Nancy Pelosi & her death blow to FTA

slguy says on Apr 10, 07:55:

EXCELLENT post, tejas.

I have jumped on the bandwagon. It's Bush's fault. Absent his idiocy, Pelosi would still be just another annoying leftie...

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

tejasmarcos says on Apr 10, 08:30:

* i've still got the email you sent slguy regarding peru. i've been buried, but intend on getting to it/you soon.

god is in your head

justkirkers says on Apr 10, 09:11:

I don't know where you got your 80% reductions figure, but 400 trade uninonists have been killed since Uribe took power (an increase). If you think that's some kind of ringing endorsement of the Uribe administration - you're mad.

tejasmarcos says on Apr 10, 09:50:

don't tell me. tell it to the Wall Street Journal.

;)

god is in your head

droble77 says on Apr 10, 10:00:

Mucho blah blah y tilin tilin

These free trade agreements are a wee bit overrated. Just look at Mexico post-NAFTA ;)

If it passes the rich in Colombia will get a bit richer, the poor will stay about the same. . . and the FARC and Chavez will still be around, lol, I doubt the FTA can do anything about that.

I think it'll pass in '09 or '10. Some American companies and farmers will benefit although those sectors already get certain subsidies/tax breaks from the U.S. govt. so it's not like they're not getting help already. . .

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 10, 11:30:

"let the lefties spend to much"

I guess that little war of his doesn't count as spending too much. I seem to remember a balanced budget before shrub came into office. It isn't even a partisan thing as that balanced budget was achieved by a democrat president along with a mostly republican congress.

Good riddance on the death of this particular agreement. I am not completely against trade agreements, but this one had too many unfair provision.

tomtom33 says on Apr 10, 11:49:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the President.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 10, 12:12:

Technically that's true and I think only the House can initiate spending bills. Still, these have to be signed into law by the president. If there is not an agreement, it won't get signed.

miamimike says on Apr 10, 13:45:

On the Trade Unionists:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070307/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_labor_m...

Union organizing can be deadly in Colombia By SERGIO DE LEON, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 7, 7:57 AM ET



More than 800 trade unionists have been killed in Colombia over the past six years, by government count, yet the number of those murders solved can be counted on one hand.

Union organizing can be a deadly activity anywhere but is particularly dangerous in Colombia, where decades of political violence and lawlessness compel some unscrupulous employers to hire assassins.

"There's almost total impunity," claims Flavio Arias, vice president of the CUT labor umbrella organization, which represents Colombia's 530,000 unionized workers.

Now Colombia's reputation as the deadliest place in the world to be a labor organizer threatens to sink one of President Alvaro Uribe's proudest achievements: a free trade agreement with U.S. President George W. Bush, who is expected to use his visit to Colombia on March 11 to press for congressional approval.

The union-friendly Democrats who now control the U.S. Congress are so concerned about the unsolved labor murders that they are threatening to derail the trade pact entirely unless Uribe makes clear progress.

In a speech last May Day — the international day of the worker — Uribe boasted of "working with complete devotion so that one day we can stand before the world and say not a single trade unionist has been killed in Colombia."

Yet the number of slain unionists rose last year even as the homicide rate dropped under Uribe's law-and-order government. The Labor Ministry says 43 trade unionists were killed in 2005, and 58 last year.

None of those murders have been solved.

"Colombia's labor record is one of most problematic and controversial of any countries to sign a free trade agreement," said Thea Lee, policy director of the AFL-CIO, in Washington, D.C.

The biggest threat is hitmen hired by employers, especially in parts of the country where many workers toil in semi-feudal conditions and illegal militias hold sway.

That is the allegation in the 2001 murders of three mining union leaders murdered in 2001 in a case involving a U.S. coal company's Colombian arm.

A federal judge in Alabama on Monday, March 5 ruled that a civil suit could go to trial against Birmingham-based Drummond Co. Inc., whose local president is alleged to have played a role in the killings.

The suit says two union leaders were taken off a Drummond bus and shot to death by assassins hired by the company while a replacement union leader was also gunned down by paramilitaries.

Colombia's union membership rate, at about 5 percent, is one of Latin America's lowest and the chief federal prosecutor's office has a backlog of 1,300 cases of murders, threats and intimidation involving trade unionists.

"It's an embarrassment how slow we've been to take on these cases," said the chief of the office's human rights division, Leonardo Cabana. He's got just 13 prosecutors nationwide tackling the labor caseload.

Among the victims is Jorge Abril Parra, who was shot twice in the head last year on his way to work at "Tapas La Libertad," a metal caps and bottling plant owned by one of Colombia's biggest conglomerates.

Parra had survived a previous murder attempt but the company ignored requests from the Sintraime metal workers' union that he be transferred, said union president Felix Herrera.

A few months after Parra's murder, 25 frightened co-workers — all union members — accepted a company retirement offer.

Although there is no evidence linking Parra's employer to his murder, Herrera said "there's no doubt the company took advantage of his death to defeat the union." A spokeswoman for Tapas La Libertad did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment.

Often, the hostility toward unions comes from the top.

Jorge Sanchez, the vice minister of labor, told The Associated Press that unions inflate the numbers of slain members "because they thrive on violence and blood."

Protecting labor leaders does appear to be a government priority, however. Guarding them — with bulletproof vests or bodyguards — consumes 40 percent of a nearly $20 million security program for human rights activists, journalists and other threatened individuals.

But labor unions, and their Democratic allies, demand more.

"Countless numbers of trade unionists in Colombia have been intimidated, have been threatened and have been murdered," said Rep. James McGovern (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat who visited Colombia last week.

"Until those issues are addressed, I think there's going to be some rough sledding for the trade agreement."

Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record) of New York, the powerful new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, would not back the trade deal despite a lobbying trip by Uribe in November.

Nor would Rep. Gregory Meeks (news, bio, voting record), also of New York: "I don't think the free trade deal with Colombia will be approved in its current form."

___

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush,

scotty says on Apr 10, 13:47:

Democrats are not the friends of Colombia, they made that clear from the beginning. This is typical liberalism, in America, punish our friends and allies and show favortism to our enemies. This country should be doing everything in its power to help our friend Colombia.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

miamimike says on Apr 10, 13:59:

Scotty-not true at all! Remember back in the late 90s, it was Bill Clinton who signed Plan Colombia into Law, Not GW Bush! I would say that was being a friend to Colombia,,,,

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush,

Simon says on Apr 10, 14:02:

The irony is that Bill Clinton is a big friend of Colombia, he's been there four times, he always wears a Colombian bracelet given to him on one of his trips by a Native Colombian, and he is a big fan of Garcia Marquez, yet Hillary is being very unfriendly to Colombia now.

"You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do."---Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark)

tomtom33 says on Apr 10, 15:10:

If the bill is not signed, a 2/3 majority of Congress can pass it without any signature. That is called overriding a veto.

miamimike says on Apr 10, 15:22:

TT-In a later post I just put up, it tells how Congress has defeated Bush's Fast Track Passage of the FTA. This does NOT mean the FTA is dead, only the way Bush wanted to ramrod it through passage quickly. I think many are leary of anything Bush wants to Fast Track as the last time he wanted Fast Track was on invading Iraq because it had WMD and we know how that game went down. Like NO WMD to date,,, He gave the same spiel on the FTA as he gave on Iraq but this time Congress wasn't in the mood to buy his bill of goods this time. Considering how his(bush) overall popularity is in the 20-27% range, congress didn't feel like there was much to lose by shooting him down on this issue.Lame Duck George

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush,

tomtom33 says on Apr 10, 15:26:

Between now and Election Day, very little of anything will get done. Both parties are more interested in trying to gain political advantage than in trying to accomplish anything. And it wouldn't matter if the lame duck had an 80% approval rating.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 10, 15:32:

Again: It's far from a "ramrod through congress." It's been FOUR HUNDRED days since the thing was finished and signed and all kinds of lobbying, education, debate, and congressional trips to Colombia have been going on in the interim. How much more time is needed? Vote on it and kill it...but have the balls to vote on it.

