Why was there no real mention of the Transpacific Partnership at last night DNC Debate?

On Tuesday the Democratic National Committee’s first debate aired on CNN. Featuring Democratic candidates; Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chaffee, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb. The debate was in fact surprisingly heavy on actual issues and less on “political fluff”, despite the lack of in depth discussions on many topics that are important to many voters.

The presentation by CNN had an initial feel of a heavy-weight boxing fight. CNN had a “pre-game hype” video positioning Hillary Clinton as “The Defending Champion” trying to hold off “The Seasoned Veteran” Bernie Sanders and even had a “pre-debate” National Anthem sung by a rock star.  At this point I was all ready for another beauty pageant like showcase similar to the GOP debates of the summer.

The moderator Anderson Cooper did his job to try and stir the debate away from nuance discussions on issues such as the economy, racial tensions and foreign policy. The candidates for the most part were able to clarify their positions on substantive issues but a real attempt to contrast the positions of the two front runners; Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders did not happen.

Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton did spar briefly on the differences between what Bernie Sanders calls “democratic socialism” and “capitalism” as well as what would be the best method of dealing with the largest financial institutions that many would agree need more regulation. Clinton’s position is that government should regulate Wall Street more aggressively while Sanders approach was to simply break up the banks.

Wall Street speculation is one of the most pressing issues of our time but CNN missed an opportunity to not only clearly define the space between Clinton and Sanders but the differing philosophies in general in regards to free trade, monopolistic tendencies of corporations and our global economic position by ignoring for the most part the looming Transpacific Partnership.

The only mention of the TPP came when a question was poised to the former first lady on if she has a history of being a “flip flopper”. Clinton has changed positions on issues such as the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Transpacific Partnership.  The moderators choose at that moment to pivot to Bernie’s record on gun control and “socialism”.

 The TPP was recently approved by a delegation of 12 nations and is now awaiting congressional approval before it will become law. The agreement includes the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Authors of the deal say it will cut trade barriers, set labor standards, and protect multinational corporations.  Proponents of the TPP and The Obama administration claim that the deal will increase jobs, wages and stimulate the economy.  Hillary Clinton as secretary of state helped to Sheppard the TPP through the process of ratification and is on record of supporting the deal up until recently.

Opponents including Bernie Sanders however point to the history of past global trade deals such as NAFTA, as well as leaked drafts of the TPP that many journalists, labor specialists and attorneys have said will do the opposite of what has been promoted.

The TPP will make changes to Intellectual property law this would threaten a rise in prices of generic pharmaceuticals and potentially end net neutrality.

The agreement also offers incentives for off shoring of jobs but and has no protections for countries to place barriers on corporations when they want to leave to cheaper labor markets. Among the most dangerous provision of this deal is the Investor State Dispute provisions allows corporations to sue in the World Court a state or a country if a law or regulation is passed that may limit the profits of a corporation.

Senator Sanders sees the TPP as expansion NAFTA which he believes is one of the major reasons why millions of American jobs have been shipped overseas since 1994, exasperating American unemployment.

Last week Hillary Clinton came out in opposition to the Transpacific Partnership Agreement, however many observers wonder if she is only pandering to the base of the Democratic Party who are for the most part in strong opposition to the deal. While in contrast Bernie Sanders has voted against International trade deals in the past including North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); which was passed by Bill Clinton in 1991. Many believe it was Sanders who has forced Clinton to come out against the TPP but critics say she has left herself enough room to change her mind on the deal if she were to take The White House.

Cooper and the other moderators missed a chance to really flesh out both candidates as well as the O’Malley, Chaffee and Webb’s positions on the TPP and trade in general. Before the debate CNN promoted that thousands of Facebook users sent in video questions however only two were used. I am sure that at least one question was related to the potential dangers of the TPP.

It is obvious that CNN choose not to have an in-depth discussion on free trade and the TPP, my question is why? The answer for me is the corporate interests. During the debate an ad aired from Citibank promoting international investment in Africa and other places then shortly after another commercial ran from consultation business for mergers and acquisitions. The commercials were aimed at the donor class not at mainstream America. Aside from two political movies “Suffragette” and “Our Brand in Crisis” none of the other ads was selling anything an average person would have interest or ability to engage in.

This is precisely why we must move to public funding of elections and get money out of politics. Although the debate did begin the conversation of many bedrock issues such as Healthcare, Campaign Finance, Income Inequality, BlacklivesMatter, police brutality and the economy. The fact that the most important trade agreement was not discussed proves that the “powers that be” are able in many ways to limit the scope and parameters of the political discourse in this country.

If the American people are fully engaged and understand what the TPP is all about they will force congress not to ratify the deal. The DNC debate was limited to future policy changes and not current ones and that to me is a shame. 

-         J-Didda

Repost via TheBishopisCrossing.com

The Bishop Is Crossing aka To be or not to be... A Kardashian: How does celebrity for celebrity sake effect the development of our culture?

Recently I posted a rhetorical question on Twitter/Facebook saying "How do we raise daughters to value an education when so many young women are making good money as "Instagram models?". Well that sparked a nice exchange about morality, self-esteem and the like. Which I found slightly disturbing and sexist even coming from women who describe themselves as "feminist' were reduced to slut shaming in part. But the post got me thinking about the macro impact of our celebrity culture.

From our politics to our economy the “look” is more important than what is tangible. How do we continue into the next century when flash and sizzle is more important than what is in the pot?

It is obvious that America is more concerned with being entertained then being governed. We want someone that makes us feel good about ourselves rather than one that encourages us to improve our station in this world. We prefer to be titillated then educated or informed and that is very dangerous in today’s troubling times.

The rise of Donald Trump as a viable candidate for President should give us all pause. I don't think Trump's front runner status is merely due to his celebrity status, there is something to be said for today's political climate craving someone who doesn’t appear tethered to the oligarchs or the status quo. But we must admit his entertainment value helps.

This “Political Entertainment” culture isn't anything really new. It goes back to Ronald Regan and arguably back to John F. Kennedy. In the modern era Bill Clinton & Barack Obama both ascended to the Presidency because they looked and sounded good on Television. However Regan, Clinton and Obama at least had some substance. These new bunch of presidential contestants at least on the Right have none.

Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and the bunch all have the depth of understanding in regards to history and current events as a gold fish. The state of affairs are so dire that Kanye West can announce his presidential run on an award show not for this cycle but for the next Presidential cycle of 2020 and people actually think he is serious.

We are not a serious people anymore.

Since the 90s when President Bill Clinton signed and Telecommunications Act in 1996, the "News" was allowed to be placed for the first time under the "entertainment division" of networks. The result was the news then became a source of revenue unlike before when it was simply considered something broadcasting companies had to produce to maintain their charter under FCC regulations. Now arguably news divisions becoming profit centers began in the 70s way before Clinton. The legendary movie "Network" illustrates how the media plays on fear and sensationalism for ratings and really foreshadows what would eventually become 40 years later. But in my opinion the Clinton law allowed infotainment to not only be legal and open but put it on steroids.

Well what does that have to do with the Kardashians?

News producers no longer produce the news the people need but they produce the news the people want. In a sense the news has now become reality television.

Click For Full Article

The Bishop Is Crossing.. aka The Hunger Games have begun but who is on the menu?: Time to get money out of politics

Record numbers of American tuned into the GOP Fox News Debate so now the election silly season has officially begun. Watching the “debate” which was really an exercise in “soundbite-chasing” or “viral-whoring”, meanwhile true issues facing the nation were not addressed in any substantial manner.

The political discourse in this country is more and more becoming some sort of a dog and pony show and less of an exchange of ideas. Of course the start of the night was the ultimate celebrity whore Mr. Donald Trump.

Donald is leading in the polls and it is reported by several media outlets that he won the debate. And the reason he is doing so well is because the American people know that the politicians are bought and paid for and thus beholden to special interest groups.  “The Donald” despite his faults is for the most part his own man.

The truth came out when Trump went on his egotistical rant about how when he pays people they do what he says. Furthermore he admitted to giving large sums of money to virtually every one of his opponents who shared the stage with him. The highlight for me was when Ohio Governor John Kasich said: “Not me but I would like some!”. This is the state of affairs in our nation we no longer have a democracy we have something close to feudalism. The culture of “political brotheltry” on both sides of the isle leads to the political debate being restricted to the margins while basic foundation of our way of life is ready to collapse.

With so many pressing issues in our nation where do we begin?

There is no shortage of crises or looming questions that desperately needs our attention. But for many Americans it is hard to choose which is more prominent. Is it climate change? The high levels of carbon emissions threaten human kind’s very existence. Should the electorate’s number one question be how do we adapt? I would say that is probably for me at the top of the list.

What about police overreach and brutality? For my people police terror goes back to the slave patrols and fugitive slave act. The GOP debate gave only passing mention to the #BlackLivesMatter: movement. The was an interesting exchange between Chris Christie and Rand Paul on civil liberties and The 4^th Amendment, but of course it was framed in the context of fighting “terrorism” when average Americans of all races are living daily with 4^th and 5^th Amendment violations.

What about jobs and income inequality? Our economy is in desperate need of restructuring due in part to globalization, technological advances and several other factors.

The remedies for all of these issues require political courage and statesmanship that is virtually absent in both the two major parties. Real substantive change in fact is if not impossible, it is highly improbable due the increasingly common practice of corporate capture of regulatory agencies and of course the influence of “moneyed” interests on candidates both Democratic and Republican.

It’s time to #MoveToAmend:

So the number one issue facing the United States and by extension the world is money in politics. If the GOP did nothing else it did highlight inadvertently the problem. You have 17 people running for a position that all but maybe 3 have no chance of winning or have the qualifications. The only reason they can participate is they have the money or the connections to the money to essentially “pay to play”.

The solution is simple folks, we need real campaign finance reform and ultimately publicly funded elections. It will take a constitutional amendment to do it too. Due to the nature of the Supreme Court and congress’s inability or unwillingness to reign the court in the only option we have is an amendment that says two things. First “corporations are not people” and secondly “money is not speech it is property”.

        

How did we get here??

Click for full Article

"The Bishop Is Crossing.. aka The Bull Moose Verses The Lion: What If Black Lives Mattered as much to Liberals as Cecil the Lion?"

It is time for the white liberal progressive establishment to embrace the #BlackLivesMatter Movement or the progressive agenda and America will be no more..

My favorite President and arguably the founder of the Progressive Party Theodore Roosevelt did a lot of great things that helped create the lifestyle in America we take for granted. He spoke of economic equality worker rights, a living wage, universal healthcare, old age and poverty insurance, etc. Roosevelt’s “Square Deal” Programs brought to a newly industrialized nation, things like food and worker safety, health standards, sanitation, curtailing the rise corporate oligarchy by proposing and ultimately getting congress to pass anti-trust legislation and banking reforms.

Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican at a time when Republicans understood the tension between the ownership class and the labor class, and regulations on business are essential to keeping the “playing field” level for the average working citizen and protect the public sphere. When his party moved “to the right” and began to favor the wealthy over the average person Teddy left his party. He started the “Bull Moose Progressive Party” and ran for a third term as President after he left office. Teddy ultimately lost his bid for The White House but he changed the political landscape for the next 100 years or more. Progressive members of the GOP left and found a home amongst the Democratic Party.

Roosevelt was also a celebrated "Big Game Hunter", America and the world marveled at the former President's safaris. The Museum of National History here in New York still has the spoils of T.R.'s “great hunts” as part of the Theodore Roosevelt exhibition. Yes Teddy was “a man’s man” and was for the common man despite being a member himself of the upper class of society. For of all of Teddy Roosevelt’s greatness he was a racist, but at that time in the early 1900s most Americans were racists. Today it seems that America is no longer accepting of hunting for sport. It is okay to hunt if we plan to eat our catch apparently, and the death of animals at the hands of factory farming is also okay. When animals are born and then grown only for consumption never having much of a life it is just fine for us but big game hunting is considered something we have "evolved" from not something civilized people do. The entire thing to me is hypocritical and I am a proud lover over red meat and chicken, however if I had to actually kill and skin for my dinner I know I would probably switch to fruits and berries very quick.

 Why doesn't Sandy matter as much as Cecil??

The outrage from all spectrums is absolutely an exercise in hypocrisy not just because most of Americans eat meat but because in the wake of the weekly, almost daily news stories of police brutality and deaths of unarmed citizens you would think the same people calling for the humane treatment of animals would also call for the humane treatment of well “humans”

To read the rest please log on to TheBishopIsCrossing.com

Click Here For Full Article: