To many it might seem as distant memory but 20 years ago in January, a group of indigenous peasants known as the Zapatista Liberation Army (EZLN) led well-versed balaclava-wearing former philosophy teacher, rose up in arms in the southern state of Chiapas.
Here's food for thought: Fast-tracking could become the model for a new and profoundly subversive model of governance -- one in which elected government becomes little more than an afterthought to corporate-backed deal-making. It's not hard to imagine a dystopian future where this becomes the norm.
The overall narrative being created by the Obama campaign is clear: Romney has through his business practices supported outsourcing in the past, and is likely to in the future -- unlike President Obama. Unfortunately, the story is not that simple.
The problem with America that is displayed in the Hobson's choice of an "election" is ideological: voters are being compelled to choose between an elitist version of liberalism and conservatism itself, which is elitist by its very nature. Progressivism has lost out in this country.
This week, we'll see Congress vote on three so-called "trade agreements." Did you ever wonder why they call them "trade agreements"? So that they don't have to call them what they actually are -- treaties.
At this point, that Obama did a total flip-flop on very specific, written, repeated campaign promises -- in this instance to replace the old damaging trade model starting with fixing these three deals -- is not news.
Under NAFTA the so-called "investor-protection clauses" would allow a Canadian or Mexican oil company that caused a gusher on the floor of the Gulf to appeal any change in the liability or responsibility it faces to a trade tribunal.
Free trade, democracy promotion, and use of force comprised the core of Clinton's foreign policy -- and Obama falls squarely within this tradition. Yet these positions will be even harder for him to maintain.