Lieberman on trade
So I've taped but not yet watched the Democrats' debate yesterday, but thanks to Jim Garrison for pointing me to this exchange. According to this Washington Post transcript, Lieberman had this to say about trade:
I think we've got to reject the extremism of George Bush and the extremism of Democrats who would put back walls of protectionism. And what's the extremism of George Bush? He just sits back and lets foreign countries break the rules of trade, rip off patents, copyrights, take American jobs, play with the currency.
Now I too am one of those rare free-trade Democrats, and one of those not so rare critics of the President. But letting "foreign countries" "rip off patents, copyrights" is not one of things one might criticize this President for. The USTR has been brutal in forcing nation after nation into more stringent bilateral agreements with the US to strengthen the protection of IP.
There is, of course, something that you could criticize the President for -- farm subsidies -- though not if you're running for President in Iowa (General Clark?). Here again, Lieberman was the only one to mention subsidies. His words: "So yes to subsidies as they are now, and yes to trade."
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (16)
But letting “foreign countries” “rip off patents, copyrights” is not one of things one might criticize this President for. The USTR has been brutal in forcing nation after nation into more stringent bilateral agreements with the US to strengthen the protection of IP.
it is worth noting that the USTR was no less aggressive in defending american business under the clinton administration.
and why not? defending american business is sort of the job of the USTR.... why have hard feelings about this? certainly, few americans, even free trade democrats would have a problem with the USTR forcing chinese manufacturers to exhibit respect for the IPR of american companies. if not for patents and copyrights, the chinese company huawei would have put cisco out of business a long time ago. any president, or presidential candidate, who allowed this to happen would (deservedly) not survive an election.
america cannot compete on wages (although that day is inevitably coming), technology is america's only remaining advantage. isn't it better that disputes over technology be resolved using IPR, than setttled by warplanes with laser guided bombs?
those who believe IPR is a synonym for WMD only hasten the call to arms.
we say give peace a chance!
Farm subsidies isn't just a Midwest issue. I bet a lot of southern cotton growers are attached to their farm subsidies, and Clark's strategy is to focus on the south.
So, no subsidy relief from Clark, either...
Farm subsidies will never be attacked in the context of a presidential campaign. (Average person doesn't care, third-world farmers can't vote for you, U.S. farmers will vote against you)
I liked the debate. Everyone sounded good.
Best line:
Questioner: "(positive statement on D.K. by people)... but they don't think you're electable."
Kucinich: "I'm electable if you vote for me."
Yes they did, except for the parts where they dogpiled on my man Dean :) but I suppose that has to be expected.
My growing concern is that there are actually people out there in the nation that are perfectly happy with what this administration has done, and that they are a sizable minority if not a majority. They love the flag-waving and the bombing of those terrorist arabs out there and telling the U.N. to go take a hike, by gum we're the U.S. of A. and we will do as we please because no one can say boo to us. This is not a good attitude on our part. Ultimately we shouldn't expect or demand that the world revolve around us and our desires, and if we don't realize that on our own I'm afraid that at some point it will be forcibly demonstrated to us.
On the subject of subsidies, I think they're a fine idea as long as they go to those who need them. ADM and Con-Agra do not need subsidies (which just go to their profits), the proverbial family farmer does. But I don't know if there's a way to target subsidies that narrowly, and I'm certain that the big agribusinesses would scream bloody murder if anyone tried.
Kucinich is a great guy, and he genuinely cares. But his foreign policy proposals are ahead of their times and I can't see voting for him until the rest of the world gets its act together socially. I still see him as the man I would put in Interior and turn loose.
I think it's too bad how Dean was very much for NAFTA and now he's very much against it. He claims he had 'vermont' reasons for supporting it then - sharing a border with Canada, etc. (But I think it's one thing to support it, and another to actually be at the signing ceremony. But Dean sometimes says goofy things that only withstand casual inspection.)
There was one really good question last night pointing out that Iowa farmers actually like free trade because it increases their export market. But that point got lost amid fingerpointing on who was more anti-trade than whom.
I don't know why the work of Clinton, Lieberman and the Democratic Leadership Council on trade hasn't had a greater impact on their party in general when it comes to trade issues.
