How Can the New York Times Endorse an Agreement the Public Can't Read?

[unhappycamper]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/how-can-nytimes-endorse-agreement-public-cant-read

How Can the New York Times Endorse an Agreement the Public Can't Read?
November 7, 2013 | By Maira Sutton

The New York Times' editorial board has made a disappointing endorsement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), even as the actual text of the agreement remains secret. That raises two distressing possibilities: either in an act of extraordinary subservience, the Times has endorsed an agreement that neither the public nor its editors have the ability to read. Or, in an act of extraordinary cowardice, it has obtained a copy of the secret text and hasn't yet fulfilled its duty to the public interest to publish it.

Without a publicly available agreement, readers are forced into the uncomfortable position of taking official government statements at face value. That's reflected in the endorsement, which fails to note the myriad ways in which TPP has been negotiated undemocratically, shutting out public oversight while permitting corporate interests to drive the agenda. Given these glaring issues, it is disconcerting that the Times would take such a supportive stance on an agreement that is likely to threaten innovation and users' digital rights well into the 21st century.

That situation leaves unanswered questions. Does the editorial board, for example, support the TPP provisions that would give private corporations new tools to undermine national sovereignty and democratic processes? Because “investor-state dispute settlement,” slated for inclusion in both the TPP and the EU-US trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), would give multinational companies the power to sue countries over laws that might cut into expected future profits. This could allow corporations to unravel any policy designed to protect users against violations of their right to privacy or free speech online. The paper's endorsement notes that copyright enforcement could be expanded to suit legacy media companies, but provides no explanation of why a trade agreement is an acceptable venue for deciding such issues.

Does the New York Times also endorse an initiative to scrap democratic oversight of TPP by elected lawmakers? After all, Senate Finance committee leaders, Sen. Max Baucus and Sen. Orrin Hatch have renewed their call to pass fast-track, which would hand over Congress' constitutional mandate over US trade policy to the Obama administration. Fast-track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, would restrict lawmakers from having any proper hearings on its provisions, limiting them to an up-or-down vote on the entire 29 chapter treaty.



unhapppycamper comment: The more I read about TPP the less I like it.

[daleanime]

1. K&R....

[fasttense]

2. The TPP and TTIP are just vehicles to pass control of countries over to corporations.

These trade agreements would make the 9 unelected judges on the Dancing Supremes obsolete. If any decision made by the Dancing Supremes in any way affects multinational corporations' expected future profits then the corporation may bring a law suit against the US for it. So, basically they will simply be puppets of corporate greed... oh wait they already are.

[tecelote]

4. This is also an example of the rich eating the rich.

One of the many reasons for keeping it a secret is that it will create a shift in wealth.

[progressoid]

11. ???

[greiner3]

14. While I can't put words in the Poster's mouth;

His/her post may mean that there's a worldwide shift of power coming; US's and Western Europe's uber rich vs. the rest of the world's.

I would include in the second category such as those in Russia, China, South America and anywhere else that does not have the world wide power AND influence of the former.

Or not.

[tecelote]

23. Great response.

And, a different but valid one.

As soon as NAFTA went in to effect, I saw a lot of small and medium size apparel manufacturers go out of business or sell to the larger companies (at fire-sale prices) because as soon as the new and wonderful NAFTA resources opened up, only the larger companies could afford to jump.

It took a lot of capital to quickly purchase containers of cotton at prices far below that of American cotton. And, opening up a cut and sew house in Mexico is expensive but, once set-up, well... you know.

It was the opposite south of the border where small and medium size companies suddenly had all the business they could handle at premium prices.

But, in the states, it was a major hand out to the wealthiest once again. Only those that could afford it benefited while their smaller competitors were put out of business.

To come around to the worldwide shift in wealth, I think that this is definitely part of the trend. Look at Mexico now, they're doing much better and part of that was the shift of business from the US to Mexico because of NAFTA.

This is all so shortsighted. We're sending business from the US overseas so we can continue to shop at Walmart.

It would be better to pay more for our products and earn a higher wage because what we are paying for is being produced here in the states.

[Ian_rd]

3. KR

[magical thyme]

5. So the New York Times is worried about copyright and digital rights? How about water rights?

Do they expect everybody to pay multinational corporations for the right to drink decent water? Are they oblivious to the fact that corporations sue villages and townships trying to force them to allow drilling rights to drain their aquifers and destroy their local agriculture in exchange for a couple minimum wage jobs?

