Pax-salon Mailing List: Fwd: comments

[Patty Guerrero (pattypax]

Since i sent the Moyers transcript to all of you to read for the salon, i 
decided to send the comments (coming in 2 parts) people made re. his show.   
They tell so much more.   Sorry about too many emails, but may  be good for the 
discussion.
Thanks, 

patty

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Patty Guerrero <pattypax [at] earthlink.net>
> Date: November 3, 2013 8:06:30 PM CST
> To: Patty Guerrero <pattypax [at] earthlink.net>
> Subject: comments
> 
> 26 comments
> 
> Leave a message...
> Newest
> Share 
> 
> HoHoHum • 2 hours ago
> Bill: Your ending sentence on the first “DRONE” section starts with: "In this 
> world of terror...".
> 
> Stop there.
> 
> COMMENT: This "world of terror" was institutionalized (yes, 
> institutionalized) post 9/11. That extremely important moment in world 
> history offered two (2) U.S. policy choices, in response: (1) the "legal/law" 
> choice vs. the (2) “war/terrorist" choice. Choice #2 was selected.
> 
> ANALYSIS: If choice #1 had been selected: Would the world hate America today? 
> Would America be bankrupt today? Would millions of foreigners be dead today? 
> Would not America have gained worldwide RESPECT and worldwide alliance today? 
> Would not America be outrageously better off
> financially & morally today? Unfortunately, U.S. took choice #2. Why is that? 
> As Ike Eisenhower warned in 1960: “War is a business”. The war for private 
> profit industry is firmly in control now POST Soviet retirement in 1989-92. 
> Accordingly, the war-for-profit center had to reinvent a new so-called 
> "enemy", and, guess what??? ... "terrorism" was selected in
> 2001.
> 
> CONCLUSION: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS “WORLD OF TERROR” ENVIRONMENT. IT’S A 
> CONSTRUCTED DEVICE BEHIND THE ULTERIOR
> MOTIVE OF PERSONAL PROFIT-FOR-DEATH. The U.S. could have “arrested” the 
> terrorists -- via the SYSTEM of LAW -- and maintained its economic and moral 
> RESPECT and INTEGRETY, thereafter. It’s never too late on this one!
> see more
>  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Sashatree • 2 hours ago
> One of your best shows. Ever! I am forever grateful for your gift of 
> presenting learned people and vital issues in such an intimate and clear 
> format - enlightening us all. Thank you so very much Mr. Moyers!
> 1  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> MSII • 2 hours ago
> Step-by-step ever-onward toward total corporate-fascism...
> 1  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> concerned citizen • 2 hours ago
> Obama and his administration has been the least "transparent" president of 
> any we had in my lifetime, which dates back to the Truman administration.
> 
> When he flubbed the inaugural oath in 2009, he held a secret repeat 
> swearing-in with Chief Justice Roberts. Only when there was a public outcry 
> did the White House release a photo of the 2nd inaugural. This list goes on 
> from there.
> 
> I can now say that I am ashamed that I voted for this administration in 
> November 2008. I thought that there might have been a modicum of possibility 
> that things might be different.
> 
> I can't even watch the fellow give a "speech." He makes me cringe!
> 
> He's brought that same political hacks into his administration that have 
> dominated American politics for decades.
> 
> I'm disillusioned more than I've ever been.
> 
> The level of secrecy of this administration and the media that oodles over it 
> is depressing.
> 
> Chris Matthews said a few weeks ago that he felt Obama would be among the 
> greatest presidents we've ever had. Sorry, Chris, but even that tingle in 
> your pants can't make this so.
> 
> There's got to be a better way!
> see more
>  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> catsrule • 4 hours ago
> Finally someone talked about the plan to cut Social Security and Medicare! 
> Unfortunately, neither of your guests, or you talked about the obvious fix 
> for SS, Remove the cap and tax everyone the same!! Also, if Medicare was 
> allowed to negotiate prescription drug prices, as the VA is allowed to do, 
> the cost would fall and we would all save money!
