|
State Dept Launches 'Free the Press' Campaign as DOJ Tries to Jail Reporter |
|
|
Sunday, 27 April 2014 08:19 |
|
Cole writes: "The US State Department announced the launch of its third annual 'Free the Press' campaign today, which will purportedly highlight 'journalists or media outlets that are censored, attacked, threatened, or otherwise oppressed because of their reporting.' A noble mission for sure. But maybe they should kick off the campaign by criticizing their own Justice Department."
New York Times journalist James Risen. (photo: Corbis)

State Dept Launches 'Free the Press' Campaign as DOJ Tries to Jail Reporter
By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
27 April 14
he US State Department announced the launch of its third annual "Free the Press" campaign today, which will purportedly highlight "journalists or media outlets that are censored, attacked, threatened, or otherwise oppressed because of their reporting." A noble mission for sure. But maybe they should kick off the campaign by criticizing their own Justice Department, which, on the very same day, has asked the Supreme Court to help them force Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times reporter James Risen into jail.
Politico's Josh Gerstein reports that the Justice Department filed a legal brief today urging the Supreme Court to reject Risen's petition to hear his reporter's privilege case, in which the Fourth Circuit ruled earlier this year that James Risen (and all journalists) can be forced to testify against their sources without any regard to the confidentiality required by their profession. This flies in the face of common law precedent all over the country, as well as the clear district court reasoning in Risen's case in 2012. (The government's Supreme Court brief can be read here.)
Associated Press reporter Matthew Lee commendably grilled the State Department spokesman about the contradiction of its press freedom campaign and the James Risen case at today's briefing on the State Department initiative, repeatedly asking if the government considers press freedom issues in the United States the same way it does aboard. The full transcript is below.
As Gerstein noted, "The Justice Department brief is unflinchingly hostile to the idea of the Supreme Court creating or finding protections for journalists," and if the Justice Department succeeds "it could place President Barack Obama in the awkward position of presiding over the jailing of a journalist in an administration the president has vowed to make the most transparent in history."
The government does mention it is working with Congress to craft a reporter's shield bill, which should give you some indication that the proposed bill is at best a watered-down, toothless version of what many courts have offered journalists for decades, and that would be no help to James Risen—the exact type of reporter that we should be attempting to protect the most. It's important to remember that in Risen's case, the government has previously analogized reporter's privilege to a criminal receiving drugs from someone and refusing to testify about it.
We'll have more on both the shield law and the Risen case soon, but it's clear that the US government still refuses to walk the walk when providing journalists the protections it says it believes in.
Oh, and while we're on the subject, maybe the State Department can use its "Free the Press" campaign to put pressure on one of its staunchest allies, the United Kingdom, which is using terrorism laws to suppress acts of journalism—something the State Department has condemned many times in the past.
Here's the full interaction between the AP's Matthew Lee and the State Department spokesperson Jennifer Psaki on James Risen and US press freedom at today's press briefing:
JENNIFER PSAKI: One more announcement for all of you: With World Press Freedom Day around the world on May 3rd, the department will launch its third annual Free the Press campaign later this afternoon in New York at the U.S. U.N. mission. Beginning on Monday and all of next week, we will highlight emblematic cases of imperiled reporters and media outlets that have been targeted, oppressed, imprisoned or otherwise harassed because of their professional work. The first two cases will be announced by Assistant Secretary -- Assistant Secretary Tom Malinowski later at the -- at U.S. U.N. And we invite you of course to follow Tom at Twitter, who has -- on Twitter who, as you all know, was just confirmed several weeks, @Malinowski and to keep up with human rights issues on DRL's website.
With that --
Q: Sure. Just on that, reporters who are, what, harassed? I'm sorry --
MS. PSAKI: Targeted, oppressed, imprisoned or otherwise harassed.
Q: Otherwise harassed. Does that include those who may have been targeted, harassed, imprisoned and otherwise whatever by the United States government?
MS. PSAKI: I'm --
Q: No?
