealth.
That’s what America’s workers are being promised with the latest trade boondoggle now in Congress, the Dominican Republic-Central AmericanFree Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
But we’ve heard those promises before. In 1993, America’s workers were promised that passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would stimulate the economy through new jobs, more opportunities, better options.
Instead, nearly 900,000 U.S. jobs have been lost or not created because of skyrocketing deficits under NAFTA, and real wages in Mexico have fallen, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
Now, Big Business-backed members of Congress and the president are at it again. But no elected official who cares about the well-being of working people can vote for CAFTA.
Because CAFTA is so similar to NAFTA, we know what it won’t do: It won’t create more jobs or provide vast new trade opportunities. Here’s what this flawed trade deal will do:
Eliminate U.S. jobs. CAFTA supporters say the pact will open markets and create more U.S. jobs—but the Central American market is tiny, and not likely to absorb significant increases in U.S. exports. American agriculture already controls 99 percent of the CAFTA nation’s corn import market, 98 percent for rice and 85 percent for wheat. In fact, the Bush administration’s own studies on CAFTA, prepared by the International Trade Commission, conclude CAFTA will actually increase our trade deficit with Central America slightly—not spur job growth.
Increase poverty in Central America. Despite overwhelming evidence that Central America’s labor laws and practice allow employers to routinely abuse workers, CAFTA utterly fails to address this problem. CAFTA’s one enforceable workers’ rights provision requires only that countries enforce their own labor laws—laws that even the U.S. State Department has documented as failing to meet international standards. And CAFTA would allow countries to further weaken or gut their labor laws at any time, with no penalties possible.
Give Big Business a big payoff. CAFTA includes excessive protections for multinational corporations that will undermine the ability of governments to protect public health and the environment. To comply with CAFTA, the U.S. Trade Representative and pharmaceutical companies forced Guatemala to pass data protections that could impose an additional five-year waiting period on generic drugs. Humanitarian organizations, such as Doctors Without Borders, have objected that these provisions in CAFTA will make newer medicines harder to afford.
The Bush administration has refused to include meaningful and enforceable workers’ rights protections in CAFTA—and has gone so far as to suppress a report commissioned by the administration’s own Department of Labor thathighlighted labor abuses in nations that would become part of CAFTA. The Labor Department ordered the contractor, the International Labor Rights Fund, to remove the report from its website, demanded that paper copies be retrieved and instructed the contractor not to discuss the results of the report.
Such censorship seeks to hide the fact that CAFTA’s rules on workers’ rights are actually weaker than the current labor conditions that apply to Central American countries under our unilateral trade preference programs, the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI). CAFTA’s section on labor actually backtracks from the labor standards in GSP and CBI, which require countries to take steps to afford internationally recognized workers’ rights or lose trade benefits.
These preference programs have been the impetus for improving workers’ rights in Central America: Nearly every labor law reform that has taken place in Central America over the past 15 years has been the direct result of a threat to withdraw benefits under our preference programs.
Working families support free trade. But free trade also must be fair: To workers, to the communities and to the environment. CAFTA is none of these.
by Deborah James
U.S.-based Harken Energy Company wanted to exploit oil off the coast of Costa Rica, a country known for its long history of democracy as well as its pristine natural parks and natural resources. But the Costa Rican government denied the permit because the oil exploration would negatively impact Costa Rica's environment. Harken attempted to sue the government for $57 billion -- more than the country's entire GDP. The case was eventually settled in local courts. But if CAFTA is approved, Harken would have the right to sue the Costa Rican government for expropriation. Then the Costa Rican people would be left with two options: let Harken drill for oil and damage the environment, or pay them potential lost future profits.
For decades, governments have worked together through the United Nations to develop agreements to protect the natural resources of our shared planet. Unfortunately, so-called "free trade agreements" threaten to erode many of the advances in global environmental protection, endangering our planet and the natural resources necessary to support life. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and certain agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) were written to prioritize rights for corporations over protections for our shared environment.
But rather than being repealed, corporate interests are negotiating the expansion of these corporate rights. The U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), soon to go before Congress, and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), currently in negotiations, are modeled on NAFTA. In addition, negotiations are proceeding within the WTO to expand many of its policies.
These new agreements threaten global biodiversity, would accelerate the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops, increase natural resource exploitation, further degrade some of the most critical environmental regions on the planet, and erode the public's ability to protect our planet for future generations.