> 1  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Bill Z • 6 hours ago
> You keep coming back to the original question. If is supposed to be so good 
> for everyone - then why does it have to be done all in secret from the 
> American people?
>  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Pierce Pyrite • 14 hours ago
> Globalization isn't partisan:
> NAFTA - negotiated and crafted primarily by Bush Sr.; signed by Clinton
> FTAA - Crafted and signed under Bush Jr.
> TPP - Obama with a Republican dominated House
> 
> You have no friends in either party when this issue is on the table. 
> Globalization isn't in the interest of American citizens. It's heavily in the 
> interests of multinational corporations who now buy politicians with PAC 
> money (the money/speech of which isn't necessarily U.S. derived) 
> Multinationals are nations themselves. The only patriotism they have is shown 
> to favorable markets. They are too big. We need to break them up by not 
> purchasing from them. Buy local. Buy locally sourced (the multinationals have 
> cornered many commodity markets).
> 7  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Dave Holb • 20 hours ago
> Someone please contact Eric Snowden about this! We have got to know and he 
> appears to be our only source!
> 3  1 •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Jeffrey William Lynch • a day ago
> Our nation is no longer a genuine democracy. That idea of freedom is just an 
> illusion. America has slowly evolved into a plutocracy that serves not the 
> majority, but primarily the wealthy elite that run the multinational 
> corporations. These power hungry and greed motivated individuals are the 
> one's who profit and benefit from these "secret" deals, and the taxpayers are 
> often the ones who bail them out when their excesses get out of balance and 
> out of hand. They get to keep their jobs and multimillion dollar salaries and 
> bonuses, even after they nearly send the global economy into a state of near 
> apocalypse. That was the cry from them in 2008. Guess what? They're still 
> running the show!
> 
> The President promised more transparency in all government affairs prior to 
> being elected. He lied, just like all of his predecessors and 
> co-conspirators, and that includes members of both parties. They're all lying 
> and they will continue to lie, as long as it benefits the corporate interest.
> 
> They're disease is MORE. More money, more bailouts, more greed and more big 
> fat Cuban cigars to smoke on their big yachts that they tie up behind their 
> big mansions.
> 
> All this while the working class and the poor are forced to pay for it all...
> see more
> 5  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> rltmlt • a day ago
> It's interesting to note that a renown Right Wing Economists in the Treasury 
> Department during the Reagan Administration has spilled the beans concerning 
> Allen Greenspan, then the head of the FED, and David Stockman who were 
> instrumental in crafting a bill that was sold as a measure to strengthen 
> Social Security for the future, he makes the point that Reagan was not 
> involved in the negotiations of this legislation. The reality was that this 
> action was a diversion to increase the Social Security Payroll Tax far beyond 
> the expenditures that were required at that time, an action that would have 
> been cheerfully accepted by Democrats of that period with no questions asked. 
> This tax increase was planned to bring in excess revenue to the fund on the 
> order of two trillion Dollars, the additional revenue was replaced almost 
> immediately by virtually worthless non-marketable IOUs from the Treasury and 
> the money was used by the federal government to pay for its wars and other 
> politically necessary spending programs. In addition, Stockman felt that this 
> action would protect Wall Street’s stock and bond portfolios from exaggerated 
> deficit fears at the time. This was thirty years ago and these virtually 
> worthless IOUs still stand and they can only be made good from an excess of 
> tax revenues over expenditures or by the Treasury selling $2 trillion in 
> bonds, notes, and bills and paying off its IOUs to the Social Security Trust 
> Fund. This infusion of capital to the fund would also increase future 
> investment income to the fund and delay any attempts to reduce benefits for 
> some time. Our Right Wing Economist had one final comment concerning this 
> final proposed action, "Considering the current Republican majority in the 
> House, this is not going to happen".
