The 2016 election is bizarre, to say the least. While the vast majority of reporting has focused on the horserace and he said she said aspects of the campaigns, the policy proposals put forward by the candidates will have profound and lasting impacts on the citizens they seek to govern. As a recent article in The Atlantic notes, “Once in office, presidents almost always try to carry out their pre-election agendas.
We have a problem when even ostensible institute 'advocates' of food justice and security while referencing the "bizzare", use a corporate utopian lexicon to describe a crisis in precisely the issue they claim to address:
"With an increasingly globalized food system, trade and agricultural policies have become integral to combating climate change, providing economic security, and ensuring public health. These policies affect our jobs, the food we eat, and the land we live on. The trade and agricultural agenda set by the United States will affect billions of people around the globe."
Take a moment and really think about these statements. Just as example:
"an increasingly globalized food system" - this is not about FOOD it is about CORPORATE activity for PROFITS
"trade and agricultural policies"- at its core this it not about POLICY but rather 'futures speculation', manipulations of a failed financial model and all of the related activity inherent to the model
"... have become integral to combating climate change" - in that these interests do not address the core problems they are not yet, nor can they become "integral" to combatting the very problem they intentionally DO NOT STATE as having caused, which is perhaps more appropriately referred to as 'climate chaos', which includes massive pollution, profit collusion with irresponsible antibiotic use, etc and intensifying creation of 'dead zones' from chemical runoff just to mention one consequence of a failed model of constant growth rather than sustainability.
Add to the above the use of food as international power bargaining chip for which entire spheres of corporations collude in cynical intertwined dynamics reaching into not the food system, but the militarization systems.
All that said, the article does illustrate a form of repression, which hopefully, through constant and increasingly incisive critique will break through the paradoxically brittle and slimy use of language in the PR/media pot in suppression of governance.by criminal fraud manipulation otherwise known as predatory capitalism in stages of anthropophagic (cannibalistic) boiling.
Both Trump and Hillary are "free market" "free trade" Capitalists. As is Gary Johnson.
They may use different terminology to express their views, but in the end the result will be the same.
A catastrophe for the 99%, and wealth and the good life for the 1% (oligarchy).
Yes, and well, how come an article like this makes no mention of addressing the life-killing, rampant use of toxic pesticides?
Including subjects like chemicals, drugs and zero population growth (ZPG) in "debates" would offend the sponsors.
As long as the "debates" continue to exclude third party candidates, the sponsors can rest assured that the corporate Democrat and corporate GOP "debaters" will avoid topics of consequence and not let facts get in the way of any sponsor approved story.
Does anyone on their board of directors or staff have connections/dealings with Monsanto, Dow, Dupont (DowDupont), Nufarm etc.?
Will there actually be a question on the TTP, TTIP, etc. and trade policy? Maybe, but probably one that allows the two to talk in vague platitudes.
Even when Obama talks about why he (seemingly desperately) wants passage of the TPP, he talks in high level terms - he never refers to any of the specific provisions like the corporate run tribunals, and is never asked to.
Will Holt ask about the details - I highly doubt it.