"Fast Track" means they vote it up or down as presented; they cannot add amendments, delete portions or stuff it with pork. It does not mean pushing pet ideas of the executive branch through the legislative branch in an expedited manner. All recent trade agreements were approved in the same Fast Track manner, including DR-CAFTA, Chile and Peru in the last year or so. If it weren't for Fast Track (in existence for more than 30 years), I doubt any trade agreement would pass because congress would lard it up, pass it, the counter-party(ies) would object (and rightfully so) that "this isn't what we agreed to." And then they could start all over again.

romy says on Apr 10, 16:16:

miamimike- the WMD rhetoric was tried in regards to Colombia but became unsuccessful because they actually found the uranium and it proved to be worthless. Maybe if they hadn't found the uranium the FTA would have gone through.

miamimike says on Apr 10, 16:44:

Tinto-The democrats felt Uribe didn't seriously address the deaths of the trade Unionists for one thing so why the hurry? Let the bill take its natural course for approval. I remember when Jim Sensenbrenner was trying to get a meaningful Immigration(read not amnesty) bill passed and Bush and his cabal certainly didn't move on that issue. Now he's getting a taste of his own medicine of what he has been dishing out for the last 7 years and he doesn't like it.

Romy- Bush's legacy folder is pretty light what with Iraq and Katrina following him. He would have loved to get this Colombia FTA in his Legacy basket but it wasn't meant to be. Bush really doesn't have any great love for Colombia, he would have liked the FTA so he could say it was signed on his watch and he would take credit for it. He has alienanted so many on the other side so no surprise they shot him down on this. By the same token, Bush has shot the democrats down on many issues in the last 7 years so now to a certain extent, its payback time. And paybacks can be Hell,,,Over 70% of the American public in a recent poll taken last week felt America is on the wrong track,,,

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush,

romy says on Apr 10, 17:12:

miamimike- I agree. The attempt to fastrack the FTA wasn't out of liking Colombia, nor was blocking this motion. I would however argue that the US (emphasized by Republicans) has an interest to increase its influence in Latin America (anti-Chavez).
From my position the FTA was delayed for irrelevant reasons, but it works for me as I don't agree with the FTA as it is currently written and this time can be used to improve the deal.

poco says on Apr 10, 17:18:

MM: Your article references make me believe you are dispensing propaganda,, ie: the party line and not furnishing current statistics.

In other words,, where’s the meat?

The exact phrase:
More than 800 trade unionists have been killed in Colombia over the past six years
Is found in 86 google articles.

It think it more to the point that Unionists are MUCH LESS likely to be killed than the average Colombian. Did you know that? Do you know Colombia provides protection for Union Members?

Isn’t that kind of funny,, want a better chance to live,, join a Union. :>)

Yep,, the U.S. Union Members strike again,, shooting themselves in the foot,, based on their past history, I’d bet they are pretty good shots.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

romy says on Apr 10, 17:30:

poco- don't confuse the stats, while what you say might be true (nobody has proved it), Colombia is the worst country for someone to be a unionist. Paramilitaries and government (some even say guerrillas) actively persecute unionists. Besides it's not even comparable, when unionists will most often live in urban areas where violence is much less than in rural areas.

poco says on Apr 10, 17:39:

Quote: poco- don't confuse the stats, while what you say might be true (nobody has proved it),

I can,, can you ?

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

romy says on Apr 10, 17:56:

which part? this has already been discussed in http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/post/organizers-of-the-march-6-protes...

poco says on Apr 10, 18:05:

Quote: which part? this has already been discussed.

Now what, I'm to be your data slave? PBH as reference, you've got to be joking.

The stats,, you meant it being safer to be a Unionist than the average Colombian?

Actually, almost anything in the referenced article.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

romy says on Apr 10, 18:12:

if you actually want to become informed you'll read about it. I'm done with this discussion (because you're not making any sensible arguments).

poco says on Apr 10, 18:25:

Quote: if you actually want to become informed you'll read about it. I'm done with this discussion (because you're not making any sensible arguments).

I did make an argument,, Unionists are MUCH safer than the Average Colombian.

You say,, Quote: poco- don't confuse the stats, while what you say might be true (nobody has proved it),

Well,, I can look up stats that are close enough to prove it's safer. I think the problem is you can't or don't know how.

Why quit? too lazy? I believe laziness is the primary cause of incompetence? You are making me think I'm right.

Humm, looks like the FARC are BIG union supporters. Guess they need to do something with the taxes they collect.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 10, 21:26:

Tom. I am well aware of what overriding a veto is all about. However, that would require that the party in opposition to the president have a 2/3 majority in the Senate and that is not common. There normally has to be some negotiation and concessions on both sides to pass a budget, balanced or otherwise.

Here are the Senate breakdowns for 92 to 98. The republicans couldn't have overridden a Clinton veto even if they wanted to. So obviously, Clinton had plenty of influence on the balanced budgets. On the other hand, up until recently, Bush could do whatever the hell he wanted with a rubberstamp congress and he managed to wreck our country's finances with his pet war. Bye bye to the balanced budget he inherited.



1992
Rep: 43/44*
Dem: 57/56*

1994
Rep: 53
Dem: 47

1996
Rep: 55
Dem: 45

1998
Rep: 55
Dem: 45

billyb says on Apr 10, 21:41:

" I am well aware of what overriding a veto is all about. However, that would require that the party in opposition to the president to have a 2/3 majority and that is not common"

Not neccesarily. The votes to override don't have to come only from the opposition party, they could get members of the ruling party to cross over for an override.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 10, 21:44:

Yeah. Democrats. He was trying to imply that the Republicans balanced that budget all by themselves and that Clinton and the Democrats had nothing to do with it. BTW, I am not a Democrat, but I don't believe the Republican's BS either.

My original statement was

"It isn't even a partisan thing as that balanced budget was achieved by a democrat president along with a mostly republican congress."

poco says on Apr 10, 21:56:

Colombia is a LOT safer if you’re a trade unionist.

2007
15,000 homicides, 45 million. Colombians, = 30 per 100,000
39 union homicides 1 million Union Members = 4 per 100,000

Matter of fact,, almost 8 times safer.

Anyone feel good about having their top Democratic officials suspending the rules in order to give Colombia a slap in the face. Well,, better than a kick in the nuts they propose for larger countries.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

Rubito says on Apr 10, 23:24:

Of course this whole thread is moot because it ASSUMES the FTA is good for Colombia which it just ain't.

