Big global warming demo upcoming in Nashua

[rowland]

Anyone want to counter protest?

Odds are the media will be there but it won't hurt to bring own camcorder in case they 'miss' something.

But with all eyes on the Granite State this primary season, we have the opportunity to make sure something is done.

RSVP here to join us for an hour, a day, or for the whole march:

http://www.climatesummer.org/march

We'll gather on July 31st in Greeley Park in Nashua, ready to kick off five days of walking to call for the scale of action our country needs. We'll stay at farms where the bounty has diminished over the warming years and churches whose congregations have found faith in our ability as a community to confront global warming.

We'll walk beside Bill McKibben, founder of Step It Up and a guiding voice in this movement. Granny D will be there, who - at the age of 89 - crossed the country afoot for a cause of her own. Now at 97, she's promised us that she'll be back on the road.

You, your family and friends are invited! RSVP and bring everyone you know:

http://www.climatesummer.org/march

On the morning of August 5th, we'll gather with thousands as we walk the last mile into the center of Concord and rally on the State House lawn. En masse, we'll make the loudest call to our leaders yet: we want clean energy, green jobs, and a strong economy to cut our carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

We're writing this because we want you to be there too. We're just 25 college students who figured tight quarters and long hours was a cheap price to pay for our future.

[Puke]

We'll stay at farms where the bounty has diminished over the warming years...

Huh! That's funny, I thought that a longer growing season due to less winter helps grow crops.
I guess my skeptical thinking is getting in the way of their propaganda.

[EthanAllen]

We'll stay at farms where the bounty has diminished over the warming years...

Huh! That's funny, I thought that a longer growing season due to less winter helps grow crops.
I guess my skeptical thinking is getting in the way of their propaganda.

Actually as the carbon content in the atmosphere increases so will crop yields.

[d_goddard]

I think the best way to talk to Eco-activist people is to point out to them that, though they hadn't thought about it, they're using guns to enforce a social policy.

The sad thing is, about half of them won't see a problem with that :-/

But, any activist willing to demonstrate is motivated enough to be extremely useful...
<vader>
... if he can be turned ...
</vader>

[mvpel]

[EthanAllen]

I think the best way to talk to Eco-activist people is to point out to them that, though they hadn't thought about it, they're using guns to enforce a social policy.

They are simply protecting the absolute right of self-ownership against negative externalities by "propertizing" (not privatizing) what had been in the past thought of as "unowned".

[J’raxis 270145]

I think the best way to talk to Eco-activist people is to point out to them that, though they hadn't thought about it, they're using guns to enforce a social policy.

The sad thing is, about half of them won't see a problem with that :-/

But, any activist willing to demonstrate is motivated enough to be extremely useful...
<vader>
... if he can be turned ...
</vader>

I also like to point out that, whether or not climate change is real, the people pushing solutions to it have ulterior motives and shouldn't be trusted any more than the climate-change opponents claimed to be in the pay of the oil companies. The big proponents of climate change—the U.N. and our own politicians—stand to gain more money and more power under most of the proffered solutions. If we try to mitigate climate change through a global carbon tax, who gets to collect that money? Who gets to seriously increase the size of their bureaucracy? What bureaucracies gets to ensure the necessity of their own continued existence? Is this not an obvious conflict of interest?

[EthanAllen]

The big proponents of climate change—the U.N. and our own politicians—stand to gain more money and more power under most of the proffered solutions.

Would you at least support ending payroll taxes in exchange (revenue neutral) for collecting the negative externalities third parties today are being subjected to as a carbon tax?

[CNHT]

Would you at least support ending payroll taxes in exchange (revenue neutral) for collecting the negative externalities third parties today are being subjected to as a carbon tax?

[J’raxis 270145]

The big proponents of climate change—the U.N. and our own politicians—stand to gain more money and more power under most of the proffered solutions.

Would you at least support ending payroll taxes in exchange (revenue neutral) for collecting the negative externalities third parties today are being subjected to as a carbon tax?

Collected by the U.N.? No. In no way do I want to help further limit U.S. sovereignty. We already have enough problems with the federal government stomping on the states—we don't need another supernational body stomping on the U.S..

My only support for the existence of the U.N. is for international affairs—that is, I do believe the U.S. ought to participate in the U.N. and things like the International Criminal Court... if the U.S. is going to go galavanting all over the planet. This is how the international community wants the game played nowadays, and if the U.S. wants to play, they should follow these rules. But within the U.S. borders, the sovereignty of the U.S. and the states and the people must be absolute.

So, if your carbon tax met the following criteria:—

• It would have to be implemented as a sales tax, so people who oppose it can opt out by limiting their consumption to products with the least, or no tax. Since I know a lot of carbon-tax proponents see it as a social engineering exercise, implementing it in this manner would actually benefit such a cause, limiting people's consumption of the most harmful products.
  
  
• It would have to be applied proportionately—that is, a product with externalities calculated at $5 has a $5 levy, but one with no externalities has no levy. I would not support a scheme like dividing total economic output by total externalities and applying a flat or flat-rate levy to all consumption. Again, this ensures it is being applied to the responsible products and people can opt out by avoiding those products, and again, this aids in limiting people's consumption of the most harmful products.
  
  
• 100% of the collected money would have to go to pay for effective remediation of such externalities—no "general fund" the government can use "for other purposes". And not like the Social Security fund either, where the money is slated for Social Security but the government regularly "raids" the fund to pay for other programs. This criteria protects against government enlargement.
  
  
• The law would have to mandate that no more than some very small percentage of collected revenues can be used for enforcement overhead—that is, if half of the revenues are paying for the tax collectors to just do their jobs, something is wrong. Off the top of my head, something like 10% would be a good ceiling. This criteria also protects against government enlargement, and avoids the conflict-of-interest problems inherent in creating self-funding bureaucracies.
  
  

—I might be amenable to it. I still say "might" because even with all these protections in place, I'd be wary of the government eventually misusing the collected money, and I'm especially wary of trusting the government to efficiently run "effective remediation" programs.

P.S.: I'm not throwing up all these criteria to intentionally come up with something unworkable while sounding like I support your idea. What I've tried to think up here is something like the "user fee" idea that people usually toss around as substitutes to taxation—something that is directly charged to people using a service, at the rates at which they're using it, and which is fully avoidable by not using the service.

[CNHT]

But you are then admitting that there is GW and that humans are the problem when this is nonsense and just a ploy for world government, land grabs, and the acceptability of euthanasia.

You don't think we ought to send the UN packing? I do.

Coincidentally, just around now with the coming of the NAU, yet another wacko 'end of the world' movie ala Al Gore's has been made, to further hypnotize the sheeple into their control.... tsk tsk.

No tax is a good tax.

[CNHT]

THE U.N. PLAN TO TAKE OVER THE INTERNET
Jennifer Rast - January 10, 2004

The Internet was born out of a U.S. military project to ensure reliable communications in the event of nuclear war, and it has been nurtured in the public domain for over a decade without any guiding political hand.  So why now does the UN want to put it under the control of a global body and subject it to international law and guidelines?  Because free speech and expression by all is a serious threat to their goals.  How can the globalists silence Christians, conservatives, and people who don't like them, as they've done in schools and the media, if they don't have control?  They can't.

So, the UN mission to control the Internet has begun.  The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held in Geneva at the beginning of December, 2003, to discuss and draw up a plan for putting the Internet under United Nations control by 2005.  More than 6,000 delegates representing 61 states and government organizations were in attendance for the summit.  The summit's goal was to achieve a consensus on a draft declaration of principles and draft plan of action for UN governance of the Internet, and make plans for the second phase of the summit to be held in Tunis.

Countries like China, Egypt, Syria and Vietnam are lobbying furiously to wrest control of the Internet from the United States.  In some of these countries you can get killed or thrown in jail for sending the wrong e-mail or visiting the wrong website.  Leading the effort is China, which allows its own citizens online access only with government surveillance.  The UN puts countries like Libya in charge of the Commission on Human Rights, and this is really who we want running our Internet and overseeing our surfing activities?  We all know what Libya and other Islamic nations would consider a violation of human rights.

