Negotiations for the largest trade deal in US history is and has been underway. Little is known in the way of details, but it would add regulations (and remove barriers as well) to trade conducted between the US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Peru and Vietnam among others. Barack Obama is the most notable proponent of the deal and is currently in conflict with the populist wing of the Democratic Party. The Republicans have been silent, but have been pro-trade in the past and will likely support it. Many progressives like Senator Warren are calling for the details to be released to the public.
Until the details are known, I have little to say about the deal itself. NAFTA was a disaster for workers but was not without benefit due to access to cheap labor from Mexico. Trade deals have not been kind to the majority of the US (with the exception of multinational corporations and organizations directly linked to trade), though the President claims this one is far more progressive than previous ones. Speculation means nothing right now though.
What I find much more interesting is the desire for the information to be released for all to see. Standard procedure is to keep details secret until the deal's been negotiated. This has always been the way things have been done. The parties involved don't need constant controversy over the negotiations. When they concede something they don't like to be seen as weak. To bring world leaders to the table, some degree of confidentiality must be given. Even without the political considerations, it would still be preferable to keep the information classified until it's concluded. People in large numbers lose their critical thinking skills and become reactionary and uninformed. Negotiations usually consist of giving something up in return for something else. When the masses see something negative like a lack of quality standards, (which would allow potentially harmful products to reach US consumers) they would immediately condemn the treaty, even though we'd be getting something like a guarantee of intellectual property rights in return.
Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/26/elizabeth-warren-calls-on-obama-to-declassify-trade-deal-details/
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Clinton Foundation
There's been quite an uproar recently about the Clinton's charity, the Clinton Foundation. They've been criticized for accepting donations from foreign governments and for taking money from companies when they were negotiating trade agreements that could be favorable to them (the companies). Allegedly, favors from the Clinton State Department correspond with donations and high speaking fees for Bill Clinton.
This is very worrying, or would be if the facts weren't so distorted by the media. The fact that anyone is donating to a CHARITY means nothing. They aren't donating to Hillary Clinton's campaign. She has no personal interest in those donations. Rather than being praised for founding a charity that does a lot of good, the Clintons are getting extra scrutiny because they don't refuse donations for the sake of their political career. What kind of person are you if you prevent help from reaching developing countries and the impoverished because the media might pick up on the story.
Even if donations from companies were capable of influencing Mrs. Clinton when she was negotiating trade deals, it's very possible that the donations came after the deal was made. Public relations are very important to businesses and if they were going to donate some money anyway why not donate to the woman who helped their business expand, indirectly. Saudi Arabia donating could very well be sinister. Saudi Arabia has a terrible human rights record, which is a concern for any Secretary of State. By donating to a charity that helps women's rights some may think 'maybe they're not THAT bad'. Rather than gaining favor with the Clinton's they get good PR and the State Department is more likely to view them as a force for good.
Clinton Foundation website: https://www.clintonfoundation.org
News Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/21/time-bomb-will-new-book-on-clinton-foundation-damage-hillary/
This is very worrying, or would be if the facts weren't so distorted by the media. The fact that anyone is donating to a CHARITY means nothing. They aren't donating to Hillary Clinton's campaign. She has no personal interest in those donations. Rather than being praised for founding a charity that does a lot of good, the Clintons are getting extra scrutiny because they don't refuse donations for the sake of their political career. What kind of person are you if you prevent help from reaching developing countries and the impoverished because the media might pick up on the story.
Even if donations from companies were capable of influencing Mrs. Clinton when she was negotiating trade deals, it's very possible that the donations came after the deal was made. Public relations are very important to businesses and if they were going to donate some money anyway why not donate to the woman who helped their business expand, indirectly. Saudi Arabia donating could very well be sinister. Saudi Arabia has a terrible human rights record, which is a concern for any Secretary of State. By donating to a charity that helps women's rights some may think 'maybe they're not THAT bad'. Rather than gaining favor with the Clinton's they get good PR and the State Department is more likely to view them as a force for good.
Clinton Foundation website: https://www.clintonfoundation.org
News Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/21/time-bomb-will-new-book-on-clinton-foundation-damage-hillary/
Friday, April 10, 2015
Cybersecurity
Recently CNN reported that government servers were hacked by Russians. In January, US Military twitter accounts were hacked by Islamic State supporters and the information of US personnel was released to the public. How could this happen? This sounds like an issue that other countries and even some amateur hackers managed to circumvent whatever security measures we had in place.
In reality, though, it's not. The twitter accounts were just that, twitter accounts. Completely unimportant, no information was compromised, and it turned out to be just a minor annoyance. All the information on personnel was already public. The Russian attack is a non-issue as well. According to CNN, the only information stolen was some details about the President's schedule. The hacking attempt was apparently initiated with a phishing email. Phishing. This is the oh-so-terrible threat of Russian hackers. The system that was compromised wasn't even classified. Officials are told not to put anything sensitive on that system anyway.
If anything, this story points to positive things. If hackers are resorting to phishing, it means their program is mediocre. Very little skill is required for this sort of attack, and it's easily prevented. Some may say the US must be behind others in cyber warfare. This could not be further from the truth. The lack of stories about US hacking means we're successful. There is no chance we aren't spying on others. The only incidents that I've heard about were the Stuxnet virus that infected an Iranian nuclear facility, destroying many of their centrifuges, and an unconfirmed report that computers in countries like Russia, China, and Iran have been infected with a sophisticated malware that can seize control of network and can't be removed. Experts suggested it had to be made by a state, likely the US. The NSA apparently knows how to install backdoors in hard drives made by Toshiba, Western Digital, and other major manufacturers. This allows them to monitor the majority of computers around the world, enabling spying on government and military institutions, telecommunications, energy companies, banks, nuclear researchers, media, and persons of interest. US security is not in question. The only reasonable concern is privacy from these spying operations.
Russian hackers: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/politics/how-russians-hacked-the-wh/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)