Here’s how it was reported…
Washington Post:
Leftist leaders of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia on Saturday signed a comprehensive integration agreement and trade accord cast as an alternative to U.S. plans for a free-trade pact with the Latin American region.
Bloomberg.com:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Bolivian President Evo Morales signed a “people’s” trade agreement, countering a U.S.-led movement to create a free trade zone in the region.
The unspoken assumption here is that the US trade proposals are “free-trade”, & this trilateral agreement is not.
Consider how the trade agreements from our government usually work: overbearing intellectual-property rules, maintenance of our tariffs on their goods while demanding otherwise from the other parties, subsidies, etc… Basically a political integration where the US has sway over how the others operate.
With that in mind, look at their agreement. The AP via Canada’s Globe And Mail has details:
Venezuela-Cuba trade is expected to reach more than $3.5-billion (U.S.) this year � about 40 per cent higher than in 2005. Among other measures, the deal signed between Mr. Chavez and Mr. Castro has Venezuela � the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter and a major supplier to the United States � selling 90,000 barrels a day of crude to the communist-run island at international market prices, but in exchange for services and agricultural products instead of cash.
Later Saturday, the three presidents signed a second document with more concrete proposals.
Cuba promised to send Bolivia doctors and teachers. Venezuela will send gasoline to the Andean nation and set up a $100-million fund for development programs and a $30-million fund for other social projects.
Cuba and Venezuela also agreed to buy all of Bolivia’s soybeans, recently left without a market after Colombia signed a free trade pact with the United States.
And Wiki gives some background:
The ALBA (Spanish abbreviation of “Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas”) is somewhat similar in aspirations to the European Coal and Steel Community (a forerunner of the EU), which makes emphasis on energy and infrastructure agreements that are gradually extended to other areas to finally include the total economic, political and military integration of the member states. (emphasis mine)
Ignoring the military part, what’s the difference? They have politically-slanted agreements meant to direct trade, we have politically-slanted agreements meant to direct trade. Since neither agreement begins and ends with “all barriers to trade between willing private citizens are hereby abolished”, neither one is “free-trade”.
Took one look at the first question — which I screencapt’d here — and decided they really didn’t want my opinion after all.
Really says a lot about how they think, doesn’t it?
tags: politics, mainstream+media, media+bias, BBC, Reuters]]>
When I first saw the trailers for “United 93″ my first thought was surprise that they actually made a film about 9/11, followed by reasonable assumption that it would be marred by the percieved need to give the US audience some brain-candy in an inappropriate context. Well, according to Ron Rosenbaum at Slate, I was half right. Turns out “United 93″ is actually one of THREE films, all focusing on the same plane. All three confirm my suspicion, as Rosenbaum notes.
Some excerpts:
Could it be that the three films are a symptom of our addiction to fables of redemptive uplift that shield us from the true dimensions of the tragedy? Redemptive uplift: It’s the official religion of the media, anyway. There must be a silver lining; it’s always darkest before the dawn; the human spirit will triumph over evil; there must be a pony.
That’s always been the subtextual spiritual narrative of media catastrophe coverage: terrible human tragedy, but something good always can be found in it to affirm faith and hope and make us feel better. Plucky, ordinary human beings find a way to rise above the disaster. Man must prevail. The human spirit is resilient, unconquerable. Did I mention there must be a pony?
9/11 is no different. Flight 93 has become 9/11’s pony.
In other words, these films are the result of two of my pet peeves of popular media (overwrought “we care a lot” gravitas in news stories on disasters & the “feel-good story” in movies) mating. Call it mean if you want, but IMO if you need CNN or Hollywood to “uplift” your spirit you should consider jumping off a cliff. While we’re sitting around hugging each other, our government is merrily starting World War 3.
Another problem with this kind of thing is that it always ends up warped into a confirmation of whatever the hell the more vocal among us already believed:
The visual media are not the only ones eager to hijack the hijacking for their redemptive ideology. Both pro- and anti-war camps have seized upon Flight 93 in one way or another. For the former it’s the justification and the model for any and all aggressive responses to 9/11. The invasion of Iraq as the rush to the Flight 93 cockpit. For the latter it’s the myth that’s been misused by the former to justify the Iraq war as a response to 9/11 (according to an AP report in 2004, a Navy Seabee Iraq support base in Kuwait was called “Camp 93″ and an Amnesty International spokesperson attributed Abu Ghraib-type mistreatment of prisoners to anger incited by inappropriate linkage between 9/11 and Saddamists).
We don’t need the 9/11 narrative to prove the Iraq war was wrong, you can actually manage just fine with a completely strategic criticism. That the hawks invoked 9/11 is actually beside the point, considering that most of them were agitating for the invasion back in the 90’s. For the purposes of neo-imperialism, 9/11 was the equivalent to that barge hitting one of the levys in New Orleans during Katrina: the flood of bullshit was coming sooner or later even if it didn’t occur.