MS. PSAKI: I think you're familiar with our Free the Press campaign, Matt, but --
Q: Fair enough. So it does not include those who might have been harassed by --
MS. PSAKI: We highlight, as we often do, where we see issues with media freedom around the world.
Q: Right, I understand. But you would say that you don't -- the U.S. does not believe that it has a problem with press freedom, or if it does, that it's not nearly as severe as the problems in other countries.
MS. PSAKI: We do not. I think we can look at many of the problems --
On media press freedom?
Oh. Go ahead. And then we'll go to you, (Paul ?).
Did you have another question on media press freedom, or --
...
Q: If I could just go back to the overall, in general, the administration does not regard attempting to prosecute American journalists as an infringement of press freedom?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure which case you're -- what you're referring to.
Q: Well, there's several cases that are out there right now. The one that comes -- springs to mind is the James Risen case, where the Justice Department is attempting to prosecute. I just want to be clear. I'm not trying to --
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I --
Q: I just want to know if you regard that as an infringement on press freedom or not. And I suspect that you do not, but I want to make sure that that's the case.
MS. PSAKI: As you know, and I'll, of course, refer to the Department of Justice, but the leaking of classified information is in a separate category. What we're talking about here, as you all know and unfortunately we have talk about on a regular basis here, is the targeting of journalists, the arrests, the imprisonment for simply exercising their ability to tell the story.
Q: Right. I understand that. And we're all, I'm sure, myself and all my colleagues, we're very appreciative of that.
But the reporters in question here have not leaked the information; they simply published it. So is it correct, then, that you don't believe -- you don't regard that as an infringement of press freedom?
MS. PSAKI: We don't. I don't have anything more to say on that case.
Q: OK.
MS. PSAKI: Do we have a new topic?

|
|
10 Things I Learned About the World from Ayn Rand's Insane 'Atlas Shrugged' |
|
|
Saturday, 26 April 2014 14:54 |
|
Lee writes: "Reading Atlas Shrugged is like entering into a strange mirror universe where everything we thought we knew about economics and morality is turned upside down. I've already learned some valuable lessons from it."
Ayn Rand. (photo: Barnes & Noble)

10 Things I Learned About the World From Ayn Rand's Insane 'Atlas Shrugged'
By Adam Lee, AlterNet
25 April 14
If Rand were still alive she would probably say, "Thank you for smoking."
ver the past year, I've been reading and reviewing Ayn Rand's massive paean to capitalism [3], Atlas Shrugged. If you're not familiar with the novel, it depicts a world where corporate CEOs and one-percenters are the selfless heroes upon which our society depends, and basically everyone else — journalists, legislators, government employees, the poor — are the villains trying to drag the rich down out of spite, when we should be kissing their rings in gratitude that they allow us to exist.
Rand's protagonists are Dagny Taggart, heir to a transcontinental railroad empire, and Hank Rearden, the head of a steel company who's invented a revolutionary new alloy which he's modestly named Rearden Metal. Together, they battle against evil government bureaucrats and parasitic socialists to hold civilization together, while all the while powerful industrialists are mysteriously disappearing, leaving behind only the cryptic phrase "Who is John Galt?"
Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, but as far as many prominent conservatives are concerned, it's sacred scripture. Alan Greenspan was a member of Rand's inner circle, and opposed regulation of financial markets because he believed her dictum that the greed of businessmen was always the public's best protection. Paul Ryan said that he required his campaign staffers to read the book, while Glenn Beck has announced grandiose plans to build his own real-life "Galt's Gulch," the hidden refuge where the book's capitalist heroes go to watch civilization collapse without them.
Reading Atlas Shrugged is like entering into a strange mirror universe where everything we thought we knew about economics and morality is turned upside down. I've already learned some valuable lessons from it.