My growing concern is that there are actually people out there in the nation that are perfectly happy with what this administration has done, and that they are a sizable minority if not a majority. They love the flag-waving and the bombing of those terrorist arabs out there and telling the U.N. to go take a hike, by gum we’re the U.S. of A. and we will do as we please because no one can say boo to us.
I'm afraid there's probably much more to fear than that, Rob. Consider the likely possibility that a vast majority of those you describe are reinforced in their beliefs every Sunday. Never underestimate the power of the pulpit when it comes to conservative ideology.
Our forefathers recognized the need for the separation of church and state. PACs and lobbyists have obviated that fundamental requirement (on both sides...is it really THAT offensive to have the Ten Commandments displayed in a courthouse?). The result is a nation wherein a consolidated group of religous conservatives is a driving force in American politics and anyone that questions their motives is deemed "unpatriotic" or even "unAmerican".
It's unbelievably difficult to discuss geo-political events and national policy with someone who (with no malice) can fall back on faith...even when you share that faith.
I am, for once, in agreement with the mice:
those who believe IPR is a synonym for WMD only hasten the call to arms.
Except for this:
we say give peace a chance!
If the definition of peace is a litigious society, I'll pass. I'd much rather reform the IPR laws. I'm all for the hastening of the call to intellectual arms on this front. This is a solvable problem.
--Jason
"If the definition of peace is a litigious society, I’ll pass."
in his fabulous book “The Blank Slate,” Steven Pinker of MIT, writes:
“In Culture of Honor, the social scientists Richard Nisbett and Dov Cohen show that violent cultures arise in societies that are beyond the reach of law in which precious assets are easily stolen. Societies that herd animals meet both conditions. Herders tend to live in territories that are unsuitable for growing crops and thus far from the centers of government. And their major asset, livestock, is easier to steal than the major asset of farmers, land. In herding societies a man can be stripped of his wealth (and of his ability to acquire wealth) in an eyeblink. Men in that milieu cultivate a hair trigger for violent retaliation…”
Or, more succinctly:
"As the economist Jeff Grogger points out, 'Violence is a way to enforce property rights in the absence of legal recourse'.”
knowledge companies, i.e., those companies who produce their profits largely from intangible assets, are exquisitely vulnerable to anyone with the capacity to learn, copy, recruit, or steal. if the only asset of a company is knowledge, the only way to profitably exploit this asset is under the protection of patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.
cisco systems from my post is a good example of a company who lives on her intellectual innovation.
how do you propose jason that cisco defend herself against chinese pirates in the absence of strong IPR: broadsword, or pistol?
the mice prefer to live in a litigious society as compared to one where every country is their own law and there is no recourse other than violence between nations. at the end of the day this is what international IPR treaties are all about.
"the mice prefer to live in a litigious society as compared to one where every country is their own law and there is no recourse other than violence between nations. at the end of the day this is what international IPR treaties are all about."
I'm afraid we are living in a society where we'll have both: litigious IPR and violence used as a recourse...
how do you propose jason that cisco defend herself against chinese pirates in the absence of strong IPR: broadsword, or pistol?
Good question. I reckon it would depend upon the representative chosen to defend us from these pirates (who have existed for decades and survived any number of media changes).
All jesting aside, I believe the mice have misrepresented the point of my post so I'll clarify it: Let's fix the IPR laws that have caused us to become a litigious society and let's avoid electing any official who believes it's worth the price of a single American life to export our currently broken IPR laws overseas.
I hope that clarifies my position.
--Jason
>“As the economist Jeff Grogger points out, ‘Violence is a way to
>enforce property rights in the absence of legal recourse’.”
The real problem is the growing corruption of our legal system.
1. How am I supposed to enforce my *property* rights to enjoy *public* property if it's simply given away to large corporations by the government? And yes, this happens routinely, even in areas other than "intellectual property", although it's by far the worst in "IP" areas.
2. How am I supposed to protect myself from pseudo-legal nonsense, such as phony cease-and-desist letters and nuisance suits? (For a classic example, see SCO.) The courts don't crack down on this sort of stuff *nearly* as hard as they ought to -- it takes months or years for cases like SCOs to be decided, when they should be thrown out of court and heavily fined on day one.
3. When the Supreme Court is crooked and the courts are deliberately being packed with ideologues, how am I supposed to trust the legal system at all?