…of course, Flight 93 has been hijacked by conspiracy theories as well, which range from the highly developed “it didn’t crash, it was shot down” scenario, to “the flight landed safely” or was a “drone” of some kind (like the other planes, needless to say).
By now, I’ve come to sort of a truce between the conspiracy theorists & the usual story. Whether the attacks occured because we were simply caught off guard, or because it was allowed to happen on purpose, or even ordered is for the purposes of future strategy an academic question. There’s a chunk of logical reason for each, even for the ordered-it-to-happen-one (I am NOT saying I think that’s what happened, only that it’s not as far-fetched as most would think! Go plug “Northwoods” and “Cuba” into a Google and you’ll find out why…). The important part is that regardless of how it happened, the government is using it to their advantage — which they would’ve done anyway.
Although, there does appear to be one thing in the “United 93″ film that hits the mark (whether it actually happened or not is an open question). Another Slate column, this one a direct review of “United 93″ itself, takes note of it, though they seemed to get a different point from it than I would:
In every other scene, [writer/director Paul] Greengrass maintains an almost maddening neutrality�a neutrality that shades at times into what might feel to some viewers like sympathy with the devil. In a late scene, Greengrass crosscuts between the hijackers’ final prayers (”Allahu akbar”) and those of the passengers (”Our Father, who art in heaven”). The scene’s implicit message�that terrorists and victims alike turned to their God in those awful final moments�would seem to contradict the film’s ostensible mission: to honor the passengers who rebelled and stormed the cockpit. (emphasis mine)
“Sympathy with the devil”? More like a reminder that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, religion is not an unambiguous net positive. It’s entirely plausible that as the passengers prayed before saving lives the hijackers prayed in hopes of ending even more, both using their personal interpetations of sacrifice before their chosen deity.
Sadly, I doubt that kind of food-for-thought will be swallowed…
Maybe we should hire mexicans to do it then:
Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if the drugs are carried in small amounts for personal use, under legislation passed by Congress. […] “This law provides more judicial tools for authorities to fight crime,” presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said on Friday. The measure was approved earlier by the lower house.
Under the legislation, police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.
This literally came outta nowhere. Good call on their part, at least they’re going the right direction on something down there…
tags: Mexico, “War+on+drugs”, drug+laws, decriminalization]]>
“GodDAMN Tony Snow has a big head!!”
I don
Dave from The View From Below reads the New York Times so you don’t have to, & confirms something I’ve suspected as of late: The lump of metal used to make pennies is now worth more than the penny itself is.
Sound familiar? Here’s some quick history, from the Gold (& other metals) Stock blog:
During the heyday of inflation in the 1970s, the price of copper rose so much that a penny was nearly worth more than a penny. That can�t happen. Printing money is a big money-maker for the government. […]
About 20 years ago, the mint worked to correct the problem of having our money actually worth something. (You see, the U.S. dollar is the original faith-based initiative.) The mint changed the penny�s formula from 95% copper/5% zinc, to 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper.
At this rate they’ll be making coins from lint.
The saga of Political Gas continues:
With pump prices over $3 per gallon in some parts of the country, Bush said on Tuesday he would boost gasoline supplies by letting regulators relax clean fuels rules temporarily if state governors ask. He said he would free up more crude oil by delaying deliveries into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (emphasis mine)
Now, there’ve already been people flogging the hypocrisy of Bush playing games with the reserve when he bashed similar asshatery on his way to election, so I’m not going there. Rather, consider: what was the original point of the Strategic Reserve?
If the name itself doesn’t tell you enough, then Wiki will…
So, due to geopolitical conditions that may lead to an energy problem here, the price of gas is going up. Because of this, the reserve, which was created as a hedge against a future disruption, is being tapped. Mkay, gotcha.
One question though: Doesn’t this prove that hoarding oil was a f**king retarded move in the first place?!?
It’s gonna be hard, y’know? Hard work!”:
US President George W. Bush has warned rising oil prices will mean a “tough summer” for US consumers as the high cost of gasoline (petrol) showed signs of becoming a big political issue.
But even as more Americans expressed discontent over the price of filling up their gas tanks, Bush suggested there was little his government could do in the short term about the problem. “We’re going to have a tough summer because people are beginning to drive now during tight supply,” Bush said as he toured a California facility developing hydrogen-powered vehicles.
“The American people have got to understand what happens elsewhere in the world affects the price of gasoline you pay here.” (emphasis mine)
Sure. Also, you have to realize that lower prices & a weaning off of oil are contradictory goals. And that subsidizing the living shit out of oil companies makes it worse, not better. And that your foreign policy inherently has plenty to do with “what happens elsewhere”. And that you can’t fool people into thinking you aren’t an oil boy to the bone simply by touring a hydrogen-car factory. And that US citizens dumb enough not to realize that the price of gas has something to do with the crap going on overseas are the only ones dumb enough to still be supporting you. And…
tags: Bush, US+politics, US+foreign+policy, oil]]>