And it's all being brought about by the Wiesenthal Center in LA... You know, just in case anyone was worried that this project might be strictly local and not help reflect the benevolent, all-enriching nature of American capital abroad!

Call me crazy, but I'm not sure "Our dead are better than your dead" is the right message to start a tolerance campaign on.

As the article says, this is "like NAFTA", not an expansion of the agreement, hence this strictly being a 2-party (US/Colombia) deal.

You are right on another point though; to keep our metaphors genitalogical in nature, the right-wing US foreign policy elite have gotten a MAJOR hard on for South America. Of course, the US has for over 150 years meddled in the political affairs of Latin America for all sorts of commercial gain, but the traction gained by socialist movements in the region, and of course, the public defiance of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, has rankled those who see our influence in region as a matter of right, sovereignty be damned. Colombia and the eternal War On Drugs have been a major wedge for spreading US policy and providing a cooperative inlet for overt and covert military and law enforcement (espionage?) operations. So I feel like this move is an attempt to help retain that foothold on a number of levels. In addition to Colombia being a physical springboard into the rest of the continent, a closer trade relationship would be useful to the right simply as a symbol of the supposed mutual prosperity that comes from privatizing the resources and industries of South American countries straight into the pockets of US conglomerates.

Regardless, I'm not too worried about this. I really can't think of another situation for which the term "lame duck" has been so apt... Have any past presidents migrated to Paraguay for the winter upon leaving office??

If anything, I think the trap is that

... disregard the incomplete thought after "office??", I should really start proof-reading!

I don't think anyone (at least here) is arguing that the US follow Chavez and Morales down the path of state socialism... Merely that we respect the sovereignty of the people of their countries to choose such a political/economic model as a democratic right.

Nor is the alternative to free trade simple protectionism; sustainable fair trade policies on the other hand are something that many Americans want. Yes, theoretically we could try to squeeze out the lowest price possible for every product we import and save a few pennies on a can of coffee, however, I think the public is generally friendly to a system that supports the rights of workers in producing nations to a fair wage and work conditions. Fear not, even if Obama does take the track towards fair trade, I'm sure there will still be plenty of sweat-shop goods out there for "free" trade advocates to support, so you can vote with your dollars.

the fault of Democrats? Huh? I don't know much about the local politics in Chicago these days, and perhaps there is a need for some reform of the law enforcement system there, but the idea that street/gang violence should be laid at the feet of the Democratic party is utter nonsense. Besides, much of the violence in Colombia is extremely politicized and really not comparable to the causes of street violence in US cities.

And why is everyone assuming that no free trade deal means isolationism? Fair trade alternatives exist and address the process of globalization with an eye on leveling the playing field between economic super powers like the US and smaller markets like Colombia. Without leveling the playing field, trade agreements are simply a license to exploit Colombian resources, including labor, at a cost to American companies far below real market value. Without assuring an equitable situation for the workers and citizens of Colombia, we can't really depend on it as a long-term stable partner anyway. Physical/natural resources can be depleted and labor is far less productive than its potential when it is paid unlivable/slave wages.

"Sandy Levison made the point that

stripping JoeMo of his chairmanship out of revenge wasn't necessarily politically the right thing to do and as his commenters rightly pointed out, "you're right Sandy, JoeMo should be stripped for demonstrable indifference to his duties as chairman and the fact he's not a member of the Democratic Pary". Let him caucus with the Dems all he wants but giving a non-Party member a plum committee assignment is a slap in the face to all Party members who've demonstrated competence and loyalty.

-- rrheard "

Indeed it's even fairly disingenuous to try to frame this as a matter of revenge. Lieberman has been rewarded with the committee chair several years ago; whether he earned it or not at the time is now basically moot. But in this election cycle, aren't there a number of Senators, probably some already on the HSC, who have earned it? It seems that much of the noise about how this would be a partisan act of revenge follows the assumption that somehow committee chairmanships are some sort of god-given right, and that once a senator assumes that chair, it is his personal property in perpetuity. Puh-lease! I am not surprised that Lieberman won't sacrifice his cherished privilege without a fight, but it's frustrating to think that at least a handful of the Democratic caucus's members have let themselves be convinced that the position is an entitlement.