This was a world changing event against neo-liberal capitalism that has now failed and the onset of the biggest National Socialist regime of never before seen executive power and domestic military operations about to begin.
Given that the U.S. government is in the process of stealing several trillion dollars from the general population to give to the wealthy few, they may well need troops who are already psychologically pre-conditioned to mass murder of civilians and working relationships with mercenary contractors. It should be noted that elements of the 3rd Infantry division served in occupation of Falluja. Imagine a Falluja in Detroit…
“Government manipulation can never prevent financial Armageddon. In fact, government intervention and manipulation in the free markets eventually guarantees financial Armageddon. Armageddon was not prevented, only delayed, and at taxpayer expense.”
I was there. It was fun. Nothing like getting tear gassed on your way home from work. They already made a documentary: "This is what democracy looks like."
...el pueblo unido, jamas sera vencido.
This is why community organizers/activists are significant in America.
"Battle in Seattle" opens September 19-26 in movie
theaters across the country, a rare combination of high
drama and history-making events as they actually
happened when thousands of protesters shut down the
World Trade Organization in Seattle nearly nine years
ago. It has an all-star cast including Oscar-winning
beauty Charlize Theron, Woody Harrelson, Michelle
Rodriguez, Ray Liotta, and Andre Benjamin (of Outkast
hip-hop fame). Perhaps most unusual for a feature film,
it gives the protesters credit for what they
accomplished: they changed the debate over what has been
deceptively marketed as "free trade." They were beaten
and jailed, choked with tear gas and shot with rubber
bullets, but they succeeded in raising awareness about
what these organizations and international agreements
really do.
Prior to the Seattle protests in 1999, almost nobody
knew that the World Trade Organization was not so much
about "free trade" as about creating new rights and
privileges for corporations at the expense of the
environment, public health, and the public interest in
general. The WTO and NAFTA's provisions on "intellectual
property," for example, are the exact opposite of free
trade, according to standard economic analysis. They
increase the cost of medicines by extending and
protecting the patent monopolies of big pharmaceutical
companies and stifling international free trade in
generic medicines, some of which are desperately needed
in developing countries.
The debate has widened and now the Democratic
presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, has proposed
to renegotiate NAFTA. And why not? This agreement was
approved in 1993, before anyone knew what was in it.
Among other things, it contained "sleeper" provisions
that enabled corporations, for the first time, to sue
governments directly for environmental regulation that
affects their bottom line.
We also have nearly 15 years of experience with NAFTA
and it clearly did not deliver on most of its promises.
It was sold as a job creator, but the United States has
actually lost jobs, especially in manufacturing, as our
trade deficit with Mexico has grown. Even more
importantly, NAFTA has helped perpetuate the downward
pressure on wages that have made the United States a
much more unequal society over the last three decades.
From 1973-2007, wages in the United States barely grew
at all, as compared to a 74 percent increase from
1948-1973.
This change in the economy is partly the result of
subjecting the majority of the American labor force -
the more than 70 percent that do not have a college
degree - to increased international competition, while
maintaining protectionism for highly paid professionals
such as lawyers, doctors, and upper management. It is
also what standard economic theory would predict. Yet
almost every newspaper editorial board in the country
has someone who took an Econ 101 course and thinks they
learned that increasing trade must be good because it
makes "countries" better off. The late A.M. Rosenthal, a
long-time New York Times editor and columnist, summed it
up while NAFTA was being debated in Congress: "how they
would howl, those journalistic and academic supporters
of NAFTA who have shown so little care, compassion or
understanding about the fears of working people who
might lose their jobs, how they would howl if their own
jobs were in danger."
Unfortunately NAFTA does not appear to have helped
Mexico either, where growth since it was implemented in
1994 has been sluggish, wages stagnant, and hundreds of
thousands of families displaced from farming as they
were forced to compete with U.S. agriculture.
NAFTA did, however, increase trade. But trade is not an
end in itself; the goal is to improve people's living
standards.
So by all means, let's renegotiate NAFTA - and the WTO
agreement too. We're likely to end up with better
agreements now that people know something about what is
being negotiated.
Battle in Seattle
This was a world changing event against neo-liberal capitalism that has now failed and the onset of the biggest National Socialist regime of never before seen executive power and domestic military operations about to begin.