I'm so glad Colombian health regulations get to stand and all the garbage that passes for food in the USA will continue to be turned away at the border like the filth it is :)

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

miamimike says on Apr 11, 00:01:

Rubito--Colombia gets to export a lot of Products to the US Duty free so it generates profit and Jobs. How can you say this doesn't help Colombia? They get a much better deal then our industries do when they export to Colombia! I hope they eventually get a FTA when other issues such as the Trade Unionsist Deaths are rectified. We are(usa) already pretty good to Colombia, look at the Billions already sent to Colombia and the resulting Improved security. No one can say the USA hasn't been more then Generous to Colombia!

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush,

Rubito says on Apr 11, 00:11:

Nonsense! Plan Colombia money is mostly pork for American contractors. Speaking as somebody who owns property in Colombia now and will be living there full-time shortly, i'd love to see that stupid charade of Plan Colombia end TOMORROW. Colombia does NOT need that shit!

And there's a REASON American foodstuffs get turned away at Colombia's borders, because they are not fit for human consumption! I think if America wants to export beef to Colombia, for example, they should raise their cows on grass instead of PARTS OF DEAD COWS! It's against Colombian law but somehow it's A-OK in the USA. THAT is one little provision in the FTA, where American companies don't have to comply with Colombian health standards. Frankly I don't think any amount of economic benefit is worth the health of a whole nation, do you?

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

miamimike says on Apr 11, 00:21:

Rubito--I agree with you on cutting the Plan Colombia Umbelical but possibly for other reasons as our own economic situation here in the USA doesn't permit our sending Billions to a country whose situation has improved markedly. Now onthe other hand, look at all the small Flower and Coffee farmers who send their product to the USA; how is this pork for the Big Contractors? This benefits an awful lot of Small Business men and their employees.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush,

Robert Jorge says on Apr 11, 00:48:

Poco stole my thunder. Say the 800 union members killed in the last 6 years were killed in the last 12 months. Even that, would mean .15%, that's one tenth of a percent and a half, were killed. The actual 80 or so who were killed in the last year, would be .00015 of the total union members - based on the post's "530,000" union members. Statistically, an average Colombian has an astronomically higher death rate than Colombian union members.

Robert Jorge says on Apr 11, 00:51:

The point is, Pelosi, and pretty much any other political dickhead in power in the US, could give a rat's ass about union deaths in Colombia. But, they have to create issues to stand up to. Power. Please the base to keep the power.

brad216 says on Apr 11, 04:07:

what's everyone getting so pissed about? the fta will not help any colombians except the rich and powerful. the everyday people of colombia will not be helped by this. for all those ripping democrats..remember it was bill clinton who started plancolombia. as far as hillary, she might be against fta,,,i'm fine with that. however she does plan on continuing plancolombia. the same can not be said for obama who wants to kill the fta and plancolombia.
dont get so crazy about the fta...remember be careful of what you wish for.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 07:23:

Agreed. The FTA is a screw job for Colombia that will primarily benefit large US pharmaceuticals, agriculture conglomerates and telecoms. It will also be beneficial for the richest portion of Colombian society at the expense of small Colombian companies and the average worker.

In addition to the food safety rules, the pharmas got their ridiculous concession that would at least double the amount of time before generic versions of a drug could be available in Colombia and places other restrictions on the manufacture of generics in Colombia. That alone is reason to scrap this piece of shit. Colombian old people won't be able to take a bus to Canada to get cheap drugs like US seniors are often forced to do. Keep your FTA mr. shrub.

I agree that Pelosi and company are using the union issues as a BS excuse to kill this thing. As long as this unjust piece of garbage is shot down, I don't care how they do it.

tomtom33 says on Apr 11, 10:04:

Generic drugs can be iffy in Colombia. I was advised by several Colombian doctors and a former drug company executive not to buy generics in Colombia. Thus, it matters not one whit to me how long it takes to have generics available in Colombia.

romy says on Apr 11, 10:13:

tomtom, I know very well how docs get commissioned in Colombia by the pharmas. Several docs I know do 'differential' prescriptions, you probably look like someone that can pay for the brand-name drug so that's what they prescribe you.
Generics in Colombia are as efficant as their brand-name counterparts, and many people rely on paying the lesser price to survive.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 10:25:

I have heard that before, but mainly from pharmacy workers that want to sell you the more expensive name brand. I have also heard the opposite from doctors in my family. Besides, not all the generics sold in Colombia are produced there. This provision would eliminate even foreign generics from being sold. Why should Colombians have to wait longer than people in the US to be able to get a generic and less horribly overpriced version of a potentially life saving drug?

Still, many Colombians can't afford anything but generics so it is a moot point. The fact that an American ex-pat doesn't need to save money on generics doesn't even factor into the issue. The point is that this provision is extremely unfair and will help the pharmas at the expense of poor Colombians. These are the same pharmas that contribute their share to the massive increases in US health care costs.

droble77 says on Apr 11, 10:28:

Yikes, I didn't know about that CG. The U.S. pharmas have enough power as it is in the states, they want to control Colombian health care too??

tomtom33 says on Apr 11, 10:29:

My friend who used to work for a big UK pharmaceutical firm will not buy generics in Colombia. He is tight with a peso. And he doesn't get any commissions from anyone. His word and actions along with the advice of my primary physician in the US(she gets no commissions from Colombian drug sales, either) are good enough for me.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 10:37:

Again, whether you or your friends wish to buy them is not the issue. Many Colombians don't have that choice and I'm sure they'd rather have an allegedly less potent generic than nothing at all.

Rubito says on Apr 11, 10:38:

MM most of those flower growers are NOT small businesses. Those are Sr. Uribe's cronies right there.

And CG is ABSOLUTELY right about the generic drug clause in the agreement. The FTA represents rape and loss of autonomy for Colombia. No self-respecting Colombian who actually has STUDIED it could possibly be for it, unless they REALLY hate their own country.

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 10:43:

That's the problem Rubito.

Many people come on here and support this agreement that they have not even bothered to study. They have vague feelings of support for the holy grail of "Free Trade". When confronted with the facts, they have nothing to offer but tangential arguments about marginally related issues.

Some even seem to still believe in "Trickle Down Economics" because they are under the illusion that the wealthiest Colombians that would benefit the most from this will altruistically pass the benefits on to the common man.

As I've said many times, the US government doesn't negotiate trade deals out of a desire to help other countries. They are simply trying to reverse the debacle caused by our massive trade imbalances.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 11, 10:47:

"Control" or "Subsidize" which is it? It's said that Americans already subsidize European and Canadian drug prices to the tune of billions per year, so we're supposed to add (maintain) Colombia to this category? Most US healthcare consumers and taxpayers might beg to differ. It gets a little confusing with Europe, though, because BIG PHARMA is really U.S. companies plus a few monsters in Western Europe that bought or merged with U.S. firms or have significant R&D operations in the U.S.

Anyway, if generics based on U.S./Euro patents are too expensive, I'd bet some Chinese, Indian and Brazilian firms that don't operate under the same rules will be happy to sell illegally obtained knock-offs to the Colombians. Or at least until they develop enough of their own intellectual property and want to use the global trade rules to protect it.

Speaking of intellectual property, Colombia is only too happy to use the U.S. court system to protect it's Juan Valdez/100% Colombian Coffee and various other "marks" owned by the Coffee Federation when it serves their purpose. Maybe coffee consumers the world over should revolt because this adds extra cost to their daily cuppa joe.