> 
> Ref Article at: http://paulcraigroberts.org/20...
> see more
> 1  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Barbara J. • a day ago
> This is very reminicent of the WTO provisions. I remember that shortly after 
> they took effect countries were going afoul of the WTO rules if any 
> government action was deemed to interfere any business interest. E.g., 
> California was ruled against when it tried to control a new gasoline additive 
> which was found to be polluting groundwater. I wonder if the TPP is just 
> conforming to what is already in place?
> 2  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Gjilan Prague  Barbara J. • 15 hours ago
> In some ways yes and in some ways not. The WTO was suppose to liberalize 
> trade across all member states. But in the meantime, the WTO process has been 
> replaced more and more by Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Regional 
> Trade Agreements (RTAs). Even the staff at the WTO is worried that they are 
> increasingly unable to manage a coherent world trade policy because of the 
> proliferation of BITs and RTAs. The BITs and RTAs often bypass the WTO 
> process in favor of what is arguably a more beneficial process for investors 
> under the ICSID process.
>  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Robert Thomas • 2 days ago
> I'm a Manufacturing Engineer, who actually makes stuff, designs processes to 
> make stuff and directs processes to test stuff. I and my coworkers take raw 
> materials and simpler components made by other suppliers around the world and 
> ADD VALUE to them by putting them together in clever ways that make customers 
> around the world eager to pay more for the finished product than they would 
> pay for the constituent parts. These are activities that neither the host nor 
> either of the guests have ever done, do now or will ever do.
> 
> I have participated in operational production teams in the Bay Area; Chippewa 
> Falls and Neenah, Wisconsin; Toronto; Guadalajara and Monterrey, Mexico; 
> Penang, Indonesia; Suzhou, Jiangsu; Dublin, Ireland and elsewhere. I've 
> designed production processes for most of these locations, for my own 
> employer and for contract manufacturers.
> 
> I have watched $25,000 worth of parts assembled, in front of my eyes, into a 
> module an adult can hold in the palm of his hand and for which customers in 
> Mexico, Australia, Spain, Great Britain, Germany, China and other places were 
> happy to pay $450,000.
> 
> So, though I don't know anything about a lot of other kinds of manufacturing, 
> I know a little bit about THIS, and along with a lot of miners, agronomists 
> and farmers and many other manufacturers I've been privileged to be directly 
> responsible for offsetting a little bit of the nation's balance of payments.
> 
> Here's the scoop about what the guests said in this segment: it's pretty much 
> all both true and false. There are aspects of trade policy that frustrate me 
> every day and there aspects of the same policy that enormously benefit vast 
> numbers of working Americans, every day. Of the latter, much is gained due 
> directly to NAFTA and the GATT/WTO and much is lost that would have been lost 
> anyway if those and other associated agreements weren't in place. Without 
> question, elements of these agreements have also facilitated the exit of 
> good-paying manufacturing out of the U.S.A. That's frustrating. The 
> suggestion that it can all be condemned, extolled or even begin to be 
> explained in twenty minutes of axe-grinding is an insult to the intelligence 
> of everyone who actually has a hand in paying the nation's bills.
> see more
>  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> RussFelix  Robert Thomas • a day ago
> Robert, I was a Manufacturing Engineer as well, until Sprague Electric 
> Company gave up the ghost in 1988-9. I helped move our production lines to 
> Korea before it happened and saw the company's branding sold to off shore 
> companies. The owner of our company explained that he could make more money 
> in bonds than manufacturing. Unfortunately for him, this was shortly before 
> the junk bond market crashed. My conclusion is that American capitalist have 
> given up on the difficult part of the manufacturing cycle being content to 
> sell their branding abroad to foreign companies or going public and relying 
> on market growth for their income. No one in this country wants to do the 
> dirty work of manufacturing here anymore. Our laws are against it. The 
> financial system is against it and most important loyalty to American brands 
> has almost disappeared. It is becoming difficult to find them even when they 
> are manufactured abroad. This is an inevitable result of losing control of 
> our manufacturing base. With that goes loss of the marketing base. As an 
> Engineer you know how easy it is to get behind in technology and lose the 
> competitive edge. Foreign manufactures know that too but they are willing to 
> do the dirty work and now do the research and its paying off for them. 