The French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has also called for "international rules" overseen by the United Nations to govern the Internet.  Raffarin said at the WSIS meeting, "For France, the UN is the major source of international rights, which must ensure peace and development.  That also concerns the information society.  This would guarantee network security and deal with content while respecting freedom".  That's just what we need – countries like France regulating Internet content for us.

Although more than 60 nations were represented in Geneva by their heads of government, only a handful of industrial nations sent their leaders.  While these heads of governments were invited to all the meetings, the head of ICANN (Internet Center for Assigned Names and Numbers), representatives of the news media, and anyone who was not a government official were barred from attending many of the "private" meetings.  The UN preferred a closed forum to decide how 750 million people would reach the Internet.

Critics of the global Internet idea say certain nations like China want to take away ICANN's duties and place them under governmental auspices, along with increased control over security and content, placing freedom of press and individual freedom of expression at serious risk.  After looking at the Action Plan that came out of the summit, it seems the critics are right.  Under the auspices of expanding Internet access to poorer countries, the control of content is mentioned throughout the Action Plan.  Section C9 states that "appropriate measures should be taken to combat illegal and harmful content in media content".  No mention is made of who would decide what is considered harmful content, however they do suggest the Internet should be subject to international law and compliant with the principles of the United Nations Charter.  In other words content better fall in line with what the UN thinks is acceptable.  The U.S.-led bloc favors ICANN model, which is based on minimal regulation and commercial principles. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a UN treaty mentioned several times in the Plan of Action, states in Article 29 that "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." You can bet the Contender Ministries section called "United Nations Watch" would be right out.   

Section C10 "Ethical dimensions of the Information Society" takes this "control of content" on the Internet even further.  It states:

"All actors in the Information Society should promote the common good, protect privacy and personal data and take appropriate actions and preventive measures, as determined by law, against abusive uses of ICTs (Internet Communication Technologies) such as illegal and other acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including pedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings."

They'll start with the "we must curb hate speech" diatribe and move on from there.  They'll move from the obvious sites like white supremacist sites to conservative political sites, then pro-second amendment sites and finally religious sites that decry abortion and homosexuality...or perhaps don't like the UN.  You can bet the UN would consider any Christian ministry like Contender Ministries intolerant and hateful.  After all we believe homosexuality is wrong and we point out false prophets and their religions.  And, who decides what promotes the common good?!  The UN would of course.  Having the UN in charge of the entire Internet is insane.  It would take three years and some sort of condemnation of Zionism in order for all the member states to come to any sort of complex technical standards for the Internet.

"Standardization is one of the essential building blocks of the Information Society," reads the most recent draft of the WSIS Draft Declaration of Principles.  "there should be particular emphasis on the development and adoption of international standards".  The summit also produced a document titled "Declaration on the Right to Communicate".  Apparently we need the UN to tell us that we have that right.  Much of the declaration reiterates what the declaration on human rights has already said.  One particularly disturbing idea is that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion".  This sounds great, but the "freedom of conscience" statement has consistently been used by the UN to vilify anyone trying to "force" his or her religion on another person.  Of course, what we consider witnessing or sharing our faith would be considered cramming something down the throats of others by the UN.

The document goes on to say that "everyone has the right to be protected against forms of communication that are discriminatory in terms of gender, race, class, ethnicity, religion, language, sexual orientation, and physical or mental condition".  In other words, if I want to say something on the Internet about another religion that you don't like, you have a right not to see it, and even having it on the Internet means you can see it.  I, therefore, have no right to say it anymore.  Once again, someone being offended trumps my right to free speech.  Unless of course you're a Christian and then the UN itself is allowed to offend you.

Part 3 article 7 goes on to say, "Everyone has the right to be protected from all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression".  So the UN would decide what's peaceful and you better not deviate from that.  This is also a nice way to slip in the International law plan.  It doesn't matter what country you're in or what the laws are in that country.  If the UN governing agency decides your speech is a breach of peace, you're outta there!  Later in the declaration they come right out and say it. Part VI article 2 says, "The rights and freedoms that form part of the right to communicate can only be restricted under the conditions that limitations are prescribed by international law."