1. All evil people are unattractive; all good and trustworthy people are handsome.
The first and most important we learn from Atlas Shrugged is that you can tell good and bad people apart at a glance [4]. All the villains — the "looters," in Rand's terminology — are rotund, fleshy and sweaty, with receding hairlines, sagging jowls and floppy limbs, while her millionaire industrialist heroes are portraits of steely determination, with sharp chins and angular features like people in a Cubist painting. Nearly all of them are conspicuously Aryan. Here's a typical example, the steel magnate Hank Rearden:
The glare cut a moment's wedge across his eyes, which had the color and quality of pale blue ice — then across the black web of the metal column and the ash-blond strands of his hair — then across the belt of his trenchcoat and the pockets where he held his hands. His body was tall and gaunt; he had always been too tall for those around him. His face was cut by prominent cheekbones and by a few sharp lines; they were not the lines of age, he had always had them; this had made him look old at twenty, and young now, at forty-five.
2. The mark of a great businessman is that he sneers at the idea of public safety.
When we meet Dagny Taggart, Rand's heroic railroad baron, she's traveling on a cross-country train which gets stuck at a stoplight that may or may not be broken. When the crew frets that they should wait until they're sure it's safe, Dagny pulls rank and orders them to drive through the red light [5]. This, in Rand's world, is the mark of a heroic and decisive capitalist, rather than the kind of person who in the real world would soon be the subject of headlines like "22 Dead in Train Collision Caused by Executive Who Didn't Want to Be Late For Meeting."
Dagny makes the decision to rebuild a critical line of the railroad using a new alloy, the aforementioned Rearden Metal, which has never been used in a major industrial project. You might think that before committing to build hundreds of miles of track through mountainous terrain, you'd want to have, say, pilot projects, or feasibility studies. But Dagny brushes those concerns aside; she just knows Rearden Metal is good because she feels it in her gut [5]: "When I see things," she explains, "I see them."
And once that line is rebuilt, Dagny's plan for its maiden voyage involves driving the train at dangerously high speed through towns and populated areas [6]:
"The first train will... run non-stop to Wyatt Junction, Colorado, traveling at an average speed of one hundred miles per hour." ...
"But shouldn't you cut the speed below normal rather than ... Miss Taggart, don't you have any consideration whatever for public opinion?"
"But I do. If it weren't for public opinion, an average speed of sixty-five miles per hour would have been quite sufficient."
The book points out that mayors and safety regulators have to be bribed or threatened to allow this, which is perfectly OK in Rand's morality. When a reporter asks Dagny what protection people will have if the line is no good, she snaps: "Don't ride on it." (Ask the people of Lac-Megantic how much good that did them. [6])
3. Bad guys get their way through democracy; good guys get their way through violence.
The way the villains of Atlas Shrugged accomplish their evil plan is ... voting for it. One of the major plot elements of part I is a law called the Equalization of Opportunity Bill [7], which forces large companies to break themselves up, similarly to the way AT&T was split into the Baby Bells [8]. It's passed by a majority of Congress, and Rand never implies that there's anything improper in the vote or that any dirty tricks were pulled. But because it forces her wealthy capitalist heroes to spin off some of their businesses, it's self-evident that this is the worst thing in the world and could only have been conceived of by evil socialists who hate success.
Compare this to another of Rand's protagonists, Dagny Taggart's heroic ancestor Nathaniel Taggart. We're told that he built a transcontinental railroad system almost single-handedly, which is why Dagny all but venerates him. We're also told that he murdered a state legislator [9] who was going to pass a law that would have stopped him from completing his track, and threw a government official down three flights of stairs for offering him a loan. In the world of Atlas Shrugged, these are noble and heroic acts.
Then there's another of Rand's heroes, the oil baron Ellis Wyatt. When the government passes new regulations on rail shipping that will harm his business, Wyatt retaliates by spitefully blowing up his oil fields, much like Saddam Hussein's retreating army did to Kuwait in the first Gulf War [10]. In real life, that act of sabotage smothered much of the Middle East beneath clouds of choking, toxic black smoke for months, poisoning the air and water. But as far as Rand sees it, no vengeance is too harsh for people who commit the terrible crime of interfering with the right of the rich to make more money.