> Multinationals be damned.
> see more
> 4  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> wolfmanwon  RussFelix• 19 hours ago
> Russ South Korea also has national healthcare that your employer wouldn't pay 
> for. We Americans get to pay for South Korea's defense with tens of thousands 
> of American troops stationed there. Then they have trade tariffs on American 
> product sold in South Korea. Now we know why these trade agreements are done 
> in secret. The American people would string up these traitors if they knew 
> who they were.
> 1  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Robert Thomas  RussFelix• a day ago
> Russ, I well remember Sprague Electric's products (and proud heritage) and 
> continue to see Vishay components of all kinds designed into new products. 
> Myself, I worked for ten years for a little 200-employee operation called 
> Elxsi in the 1980s, that I had the dubious honor of mothballing for the 
> future use of Tata-Elxsi (then of Singapore), now a little $6B South Asian 
> powerhouse. So I, too, have seen close-up this march of production operations 
> out of the U.S. But I've also seen the opposite occur. I see on-shore 
> specialty and high-performance facilities move from Indonesia and Penang back 
> to both Mexico and also into the U.S., to take advantage of proximity, 
> quick-turn capability and flexibility. It's NOT as prevalent as I would like. 
> But the alternative is... what? Artificial barriers? I'd rather find 
> something new to do that requires imagination and hard work than continue 
> doing what I was doing, with the help of arbitrary trade protection.
> 
> By the way, why is someone with these view lurking here? Because my other 
> views are most often in line with those of Mr. Moyers. The same guests were 
> absolutely right about phony claims of Social Security's imperilment, the 
> real but manageable problem of health care cost, the sanity of 
> well-demonstrated Keynesian investment etc. But I'm burdened with the Curse 
> of Knowledge - I believe in both the high likelihood that human beings have 
> caused inordinate and potentially disastrous warming of world climate 
> (because the statistical analysis is overwhelmingly convincing) that proper 
> policy may ameliorate AND I believe that Genetically Modified Organisms are 
> useful and pose little or no threat to the biosphere AND I *KNOW* that 
> there's no nutritional difference between 50/50 sucrose and invert 55/45 corn 
> syrup.
> see more
> 1  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> rltmlt  RussFelix • a day ago
> Russ, you've hit the nail on the head. No one wants to get their hands dirty !
> They don't mind getting dirty in Asia and the Pacific Rim Countries, emerging 
> economies who now have most of our former living wage jobs and a rising 
> standard of living that makes the U.S. pail in comparison ! In the words of 
> some independent economists, "Capitalism has abandoned it's birth place in 
> search of future growth and higher profits" !
>  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> ccrider27  Robert Thomas • a day ago
> So why the need for such secrecy?
> 
> The one document that was leaked months ago contained clauses the bypassed 
> worker protections (like child labor laws), bypassed environmental 
> protections, etc.
> 
> In addition there was a clause that allowed corporations to sue national 
> governments whenever the corps decided that a national law (such as clean up 
> your own environmental mess) interfered in any way with their profits. And 
> this 'suit' would not be heard in that nation's court system, but rather it 
> would adjudicated by a board of lawyers appointed by the very corporations 
> doing the suing.
> 
> Why the need for such drastic protections for corporations which translate 
> into total disregard for people? And why the need for total secrecy?
