RAWA is a political/social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan.

thanks to Doc Searls

The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century

The most disturbing aspect of Chapter 11, however, is not its private arbitration system but its expansive new definition of property rights--far beyond the established terms in US jurisprudence and with a potential to override established rights in domestic law. NAFTA's new investor protections actually mimic a radical revision of constitutional law that the American right has been aggressively pushing for years--redefining public regulation as a government "taking" of private property that requires compensation to the owners, just as when government takes private land for a highway or park it has to pay its fair value. Because any new regulation is bound to have some economic impact on private assets, this doctrine is a formula to shrink the reach of modern government and cripple the regulatory state--undermining long-established protections for social welfare and economic justice, environmental values and individual rights. Right-wing advocates frankly state that objective--restoring the primacy of property against society's broader claims. A tentative majority on the Supreme Court agrees in theory--the same five who selected George W. Bush as President.

"NAFTA checks the excesses of unilateral sovereignty," Washington lawyer Daniel Price told a scholarly forum in Cleveland. He ought to know, since he was the lead US negotiator on Chapter 11 a decade ago. As for anyone troubled by the intrusions on US sovereignty, he said, "My only advice is, get over it." Price, who heads international practice at Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, a premiere Washington firm, says that contrary to the widely held assumption that suits like Methanex's represent an unintended consequence of NAFTA, the architects of NAFTA knew exactly what they were creating. "The parties did not stumble into this," he said. "This was a carefully crafted definition."
[read more]

When he speaks of "unilateral sovereignty", he speaks of the rights of people, through their government, to protect themselves from the greed of the corporations.

On the news front. It's not sufficient that our government controls the media in this country.

THE FCC, THE MEDIA, AND WAR
Anybody Remember the Pentagon Papers?

It's widely acknowledged that media mergers, consolidations of ownership and pressure from advertisers all have a detrimental affect on how well the media report the facts. But there's something else that may limit how well the media could stand up to government power -- particularly as our government moves to waging war.

Ultimately, it's the Federal Communications Commission -- appointed by the president -- that controls who gets a broadcast license. The FCC not only sanctions networks' ability to broadcast, it also approves mergers that fatten the bottom line of media conglomerates.
[read more]

They feel they can contol the media around the world.

U.S. pressures Qatar to restrain TV outlet

The Bush administration is pressuring Qatar to restrain the al-Jazeera cable TV network, which the United States believes is unbalanced and encourages anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, the State Department said Wednesday.
[read more]

both thanks to Spin of the Day

I guess when shrub talks about the U.S. representing freedom he was talking about the freedom of the U.S. government to tell the world what to think.