Trans-Pacific Parnership

[Kerr]

I don't agree. I imagine your reasoning has to do with semantics -- all rather pointless. In the country where I live (which I actually am not ashamed of, and therefore have not kept it secret), socialism and big government have grown apace -- along with income inequality, the whole works. Call it what you will; but let's put this foolishness aside and get back to the OP.

My reasoning isnt about semantics, its about what national social is. But as you noted, its off topic, so lets just agree to disagree.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

My reasoning isnt about semantics, its about what national social is. But as you noted, its off topic, so lets just agree to disagree.

OK.

Putting aside what people think the terms mean, here is what I consider to be our current system of government in the US

1. It is extremely large, invading areas of our lives well beyond those traditionally ascribed to "Socialism" (namely, mining, major means of productions, etc.). I mentioned elsewhere, that a larger portion of the average American's income, BY FAR, goes to the US Government than to any corporate industry -- more than to Exxon, to Walmart, to Microsoft, and to General Motors combined. When people complain about "Big Business", they ignore the elephant in the living room.

2. The government has a partnership with the industrial leaders, just as Hitler had a partnership with the Krupps, etc. (By the way, the Germans weren't the only ones experimenting with national socialism: FDR's NRA was similar. Fortunately for the US, few of FDR's programs progressed beyond the rhetoric stage.) The partnership we have seems to work this way: Big Business -- particularly Big Banking, but others as well, elect our Presidents. This was especially true in 2008 and 2012, and particularly true for Obama in 2008. In return, former Goldman Sachs employees run the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, etc. It's not the best system in the world, nor the worst.

3. Concerning the TPP, this has bipartisan support, as did NAFTA before it. I see it as part of Globalism, probably an inseparable part. The problem with Globalism, is that workers and businessmen no longer compete with the best in their community or state; they compete with the best in the world; and by "best", I mean the cheapest. You can't blame TPP or NAFTA for this. More blame ought to be laid at the feet of those who gave us an interstate highway system, refrigerated containers and efficient container ports. That's what makes it possible for the Global Economy to function. You might also blame world peace, which facilitates the flow of goods.

The ball's back to you. Shalom shalom

 

[BlandOatmeal]

IS THE US BECOMING A BIG BHUTAN?

​

I've just been reading up on free trade agreements, and came across the situation of Bhutan. Bhutan is a sleepy mountain kingdom in the Himalayas. For millennia, it has been very isolated and very poor. Recently, however, it has begun seeking to come out of poverty through trade. This has caused its share of problems, but the mountain kingdom is working on them.

The US seems to be working in the opposite direction. I am not complaining about this, nor saying it is wrong; just noticing it. Perhaps we, too, will one day escape the annoyances of the world around us and become what Bhutan used to be. Ah, the peace! Ah, the Dharma! Ah, the poverty! It has its plusses, and its minuses.

Meanwhile, the Japanese and Canadians are not asleep at the switch:

EPA with Canada would help Japan, open NAFTA door: Quebec official
by Eric Johnston

"...Lisee said a Canada-Japan EPA would provide benefits beyond the two nations. “If the Japanese want to enter the North American market, there is an open door. It’s the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the best way to enter is to go through the door from Canada, or Quebec,” he said.

“Japanese companies that invest in Quebec will have access to NAFTA, and to our agreement with Europe,” he said, adding that Europe would also have access to the Canada-Japan agreement, meaning tariffs would be eliminated in three markets...

"An EPA with Canada could also be used as a lever for the Japanese within the TPP against the United States, he added. “The Japanese can tell them: ‘Listen. We dealt with Canada. You can do better within the TPP,’ ” he said...."

-- EPA with Canada would help Japan, open NAFTA door: Quebec official | The Japan Times

 

[metis]

Several years ago, Matt Laur of the Today show went to Bhutan on his "Where In the World Is Matt Laur?" journey, and he was so impressed that he said he wanted to bring his family back.

Yes, Bhutan has been a poor place, which especially is logical because of its location and elevation, but that shouldn't be confused with unhappiness. Matter of fact, Laur said that it was one of the most uplifting place he's ever been to, and he's been to a great many, and he gives much credit to Buddhist dharma that puts much less emphasis on materialism than we tend to do in the west.