And after we all have the air quality of Beijing, I suppose they'll be selling us decent air.

Fuck. Them. All. To. Hell.

[mtasselin]

6. stopped

TPP must be stopped, the hell with the New York Times it is just another corporation trying to expand the power of all corporations. We have to make the people aware of tpp, here in Escanaba we have a strong opposition in the news paper and handouts.

[SchmerzImArsch]

7. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Or is it you play the hand you're dealt?

[rhett o rick]

16. I dont understand. Are you implying that freedom and liberty are perfect and we should

settle for the goodness of corporate servitude?

[SchmerzImArsch]

18. In my brief posting experience here

It had become my impression that if you negatively comment on something that the Democratic Party, or it's political leaders, are pursuing, then you are either not willing to accept the good, because you want the perfect, or you are not willing to play the hand you are dealt.

I'm just trying understand which applies to those who oppose the TPP.

Obviously I'm being snarky, but I think there are grains of truth in what I say.

[rhett o rick]

20. I get it now. I am a little slow on catching sarcasm. THe question mark

should have tipped me off.

[SchmerzImArsch]

22. I'm still developing my snarcasm skills

[rhett o rick]

24. I am the one that needs to be better at detecting snarcasm. Carry on. nm

[William769]

32. It's not you.

[snot]

26. Could someone please explain to me what the "good" part of the TPP is?

Maybe it would be the way it overrides US sovereignty to make us pay damages to if we try to enforce our own environmental protections against foreign polluters who do business here?

Maybe it would be the way it kicks us off the internet for 3 copyright violations, even if your kid did it accidentally?

Maybe it would be the way it withholds generic drugs from those who can't afford brand label?

Maybe it would be the way it overrides national restrictions on GMO's?

Etc.

So my info is based on a leaked, by-now-obsolete version of the treaty; so may be inaccurate at this point. Who wants to bet this secret deal has gotten sweeter – for those writing it (corporations, in secrecy – literally! – not only from us, but from Congress!)

[William769]

31. In your brief posting here under this user name right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=309258&sub=trans

[adirondacker]

8. The same paper that endorsed the war with Iraq. Another bad judgement from the NYtimes.

I used to hold the times to a pretty high standard...now, not so much. Although they do have some interesting news articles and opinion pieces, they won't get a penny from me for a subscription.

[starroute]

19. The Times has never lived up to the standard people expect of it

I got fed up with the Times over its coverage of the Vietnam War. A generation earlier, my mother had her eyes opened by their bias in reporting on the Spanish Civil War. She taught me that the paper always caters to the interests of its advertisers -- and that never changes.

[Laelth]

9. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[KoKo]

10. Recommend!

[deancr]

12. If I had a right to know

Too bad there isn't a "Snowden" serving coffee during the Time's editorial board meetings.

The tpp may redefine the nation state in a fundamental way.

Of course, citizens have no right to know for some reason far afield of the American nation states ideals.

Or I so I might believe if I had a right to know.

[Octafish]

13. New York Times shows who the Bosses are.

MONEY.

Same folks who tell the paper to lie America into war...again and again and again...

[WillyT]

15. K & R !!!

[rhett o rick]

17. I was naively hoping that with a Democratic president we would have transparency.

Especially when he ran on it.

We are in a class war and we are losing badly.

[dreamnightwind]

21. It's closer to a mugging than a war

We need the people's equivalent of mace to repel this attack.

We have few friends on either side of the aisle on this issue, and it would make a good litmus test with which to evaluate politicians and candidates.

When evaluating candidates, it's important to nail them down precisely. Candidate Obama didn't seem like someone who would favor this process yet here we are.

Primaries, 2014 and 2016.

[cui bono]

28. "Especially when he ran on it."

Sometimes that's the first clue that it won't be so.

Seriously though, Dems run as progressives and govern as centrists. It's a shame and a sham.

[rhett o rick]

33. I think when Obama ran the first time he thought he needed the left's help.

As soon as elected, he jumped toward the right. I think he decided he no longer needed to be concerned with the left as they had no where to go and he concentrated on winning the hearts of the New Democrats (converted Republicans).

The strategy was smart. As I see it, if you convince a non-voter to vote for you, that's worth one vote. In other words if the score was 10 votes to 10 votes and you got a non-voter to vote then the score would be 11 to 10. If you convince an opponents voter to switch that is worth two votes. A 10 to 10 tie would change to 11 to 9. So if you piss off a left voter by nominating Penny Pritzker, for example, you might lose a left voter and gain a middle/right voter. So this would result in a 10 to 9 result. So losing a left voter and gaining a right voter is a smart strategy. In fact, I think statistics show that only about 25% of the pissed off left voters actually refuse to vote, meaning you would only be losing 0.75% of a vote by pissing off the left, leaving you with a 10.75 to 9 margin by wooing the right/center.

[cui bono]

35. "no where to go" - We need to change that. That's why we have two parties with similar econ agendas

as far as the big picture is concerned

Clinton also ran as a progressive and then governed as a centrist and Thom Hartmann says that as soon as Clinton got into the WH someone sat him down and told him how things really work. I have never been able to find anything on that, but Hartmann is usually right about what he says.

[rhett o rick]

38. I think Obama knew before he got to the WH.

He slapped the left in the face with Rick Warren on inauguration day, forced or "allowed" Dean to exit, and chose Rahm Emanuel. And after that he never looked back appointing conservative after conservative. He embraced the Patriot Act and domestic spying. He kept the right wing Bush teams for economy and the intelligence agencies. And then Penny Pritzker, the Mitt Romney with a "D".

It's interesting seeing the Con-Dems try to rationalize Pres Obama's stands and appointments. They will tell you from one side of their face that they hate Republicans and out the other side say it's pragmatic for Pres Obama to appoint Republicans or DINO's.

The Con-Dems claim to hate Republicans yet fail to see the hypocrisy of worshiping Gen Clapper and Gen Alexander while disparaging Rep Grayson.

[snot]

25. This treaty is being written by megacorps, for megacorps; secret not only from us,

but from Congress! No sane person can purport to endorse it.

The Gray Lady has officially entered dementia.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

29. Not sure petitions help much

But I signed the one at the bottom of the link
You provided. I will follow up with phone calls
To each rep too.

[Enthusiast]

30. The liberal media is mythology.........nt

[rhett o rick]

34. So the left objects to the TPP and the Con-Dems try to disparage the left for such.

Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2013, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)

So we have heard the objections of the left, but what are the arguments by the Con-Dems? Their only argument is that the left shouldnt be against something until after it happens. In other words the Corps are pointing a gun at our head and the Con-Dems exclaim that we shouldnt panic, but wait and see.

By the way, the Con-Dems dont like to be called Con-Dems, The Third Way, the DLC'ers, etc., so they have started calling themselves "the left", and those of us to the left of them are the "crazy left". Yes, it's a bit confusing because they have had to change their "the left is too radical" meme to "the crazy left is too radical." Of course if you ever ask them to explain what is radical about the "crazy left", all you will get is crickets.

Remember, support progressive groups in lieu of the DNC, DSCC, or DCCC. We must fight for the control of the Democratic Party Machine.

[cui bono]

36. +1,000,000

One person tried to equate taking away corporate personhood with crazy Teabagger policies. That is our crazy left?

And they equated the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Roseanne Barr with the batshit crazy wingnuts who don't believe in science and don't know more than a second grader in just about any subject yet are making laws for this country. Or not making laws really.

I went at least a dozen rounds with someone else who was all snarky with me (par for the course with that one) telling me that they and the Dem Party have "moved past the left", and kept trying to insult the left with various comments (they were trying to anger me, they've admitted they enjoy it like a sport), and when I calmly kept repeating the question of what was it about what the left stands for and fights for that they don't like... it ended up they had no answer. We danced around it for days and then absolutely nothing. But then that particular person seriously knows nothing. They never have anything of substance to say, they only reason they are on here is to be snarky. It's good to make that clear though, make them state it or show that they are unable to do so.

[rhett o rick]

37. If "they" have moved anywhere it's toward the right.

Seems to me like they try to equate the crazy left that are outraged that American children go to bed hungry with the right that's outraged that slavery isnt the way of the land. They try to say it's pragmatic to accept the fact that some American children go hungry.

You say, "They never have anything of substance to say, they only reason they are on here is to be snarky." Yes some oh "them" are here to try to justify their denial. They want to follow someone blindly because it's so much easier. Less thinking involved. Less decision making. They lash out at those that dare question their authoritarian leaders. This group hates conspiracy talk. They are afraid to learn that anyone is conspiring. It hurts their comfortable denial bubbles.