No Protections for the Environment
Neither CAFTA nor the FTAA require member countries to adopt internationally recognized standards for environmental protection. Nor does either agreement ensure that member countries don't lower or waive their existing environmental laws in an effort to attract investment. What's more, rules in CAFTA and the FTAA would actually prohibit member countries from enacting many new environmental regulations, allowing those regulations to be challenged as "barriers to trade." This strips the public from a fundamental democratic right to pass laws that protect our environment in favor of corporations' "right" to profit from environmental destruction.
Mega-Diverse Countries
Latin America is one of the most biologically and culturally diverse regions on the planet. Four of the five Central American countries included in CAFTA have tropical areas that have been identified as "critical regions" for their biodiversity. Additionally, 7 of the world's 12 "megadiverse" countries, (Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica and Colombia) are found in the Americas. "Mega-diversity" countries represent the majority of the world's biodiversity and surviving Indigenous peoples, the true guardians of biodiversity. Unfortunately, so-called "free trade" agreements directly contradict important international legislation designed to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples and biodiversity, like the Convention on Biological Diversity as well as the International Labor Organization Convention 169, which states that Indigenous groups must be consulted on issues that affect their rights to land and livelihood.
Piracy of Global Biodiversity
In the last decade, the biodiversity of the Americas has been targeted by "life science" corporations (the growing consolidation of pharmaceutical, agrichemical and seed companies) in search of "green gold." These corporations are pillaging humankind's patrimony of traditional knowledge and biodiversity to create and patent drugs and agricultural products to sell for profit. The quest to patent life forms, especially medicinal plants and crops, threatens our food security, access to healthcare, and the biological and cultural diversity of the Americas.
Intellectual property rules in CAFTA and the FTAA would require that member countries grant protections to the patenting of life forms. This would facilitate a massive increase in "bioprospecting" or the practice of corporations patenting Indigenous communities' knowledge of plants and then profiting from that knowledge -- while forcing Indigenous communities to pay for what they had previously held in common.
No GE Food Labeling
Despite the fact that independent polls in virtually every country on the planet demonstrate that people want genetically-engineered (GE) foods labeled, corporations and the U.S. government have refused to do so. Giant agribusiness multinationals ADM and Cargill have generally refused to segregate GE from non-GE crops, eliminating consumer choice and imposing GE foods on consumers. With CAFTA and the FTAA, labeling laws would be prohibited as "more burdensome than necessary" for agribusiness investors.
More GE Contamination
Dozens of crops have been developed and domesticated in the Americas over the last 10,000 years, including corn and potatoes, two of the world's most important crops for food security. The traditional cradles of food diversity are threatened by encroaching genetic contamination. The experience of Mexico under NAFTA offers an example of what's to come for Central America under CAFTA. NAFTA forced open protected Mexican corn markets to a flood of cheap imports of corn from the U.S. Corn imports into Mexico have displaced at least one and a half million farmers and are steadily eroding the genetic diversity of thousands of native corn varieties. Then, in September 2001, genetic contamination of native corn varieties was discovered as a result of the introduction of artificially low-priced GE corn from the United States under NAFTA. The expansion of GE crops threatens food security around the world.
CAFTA and the FTAA completely disregard international law, such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, designed to regulate the cultivation and trade of genetically modified organisms.
Ancient varieties of corn in Mexico are being wiped out by GMO corn dumping from the U.S.
A Bill of Rights for Corporations?
While limiting public regulation for environmental protections, CAFTA and the FTAA would grant expansive powers to corporations. CAFTA's investor protections are modeled after one of the most hotly contested sections in NAFTA—its Chapter 11—a virtual Bill of Rights for corporations. These provisions allow corporations to sue governments for "damages" if a government law affects their profits. Chapter 11 of NAFTA has undermined the sovereignty of democratically elected governments, and their ability to act in the public interest. An issue over a Quebec environmental law banning specific pesticides reveals how these provisions undermine environmental protection.
Quebec law bans a popular weed killer called 2,4-D, which is considered a possible human carcinogen, and has been shown to adversely affect the immune system and reproductive functions in humans, among other impacts. But now a corporate lobbying group representing some of the makers of the pesticide are threatening to challenge the law by suing the Canadian government under NAFTA's Chapter 11. The provincial government of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers have been given a harsh choice: pay the corporations millions of dollars in future lost profits, or repeal the law. Similar Chapter 11 cases have led to the overturn of environmental laws and millions of dollars in fines paid to corporations. If CAFTA is enacted, investor-to-state lawsuits will be spread to the corporations of six additional countries, threatening critical environmental protection in the U.S. and Central America.