Even though a certain amount of "materialism" is necessary for survival's sake, we should not confuse materialism with happiness. Matter of fact, we well know that materialism beyond what's necessary often becomes a type of neurosis whereas we're never satisfied.

I know this gets away from the OP, so I'll not discuss this aspect any more on this thread, but I just felt some might be interested. If someone wants to pursue this further, let me recommend starting a new thread.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...Buddhist dharma that puts much less emphasis on materialism than we tend to do in the west.

"We", being the goiim. Jesus speaks against materialism. Nevertheless, you, I and Joe the plumber are addicted to clean drinking water, underground sewers and machines that work without kicking them.

That's why I brought up the matter. It's one thing to be isolationist in theory, and yet another thing in practice. Isolationism cuts us off from the global economy. In our own little world, where we just compare ourselves among ourselves, everything's copasetic. When the barriers eventually come down, though, we will find ourselves at a disadvantage. The Soviets found this out, transforming overnight from the world's #2 economy (on paper) to a bunch of kleptocrat banana republics. If we don't MIND becoming a banana republic, that's fine; but I think most Americans would have trouble with the idea.

Another problem of tariff barriers and isolationism is smuggling. The gang war in Mexico is an example of how serious this can become.

There are advantages to being isolationist, on the other hand. In the Soviet Union, some professionals and blue collar workers had relatively comfortable jobs: mediocre incomes, but reasonably comfortable. When the walls came down, highly skilled workers were laid off or emigrated; because they had been very skillfully producing products that few people actually wanted, or that they could now buy much more cheaply from overseas.

I don't have a preference one way or another, because I expect the world order to end in a few years with a nuclear war (Zech. 14). My main concern is that in the meantime, my wife and I should be able to visit our grandchildren in China. The economic and military saber-rattling that's been going on lately, is a bit unsettling.

 

[metis]

I never advocated isolationism.

 

[Sunstone]

Current trade agreements are turning us into a banana republic anyway. Isolationism isn't needed for that to happen.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I never advocated isolationism.

My mistake, Metis. I thought you were, in extolling the virtues of Bhutanese life.

I have never been to Bhutan, but I did spend several weeks in China -- urban and rural. Even in its rural areas, China at least has stone-lined gutters, some toilets, electricity and running (undrinkable) water. As a young man, I lived for several months on the highways and in the forests in the US as a homeless person; but it was still quite a shock to be in China. Bhutan is far more backward than that. I'll give it a pass, if I'm ever compelled to go overseas again.

The Bhutanese have been working on building a free market area with India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and, I believe, Afghanistan. Leave out the Muslim trio (Pak, Bang and Af), and they have a chance. Even so, I haven't heard any testimony of travelers to India that wasn't something of a cultural horror story. India suffers from "internal isolationism", in the form of a persistent caste culture. Clannish and tribal cultures across the world have similar economic anchors around their necks. Even so, as your friend noted and as my son-in-law noticed when he traveled in Myanmar, people in these places can be very happy; because happiness, as you note, does not consist of the value of our possessions.

You may not have advocated isolationism, but I have over the years. Not joining the TPP reveals an isolationist tendency; because the world is rapidly carving itself up into competing trade blocs, and we may be left in the dust if we don't join up more closely with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia (New Zealand seems to have been taken over by hobbits). Of course, that means our workers will have to actually WORK to be competitive with the others; but I think they can do that , given the chance. I don't know what to say about some of those other players, though, such as Mexico and Vietnam... and down the line, the likes of Laos and Cambodia. I think we're really courting murky water and intestinal worms there.

Whatever we decide to do in this modern-day "scramble for Asia [ditto for Africa, Latin America, etc.]", I think the geopolitics of this matter needs to be part of our calculation; that is why I brought up the matter of isolationism.

Some others here, including the OP, seem to have ignored the geopolitical aspect and, rather crudely at times, harped on about the "Big Business" aspect of TPP. On that matter I will say this:

Globalism is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.

• Big Business is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.
• Big Government is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.
• National (or international) economic growth is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.
• Increasing rich/poor inequality is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.

All of the above grow in tandem with one another, and one feeds the other. When you try to mismatch them, as with the Soviet experiment (trying to have Big Government without Big Business), you are courting failure. If you DON'T try to mismatch them, you get a well-greased machine, similar to our current Globalist age. In the end, though, it will all collapse; and the bigger it is, the harder it will fall; because at its heart, it's all a big Ponzi scheme. The Bible says that fall will come with war, famine and plagues.

That's how I call it. Anything more, will probably be considered "proselytizing".

Shalom shalom

 

[metis]

My mistake, Metis. I thought you were, in extolling the virtues of Bhutanese life.

I have never been to Bhutan, but I did spend several weeks in China -- urban and rural. Even in its rural areas, China at least has stone-lined gutters, some toilets, electricity and running (undrinkable) water. As a young man, I lived for several months on the highways and in the forests in the US as a homeless person; but it was still quite a shock to be in China. Bhutan is far more backward than that. I'll give it a pass, if I'm ever compelled to go overseas again.

The Bhutanese have been working on building a free market area with India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and, I believe, Afghanistan. Leave out the Muslim trio (Pak, Bang and Af), and they have a chance. Even so, I haven't heard any testimony of travelers to India that wasn't something of a cultural horror story. India suffers from "internal isolationism", in the form of a persistent caste culture. Clannish and tribal cultures across the world have similar economic anchors around their necks. Even so, as your friend noted and as my son-in-law noticed when he traveled in Myanmar, people in these places can be very happy; because happiness, as you note, does not consist of the value of our possessions.

You may not have advocated isolationism, but I have over the years. Not joining the TPP reveals an isolationist tendency; because the world is rapidly carving itself up into competing trade blocs, and we may be left in the dust if we don't join up more closely with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia (New Zealand seems to have been taken over by hobbits). Of course, that means our workers will have to actually WORK to be competitive with the others; but I think they can do that , given the chance. I don't know what to say about some of those other players, though, such as Mexico and Vietnam... and down the line, the likes of Laos and Cambodia. I think we're really courting murky water and intestinal worms there.

Whatever we decide to do in this modern-day "scramble for Asia [ditto for Africa, Latin America, etc.]", I think the geopolitics of this matter needs to be part of our calculation; that is why I brought up the matter of isolationism.

Some others here, including the OP, seem to have ignored the geopolitical aspect and, rather crudely at times, harped on about the "Big Business" aspect of TPP. On that matter I will say this:

Globalism is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.

• Big Business is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.
• Big Government is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.
• National (or international) economic growth is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.
• Increasing rich/poor inequality is built largely on three things: peace, infrastructure and capital.

All of the above grow in tandem with one another, and one feeds the other. When you try to mismatch them, as with the Soviet experiment (trying to have Big Government without Big Business), you are courting failure. If you DON'T try to mismatch them, you get a well-greased machine, similar to our current Globalist age. In the end, though, it will all collapse; and the bigger it is, the harder it will fall. The Bible says that fall will come with war, famine and plagues.

That's how I call it. Anything more, will probably be considered "proselytizing".

Shalom shalom

Thanks for you explanation. BTW, a very close friend of mine has spent most of the last three years teaching in China, a hard day's drive s.w. of Shanghai (she takes the train). Also, my oldest daughter was in Beijing for a week at a mathematics conference four years ago. Both have interesting takes on China, and they're quite mixed.

My greatest concern with the T-PP is the great danger of losing more jobs here, plus the problems in other countries whereas more and more of the land and ownership is being put into the hands of fewer and fewer people without any personal connection to the laborers.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

My greatest concern with the T-PP is the great danger of losing more jobs here, plus the problems in other countries whereas more and more of the land and ownership is being put into the hands of fewer and fewer people without any personal connection to the laborers.

I did a quick surf of "TPP", just to make sure I was still in touch with what people perceive of the thing. The first Google hit was, of course, with the ever-puffing Huffpost:

Joe Biden Admits Vast Obama Trade Deals Are On Hold
Posted: 02/14/2014 3:36 pm EST Updated: 02/14/2014 6:59 pm EST

-- Joe Biden Admits Vast Obama Trade Deals Are On Hold

This just sounds like typical "Drones, not Boots" Obama.

​

The man is so averse to personal overseas entanglements (other than dissing Uganda for its domestic policy concerning homosexuality), he is entirely predictable: If he dares to step out in any area, just press his button and he will go yipping away like a wounded puppy. As a result, most of our foreign policy, lately, has consisted of remote-controlled drone strikes -- it gets the job done, sort of, without offending the Liberal Lobby. Maybe we'll find a "drone" solution to our trade problems as well.

What effect will this have on US jobs? I dare say, "zip". If you are a big overseas corporation, say, BMW, and you're considering opening up a factory in Wisconsin, how would US membership or non-membership figure into your calculations?

1. US a member: Opening a plant in the US would give BMW an open door to markets in Japan, Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Malaysia, etc.
2. US not a member: No such advantage. If BMW wants to sell to those markets, it's better off locating in Australia.

Now, let's consider a US-owned company. I had to look this up, mainly to be sure that we actually HAVE any US-owned automakers anymore:

The CEOs of the Big Three requested government aid in November 2008, but sentiment in Congress was against the automakers, especially after it was revealed that they had flown to Washington D.C. on their private corporate jets. In December 2008, President Bush gave $17.4 billion to GM and Chrysler from the Troubled Asset Relief Program program as temporary relief for their cashflow problems. Several months later, President Obama formed the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry to decide how to handle GM and Chrysler. Chrysler received a total of $12.5 billion in TARP funds and entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2009. Automaker Fiat was given management control and a 20% ownership stake (adjusted to 35% under certain conditions), the U.S. and Canadian governments were given a 10% holding, and the remaining ownership was given to a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA), which was a trust fund established to administer employee health care benefits. The Automotive Task Force requested that GM CEO Rick Wagoner resign (although he was replaced by another long-time GM executive, Frederick Henderson). GM received a total of $49.5 billion in TARP finds and entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2009. The U.S. and Canadian governments received a 72.5% ownership stake, a VEBA received 17.5%, and the unsecured creditors received 10%. As part of the bailout GM and Chrysler closed numerous production plants, and eliminated hundreds of dealerships and thousands of jobs. They also required a number of major labor union concessions. GM also sold off the Saab division and eliminated the Pontiac, Hummer, and Saturn Corporation brands. In addition to the $62 billion that the automakers received from TARP, their financing arms, GMAC and Chrysler Financial received an additional $17.8 billion.[24] In addition to the funding from the United States government, the Canadian government provided $10.8 billion to GM and $2.9 billion to Chrysler as incentives to maintain production facilities in Canada.[25] Ford did not request any government assistance, but as part of their downsizing sold Volvo in 2010 and phased out their Mercury division in 2011. (They had previously sold Aston Martin in 2007, and Land Rover and Jaguar Cars in 2008). Under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program Ford borrowed $5.9 billion to help their vehicles meet higher mileage requirements.

-- Automotive industry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a tangled mess, if you ask me. If you can tell me how US membership or non-membership in TPP would affect the above, please let me know. I got as far as "corporate jets", and noted that with or without TPP, those CEOs would be flying their own corporate jets. Also, I saw no mention of Japanese or Korean car manufacturers -- all our automakers seem to be entangled with Europe and Canada; but they still have to go to Washington on their corporate jets, silk hat in hand, looking for handouts. I'll tell you one thing about US-built cars: I'm 6'6", and I can't find an American-made coupe or sedan I fit in. We bought a Honda instead, TWELVE YEARS and 170,000 MILES ago (and I bought it with over 80,000 miles on it). Considering that I haven't had a US-made car that lasted more than 116,000 miles since my 1960 Plymouth slant six (which lasted a little over 150,000 miles), pray tell me why I should buy American? (I have, but it was a light truck). Will staying out of the TPP cause Americans to make better cars? Answer me that. Give me some figures or something.

Maybe we'll have a useful discussion on this. I'm all ears.

​

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Current trade agreements are turning us into a banana republic anyway. Isolationism isn't needed for that to happen.

Hi, Sun. I hope I largely addressed your comment along with Metis'. I don't blame the trade agreements; I think it's more complicated than that. You're probably referring to NAFTA -- particularly our partnership with Mexico.

Here's what I see concerning Mexico: We had a long, porous border with our neighbor, long before NAFTA. Mexico's economy stank, so their people were moving to the US in droves. They worked hard, and pushed Anglos out of many jobs -- such as lettuce-picking in California. If it weren't for cheap Mexican labor, a lot of those jobs would have been mechanized long ago. That whole industry needs re-tooling, because we need to change the way we grow things. We need to change over to drip agriculture, like the Israelis pioneered before they were ethnically cleansed out of Gaza. They also got jobs as maids and caregivers, and branched out into other jobs. With NAFTA, we started moving in the other direction, setting up factories in Mexico. Of course, if the Mexican workers don't have good working conditions in those factories,they will still keep migrating north; and they are.

The problems we are currently having with Mexico are similar to what's going on in Europe, except that there the immigrants are Muslims, Black Africans, Indians and Caribbean people. The interesting thing to not is that Europe does not have a free trade area with countries like India, Ghana and Tunisia; yet they still have an immigration problem like we have with the Mexicans. If you ask me, they have an even worse problem; because the Mexicans tend to be friendly people, who share our West European Christian culture, whereas the immigrants to Europe are from entirely different cultures. Also, Europeans have long suffered the same problem of job loss that we have. The UK used to be the garment capital of the world, but it was already losing that dominance in the 1960s to the Indian subcontinent

Because of the above, I don't see that the trade agreements hurt either us or the Europeans. The Industrial Age was insensibly spreading throughout the world, just as the Neolithic age did thousands of years ago -- and that change, too, happened without international organizations.

You might scare up some figures, to show how things have gotten worse for us since the signing of NAFTA; but what you can't find are figure showing what would have happened WITHOUT NAFTA. It's my guess, that things would not have been much different.

Every election cycle, I see this business of our losing jobs, etc. coming up. In times past, people used to cry out to God when their economy took a downturn; and things ultimately turned around. By and large, people today don't want to give God the glory like they used to; and also by and large, we've been on the skids since the days that we did. We won't acknowledge God, but neither can we solve our problems, with all our cleverness.

I was raised in poverty, living mostly on county welfare and sometimes on begging. When I became an adult, I forsook seeking material gain, and set out to find God. When I found him, I set my heart to serve him. I didn't seek for riches, as others did; but God took care of me and mine. We lived in "white ghettoes", all the time we were raising our children, and tithed a considerable amount to church, charities and brethren. We shared what we had, putting up strangers who needed a place to stay. Our son is disabled; but he was able to go to university in China for three years. Our daughter had to work her way through college, selling tacos.

We had no way of knowing, that our daughter would marry a Chinese businessman. In fact, she moved to China with a heart to spread the light of the gospel. Now she has four wonderful children and two maids; and our children are providing for us in our old age. Did that take cleverness and cunning? No; we simply practiced God's word; and in the end, God's word has taken care of us. We weren't troubled by competition from China; instead, we benefitted from it. We didn't lose money by renting for years instead of buying into the "American Dream". Instead, those who pursued that dream largely went bankrupt; then home prices fell, and we now live in the home of our dreams -- not IN SPITE of not chasing after these things; but actually BECAUSE OF it.

Someone on another thread said that all this was merely "anectdotal evidence" of God. People can call it what they may; I call it faith in God. Those who have not exercised this faith, but lived contrary to the scriptures, have fallen to my right and to my left.

Are our problems caused by the Mexicans and Japanese, or by Bill Gates and the Waltons? I don't think so. Can we solve these problems, by trying to get Gates and the Waltons to pay more taxes, and by shutting ourselves off from the Mexicans and Japanese? I don't think so. Will we benefit as a nation, if we turn to God? I think so. But, of course, this is just "anecdotal evidence" from someone who's lived what he's talking about; not really high-sounding economic theory. Everyone's free to choose they way he wants to go; and he will be rewarded accordingly. As the common proverb says, "What goes around, comes around".

Shalom shalom

 

[metis]

Maybe we'll have a useful discussion on this. I'm all ears.

I'm really not that terribly interested in any kind of debate, and I have briefly explained my reservations about this proposal. We've seen way too many jobs lost here and corporate dominance that has hurt so many people throughout the world, so there's really nothing to discuss, imo. We can't turn back the clock, but we can slow down the process.

BTW, if you're interested, even though the book is quite old, it still very much applies, and it's entitled "Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered" by E. F. Schumacher, who's an economist who considered Gandhi to be his mentor. Since you'll probably not get it, the main theme of the book is that smaller and more personal local industries are generally preferable than larger more impersonal industries that have only the profit motive in mind. This latter impersonalization in business and industry has led to major problems worldwide, and has shifted much of the world's population more into the "pawn" category.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I'm really not that terribly interested in any kind of debate, and I have briefly explained my reservations about this proposal. We've seen way too many jobs lost here and corporate dominance that has hurt so many people throughout the world, so there's really nothing to discuss, imo. We can't turn back the clock, but we can slow down the process.

BTW, if you're interested, even though the book is quite old, it still very much applies, and it's entitled "Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered" by E. F. Schumacher, who's an economist who considered Gandhi to be his mentor. Since you'll probably not get it, the main theme of the book is that smaller and more personal local industries are generally preferable than larger more impersonal industries that have only the profit motive in mind. This latter impersonalization in business and industry has led to major problems worldwide, and has shifted much of the world's population more into the "pawn" category.

Gandhi promoted cottage industries. Huffpost caught the cue:

The Globalisation of the Cottage Industry
Posted: 28/03/2013 01:38

-- Xenios Thrasyvoulou: The Globalisation of the Cottage Industry

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Actually, everything is cheaper in the US than Canada, Australia or New Zealand. We're gonna be even more screwed than you are.

I can't wait until the likes of BP can start suing governments for violating a secret treaty by enforcing labour or environmental protection laws. Won't that be awesome? Oh, and it will be great when all the signatory countries have to comply with intellectual property and patent rules that were written by the US pharmaceutical industry and the MPAA and never subjected to public scrutiny or parliamentary debate.

Woo hoo. The future looks so very bright.

Preach it!

I went out to buy my green groceries today...Tomatoes - $6-99/kilo, Potatoes - $6-99/kilo, Lebanese cucumbers - $7-99/kilo, Broccoli - $8-99/Kilo, Mushrooms - $12-99/kilo, Eggplant - $8-99/kilo, Pumpkin - $4-99/Kilo...

So I went 'forget that'...then went over to the meat section (this was in both Woolworths and Coles supermarkets)..

No cuts of meat or any fish was less than $13/kilo (even sausages and rissoles were $1 each - $6 for 6).

I ended up going into a local Asian store, buying about a dozen cups of Ramen for 80 cents each and a whole Chinese cabbage for $3.

Coffee? you can just about forget that too...even a small jar is like $8-99.

What I really hate is people justifying the price hikes due to the most stupid reasons...like a drought/flood in one area of the country that doesn't even produce these consumer goods, or saying 'the reason why coffee is so expensive now, is because of the problems in Brazil' - I mean, most of our coffee comes from fricken Indonesia or Kenya (or we grow our own).

So, I go and put petrol in my car and it's $1-56/litre now.

I have checked on it, and Australia is quickly becoming the most expensive place on earth to live. We are in close third running to Sweden (first) and Japan (second).

Anyway, that's not the reason for my post here...

After a run-in with Google Adsense censorship yesterday, I am sad that corporatism is leading to fascism (as somebody else put it), so I decided to read up on what the government (USA gvt) is doing with SOPA (ACTA in Australia), and it was then, I learned about this TPP.

I read a post on another forum (not advertising said forum, just referencing it), that is a political 'hot potato'.

I shall just leave it here, then take to my 'fallout shelter' and hide:

Government sneaking SOPA internet Censorship bill into treaty. Stop the TPP

Then, there's also this:

A Federal Appeals Court Killed Free Speech on the Internet Today. The Internet Will Now Be Enforced by a Handful of Companies. - Esquire

So from this, I can see how transparent and illusory this whole 'human rights' thing really is.