The economy has of course added jobs under Obama but you really can't talk about the unemployment rate (% unemployed of those actively looking for work) without factoring in the participation rate (% of in the labor force working or looking for work out of the population) which has been dropping since 2000 in the US.

This is not explained by baby boom retirees as even if you take a narrow 25-54 measure you see the same decline. China's acceptance into the WTO ('95) is often talked about as a turning point as it was in some ways an abrupt green light to many companies that opened up a huge labor pool and a led to an influx of outsourcing. I would argue the US government among many others has done a poor job of retraining manufacturing workers and financially supporting them to be mobile to find work elsewhere.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS11300060

@RedSky

while i agree with you that this was most certainly a scripted interview,and one of the reasons i did not tag it "news",let us be clear and concise that this is a practice that most politicians,or heads of state engage in for most press conferences/interviews.

but that is where our agreement ends.

to downplay americas role in the overthrow of mossadeqh as to little more than a nuisance,with little actual affect on iranian politics,is not entirely accurate.while those elements existed,it was eisenhowers TPAJAX project which was specifically directed to inflame the already tense relationship between the royalists and the PM mossadeqh.

chalmers johnson and john perkins wrote at length and great detail in regards to this situation.

i will concede that i agree to a point (but only to a point),that american foreign policy is about reciprocation,but i find your analysis to be far too simplistic.when there is an over abundance of evidence that american foreign policy is not some benevolent spreading-freedom and democracy for the masses but rather colonialization by way of exploitation,indebtness and ultimately military might.

see:smedley butler
see:IMF and WTO
see:john perkins-confessions of an economic hitman

america is in the business of empire.this is about business and profit and the military is used as the hammer to keep those countries in line.

quid pro quo.

i am no fan of putin.he is ruthless and his domestic policies have caused immense suffering with the under class,but i have to respect his abilities as a politician.the man knows how to work a room.

I couldn't watch the whole thing; seems like one of those rants intended to make people stupider. Did he ever mention the meat labeling WTO case that the US lost, which made the new law the only alternative to a trade war?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

He makes some damn good points. um, so like @WTO & @G20: #modernizechittagong?

What you seem to be saying is that you generally agree with the choices the U.S. has made, and that you disagree with the choice China has made in this case.

I personally find many forms of gambling offensive, so struggle to argue for it... I only brought it up because it is a case where U.S. law is out of step with other countries. That said though, what is the real difference between a room full of poker machines (legal) and an on-line version which could conceivably even be running the same software (illegal in the U.S., but subject to a WTO complaint)? The difference, in my opinion, is one of control. In the case of gambling, the U.S. government has made a choice to outlaw what they can't control, just like the Chinese government has done for religion and/or spiritual movements.

The acceptability of public nudity varies from place to place, but I find it hard to think of a way it harms anybody. In fact the naturist movement is quite pro public nudity. You are used to it being unlawful, but this is far from universal. Should it be outlawed in places it's currently legal just because you are offended? Even if they are far from your home and you are unlikely to actually go there to be offended?

Speaking of drugs, why have we chosen to allow alcohol and tobacco, both of which cause huge amounts of harm, and yet outlaw marijuana and LSD? Who made that choice?

all i see is failure of the staff to inform the people of the issue... i don't see them actively seeking/promoting it



especially in the first case presented in the video

if anything i see a protocol issue, that could be solved by a 15min meeting
a vast, left-wing conspiracy? no evidence of that
any proof that this doesn't occur at all with Republican supporters? no evidence of that
any proof that this is any thing other than isolated incidents with staged actors (we know the first lady undercover is... why not any of the other examples?)

A major study by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 showed of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and of those few cases, most involved persons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility.

because when elections are decided by 0.00000286% of the the voters, its an issue

wto make a different comparison... whats a bigger concern... the 1% or the 0.00000286%? which of those two groups do you think has more money to influence politics? yeah...

poor job at propoganda

Now I have no reason to distrust the Justice Department findings. But this seems like a non-issue, until you realize the actual tactic here is voter surpression.

>> ^Engels:

i don't think you have a grasp of the level of protest going on. Estimates have that 77 percent of the population support the protesters. This isn't a confusing WTO mess, with imported protesters with abstracted ideals on the line. The severity of the social cuts is so punitive that the force behind the protest won't cave to police enforcement as easily. That, and the Spanish populace won't tolerate the level of violence US law enforcement is used to doling out.


This because BY DESIGN, the people who run the show want a dick-less, purposeless, exhausted and discourage bunch of sheepies that are unable to bitch while being ass-fucked, IMLTHO

i don't think you have a grasp of the level of protest going on. Estimates have that 77 percent of the population support the protesters. This isn't a confusing WTO mess, with imported protesters with abstracted ideals on the line. The severity of the social cuts is so punitive that the force behind the protest won't cave to police enforcement as easily. That, and the Spanish populace won't tolerate the level of violence US law enforcement is used to doling out.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

>> ^shagen454:

Man, I still remember it. Sept 11th happened and two weeks later I was on a plane from the East Coast to move to San Francisco. It was a frightful plane ride but once I got here I exhaled deeply. Little did I know that the next seven or eight years would be like the dark ages for America (not in San Francisco though -heh, heh, heh).
The media were the Bush Administrations little lap dogs for nearly the entire time. I remember all the huge protests that happened around the world in the build up to the War in Iraq and how the media treated them. They either did not report on them or made them all seem like a bunch of window smashing anarchists like the ones seem during the WTO protests in Seattle. I remember the day we dropped bombs in Iraq on March 21st 2002. I remember being let out of classes at college to help shut San Francisco down.
We shut it down for five days. Media did not report on it.