Limiting Public Regulations
Both CAFTA and an agreement currently under negotiation in the WTO covering Services would make it increasingly difficult for governments to regulate and limit multinational corporate activity in environmentally-damaging activities such as oil extraction, forestry, electricity generation, road construction, and waste incineration in the interests of environmental protection.
In addition, under the proposed WTO rules on Services, governments could be required to let foreign corporations violate environmental standards. For instance, requirements that that a percentage of electricity be produced from environmentally-friendly energy sources could be found to "discriminate" against a foreign service companies if those companies don't provide environmentally-friendly energy, and would have to be scrapped under proposed WTO rules -- even if the standard is the most effective way to protect the environment.
Natural Resources and the WTO
Corporate interests are also negotiating the expansion of the WTO through an agreement on Non-Agricultural Market Access, or NAMA. Primarily involving industrial manufactured goods, NAMA also includes trade in natural resources such as forest products, gems and minerals, and fishing and fish products. NAMA aims to reduce tariffs as well as decreasing or eliminating so-called Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs), which can include measures for environmental protection and community development.
Eliminating tariffs in natural resources would dramatically increase their exploitation. The World Forum of Fish-harvesters and Fish-workers has warned of the devastation to fish conservation posed by NAMA. Even the U.S. Trade Representative has acknowledged that eliminating tariffs on wood products would dramatically increase logging, exacerbating deforestation in some of the world's most sensitive forests.
The WTO has already identified a wide range of environmental policy tools as potential 'barriers to trade': the certification of sustainably-harvested wood and fish products; restrictions on trade in harmful chemicals; and packaging, marketing and labeling requirements such as organic and Fair Trade labeling.
Increased Trade Increases Our Dependency on Oil
Increasing trade increases our consumption of and dependency on oil, which has created a massive global crisis of human-induced climate change. The rise of global temperatures means more severe droughts and floods that will literally change the face of the Earth; the loss of coastal lands and the destruction of forests; an increase in heat waves and other human health hazards; and the extinction of plant and animal species. Our consumption of oil also leads to violations of the human rights of peoples in oil-producing countries such as Ecuador, Colombia, Indonesia, and Nigeria, who suffer environmental heath problems, displacement, and contamination of their communities. Increased trade -- and hence dependence on oil -- will also contribute to global insecurity by providing further incentive for the drive towards war as the U.S. government struggles for control over this most strategic global resource.
Environmentalists Oppose CAFTA
Most environmental organizations in the United States have written letters to the U.S. Trade Representative and members of the U.S. Congress, voicing their opposition to CAFTA. Groups as diverse as Center for International Environmental Law, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and U.S. PIRG have sounded out a warning about CAFTA's negative potential impact on our shared environment. And in Central America, over 800 social organizations -- including many environmental groups -- signed a petition in July of 2004 urging the U.S. Congress to reject CAFTA.
We Can Stop CAFTA and WTO Expansion
"Free trade" agreements are generally little more than code words for corporate expansion across the globe at the expense of communities and our environment. CAFTA may be sent to Congress for approval this year, and the WTO negotiations will continue through a key Ministerial meeting in December, 2005 in Hong Kong. But we can stop CAFTA from being approved and the WTO from being expanded--and instead work for global trade agreements that protect our planet for generations to come.
For more informationon Free Trade and the Environment:
Sierra Club www.sierraclub.org
Friends of the Earth www.foe.org
Citizens Trade Campaign www.citizenstrade.org
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch www.citizen.org/trade/
Third World Network www.twnside.org.sg
CONTACT Global Exchange at 415-255-7296 or write [email protected] for more information.
posted on July 31, 2005 09:19:54 AM new
Mingo - while you are copying and pasting could you please copy find and paste here where I have expressed ANY opinion on CAFTA.
My opinion on CAFTA has abolutely nothing to do with the point of what I said.
Oh and BTW - while I know that I do not need to point it out because you are already well aware of it, I did not misunderstand the quote that you posted. What I misunderstood was your position on it which I already stated.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 31, 2005 09:21 AM ]
posted on July 31, 2005 09:53:12 AM new
Who WAS President in 1993, when NAFTA was signed and nearly 900,000 jobs were lost or not created? Hmmmmmmmm......
Sounds like SOME things are just remaining the same.
""You had a Vendio user name of Crowfarm, were suspended inumeral times and came back with the new ID Mingotree.""