This sort of problem precisely consistutes "lack of legal recourse". The solution is not to restrict access to the courts. The solution will involve fulfilling the promise in the Constitution of *speedy* trials. Making the penalties harsher for making phony legal threats. And forcing corporate bringers of nusiance suits to pay their opponents' court costs.
Unfortunately, the "tort reform" people don't get it at *all* (or maybe they're just crooked) -- they aren't pushing for *any* of these changes.
But as long as the essential reforms don't happen, the only real recourse will be civil disobedience -- and, yes, if they don't happen for long enough, violence.
More laws != the rule of law. Remember that, mice. :-)
"may we assume that anon stands for, Anarchy Now Or Never?"
No. :-)
"have to convince a jury of 12 average americans that their cause is true and just."
Um.... WHEN? In twenty years or so when the case goes to trial? And will the jury ruling be overturned by an appeals court? And will they be forced to pay the legal costs of their opponents, or, more likely, will their opponents be stuck with the legal fees regardless? Did you *read* what I wrote?
I believe absolutely firmly in the principles of our legal system. What I regret is that more and more that's not the way it's actually working. (Of course, it wasn't even close to the way it worked in the Jim Crow South, and even the "average Americans" on juries there didn't care.) The proper response when the legal system fails is, of course, civil disobedience.
Perhaps you misinterpreted me. I'm certainly not advocating violence at all. I'm saying that if things aren't improved, violence will, eventually -- probably not for another 50 years at *least* -- happen. Remember that the great Dr. King was far from the only activist, and some of them did advocate, and even incite, violence. (First, of course, violence was used against them under the guise of "law". Black Americans had been living under terrible oppression for over 50 years at that time, since the post-Reconstruction seizure of Southern governments by white racists. And before Reconstruction, of course, the country was even less so).
Perhaps you might remember another group of people who decided that violence was the solution (although, as a matter of fact, I think they were wrong to use it when they did, as their complaints really didn't justify it): the instigators of the Revolutionary War.
Currently people are being imprisoned for carrying protest signs at the "President"'s speeches. And "judges" are actually upholding this. We are in a deeply regressive period when it comes to Federal government support for civil rights and free speech, and it's scary. Meanwhile our voting systems are more prone to election fraud then ever before in history, gerrymandering has reached a new low, and respect for the loyal opposition appears to have vanished from the ruling party. Worst of all, most Americans apparently don't care.
I've studied history, so I know what all of this leads to if it's not stopped early: a police state. Which is usually followed, in turn, by violence against that state: democracy and civil rights are the best guarantee against violence.
It would be a terrible tragedy if this happened to the United States.
"remember that, anon. your department of homeland security is watching you.…."
Exactly the problem, y'know?
Incidentally, that "love it or leave it" poem you (blind mice) quoted is creepy and *deeply* un-American.
"You don't stand for our flag,
Or the God we serve."
Perhaps this Marvin Holden doesn't realize just how deeply offensive his poem is to loyal, secular Americans. Americans who respect the Constitution.
America does not "serve God". This is supposed to be a *democracy*. That would be a *theocracy*. I don't want to live in a theocracy, and I'm not alone.
Some of the Founding Fathers were atheists; many more were Deists, who believed that God has not interacted with the world since its creation. They did not want to live in a theocracy either.
Incidentally, I also don't want to stand for a flag -- that's blind idol-worship. I stand for the *republic* for which the flag also stands.
It is significant that people in public office are sworn to uphold and protect the *Constitution* of the United States of America. The Consitution, I would swear to uphold and protect any day.
lieberman may have some good ideas on trade but this why you should vote Bush even if you're a democrat. if a democratic candidate wins in '04 then Hillary Clinton cannot run in '08 unless the democratic president that wins fails miserably in some way. i think i would much rather have a historic event that has had no precedent like a women president to happen, which is why even democrats should vote for george bush in '04, so that hillary clinton can run and win in '08. if there is anyone who should be the first women president in the history of the united states it should be hillary clinton. imagine all the women in this country who could vicariously live through that achievement, especially those who have had unfaithful husbands. i would bet that if george bush were to win in '04 and knowing that hillary would probably run and win in '08, he would have the country and the rest of the world running excellently and even spit-shined as any good cowboy would for a lady.
-(~)
incest stories
anime porn
rape stories
beastiality
violent rape forced sex
brutal sex
brutal sex
brutal hentai tentacles
brutal fuck
nice site!
rape videos