"Declarative yet dishonest statements" are the stock-in-trade of the NY and DC whore punditocracy:
The WHORE TIMES are SO BRAZENLY CORRUPT, that they (the editors and publisher, Mr. Arthur Sulzberger) FEEL THAT THEY CAN LIE to their readers - on a daily basis! - and never be called for it.
In this case, as David Sirota points out, NO ONE has read all the fine-print details of the new NAFTA trade pact (bottom paragraph, this post), that big-business Republicans, the Bush administration, and DLC (big-business) Democrats are trying to rush through Congress, unread and little reported, even though the pact essentially GUTS US LABOR LAW, by making the "trade treaty" provisions of the pact TRUMP US law, thereby allowing UNION-BUSTING, environmental gutting "standards" of the pact to OVERRIDE US LAWS.
Mr. Sulzberger and his senior editors are a good argument for bringing back CORPORAL PUNISHMENTS - they are trying to earn millions of dollars in profits by LYING TO and DECEIVING the American public, and should spend a night or two in the stocks, in the public square, just for being so treacherous and deceitful as they worship their own furious money-grubbing and lies.
Sirota reports: << The New York Times story [on the Lobbyist-written Free Trade Pact'] is now on the Business Page of the Times' site. The story includes NO COMMENTS FROM representatives of LABOR, HUMAN RIGHTS, ENVIRONMENTAL, or CONSUMER PROTECTION groups, and NO FULL DETAILS ABOUT the "deal." >>
Here is the LYING money quote from Steven R. Weisman's NY Times article:
<< Democrats said the accord would be a major victory in their campaign to ensure that trade deals provided for the rights of workers to organize and that trading partner countries banned child labor and slave labor. >>
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/10/business/trade.php
As Sirota points out - THE PACT DOES NOTHING OF THE KIND!
Sirota continues his deconstruction of NY Times' lies and opposition-bashing "reporting": << But perhaps the most egregious example came from the Gray Lady (which, true to form, has an editorial today endorsing this week's SECRET trade deal, even though its editors, like the rest of the public, HAVE NOT SEEN THE ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE). In a scathing editorial on the eve of the NAFTA vote, the New York Times ATTACKED environmental groups for raising concerns about the pact's utter lack of enforceable environmental protections. The editorial declared as fact that NAFTA "includes numerous environmental protections"; that "Mexico is more likely to become a cleaner nation with NAFTA"; and that NAFTA was specifically designed not to allow corporations to extract profits from the desperately low-wage, environmentally hazardous conditions in the country to our south, but instead "to protect the environment against the economic explosion" of natural cross border commerce. The editorial further claimed that environmental advocates were factually wrong for asserting that NAFTA would allow foreign corporations to use international courts to sue American local, state and federal governments in an effort to overturn those government's environmental protection laws. >>
Arthur Sulzberger and his lying minions at the NEW YORK WHORE TIMES: BOLDLY LYING, beyond a shadow of a doubt, right to the American people and Times' readers.
<< Of course, none of the reporters covering the deal on Thursday has actually seen the language of the agreement they are now praising because the specific legislative language is still being kept secret (MyDD's Matt Stoller just got his hands on a copy of a more detailed summary and thankfully posted it here - but it is only a summary and not the actual legislative language that will be included in the Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea trade deals, and as we know, legislative language is where the rubber hits the road in trade deals. >>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/journalism-becomes-stenog_b_48333.html
No comments:
Post a Comment