4. The government has never invented anything or done any good for anyone.
In Rand's world, all good things come from private industry. Everyone who works for the government or takes government money is either a bumbling incompetent or a leech who steals credit for the work of others. At one point, the villainous bureaucrats of the "State Science Institute" try to sabotage Rand's hero Hank Rearden by spreading malicious rumors about his new alloy:
"If you consider that for thirteen years this Institute has had a department of metallurgical research, which has cost over twenty million dollars and has produced nothing but a new silver polish and a new anti-corrosive preparation, which, I believe, is not so good as the old ones — you can imagine what the public reaction will be if some private individual comes out with a product that revolutionizes the entire science of metallurgy and proves to be sensationally successful!"
Of course, in the real world, only minor trifles, like radar, space flight, nuclear power, GPS, computers, and the Internet were brought about by government research.
5. Violent jealousy and degradation are signs of true love.
Dagny's first lover, the mining heir Francisco d'Anconia, treats her like a possession [11]: he drags her around by an arm, and once, when she makes a joke he doesn't like, he slaps her so hard it bloodies her lip. The first time they have sex, he doesn't ask for consent, but throws her down and does what he wants: "She knew that fear was useless, that he would do what he wished, that the decision was his."
Later on, Dagny has an affair with Hank Rearden (who's married to someone else at the time, but this is the sort of minor consideration that doesn't hold back Randian supermen). The first time they sleep together, it leaves Dagny bruised and bloody, and the morning after, Hank rants at her that he holds her in contempt and thinks of her as no better than a whore [12]. Almost as soon as their relationship begins, he demands to know how many other men she's slept with and who they were. When she won't answer, he seizes her and twists her arm, trying to hurt her enough to force her to tell him.
Believe it or not, none of this is meant to make us judge these characters negatively, because in Rand's world, violent jealousy is romantic and abuse is sexy. She believed that women were meant to be subservient to men [13] — in fact, she says that "the most feminine of all aspects" is "the look of being chained" [14] — and that a woman being the dominant partner in a relationship was "metaphysically inappropriate" and would warp and destroy her fragile lady-mind.
6. All natural resources are limitless.
If you pay close attention to Atlas Shrugged, you'll learn that there will always be more land to homestead, more trees to cut, more coal to mine, more fossil fuels to drill [15]. There's never a need for conservation, recycling, or that dreaded word, "sustainability." All environmental laws, just like all safety regulations, are invented by government bureaucrats explicitly for the purpose of punishing and destroying successful businessmen.
One of the heroes of part I is the tycoon Ellis Wyatt, who's invented an unspecified new technology that allows him to reopen oil wells thought to be tapped out, unlocking what Rand calls an "unlimited supply [16]" of oil. Obviously, accepting that natural resources are finite would force Rand's followers to confront hard questions about equitable distribution, which is why she waves the problem away with a sweep of her hand.
This trend reaches its climax near the end of part I, when Dagny and Hank find, in the ruins of an abandoned factory, the prototype of a new kind of motor that runs on "atmospheric static electricity" and can produce limitless energy for free [17]. Rand sees nothing implausible about this, because in her philosophy, human ingenuity can overcome any problem, up to and including the laws of thermodynamics, if only the government would get out of the way and let them do it.
7. Pollution and advertisements are beautiful; pristine wilderness is ugly and useless.
Rand is enamored of fossil fuels, and at one point, she describes New York City as cradled in "sacred fires [18]" from the smokestacks and heavy industrial plants that surround it. It never seems to occur to her that soot and smog cause anything other than pretty sunsets, and no one in Atlas Shrugged gets asthma, much less lung cancer.