;-)

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 10:50:

I don't see how allowing the production of generics on the same schedule as the US would be tantamount to a subsidy. I am not suggesting that pharmas don't have a right to sell their drugs exclusively for a certain period of time. I simply don't see why that amount of time should be doubled for Colombia. That is the least of what this FTA would mandate. That would amount to a subsidy for American pharmas paid for by the Colombian consumer.

tomtom33 says on Apr 11, 10:51:

I have no idea what the FTA says. I have neither the time nor the inclination to read it. Nor have I ever supported it. And frankly the average lay person could not understand the agreement in any event.

I am fairly sure, however, that the FTA is not as bad as you represent. Agreements are negotiated, theoretically to favor neither side. My guess is that, if the agreement was that horrid for Colombia, Colombia would not have agreed to it.

Rubito says on Apr 11, 10:54:

Tinto, it should be up to COLOMBIA, NOT the USA when and how they want to allow generic drugs on the market. The FTA effectively would make the FDA a governing body in Colombia. Think about that from a Colombian perspective, how WRONG is that to cede control of that nature and magnitude to another country, ESPECIALLY given the US's nefarious history when dealing with other Latin American nations.

If the FTA truly were about free trade, I would support it 100%. If it were just a short simple agreement to reduce or eliminate tariffs and duties I'd be the person screaming the loudest for its passage here on PBH.

You can bet your ass that this agreement is designed to KEEP Colombia in the dark ages, keep it as a nation lacking value-added industries and forever dependent on US trade to be OK. The LAST thing the US wants is a mature pharmaceutical industry in Colombia or anything else of the sort. And they know it's maybe 10-15 years away if they don't do something to check it.

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 10:56:

Tom , When I refer to the supporters of the FTA, I am not specifically referring to you, but in regard to your latest point...

Unfortunately, the US holds the real power in the negotiations. Consequently, they were able to effectively force these types of concessions on the Colombian negotiators.

You are also assuming that a nation's government always has the best interests of the average citizen at heart. How many times hasn't the US congress passed laws that benefit large corporations or special interest at the expense of the average taxpayer?

There has actually been a lot of talk in Colombian legal circles about the unconstitutionality of several of the provisions of this agreement.

tomtom33 says on Apr 11, 10:57:

"Tinto, it should be up to COLOMBIA, NOT the USA when and how they want to allow generic drugs on the market."

If Colombian companies develop the drug, I agree. Otherwise I am firmly with Tinto.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 11:00:

Again, the point is not that US Pharmas shouldn't be able to sell a new drug exclusively for a certain number of years. However, there is no reason for Colombians to have to wait 20 years for a generic when patients in the US only have to wait 10.

I am not suggesting that Colombian should simply allow generic versions of new drugs before those generics are legally available in the US and other countries.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 11, 11:02:

I don't believe the relevant passages in the proposed agreement are cut and dry. There are majority and minority opinions from the various experts who have reviewed the language about generics and the qualifiers/carve-outs (references to some DOHA/WTO mumbo jumbo) surrounding same. The minority opinions - at least the two that I read - said the mitigation language may be sufficient, but in the real world, who really knows...

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 11:03:

Counting on the mitigation language doesn't sound like a very good form of protection for the average Colombian consumer who will be hurt the most by this and other provisions of the FTA.

tomtom33 says on Apr 11, 11:04:

In the main, the US government does have the best interest of all its citizens in mind. I do not know about Colombia. That of course does not mean that wrong-headed things are not proposed and even passed. But if time shows them to be wrong-headed, those things are fixed. The fix is not always done in a timely manner, but it is done.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 11:14:

In this case, if these wrong-headed provisions are put into effect, the US would never agree to renegotiate them so Colombia would be stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

As I've said, I am not against free trade or even an FTA, but this is not the right one.

I don't believe that the US congress mainly has our best interests at heart. They are more beholden to their corporate paymasters than the average voter. The only time they give us lip service is around election time. I have several friends who are legislative directors or legislative assistants for members of congress and their inside stories have given me a view of how little we do mean to congressmen who are more concerned with filling their election funds.

tomtom33 says on Apr 11, 11:17:

I am not disagreeing with you. I simply don't know. What is your background in reading and interpreting these kinds of agreements?

durito says on Apr 11, 11:17:

"In the main, the US government does have the best interest of all its citizens in mind. "

I don't believe this at all.

"I don't believe that the US congress mainly has our best interests at heart. They are more beholden to their corporate paymasters than the average voter. The only time they give us lip service is around election time."

Exactly. This all would have played out quite differently if there wasn't an election in November.

Rubito says on Apr 11, 11:18:

I think even 10 years is a ridiculous length of time for a drug patent. It should be 3-5 years tops. And copyrights should be the same. From date of publishing you should have maybe 5 years to capitalize on your work, after that it goes into the public domain.

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 11:23:

That is a separate issue. I think companies should be able to reap the exclusive benefits of their very expensive development process for a reasonable time. What a reasonable amount of time is would be open to debate. I also don't see a problem with copyrights lasting for a few decades. I don't think the repeated extension of copyrights by those other than the original creator should be allowed.

Also, I think we need to be more careful in handing out vague technology patents to every idiot that wants to patent generic business processes.

romy says on Apr 11, 11:33:

Americans don't pay more than Canadians for their drugs because of R & D. The added costs are marketing costs. Here in Canada they don't allow direct-to-consumer dug ads.
Drug patents are a joke, meaningless modifications to drugs can make these patents last eternities.
again, I state that nowhere has it been shown that generics are of lower efficacy than brand-name drugs. It's like people thinking that advil is somehow better than generic ibuprofen...it's the exact same chemical for gods sake.

droble77 says on Apr 11, 11:35:

I think it's extremely insulting that Colombians would have to wait TWICE as long as Americans for generics. That alone would be a deal-breaker for me. Gotta agree with CG on this one.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 11:42:

I did not suggest that the disparity in drug prices between the US and Canada had anything to do with R&D costs. I simply stated that the pharmas have a right to exclusively sell their products for a certain time regardless of where they are sold. The increased prices to the US consumer when compared to those charged in Canada are really inexcusable.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 11:45:

Ha Ha. romy. You reminded me of an argument that I always had with my ex-wife. She really loved Excedrin when it came to headaches and would get super pissed when I bought a generic. I tried all kinds of ways to explain that Excedrin is nothing more than an aspirin(acetylsalicylic acid), a Tylenol (acetaminophen) and a shot of caffeine. She just refused to accept it despite being an RN who should know better.

romy says on Apr 11, 12:03:

CG, the comment was more directed at Tinto that suggested a 'subsidizing'. I guess the main argument is that nobody is forcing these companies to sell their products at certain prices.

I understand the arguments behind these patent laws, but it just seems to me that knowledge needs to be public. Particularly, for things like drugs that could benefit so many individuals there needs to be a better balance, I believe.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 11, 12:10:

Romy, I'll agree with you on the direct-to-consumer discrepancy between the two countries. It's ridiculous the amount of money that is wasted on prime time television commercials for prescription drugs. However, there has also been some boneheaded legislation that prevents the US government from leveraging their buying power (the US govt provides something like 45% of the healthcare in the US) and THAT'S a big reason our drugs cost so much/the profits from the US subsidize the prices in other countries. I'd call that a result of dumb government negotiators and big pharma making big campaign contributions.

romy says on Apr 11, 12:22:

Tinto- I'l still disagree with the subsidizing argument because subsidizing implies a conscious effort. In this case you are suggesting that pharmas are making enough money off of Americans so they don't bother making more money off of other people, which I don't buy either.
However, I'm intrigued about the 'buying power' argument that increases the costs of drugs. I'm not dis validating it, but I don't really get it, can you expand on that?