I was in San Francisco for that protest.

Man, I still remember it. Sept 11th happened and two weeks later I was on a plane from the East Coast to move to San Francisco. It was a frightful plane ride but once I got here I exhaled deeply. Little did I know that the next seven or eight years would be like the dark ages for America (not in San Francisco though -heh, heh, heh).

The media were the Bush Administration's little lap dogs for nearly the entire time. I remember all the huge protests that happened around the world in the build up to the War in Iraq and how the media treated them. They either did not report on them or made them all seem like a bunch of window smashing anarchists like the ones seen during the WTO protests in Seattle. I remember the day we dropped bombs in Iraq on March 21st 2002. I remember being let out of classes at college to help shut San Francisco down. Some group called ANSWER had organized an event a long time and coming that if we went to war in Iraq, San Francisco would not be "Business as Usual".

I was arrested with several hundred people, thousands had been illegally "detained" - we filed a Class Action Lawsuit with the International Lawyer's Guild against the SFPD and won our case to have charges of "inciting a riot" withdrawn. We won in the court aftermath but the cops still won; they took people out of it one by one and successfully defused the situation - we were peaceful protesters, no one had any sort of revolt on their mind, except for the anarchist kids and they definitely were there, they were a massive thorn for the entire situation.

We shut it down for five days with the help of thousands upon thousands of people and thousands of riot cops. Major media did not report on it. Maybe, it was cliche of San Francisco residents to force the city out of commission for several days but it was newsworthy.

This is a good interview. I appreciate how Rumsfeld is able to steer blame and corruption even in front of Stewart. He's truly a wicked and greedy man.

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 004723

USTR FOR SUSAN SCHWAB
DEPARTMENT FOR E - REUBEN JEFFERY AND EB - DAN SULLIVAN
FROM AMBASSADOR STAPLETON

SUBJECT: FRANCE AND THE WTO AG BIOTECH CASE

¶1. (C) Summary: Mission Paris recommends that that the USG reinforce
our negotiating position with the EU on agricultural biotechnology by
publishing a retaliation list when the extend "Reasonable Time
Period" expires. In our view, Europe is moving backwards not
forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with
Austria, Italy and even the Commission. In France, the "Grenelle"
environment process is being implemented to circumvent science-based
decisions in favor of an assessment of the "common interest."
Combined with the precautionary principle, this is a precedent with
implications far beyond MON-810 BT corn cultivation. Moving to
retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to
EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.
In fact, the pro-biotech side in France -- including within the farm
union -- have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to begin
to turn this issue in France. End Summary.

¶2. (C) This is not just a bilateral concern. France will play a
leading role in renewed European consideration of the acceptance of
agricultural biotechnology and its approach toward environmental
regulation more generally. France expects to lead EU member states
on this issue during the Slovene presidency beginning in January and
through its own Presidency in the second half of the year. Our
contacts have made clear that they will seek to expand French
national policy to a EU-wide level and they believe that they are in
the vanguard of European public opinion in turning back GMO's. They
have noted that the member states have been unwilling to support the
Commission on sanctioning Austria's illegal national ban. The GOF
sees the ten year review of the Commission's authorization of MON 810
as a key opportunity and a review of the EFSA process to take into
account societal preferences as another (reftels).

¶3. (C) One of the key outcomes of the "Grenelle" was the decision to
suspend MON 810 cultivation in France. Just as damaging is the GOF's
apparent recommitment to the "precautionary principle." Sarkozy
publicly rejected a recommendation of the Attali Commission (to
review France's competitiveness) to move away from this principle,
which was added to the French constitution under Chirac.

¶4. (C) France's new "High Authority" on agricultural biotech is
designed to roll back established science-based decision making. The
recently formed authority is divided into two colleges, a scientific
college and a second group including civil society and social
scientists to assess the "common interest" of France. The
authority's first task is to review MON 810. In the meantime,
however, the draft biotech law submitted to the National Assembly and
the Senate for urgent consideration, could make any biotech planting
impossible in practical terms. The law would make farmers and seed
companies legally liable for pollen drift and sets the stage for
inordinately large cropping distances. The publication of a registry
identifying cultivation of GMOs at the parcel level may be the most
significant measure given the propensity for activists to destroy GMO
crops in the field.

¶5. (C) Both the GOF and the Commission have suggested that their
respective actions should not alarm us since they are only
cultivation rather than import bans. We see the cultivation ban as a
first step, at least by anti-GMO advocates, who will move next to ban
or further restrict imports. (The environment minister's top aide
told us that people have a right not to buy meat raised on biotech
feed, even though she acknowledged there was no possible scientific
basis for a feed based distinction.) Further, we should not be
prepared to cede on cultivation because of our considerable planting
seed business in Europe and because farmers, once they have had
experience with biotech, become its staunchest supporters.

¶6. Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target
retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a
collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the
worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and
must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an
early victory.

¶7. (C) President Sarkozy noted in his address in Washington to the
Joint Session of Congress that France and the United States are
"allies but not aligned." Our cooperation with France on a range of
issues should continue alongside our engagement with France and the
EU on ag biotech (and the next generation of environmental related
trade concerns.) We can manage both at the same time and should not
let one set of priorities detract from the other.

PARIS 00004723 002 OF 002



Stapleton