Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Anti-TPP "Activists" blow 400 Conch Shells, Defeat TPP Henchmen Representing 40% of World GDP

metamars's picture

The Anti-TPP "Activists" have totally redeemed themselves, by taking the fight to TPP's evil Henchmen, right in their (temporary) home town.

I'm talking about Maui, Hawaii, where the trade traitors were attempting to hammer out a final agreement. Ostensibly, the talks failed because of New Zealand wanting more openess for it's dairy, Mexico wanting more inside-TPP auto parts, and a few players (especially Australia) objecting to 12 years of data protection of biologic drugs.

If you observed any of the TPP Maui Ministerial Live Stream, post conference, you see a bunch of apparently tired, mellow folks, calmly explaining the sticking points.

AH, BUT IT WAS ALL A RUSE.

In point of fact, each and every one of the ministers was a nervous wreck, who would have been visibly trembling, but for the CIA dispensed 'special' tranquilizers. Those trade ministers were dealing with stark naked terror brought on by...... wait for it ...... wait for it ......

400 CONCH SHELL BLOWING ACTIVISTS !!!!

SIMULTANEOUSLY BLOWN CONCH SHELLS !!!!!

(THAT MEANS: "AT THE SAME TIME")

Yes, our intrepid anti-TPP "activists" COULD have blown their conch shells at an intersection in a major city (in Hawai, "major" would mean Honolulu, population 374,658 comes to mind), thus possibly putting a dent in the awful level of TPP Ignorance.

But no! Utilitizing all of the aggressiveness as well as tactical and strategic smarts we have come to expect from "activists" fighting the plutocracy, they chose, instead, to go straight to the belly of the beast - the resort on Maui where the emninently shameable TPP ministers were sneakily carrying out their diabolical negotiations.

Yeah, that's right, I'm talking about Kā’anapali Beach, population 1,250.

WELL, THE "ACTIVISTS" SURE SHOWED THEM !!!!

And probably took in some really well done margharitas, all in the same trip. Caught some rays, took a dip in the Pacific, all that good stuff.

/s

For the record, I not only don't have anything against having fun while doing demonstrations, or being flamboyant and/or eccentric, I view all that as good. PROVIDED that it's married with a seriousness of purpose, aggressiveness, and strategic smarts.

I'm only seeing the fun and eccentric, though, on the part of our conch blowing "activists".

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

I thought wowsers, too, on the conch shells. (I'm allergic to giant puppets in demonstrations for the same reason.)

If we look at New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, there really is popular opposition, and one reason we did OK in the Fast Track battle is that we knocked the shine off Obama, and made it evident he was not in a strong position. I agree that the anti-TPP efforts are by no means a mass movement, but I do believe that failed for more powerful reasons than not being able to come to a deal on dairy products. I mean, the TPP is trying to do away with national sovereignty! You would expect that to create resistance at all levels of society, including elites.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

but I do believe that failed for more powerful reasons than not being able to come to a deal on dairy products. I mean, the TPP is trying to do away with national sovereignty! You would expect that to create resistance at all levels of society, including elites.

While I'd like to believe that (and I'm sure it's true for some elites; consider Donald Trump, e.g.), I listed to a goodly part of the negotiators during their post-mortem, Nobody gave a hint that protecting national sovereignty was the least bit of concern to them. What did come out (pretty much for all 3 guys that I listened to) is that they were looking out for the interests of domestic industries, which, I assume, are mostly owned or controlled by plutocrats.

Well, an exception, may well be the dispute over biologic data. I could see that being mostly motivated by humanitarian concern over consumer medical bills. OTOH, I could also see that being mostly motivated by concern over weaker domestic pharmaceutical producers' profits. I really have no idea which theory is more valid.

I think it's highly unlikely that anybody who gave a hoot about national sovereignty would be let anywhere near the negotiating table. Perhaps a rogue individual might subtly sabotage things; perhaps even a rogue cabal, within one of the involved governments. But, could they be so subtle as to not be found out, during a multi-year negotiating process?

BTW, another dimension to this may prove even more toxic to national sovereignty than plutocratic greed for money. And that is plutocratic will to power. See here.

If we look at New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, there really is popular opposition, and one reason we did OK in the Fast Track battle is that we knocked the shine off Obama, and made it evident he was not in a strong position.

On the domestic front, I think Obama is (or was; we're not that far awy from the thick of the election season) in a strong position; the Republicans gave him what he wanted on TPA, and they control Congress. The Republican/conservative base failed to intimidate the Republicans in Congress, pretty much at all (Cruz flipping was an exception).

The best case for killing support during election season my actually come to pass. That would be Trump vs. Sanders. Still, depending on successful mavericks is not the way to go. The R and D insiders are gunning for both of them, respectively. The "activists" have a lot to answer for, except that nobody puts hard questions to them, AFAIK.

BruceMcF's picture
Submitted by BruceMcF on

Note that in countries that do not give the massive welfare to the rich in terms of drug company profits that the US does ... there are commercial interests in their domestic health industry that do not want to see drug companies taking a bigger slice of the pie. Not so much because of the impact on consumers, but because its supposed to be them taking a bigger slice of the pie, goddammit.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

Good thought. Another possibility is not compassion for private insurance premium paying taxpayers, but rather fear of political fallout from tax implications of being overly generous to original patenters of biologics, in countries that have socialized medicine. Wikipedia says, "Medicare is the publicly funded universal health care in Australia".
That's not a plutocracy-motivation scenario, either, but it's not exactly compassion, either.

Submitted by lambert on

... and its always the other guy's industry. They all just point fingers at each other. I don't see a way to decode the cross-currents which predisposes me to think it's all bullshit.

Is Australia holding on to ISDS footnotes as a bargaining chip for dairy, or vice versa. And if Australia weakens on ISDS footnotes, will some other country mysteriously find new ISDS issues?

Submitted by lambert on

.... is the visible proxy for deeper forces, I really do. Granted, the only evidence I have is virulent comment threads on newspaper sites, but the sentiment is there.

I'm not sure I'd trust the negotiators to be honest in the post mortems, either.