By contrast, Rand informs us that pristine natural habitat is worthless unless it's plastered with ads [19], as we see in a scene where Hank and Dagny go on a road trip together:
Uncoiling from among the curves of Wisconsin's hills, the highway was the only evidence of human labor, a precarious bridge stretched across a sea of brush, weeds and trees. The sea rolled softly, in sprays of yellow and orange, with a few red jets shooting up on the hillsides, with pools of remnant green in the hollows, under a pure blue sky.
... "What I'd like to see," said Rearden, "is a billboard."
8. Crime doesn't exist, even in areas of extreme poverty.
In the world of Atlas Shrugged, the only kind of violence that anyone ever worries about is government thugs stealing the wealth of the heroic capitalists at gunpoint to redistribute it to the undeserving masses. There's no burglary, no muggings, no bread riots, no street crime of any kind. This is true even though the world is spiraling down a vortex of poverty and economic depression. And even though the wealthy, productive elite are mysteriously disappearing one by one, none of Rand's protagonists ever worry about their personal safety [20].
Apparently, in Rand's view, poor people will peacefully sit and starve when they lose their jobs. And that's a good thing for her, because accepting that crime exists might lead to dangerous, heretical ideas — like that maybe the government should pay for education and job training, because this might be cheaper and more beneficial in the long run than spending ever more money on police and prisons.
9. The only thing that matters in life is how good you are at making money.
In a scene from part I, the copper baron Francisco d'Anconia explains to Dagny why rich people are more valuable than poor people [21]:
"Dagny, there's nothing of any importance in life — except how well you do your work. Nothing. Only that. Whatever else you are, will come from that. It's the only measure of human value. All the codes of ethics they'll try to ram down your throat are just so much paper money put out by swindlers to fleece people of their virtues. The code of competence is the only system of morality that's on a gold standard."
You'll note that this speech makes no exceptions for work whose product is actively harmful to others. If you burn coal that chokes neighboring cities in toxic smog, if you sell unhealthful food that increases obesity and diabetes, if you sell guns and fight every attempt to pass laws that would restrict who could buy them, if you paint houses with lead and insulate pipes in asbestos — relax, you're off the hook! None of this matters in the slightest in Rand's eyes. Are you good at your job? Do you make money from it? That's the only thing anyone should ever care about.
10. Smoking is good for you.
Almost all of Rand's heroes smoke, and not just for pleasure. In one minor scene, a cigarette vendor tells Dagny that smoking is heroic, even rationally obligatory [22]:
"I like cigarettes, Miss Taggart. I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips ... When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind — and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."
It's no coincidence that Atlas Shrugged expresses these views. Ayn Rand herself was a heavy smoker, and she often asserted that she was the most rational person alive; therefore, she believed, her preferences were the correct preferences which everyone else should emulate. Beginning from this premise, she worked backward to explain why everything she did was an inevitable consequence of her philosophy. As part of this, she decided that she smoked tobacco not because she'd become addicted to it, but because it's right for rational people to smoke while they think.
In case you were wondering, Rand did indeed contract lung cancer later in life, and had an operation to remove one lung. But even though she eventually came to accept the danger of smoking, she never communicated this to her followers or recanted her earlier support of it. As in other things, her attitude was that people deserve whatever they get.

|
|
|
Six Reasons Sen. Bernie Sanders Should Run for President |
|
|
Saturday, 26 April 2014 14:49 |
|
Mathews writes: "Although pundits believe that he's a long shot for the nation's top office, I still hope he makes an honest go at it. It is critical for Americans to hear his progressive views to understand the actual problems we face."
Bernie Sanders would inject liberal passion into a primary. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Six Reasons Sen. Bernie Sanders Should Run for President
By Kevin Mathews, Care2
25 April 14
ast month, Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont, said that, although he had not yet taken any real steps, he was “prepared to run for president of the United States.”
Although pundits believe that he’s a long shot for the nation’s top office, I still hope he makes an honest go at it. It is critical for Americans to hear his progressive views to understand the actual problems we face. Facing no competition, presumed left nominee Hillary Clinton could otherwise coast on centrist stances. With Sanders speaking candidly, a genuine debate could emerge that would force Clinton to adopt a more liberal agenda.