> 4  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> rltmlt  ccrider27 • a day ago
> Former Senator from N. Dakota Byron Dorgan once commented in an off the cuff 
> interview that the complexion of these international trade agreements has 
> changed drastically ever since the approval process was removed from the 
> Department of Commerce and given to the State Department. He continued, the 
> Commerce Department was always very aggressive in it's review of the terms in 
> newly minted trade agreements that had not been signed, and was always on the 
> lookout for those terms that were not in the best interest of the United 
> States and it's citizens. Senator Dorgan concluded, I'm not sure if the State 
> Department can be trusted to offer the same level of objective oversight 
> considering their underlying role of greasing the skids to advance private 
> business arrangements between our largest corporations and foreign business 
> entities !
> 1  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> ccrider27  rltmlt• 14 hours ago
> Yes, and it's not exactly clear who is negotiating with whom.
> 
> It appears they are just deciding how to slice up the pie.
>  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Robert Thomas  ccrider27• a day ago
> ccrider27, the reason for the secrecy is the same reason that the 
> negotiations between the Bay Area Rapid Transit union SEIU 1021 negotiated 
> its contract with BART management in secret. It's the same reason that my 
> school district's Teachers' Association representatives negotiate with the 
> district management in secret. It's the same reason that proposals from 
> competing contractors are negotiated in secret. When the parties are 
> satisfied, they present the results to their directors, to their members, to 
> their constituents, to their managers. If the deal is satisfactory, the wider 
> constituency agrees and if it isn't, they turn it down.
> 
> I am NOT a participant or an expert in international trade negotiations. I 
> HAVE negotiated agreements in other, more modest milieus, and I recognize the 
> similarities.
> 
> While there may well be unacceptable elements of such an agreement as it is 
> finally presented, which could result in its ultimate failure, there 
> UNDOUBTEDLY are such "clauses" included during the middle of negotiations. 
> Often, outrageous demands of all kinds are made during negotiations. 
> Unscrupulous participants choose to leak such things prematurely in order to 
> gain advantage, relying upon the political posturing and public outrage of... 
> axe-grinders.
> 
> If the legislatures of the nations involved aren't satisfied with mechanisms 
> provided to resolve disputes, or are sufficiently dissatisfied with any part 
> or parts of the TPP, they should not approve the agreement.
> see more
>  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> JSC1227 • 2 days ago
> This is really great programming. So much noise on the other media channels 
> with endless spin and lies, and bill moyers and his panel with a clear 
> dialogue on the real issues cutting through the fog. However when the really 
> bright panelists, explain the hopelessness of the situation one doesnt know 
> where to turn to help fix the problems discussed. I personally just want to 
> figure out what other country to run to. The greed and distortion of the 
> powers that be are just to great. I just want it to collapse like the soviet 
> union, and start with a clean slate. The system is just to messed up, it took 
> decades to create our present quagmire, and the present power brokers that 
> created this mess would rather it all collapse than institute change or 
> cooperation. I want off this bus, seeking a place where sanity reigns.
> 2  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> johnalene • 2 days ago
> Recall that Cheney, having taken charge of GWB's energy policy, wouldn't even 
> give out the names of his board of advisors - all of them from industry.
> 
> Plus ça change....
> 4  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> feetheweasel • 2 days ago
> Very imformative program and unfortunately nothing surprised me. What did 
> surprise me was that neither guest nor Mr. Moyers mentioned the ONLY fix that 
> will work...we have to pass a constitutional amendment that removes ALL 
> corporate influence over our elections and our law making process. the 
> Supreme Court has spoken...corporations are people. The only way to change 
> that is constitutionally. Any other attempt other than an amendment will be a 
> half measure. If you cant pull a lever in a voting booth, you shouldnt have 
> ANY influence over the process.i
> 6  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Don Holzum • 2 days ago
> This is more dangerous than the Keystone pipeline.
> 3  •Reply•Share › 
> 
> Christina Macpherson • 2 days ago
> Interesting that big USA corporate executives can read the details - the 
> draft of the TPP, but Australian, journalists, anybody, are even barred from 
> Australian government discussions on the TPP. Our sycophantic and iignorant 
> Prime Minister Abbott is likely to sign up to it.
>