Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


PufPuf23's Journal
PufPuf23's Journal
June 11, 2016

Many members of the Democratic party would like to influence the Democratic party platform

and the presumptive nominee to reflect on past actions and policies and find a new approach.

Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be an adaptable and evolving individual who pays attention to public opinion.

One would hope for two outcomes:

1) The reflection on the recent past regards foreign interventions would evolve to where less aggressive and violent methods would be indicated in a general sense.

2) In the case of child soldiers, waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act would not be a tool used by Hillary Clinton as a Democratic POTUS.

Both these outcomes are on the agenda of anti-war liberals within the Democratic party.

If no one says anything, there is little reason for Hillary Clinton and other political leaders to stop waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act.

Child Soldier Protection Act


The Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA) is a United States federal statute signed into law by President George W. Bush on 3 October 2008.[1][2] The law criminalizes leading a military force which recruits child soldiers. The law's definition of child soldiers includes "any person under 18 years of age who takes a direct part in hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces."

The law was also intended to prevent arms trade by the United States with suspected countries, although the president may waive this rule in the national interest. President Barack Obama most recently waived the application of this rule on 28 September 2013 to Chad, South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Democratic Republic of the Congo.[3]


Are you for continued waivers of the Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA)?

Where is a better place to voice this opinion than at DU?

How would you voice such an opinion?

June 7, 2016

MLB expansion: Why Mexico City could be a top prospect -- or a bust

For decades, baseball has reaped the benefits of a profitable talent pipeline from Latin America.

Some of the biggest names in the game, such as Hall of Famers Luis Aparicio, Rod Carew and Juan Marichal and current stars Miguel Cabrera, Robinson Cano and David Ortiz, come from Latin America.

This season, Latin Americans made up 21.8 percent of MLB rosters on Opening Day -- and another 6.7 percent are Puerto Rican or Americans of Hispanic descent. But despite that region's influence on the game, it doesn't have a franchise to call its own.

MLB is working to expand its footprint in Mexico, and commissioner Rob Manfred has specifically mentioned Mexico City as a front-runner for an expansion franchise.

"The reason I have been interested in talking about Mexico is that maybe, of all the possible expansion sites, it has the greatest opportunities for synergies in the rest of our business," Manfred told ESPN's Jayson Stark.

more at: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15476579/a-major-league-baseball-team-mexico-city-here-pros-cons

I would like to see something like adding MLB franchises simultaneously in Mexico City, Havana, San Juan, and Caracas. Maybe on a decade timeline?

Lots of good could come from this.

June 1, 2016

Smoot Hartley is a red herring and omits nearly 50 years of a successful history under GATT

-General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade - that was replaced by the WTO (World Trade Organization) in 1995.

In models, tariffs and trades reduce economic activity; but in practice, adjustments between nations and specific markets while reducing tariffs as a general principle is a more realistic and workable model (and is what occurred under GATT).

The Free Trade model works in theory but not in situ. General welfare and economic productivity are maximized if markets are free (including freedom from monopolies and cartels and labor is fairly compensated) and all parties cooperate in good faith. Also other items such as patents and mutual defense and so on .. are grafted into the legislation and treaties further weakening the theoretical model. So fortunes are made at a cost to labor and the environment and trade deficits and surpluses swing out of control -- what we have now.

Under GATT there was the concept of Most Favored Nation and under the WTO this has been replaced by the associations within various free trade agreements. The free trade model is a neo-liberal rather than Keynesian model.

Under WTO workers in developed and developing but natural resource rich nations have been harmed and there is a short term rush on easily to extract natural resources. The rich (nations or individuals) get rich and the poor poorer and all the wars and rumors of wars and financial shocks and meltdowns lead to even more instability and there are less firewalls between national economies than under GATT; the trans-national corporations rule and have scant alliance to nations. Maybe a unified global system is best and a future certainty but I doubt that we will ever reach such a utopia because it clashes with human nature and is too complex a system to maintain, especially when individuals and organizations are out to game the system.

The Chinese are smart and have built a large trade surplus but are not playing fair. The USA obtains cheap Colombia coal and exports environmental impact and in Colombia an elite only benefits.

Some items may be more expensive domestically but there will also be more income for purchases and paying taxes and income has a multiplier effect of fueling more jobs and income and then demand and more taxes.

One problem is that the concept of full employment is no longer operative. With all the technology and efficiency, there is no reason for everyone to work. But I believe anyway that folks should have a guaranteed income and surety of food, education, medical, and shelter plus reasonable transportation and some discretionary income. The income and wealth is there, just not shared.

I am surprised you brought up Smoot Hartley as that is bull shit and ignores GATT which was instrumental in the long period of post WWII prosperity.

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Jul 26, 2007, 05:26 PM
Number of posts: 8,878
Latest Discussions»PufPuf23's Journal