Given that the U.S. government is in the process of stealing several trillion dollars from the general population to give to the wealthy few, they may well need troops who are already psychologically pre-conditioned to mass murder of civilians and working relationships with mercenary contractors. It should be noted that elements of the 3rd Infantry division served in occupation of Falluja. Imagine a Falluja in Detroit…
“Government manipulation can never prevent financial Armageddon. In fact, government intervention and manipulation in the free markets eventually guarantees financial Armageddon. Armageddon was not prevented, only delayed, and at taxpayer expense.”
charlize theron=hot
I was there. It was fun. Nothing like getting tear gassed on your way home from work. They already made a documentary: "This is what democracy looks like."
...el pueblo unido, jamas sera vencido.
This is why community organizers/activists are significant in America.
Who's streets? Our streets.
This is pretty much how it was:
http://www.urban75.com/Action/seattle4.html
From:
http://www.urban75.com/n30/index.html
The protests were non-violent - peacefully assembled peoples. The destruction was mostly blamed on some Eugene Anarchists, but I don't know how accurate that is/was.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/1999-12-08/news/anarchists-go-home.php
"This Revolution" as well is another movie
DVD rip
"Battle in Seattle" opens September 19-26 in movie
theaters across the country, a rare combination of high
drama and history-making events as they actually
happened when thousands of protesters shut down the
World Trade Organization in Seattle nearly nine years
ago. It has an all-star cast including Oscar-winning
beauty Charlize Theron, Woody Harrelson, Michelle
Rodriguez, Ray Liotta, and Andre Benjamin (of Outkast
hip-hop fame). Perhaps most unusual for a feature film,
it gives the protesters credit for what they
accomplished: they changed the debate over what has been
deceptively marketed as "free trade." They were beaten
and jailed, choked with tear gas and shot with rubber
bullets, but they succeeded in raising awareness about
what these organizations and international agreements
really do.
Prior to the Seattle protests in 1999, almost nobody
knew that the World Trade Organization was not so much
about "free trade" as about creating new rights and
privileges for corporations at the expense of the
environment, public health, and the public interest in
general. The WTO and NAFTA's provisions on "intellectual
property," for example, are the exact opposite of free
trade, according to standard economic analysis. They
increase the cost of medicines by extending and
protecting the patent monopolies of big pharmaceutical
companies and stifling international free trade in
generic medicines, some of which are desperately needed
in developing countries.
The debate has widened and now the Democratic
presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, has proposed
to renegotiate NAFTA. And why not? This agreement was
approved in 1993, before anyone knew what was in it.
Among other things, it contained "sleeper" provisions
that enabled corporations, for the first time, to sue
governments directly for environmental regulation that
affects their bottom line.
We also have nearly 15 years of experience with NAFTA
and it clearly did not deliver on most of its promises.
It was sold as a job creator, but the United States has
actually lost jobs, especially in manufacturing, as our
trade deficit with Mexico has grown. Even more
importantly, NAFTA has helped perpetuate the downward
pressure on wages that have made the United States a
much more unequal society over the last three decades.
From 1973-2007, wages in the United States barely grew
at all, as compared to a 74 percent increase from
1948-1973.
This change in the economy is partly the result of
subjecting the majority of the American labor force -
the more than 70 percent that do not have a college
degree - to increased international competition, while
maintaining protectionism for highly paid professionals
such as lawyers, doctors, and upper management. It is
also what standard economic theory would predict. Yet
almost every newspaper editorial board in the country
has someone who took an Econ 101 course and thinks they
learned that increasing trade must be good because it
makes "countries" better off. The late A.M. Rosenthal, a
long-time New York Times editor and columnist, summed it
up while NAFTA was being debated in Congress: "how they
would howl, those journalistic and academic supporters
of NAFTA who have shown so little care, compassion or
understanding about the fears of working people who
might lose their jobs, how they would howl if their own
jobs were in danger."
Unfortunately NAFTA does not appear to have helped
Mexico either, where growth since it was implemented in
1994 has been sluggish, wages stagnant, and hundreds of
thousands of families displaced from farming as they
were forced to compete with U.S. agriculture.
NAFTA did, however, increase trade. But trade is not an
end in itself; the goal is to improve people's living
standards.
So by all means, let's renegotiate NAFTA - and the WTO
agreement too. We're likely to end up with better
agreements now that people know something about what is
being negotiated.
Ah yes, the old 'Eugene Anarchists'. Good times, good times.....
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.