Here are six political opinions that Sanders has articulated in recent months that we’d love to see our next leader pursue:
1. He Wants Money Out of Politics
While many in politics are wary of the Supreme Court’s damaging Citizens United decision, Sanders is actually trying to have its effects reversed by proposing a constitutional amendment. He has similarly been saddened by the more recent McCutcheon vs. FEC decision granting America’s wealthiest individuals even more power of elections, criticizing its supposed connection to the First Amendment. “Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government,” Sanders said.
2. He’s Pushing for Legitimate Health Care Reform
While most liberals are trying to polish the mess that is Obamacare, Sanders isn’t afraid to call it the “disaster” that it is. “Even if all of those problems were corrected tomorrow and if the Affordable Care Act did all that it was supposed to do, it would only be a modest step forward to dealing with the dysfunction of the American health care system,” he said. Instead, Sanders is advocating for actual reform: single-payer health care. If the fight to bring health care to the masses is this difficult anyway, why not try to provide a system that actually helps?
3. He Stands Up for Veterans
Congress seemingly has no qualms about writing blank checks to the defense department to engage in questionable wars, yet suddenly when the troops come home, politicians decide that there is no money to cover their expenses. This week, when conservatives tried to stop funding for veterans’ clinics, Sanders called out their hypocrisy. “If you think it’s too expensive, then don’t send them off to war,” Sanders said. “Taking care of veterans is a cost of the war. They already paid for it.”
4. He Sees Wealth Inequality for What It Is
“Income inequality is the great moral issue of our time,” Sanders told his constituents. Citing the massive gap between this country’s wealthy and poor, and the fact that the bottom 60 percent of Americans owns only 2.3 percent of the wealth, he calls for economic reforms to help tip back this staggering inequity. For starters, he supports raising the minimum wage, particularly when the most profitable corporations in the world, like Walmart, are paying their employees substandard rates and having the government supplement these workers with welfare programs.
5. He’s Against Government Surveillance
Sanders has come out as one of Congress’s staunchest opponents of the NSA, arguing that the United States cannot be considered a “free” society if the government is recording your phone calls and tracking your emails. When he asked the NSA specifically whether they have monitored members of Congress, the NSA almost hilariously told him that they couldn’t verify that for him as it would violate his privacy. Sanders supports clemency for Edward Snowden, valuing the truth he exposed to the world.
6. He Understands Imminent Danger
While everyone is in a tizzy over the threat of “terrorism,” Sanders has his priorities straight. In an interview about how big business is killing the globe, he said, “Global warming is a far more serious problem than al Qaeda.” As he sees it, there is a chance of terrorism killing some of us, but there is a certainty of climate change eventually killing all of us. The fact that we can devote so much effort to eradicating a potential threat while outright ignoring a more concrete threat is ridiculous.

|
|
TPP Is Right Where We Want It: Going Nowhere |
|
|
Saturday, 26 April 2014 14:46 |
|
Sutton writes: "Despite some reports of movement on some of the most controversial topics during meetings between Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Abe, it seems that the TPP is still effectively at a standstill."
A protester wears headbands in protest of U.S. President Barack Obama during a demonstration to pressure Malaysia against signing the Anti-Trans-Pacific Partnership. (photo: Bazuki Muhammad/Reuters)

TPP Is Right Where We Want It: Going Nowhere
By Maira Sutton, Electronic Frontier Foundation
25 April 14
resident Obama is on a diplomatic tour of Asia this week and one of his top priorities is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement that includes restrictive copyright enforcement measures that pose a huge threat to users’ rights and a free and open Internet. In particular, he's seeking to resolve some major policy disagreements with Japan and Malaysia—the two countries that have maintained resistance against some provisions in the TPP involving agriculture and other commodities. Despite some reports of movement on some of the most controversial topics during meetings between Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Abe, it seems that the TPP is still effectively at a standstill.