Here the social democrats talk about a national drug plan that would transfer the buying power to the state. I'm thinking a few of these guys would get shot before anything like this would be approved.

tomtom33 says on Apr 11, 13:03:

I believe that Tinto is talking about laws preventing the US government from using all of its buying power to negotiate the best deal possible for prescription and non-prescription drugs.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 11, 13:13:

Yes, that's correct. I don't recall the details now but there was a really big stink when the prescription drug benefit for Medicare patients was greatly expanded in 2003 or 2004. It's a huge unfunded liability and most of the commentary was unanimous that the government entered into a bum deal.

Re high prescription prices in the U.S. subsidizing prices elsewhere - the recent spat over AIDS drugs in Brazil might be a good example.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 13:18:

On the topic of drug marketing, I find it almost offensive that a lot of doctors have a TV running CNN "Health" channel running which is no more than ads disguised as news reports amongst all the actual ads they run. Maybe it's time to update the Hypocratic Oath.

How about

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone" by acting as a shill for giant drug companies.

Many unfortunately seem to ignore the following part as well.

"To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

tomtom33 says on Apr 11, 13:22:

That is a bit harsh, CG.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 14:13:

Which, the shill bit or the part about some doctors knowingly prescribing dangerous drugs or procedures?

When it comes to the shill bit, if the shoe fits, wear it. I know plenty of docs in the US and I also know many pharma reps. A lot of docs are more than glad to enjoy the "perks" handed to them by the pharmas. Many times when I've been at a ski resort, I see these "conferences" put on by the drug companies as a way to give doctors free ski vacations. Heck,one of my friends walked in on his cardiologist father getting a "hummer" from a female pharma rep and I don't mean a cheesy SUV.

I am not trying to disparage doctors personally, but there are a lot of very questionable business practices going on between the drug companies and the doctors who we count on to prescribe our medicines.

In any case, I have respect for most of the doctors I know, but there are certainly a few shady ones in the bunch.

tomtom33 says on Apr 11, 14:18:

The part about knowingly prescribing dangerous drugs and procedures.

There is nothing wrong with a blow job here and there.

I really don't think that many doctors would place patients at risk by prescribing a bad drug no matter how many ski vacations they get. Would they choose a drug made by a company who paid for their trips when most other things are equal? Yes.

Rubito says on Apr 11, 14:19:

Right, so if any of us give a flying rat's ass about Colombia, why do we want to EXPORT these kinds of problems there? The US at least is pretty flush (at least up until now we have been) and has been able to (relatively) absorb these kinds of inefficiencies. In Colombia it would be a disaster from jump.

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 14:28:

Ha Ha. You're right about that.

I really don't think that most doctors knowingly put their patients in danger. However, how many times have you heard of doctors that are quick to suggest questionable surgeries or treatments? Sadly, it is more common than it should be.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 14:29:

I am not suggesting either that US doctors are the only ones to do this. My wife's 99 year old grandmother was just seen by a doctor in Colombia who suggested that the family buy her some "nutrition" products from some pyramid scheme called Omnilife. It is the Mexican version of American BS like Herbalife, Nature's Sunshine, etc.

The product in question was a powdered mix consisting of fructose and a few very common amino acids. He even told them which rep to buy it from and they were charged over $400.000 for a couple of boxes. My wife tried to stop them, but the her sister bought the stuff. What kind of doctor prescribes sugar water costing a minimum monthly salary to usually poor families in rural Colombia? That is just unconscionable and highly irresponsible in my view, even if he isn't getting a kickback.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 11, 14:36:

Out of curiosity, was the 99 year old woman able to eat, drink and digest the proper quantities of regular foods and beverages?

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 14:43:

Yes. She is actually reasonably healthy for a 99 year old and does eat regular food. She also drinks a protein shake on a regular basis. What upset me is that fructose and a few amino acids could be purchased in much cheaper forms. Those kinds of companies are multi-level marketing pyramids where the products are super expensive because every person in the pyramid gets their markup. Omnilife is run by a disreputable Mexican scammer and it has a history of poor product quality and shady business practices.

A responsible doctor should not recommend that kind of overpriced garbage to a family that doesn't make that much money. $400.000 is close to what most lower estrato Colombians make in a month.

poco says on Apr 11, 15:41:

Colombia pays a steep price to assure Union Members are safer than average citizens.

The Colombian government protects more than 9,000 people. More than 1,800 are union members at a total cost of OVER 35 million dollars per year.

Looks like it’s working,,

Oh,, did anyone tell Speaker of the House,, Pelosi ???

Yes,, the answer is yes,, She knew this,, and much more,, but insisted on making it be known that,,, no wait,,, I knew she was stupid,, now it’s verifiable.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 11, 15:58:

I still can't understand why the dems would choose this shrill harpy as their Speaker. You're right poco, the union issue is a bullshit excuse. I wish she had the "balls" to state her real reasons for killing it. The truth might be interesting to hear for a change. Still, the FTA as currently negotiated is an atrocity and I'm glad it is getting shelved.

Rubito says on Apr 11, 16:00:

I certainly don't agree with their reason for killing it, I'm just glad it's dead for other reasons!

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

durito says on Apr 11, 16:17:

Pelosi confused Colombia with Bolivia last week -- it's pretty obvious the reasons they killed it had nothing to do with Colombia.

romy says on Apr 11, 17:48:

while most docs wouldn't prescribe a *known* harmful drug for the perks. Many would prescribe a drug that has not been completely proven to be safe for the perks.

Oh and CG, it was harsh to call docs hypocrits...Hippocrates was the father of medicine.

romy says on Apr 11, 19:24:

http://actualidad.terra.es/nacional/articulo/colombia_asesinato_sindic...
El asesinato de 17 sindicalistas en tres meses en Colombia incrementa la cifra en un 89%

La organizaciСn no gubernamental destacС que, de las vМctimas de este perМodo, nueve eran dirigentes sindicales, lo que supone una subida del 800 por ciento en relaciСn con el mismo trimestre de 2007, cuando un lМder muriС de forma violenta.

Los otros ocho asesinados de enero a marzo de 2008 eran afiliados a sindicatos, contra nueve en el primer trimestre de 2007, agregС la ENS en un informe sobre la violencia contra el movimiento sindical colombiano en el perМodo.

La entidad de investigaciСn y estudio del sector, con sede en la ciudad industrial de MedellМn, observС que los sindicalistas asesinados pertenecМan a trece organizaciones sindicales diferentes.

Del total de vÐœctimas, trece estaban agrupados en la Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia (CUT, la mÐ?s grande del paÐœs) y tres en la ConfederaciСn General de Trabajadores (CGT), continuС la fuente, y precisС que el otro era miembro de un sindicato no confederado.

SegЗn el estudio, 14 de los 17 asesinatos 'no ofrecen hasta la fecha mayor claridad sobre la identidad del presunto autor, lo que dificulta la determinaciСn de la verdad, el acceso a la justicia y la reparaciСn integral para las vМctimas'.

'Los Зnicos tres casos donde se tienen indicios de quiИnes son los presuntos autores, corresponden al EjИrcito Nacional de Colombia', aЯadiС la ONG, para precisar que se trata de sindicalistas de la federaciСn del sector agropecuario.

La ENS dijo que el pasado marzo se presentС un 'abrupto incremento' del 52,9 por ciento en el nЗmero de asesinatos cometidos con respecto de enero y febrero, 'situaciСn que debe ser pronta y plenamente investigada'.

Las vÐœctimas en dicho mes tenÐœan en comЗn, ademÐ?s de su condiciСn de sindicalistas, su participaciСn en la marcha contra los paramilitares y la violencia realizada el 6 de marzo, explicС luego.

La misma fuente resaltС que es deliberada la intenciСn de los victimarios de ocultar los motivos de los crÐœmenes, al presentarlos como delitos comunes 'a partir del gradual reemplazo del arma de fuego por arma blanca (cortopunzante), con lo que se ofrece un perfil mÐ?s domИstico del delito cometido'.

La violencia contra el movimiento sindical es tan preocupante como las versiones con las que el Gobierno colombiano trata de explicar los crМmenes, la gran mayorМa de los cuales atribuye, sin mediar una investigaciСn ni una decisiСn judicial, a motivos 'como problemas personales, hurtos, entre otros', indicС la ENS.

'Por ello esperamos y exigimos del Gobierno seriedad, responsabilidad y respeto por la dignidad de las vМctimas', agregС la ONG.

La ENS atribuyС la reciente decisiСn del Ejecutivo de establecer un programa de recompensas para quienes ofrezcan informes sobre responsables de crÐœmenes a su afÐ?n por lograr que el Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC) firmado con Estados Unidos fuera discutido y aprobado por el Congreso en Washington.

Las violaciones de los derechos humanos y sindicales son las razones mÐ?s fuertes por las que la bancada demСcrata en el Legislativo estadounidense se ha opuesto a la gestiСn parlamentaria del TLC, cuyo estudio y votaciСn fueron 'congelados' este jueves por la CÐ?mara de Representantes de ese paÐœs.

poco says on Apr 11, 19:57:

Quote: Besides it's not even comparable, when unionists will most often live in urban areas where violence is much less than in rural areas.
===========
Humm, Violence in URBAN AREAS is MUCH LESS than RURAL AREAS?

The subject was MURDERS? Right? Half the population lives outside the cities so does this mean more than HALF the violence occurs in Rural Areas?

Are you saying Unionists are SAFER in Urban Areas? I think they might be SAFER in Rural Areas,, unless of course they are involved in an outside business,, you know,, Guerilla groups, drugs, screwing with a guys amante, gambling, drinking etc.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

billyb says on Apr 11, 20:11:

When I move back to Colombia, i'm going to become a union organizer to prolong my life expectancy.

Rubito says on Apr 11, 20:34:

70% of Colombia lives in urban areas Poco. And rural areas ARE statistically more violent, by a LONG shot.

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

romy says on Apr 13, 13:30:

"Some supporters of the trade deal are quick to point out that union members are still statistically less likely to be killed than the general population. But that ignores geographic and socioeconomic factors - poor rural residents in the country's war zones bear a disproportionate risk from violence - and it is clear that union officials continue to be specific targets for intimidation and violence."

____________________________________________________________________________
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/13/america/bogota.php?page=2
Labor killings in Colombia become issue in U.S. trade deal
By Simon Romero
Published: April 13, 2008

BOGOT�: Lucy Gómez still shudders when speaking of the killing of her brother, Leonidas, a union leader and bank employee who was beaten and stabbed here last month. His death was part of a recent surge in killings of union members in Colombia, with 17 already this year.

"I want those who did this to pay for their crime," said Gómez, 37, a seamstress, clutching a faded photograph of her brother, an employee of Citigroup's Colombian unit, who was 42. "But I feel in danger myself. This is not a country where one can express such a wish without fear of being eliminated like my brother."

Gómez's fear, and the dread felt by union members and their families throughout Colombia, has long been a feature of labor organizing during this country's four-decade internal war. More than 2,500 union members in Colombia have been killed since 1985, and fewer than 100 cases have a conviction, according to the National Labor School, a labor research group in Medellín.

Now these killings are emerging as a pressing issue in Washington as Democrats and Republicans battle over a trade deal with Colombia, the Bush administration's top ally in Latin America. The Colombian government is already struggling to recover from the latest salvo in the fight, a vote by U.S. House Democrats on Thursday to snub President George W. Bush and indefinitely delay voting on the deal.

Since President Ã?lvaro Uribe took office in 2002, there has been a marked decline in union killings, accompanying a broader decline in overall murders and kidnappings. Still, 400 union members have been killed since then, and dozens of his supporters in the Colombian Congress and his former intelligence chief are under investigation for ties to rightist paramilitary death squads, which are classified as terrorists by the United States and responsible for some of the union killings.

Unions were often pulled into Colombia's war when paramilitaries suspected that their ranks were infiltrated with leftist guerrilla sympathizers. Or sometimes their members suffered simply because they opposed the paramilitaries' brutal assertion of control over large swaths of Colombia.

In recent weeks, a new wave of threats has emerged, from groups identifying themselves as a new generation of private armies, against human rights activists and labor organizers, many of whom have opposed the trade deal, raising the specter of still more anti-union violence to come.

The 17 union killings so far this year represent a 70 percent increase from the same period last year.

Complicating matters, the leftist guerrillas, who have sought to topple the government, have targeted union officials for assassination in the past. Union leaders who are in favor of the trade deal, largely from export-oriented industries, have suggested that some of the recent killings may have been carried out by factions opposed to stronger trade ties with the United States.

Some supporters of the trade deal are quick to point out that union members are still statistically less likely to be killed than the general population. But that ignores geographic and socioeconomic factors - poor rural residents in the country's war zones bear a disproportionate risk from violence - and it is clear that union officials continue to be specific targets for intimidation and violence.

The case of Leonidas Gómez is one of several examples of slain union officials who were involved in organizing protest marches last month against paramilitaries. Government investigators said they were investigating all the recent killings but have not yet identified the perpetrators.

Carlos Burbano was a vice president in the hospital workers' union of the municipality of San Vicente del Caguán, in southern Colombia, who disappeared March 9. His body was found four days later in a garbage dump in an area considered paramilitary territory. Burbano, who had received threats before from paramilitaries, had been stabbed multiple times and burned with acid.

Like Burbano, Gómez, a member of the Bank Workers' Union in Bogotá, was an outspoken critic of the paramilitaries. He had traveled throughout Colombia to speak out against the U.S. trade deal, which he expected to raise salaries of senior Citigroup executives while eroding the benefits of employees, said Luis Humberto Ortiz, a fellow union official and Citigroup employee.

Last seen at a meeting with leftist politicians on the night of March 4, Gómez was found dead in his apartment on March 8, with multiple stab wounds and his hands tied behind his back. Missing from his apartment were his laptop computer, USB memory sticks and cash from his pockets, his sister said.

Gómez's family and his colleagues said they were convinced that he was killed because of his union activities. But María Isabel Nieto, a deputy minister of justice, said in an interview that investigators could not rule out a "crime of passion."

"Colombia has a horrible record of bringing the vast majority those responsible for these killings to justice," said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for Human Rights Watch.

Some of the killings linger over commercial ties with the United States, Colombia's largest trading partner. Paramilitaries, for instance, killed three union leaders in 2001 who were employed by Drummond, an Alabama coal producer with operations in northern Colombia. A jury in Birmingham, Alabama, cleared Drummond last year of claims that it was responsible for the killings.

No one denies that assassinations of union members have dropped significantly from the 1990s, the worst years of Colombia's war, when more than 200 a year were reported.

In 2007, union killings fell to 39 from 72 the previous year, according to the National Labor School in Medellín. They were expected to decline further this year until the recent spike in killings. (Figures from Colombia's government are often lower because killings are not included when motives are unclear. So far this year the government has counted 15 union killings, compared with 17 documented by labor groups.)

"We must remember that these killings are not a matter of state policy," Vice President Francisco Santos said in an in interview in March. "On the contrary, we abhor these acts and are doing everything we can to bring the number down as low as possible," he said, citing an unprecedented increase in prosecutions of union killings in the past year.

For 2008, the government budgeted the equivalent of $45.7 million for protecting people at risk of assassination, of which about a third goes to threatened union members. Under the program, more than 200 unionists have armored cars or bodyguards and more than 170 union buildings and homes of union members have bullet-proofing improvements.

Still, revelations of ties between the private militias and some of Uribe's most influential supporters haunt official efforts to lower union killings. For instance, Jorge Noguera, Uribe's former intelligence chief, is under investigation for handing over lists to paramilitaries of union leaders and other leftist figures who were targeted for assassination.

Faced with the delays in Washington, senior government officials here are somewhat more cautious in expressing their shock at the possibility that Colombia might be denied the trade pact.

"If the United States takes the rug out from under us, we would look like imbeciles internally and in the region," Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said in an interview.

For union leaders like Rafael Boada who are living with threats, the focus on violence is welcomed as part of the debate over the trade pact. Boada, a bank employee in Bucaramanga in northeastern Colombia, escaped with his life on March 7 after two gunmen on a motorcycle shot at him, their bullets lodging in the windshield of his car.

"We are a stigmatized group," said Boada, explaining his role in helping organize the marches against paramilitaries. "I am certain this happened because of my union activities."

poco says on Apr 13, 15:05:

Quote: But that ignores geographic and socioeconomic factors - poor rural residents in the country's war zones bear a disproportionate risk from violence - and it is clear that union officials continue to be specific targets for intimidation and violence."
==============
Typical article used to create FUD.

Question: Is THIS (and others) about union killing good enough to be the primary reason for suspending the rules and putting the Colombian FTA on hold?

First,, I live in a relatively poor rural town. I say relatively because I first thought it was poor,, then,, reading these posts,, I've decided the town is RICH,, but that's relative,, so,, relatively poor seems to fit.

There ARE many union workers and I've never heard anything that even comes close that would indicate a problem. Then again,, no FARC nearby,, I know this for a fact because I always look under every bush.

Actually,, it's,, well,, not provable HOW those LOW (8 times lower than national average) numbers of Union guys were killed.

Again,, the number is LOW, LOW, LOW.(8 times lower than national average).

Give the folks a break,,the facts are that the LOW proportion of union workers killed MIGHT NOT be because of their Union Activities.

There are many ways to get killed in Colombia. Drugs, women, drinking, stealing, gambling, debt, extorsion, bribes etc.the list is endless.

Knowing quite a bit about Colombia I'd say quite a few of these supposed,, yep,, supposed,, UNION ACTIVITY murders ARE NOT directly linked with Union Activities.

Thats NOT exactly correct,, the FARC have ties with Unions,, the FARC fund union activities. A pretty good chunk of change.

It takes no stretch of my imagination that some percentage of this LOW number could be killed because of their direct association with the FARC. Frankly,, it would seem logical,, to a FARC mind,, to purpously KILL a union member,, why? Divert attention,, good press.

I love this comment:
poor rural residents in the country's WAR ZONES bear a disproportionate risk from violence.

Duh,,

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

aztec says on Apr 15, 04:44:

Democrats for Colombia
April 15, 2008

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's ploy last week to change House rules in order to kill the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is exposing how extreme her protectionism is.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120821999415914691.html?mod=djemEditor...

tomtom33 says on Apr 15, 05:44:

The rule change did not kill the bill. Of course the Speaker could choose not to schedule a vote prior to Congressional adjournment. That would kill the bill.

cali373 says on Apr 15, 07:41:

Thank god its dead, long live Colombia and the U.S. The congress has not done anything good ina while.

Let a new one be drafted under a different administration that would benefit Colombia better. The biggest trade deals has often happened under a democratic administration (NAFTA, opening China, Europe after WW2), so it is not a Democratic/republican issue but more that democrats usually criticise labor of the trading country.

This is the way I see it, Uribe would have approved any trade deal Bush sent him, as a favor for the money he gets to support the civil conflict. So Colombia's interest was definitely compromised. A trade deal under a democratic administration will be better for Colombia and the U.S. and it will happen no matter what any one party politic person will tell you.

Interesting how nobody mentions how denny hastert killed so many bills that democrats brought up. I guess that was ok.

Smile if you are a thinker!

gringoloid says on Apr 15, 07:46:

First, let me get this out of the way....."Nancy Pelosi Idiot" you can suck my you know what!"

Seriously, what we need to do is create a grassroots Colombian-American Fraternal Union to advocate for Colombia. I would like to know how much effort proexport and other groups put into trying to get the trade agreement passed. I guess, not much.

Colombians in the states could gather 'intelligence' like who is for and who is against favorable legislation. We here at PBH could have hammered her with emails instead of standing around with our thumbs up our asses.

also do boycotts to get americans on our side........demonstrations.............throw pies, etc... :)

this is the only way things get done.

tejasmarcos says on Apr 15, 08:02:

- good idea, gringoloid. heres a few dems on the hill that are for the fta;


Democrats for Colombia
April 15, 2008; Page A18

If nothing else, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's ploy last week to change House rules in order to kill the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is exposing how extreme her protectionism is. Yesterday, 35 former senior officials in Democratic Administrations and Democratic Members of Congress signed an open letter urging Congress to pass the Colombia pact.


"We believe this Agreement is in both our vital national security and economic interests," the letter says. "We feel that the treaty should be considered as soon as possible and that any obstacles be quickly and amicably resolved." Good luck with that last point given Ms. Pelosi's eagerness to take orders from the AFL-CIO.

But the men and woman who signed the letter are notable for their prominence in the Clinton and Carter Administrations – which is to say when Democrats were still a free-trading party. The list includes Bernard Aronson, former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, whose area of expertise included Colombia. There's also Donna Shalala, former Secretary of HHS, plus Robert Pastor, former director for Latin America on the National Security Council and nobody's idea of a right-winger.

Also Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre; former Congresspersons Lee Hamilton, Dan Glickman, Patricia Schroeder, Steve Solarz, Sam Gibbons and Calvin Dooley, and former Senators Robert Kerrey, Bob Graham and John Breaux.

Yes, we know: Former Members of Congress don't have to vote and face the wrath of the Teamsters. But they do know the national interest, and their three-page letter makes clear the damage Congress will do if it defeats the Colombia FTA.

god is in your head

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 15, 08:03:

Many Colombian-American voters do pay attention to those issues. For example, Obama's apparent opposition to Plan Colombia is a big problem for me. However, since I think the current FTA is bad for Colombia, I would see a candidate's opposition to it as a potential positive.

Still, Pelosi is using this issue in an attempt to shame and punish Colombia for some reason. The trade unionist issue is a real one, but she is just using it as a handy excuse here. She is not killing the FTA because it is bad for Colombia(which it is), but instead it almost seems to be out of spite. I'm glad the FTA is getting spiked in its current incarnation, but that harpy can still go to hell.

tejasmarcos says on Apr 15, 08:07:

CG - she is pandering to the AFL-CIO. Their power has her by the preverbial "juevos".

god is in your head

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 15, 08:23:

I realize that is part of it, but she has a hard on for Colombia. Where does that sack get off scolding Uribe like a schoolboy? She showed her complete lack of respect for Colombia.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of her attitude has to do with the warm relations between Bush and Uribe. She seems like just the type to let personal spite influence international policy. Why did the Democrats choose that bitch as Speaker? Does anyone outside her district actually like her?

tejasmarcos says on Apr 15, 08:28:

all i can say is that the political circles on the hill are quite complicated. it is a system of debits and credits that puts drug dealing to shame. and the players are constantly changing sides according to their own political needs at the moment. you might call it political free agency.

- i was tied into that mess for 3 straight years many moons ago and i can say it is "confusing" and "frustrating" at best.

god is in your head

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 15, 09:07:

Some of my friends work or have worked on the Hill in LD and LA spots for various members. Also, during college, I saw a lot of the insides of Texas party politics when former Texas dem chair Bob Slagle and crew were running things. Consequently, I have seen and heard about a lot of questionable dealings. In general, I have a pretty grim view of the politicians regardless of their party affiliation.

tejasmarcos says on Apr 15, 09:17:

i agree. at first i was elated to be part of the political process. that soon faded after i saw the vote was basically bought and paid for and political actions had no foundation in moral conviction.

god is in your head

tomtom33 says on Apr 15, 14:08:

I spent 15 years with my head in the oven so to speak doing special interest lobbying on the State level. And I worked for the Feds for 9 years. The whole system is rotten. Yet some things seem to get done in spite of the horseshit. And a lot of the buying and paying for can cancel each other out with some good results. In the main, over the long haul, it does seem to work out.

The best system that could be designed would be corrupted by humans. We really are pieces of work.

gringoloid says on Apr 15, 14:09:

CG....why do feel that protectionism is good? I know that some monopolies and cartels within the protectionist country get hurt.............but I'm talking about the average person in both countries. Doesn't it open up the markets to competition and thereby lowering the prices on products for the little guy.

Rubito says on Apr 15, 14:20:

I feel that the FTA is totally misnamed, and at its heart it really IS a protectionist piece of work :P

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 15, 14:53:

gl,

My opposition to this particular FTA is not primarily because of protectionist ideals. My principle reasons for opposing this have more to do with specific provisions that are harmful to Colombian consumers and certain portions of Colombian industry. I have previously stated many of these reasons.

I agree that working to gradually lower or even eliminate certain tariffs and import restrictions is a good direction. However, this needs to be done in conjunction with measures to ensure the quality and safety of imported products. The Colombian economy is doing well, but a relatively sudden, overwhelming flood of cheap US products and service would probably destroy many nascent industry sectors in Colombia that would likely be unable to compete with large US corporations. A gradual approach to opening the market would allow these sectors some time to adapt. Some will still not be able to adapt, but that is unavoidable.

Also, any such agreement should protect the rights of Colombian consumers and workers as well as avoid stipulations that unduly burden Colombian companies. For example, there is no reason to grant unreasonable benefits to the US pharmaceutical industry at the expense of the many Colombians who can't afford name brand medicines.

poco says on Apr 15, 17:22:

Why walk away from Colombia.



Duh,,,

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

poco says on Apr 15, 20:13:

Quote: 70% of Colombia lives in urban areas Poco. And rural areas ARE statistically more violent, by a LONG shot.

Sorry,, that's not correct, however it is interesting you say 70% live in Urban areas. So,, do you believe that 70% experience LESS violence than the other 30%?

Do you have a link to information,, or is this a gut feeling?

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

romy says on Apr 15, 22:18:

http://lta.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idLTAN1522669920080415?sp=...
Congresistas EEUU acusan a Gobierno Colombia de motivar ataques
martes 15 de abril de 2008 19:41 GYT

BOGOTA (Reuters) - El Gobierno de Colombia está motivando indirectamente ataques contra líderes sindicales y defensores de derechos humanos al permitir que su principal asesor los vincule con la mayor guerrilla izquierdista, denunciaron el martes 63 congresistas de Estados Unidos.

Los integrantes de la Cámara de Representantes, la mayoría demócratas, criticaron las declaraciones de José Obdulio Gaviria, asesor del presidente de Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, que vinculó a los organizadores de una jornada a favor de las víctimas de la violencia con la guerrilla.

"Los comentarios del señor Gaviria también contribuyen al clima que amenaza la seguridad física y el trabajo de un amplio espectro de defensores de derechos humanos, sindicalistas y dirigentes cívicos se ha puesto en riesgo," aseguraron los congresistas en una carta enviada a Uribe.

La carta se conoció días después de que los demócratas en el Congreso de Estados Unidos aplazaron el trámite y la votación de un Tratado de Libre Comercio con Colombia al considerar que el Gobierno de Uribe debe hacer más para frenar la violencia contra dirigentes sindicales y mejorar la situación de derechos humanos.

Los legisladores estadounidenses aseguraron que después de las declaraciones del asesor presidencial, en las que acusó a los promotores de la jornada de tener nexos con las izquierdistas Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) se registraron cinco asesinatos de dirigentes sindicales y defensores de derechos humanos.

COMENTARIOS PELIGROSOS
"Sus comentarios no sólo son imprecisos sino peligrosos y le pedimos que el Gobierno se aleje de esos comentarios con toda claridad," dijo la carta de los congresistas.

Gaviria es el principal asesor de Uribe y es considerado como una persona muy cercana al mandatario encargada de manejar asuntos políticos.

Pero el asesor presidencial, primo del abatido jefe del Cartel de Medellín, Pablo Escobar Gaviria, siempre advierte que sus opiniones son a título personal y que no comprometen al Gobierno.

La carta recoge en buena parte los argumentos de un grupo de 22 Organizaciones No Gubernamentales estadounidenses que enviaron un mensaje similar al presidente Uribe a finales de marzo.

Uno de los principales impulsores de la carta es el representante Jim McGovern, un demócrata cercano a la presidenta la Cámara Nancy Pelosi, quien bloqueó el intento del presidente de Estados Unidos, George W. Bush, para que el Congreso debatiera y votara el acuerdo comercial con Colombia en un plazo de 90 días.

Los comentaros de Gaviria se dieron antes de una movilización del 6 de marzo, en la que miles de personas salieron a las calles de las principales ciudades de Colombia para rechazar la violencia y exigir a los antiguos comandantes paramilitares confesar sus crímenes.

De inmediato no se produjo ninguna reacción del Gobierno colombiano a la carta de los legisladores estadounidenses.

(Reporte de Luis Jaime Acosta; Editado por Gabriela Donoso)

Rubito says on Apr 15, 22:24:

Just go to the DANE's site Poco, it's all there. It's been quoted here multiple times over the years. What numbers did you have? And YES, the 30% in rural areas DO experience more violence on average, although there are some exceptions, like Boyaca.

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

poco says on Apr 15, 22:40:

Romy Quote: Congresistas EEUU acusan a Gobierno Colombia de motivar ataques

Really,, can you provide a link to who,, in the U.S. congress,, said Uribe was causing attacks on the Unions?

I'd like to see who is saying that. Pelosi?

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov