TPP: Corporate takeover
I was very disappointed to see the Arkansas Times fail to step out of the acceptable liberal narrative with its neutral stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The excuse given was something like "Oh dear, it's just so complicated ..." What a cop-out!
The fact that the TPP is being negotiated behind closed doors by corporate lawyers, that only a few are privy to its entire contents, and that unauthorized viewing of it by anyone else can lead to jail time, should be a red flag in and of itself. So much for government transparency or an impartial public judiciary.
This much is known about the TPP from leaks: of the 30 or so chapters in the agreement, only five deal with actual "trade." The rest are devoted entirely to corporate protection.
According to a Huffington Post article by Joseph E. Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University and a Nobel Laureate in Economics:
"The real intent of these provisions is to impede health, environmental, safety, and, yes, even financial regulations meant to protect America's own economy and citizens. Companies can sue governments for full compensation for any reduction in their future 'expected' profits resulting from regulatory changes."
In other words, corporations and multinationals — which hold no loyalty to any country — can sue a nation's government for potential losses in revenue, as opposed to actual losses. Philip Morris is doing that right now to Uruguay and Australia because these countries put graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. Smoking went down, so Philip Morris is suing.
The corporations involved in the TPP are ones who are authoring it. They're writing in special dispensations for themselves, and none for ordinary citizens, unions or civil-society groups.
I'll not sit back while corporate lapdogs like John Boozman and Tom Cotton hand over the sovereignty of our nation to a three-person panel of corporate lawyers.
Do the right thing, Arkansas Times. Tell the people what's really going on. Or are you afraid to step out of the box of local news and really speak truth to power?
Questions on Duggar
In cases of child molestation the statue of limitations does not expire until 3 years after the child has reached the age of 18. Why then has a judge allowed for the destruction of evidence in the Josh Duggar case? The youngest victim of his repeated molestations was only 5 at the time and therefore the statue of limitations will not have expired. I am also troubled by the fact that the police in this case were not able to interview Josh because his parents did not think it was necessary. If Josh had committed arson or robbed a convenience store at gunpoint would police have just taken the refusal of the parents as an answer or would they have hauled his butt to a station to answer some questions? Your prosecutors and police are looking really, really incompetent and I am wondering why the citizens of Arkansas are putting up with this. Are your police and prosecutors unaware of the statue of limitations and how it applies to minors? Do they just not think it's a priority? The age difference between the perpetrator and his victims, the repeated nature and the large number of victims should have made this a case to pursue. Also, the parents knew that there were repeated molestations over quite a bit of time and chose to allow their daughters to be victimized. Is this not a case of child endangerment? They have a young daughter in their home now. Will they protect her? Is anyone from the department of social services looking into this?
From the web
In response to Arkansas Blog reporting on news that Josh Duggar molested five girls as a teenager, including four of his little sisters:
Oh, could old Karma be visiting the Duggar family? Josh & Family goes ape-shit over equality in Fayetteville but now tell us squeezing your little sisters' tits brings them all closer to God? And I used to buy that God stuff by the dump truck loads.
You know, back in the old days, the general population hid people like the Duggars and the Justin Harrises, kept them out of sight so they wouldn't embarrass the whole town. Now money addicts give these embarrassing idiots their own TV shows and elect them to public office, which tells the world that arKansas is no place for their Lockeed plant or a Tech Park or for any decent thinking people to live or even visit.
Huckabee defense of Duggar
This whole lifestyle [of the Duggar family] is heavily focused on procreation. They build their lives around it. Yet they expect teenagers to repress and stomp it all down. Yeah, the parents share in this, heavily. But ... Josh Duggar wasn't exploring, he wasn't "playing doctor," he wasn't playing around, he was assaulting. Period. No pass from me for that. Huckabuck Sugarbee can minimize and redirect all he wants, this isn't normal and it isn't acceptable. And shame on Huckabee for trivializing what happened to those little girls. Shame on all of them for focusing solely on poor sexually assaulting Josh Duggar's repentance into goodness and not what he did. And shame on their whole system for trying to cover it up.
Huckabee has always had a warm place in his heart for sex offenders. See Wayne DuMond.