{ { { who am I? worldly»about me. what's with the grasshopper? random»why sbg. not inside frames? reload. } } }

{ Thursday, February 28, 2002 }

9:43 AM | link

If you support the War on Drugs or vote for the politicians who wage it, you're helping support terrorism.

{ Tuesday, February 19, 2002 }

9:33 PM | link

And now for a change of pace, a progressive candidate actually wins in Texas! Maybe there's hope for us yet.

{ Sunday, February 17, 2002 }

7:13 PM | link

I watched a PBS special Sunday called Trading Democracy hosted by Bill Moyers. (I need to watch PBS more often!) [transcript and clips]

Did you know that NAFTA basically made it possible for multinational companies to sue our government when they don't like our laws? Or at least that's how international lawyers are interpreting it.

The scariest example involves drinking water in California. When the state government realized that a gasoline additive and a proven carcinogen (MTBE) was getting into drinking water, they passed laws to phase out the additive. But then the Canadian company (Methanex) that makes the additive filed a claim arguing that California should cancel the restrictions -- or pay the company $970 million of taxpayer dollars. So in effect, we could be hindered in passing any laws that aim to protect U.S. citizens, but that might happen to be a tough pill for a multinational company to swallow.

These kinds of cases are cropping up all over, but why are these companies allowed to file these claims? Because of Chapter 11 in the NAFTA text. That chapter lets companies sue the government when they feel the government is causing them to lose money. And the chapter lays out some ground rules for the claims -- a closed tribunal where only the government lawyers and the company can attend. The general public rarely knows when these tribunals happen, and the public certainly is not allowed to voice their concern in the claims.

Why the hell is a non-American company allowed to bully us into the laws that they want, not what's best for our citizens? (Let alone why American companies are currently allowed to do that, but that's another issue entirely.)

And to top this all off, good ol' Bushie boy is currently negotiating a similar agreement with even more corporate privileges with 31 other countries. This agreement is called the Free Trade Area of the America (FTAA), and when the Senate votes on Bush's "fast-track" authority, they'll be voting on whether Bush can single-handedly and secretly negotiate our participation in this and other agreements. When "fast-track" comes up for a vote in the Senate, please remember these implications, and contact your Senators and ask them to vote no on "fast-track". Companies pushing for this Chapter 11-type provision in FTAA include GE, Ford, GM, International Paper, Motorola, Dow, DuPont, Chevron, Procter & Gamble, and 3M. UPS is currently in the process of filing a claim against the Canadian government because the Canadian parcel delivery service is "taking business away" from UPS. If you're the letter-writing type, I would certainly write a letter to each of these companies expressing your disapproval of their involvement and that you won't be buying their products. Web feedback forms are fine, but snail-mail letters (or phone calls) are even better:

Try to catch the Trading Democracy special the next time it's on PBS (click TV Schedules).

If you'd like to learn more, check out a detailed article from The Nation or a full report from Public Citizen.

[some info via The Paul Wall]