As negotiations continue to be shrouded in secrecy, the Pacific trade deal faces mass opposition both inside and outside of the U.S., and reports say little progress has been made for many months. State leaders and trade delegates have held dozens of closed-door meetings to discuss possible trade-offs and concessions over various tariffs and regulations, including some of the most controversial copyright enforcement provisions in the Intellectual Property chapter. Based upon the leaked text published by Wikileaks in November, several countries are resisting the extreme U.S. proposals on Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Internet Service Provider (ISP) liability.
This pushback is great news, and it comes thanks in large part to users around the world contacting their lawmakers and asking them to question and oppose TPP's secretive corporate-driven agenda. A new campaign this week called Stop the Secrecy collected users' petition signatures and messages about the TPP from various public interest groups; the final tally came out to over 2.8 million actions that have been taken over the last two years. The campaigners are projecting their message to “stop the secrecy” on U.S. capitol buildings. The aim is to get lawmakers and trade delegates to realize that if the agreement progresses, thousands of these users will be ready to stop it again in its tracks.
Following massive blows to the Fast Track bill introduced in January, many Senators are maintaining their stiff opposition against handing over trade authority to the White House. Under Fast Track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, lawmakers would be limited to an up-or-down vote, and shirk their responsibility to hold proper hearings on its provisions. Republican Senator Roger Wicker has openly stated that he “couldn't be less optimistic” about any progress being achieved during Obama's trip to Asia. In an op-ed published this week in the LA Times, three Democratic Representatives reiterated their strong criticism of the TPP, advising that no one should “blindly endorse” this agreement. In November, the New York Times had done precisely that, but they too have suddenly changed their tune—publishing an editorial this week that expressed their heavy doubts over TPP's objectives. They correctly questioned the administration's secrecy over the negotiations and wrote that the “Obama administration also needs to do much more to counter the demands of corporations with those of the public interest.”
As long as trade agreements include digital copyright enforcement provisions however, it seems the content industry will do everything in its power to expand restrictive, anti-user policies. In March, we noticed that the Obama administration appointed a former SOPA lobbyist to join the team of negotiators working on the TPP. Now the revolving door continues to swing, yet again. The Motion Picture Association of America has hired Stan McCoy who, up until recently, had been the Chief Intellectual Property Negotiator for the TPP for five years. Despite the stalled TPP talks, the MPAA is forging ahead—still very interested in securing their copyright interests in international trade agreements.
While the President and his U.S. Trade Rep, Michael Froman, are determined to push the agreement forward, reports say TPP countries are not convinced that Obama will be able to rally the political support needed to pass a Fast Track bill. If it doesn't grant Fast Track authority, Congress can pick apart and question every aspect of this sprawling trade agreement. TPP countries are unwilling to make potentially harmful concessions to the U.S. if there’s a chance the agreement would simply be unraveled by Congress once signed. The conclusion of TPP therefore seems increasingly contingent upon the Obama administration getting Fast Track authority, and so far Congress has shown no indication that they're willing to give it to them.
Since Obama missed his self-imposed deadline to conclude the talks last December, there has not been a publicly stated timeframe for the agreement's conclusion. This means the TPP could remain in this secretive, political limbo for months. On the other hand, the enhanced secrecy of the talks amongst trade delegates could lead to a situation where a concluded deal suddenly emerges, but that could only happen if the countries are somehow able to overcome some major controversial issues.
As others have pointed out, the Obama administration only has itself to blame for this mess. By listening to corporate demands above all else, it has alienated itself from its own political party, public interest groups, and most of all, the people whose interests it is supposedly meant to represent. Unless the U.S. trade rep radically changes its approach to this agreement—to make the negotiations truly transparent and incorporate substantive input from the public, for starters—it seems the President is going to be stuck defending a bad deal and a bad process. As long as the TPP remains a secretive process driven entirely by narrow interests, we'll do everything we can to make sure it goes nowhere.

|
|