Part 3 Article 8 goes further on the plan to control Internet content.  It states, "Everyone has the right to be protected from incitement to hate, prejudice, violence, war, and genocide".  How convenient.  The UN must protect you from hate or prejudice.  Of course, any criticism or idea contrary to the UN's ideas of peace would be hateful.   

The basic theme of the declaration is the creation of a NEW electronic environment.  What's wrong with the current one?  The problem is, it allows for opinions and ideas that the UN can't control.  How can the UN control the masses and build their global government with all that unregulated free speech going on?  They can't and they're out to put a stop to it.

The declaration also proposes a means for enforcing these new regulations.  They propose the creation of an international 'Communication Rights Ombudsman'.  Translation – Cyber Police.  Part VI article 4 says "any person who believes that his/her right to communicate has been violated by any act may ask the Ombudsman to intervene on his/her behalf by submitting a petition for the start of proceedings.  The Ombudsman is also given powers to institute proceedings on his own initiative."  Following a decision on any injustice the ombudsman has wide powers to handle injustices in accordance with international law.  He may also propose the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.  Under this sort of policing and government intervention, the Internet as we know it would end.   

Referenced several times in the Action Plan and Declaration of Principals from the summit is the Declaration of Human Rights.  Let's take a look at what that has to say about our rights.

Article 29

1.  Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2.  In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3.  These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

There you have it.  Your rights are limited to the principals of the UN  Throw out the constitution and national sovereignty.  We're under international law now.

All parties participating in the summit agreed that a working group should be set up under the auspices of the United Nations to examine Internet governance issues.  A private meeting was held to discuss plans for the working group to be formed in the time between the first and second phase of the Summit to be held in Tunisia.  Conspicuously absent from the private meeting were ICANN and the U.S. government.  This makes sense since Abu-Ghazaleh, a Jordanian businessman who is vice chairman of the UN information and Communication Technology Task Force, used the meeting to propose that ICANN be placed under the umbrella of the UN communications task force, something the U.S. and ICANN strongly appose.   

Talal Abu-Ghazaley also said "the world should be grateful to Uncle Sam for creating the Internet, but that it was time for the rest of the world to have a larger voice in its governance".  I say, let them build their own Internet.  We can give them the currently unassigned .slave suffix.

[J’raxis 270145]

But you are then admitting that there is GW and that humans are the problem when this is nonsense and just a ploy for world government, land grabs, and the acceptability of euthanasia.

I think a lot of the climate-change theory is reasonable. That humans are causing it, I'm not convinced. My implementation was tailored specifically to neuter attempts at pushing a world government via climate-change fears.

You don't think we ought to send the UN packing? I do.

Out of the U.S., yes. What I said is that if the U.S. is to participate in the international system, this institution is how much of the rest of the world expects it to do so. Of course, I'd rather see the U.S. go isolationist and mind its own business.

Coincidentally, just around now with the coming of the NAU ...

Yeah, this is another one of those "supernational bodies" the U.S. needs to stay the hell out of.

[J’raxis 270145]

THE U.N. PLAN TO TAKE OVER THE INTERNET
Jennifer Rast - January 10, 2004

I remember seeing this on Slashdot. This is a perfect example of my dual position on the U.N.—the Internet should be controlled by some international body, not a U.S. government corporation such as ICANN. The Internet's international, isn't it?

But none of these other countries should be able to say what people outside their own borders publish on the Internet. What you, as an American, put on the Internet from within the United States, is not and should not be under their jurisdiction. If China wants to oppress their own net users, that's China's business, but expecting the U.S. or Canada or Germany or anyone else to act on their complaints should be met with nothing other than laughter.

[CNHT]

THE U.N. PLAN TO TAKE OVER THE INTERNET
Jennifer Rast - January 10, 2004

I remember seeing this on Slashdot. This is a perfect example of my dual position on the U.N.—the Internet should be controlled by some international body, not a U.S. government corporation such as ICANN. The Internet's international, isn't it?

But none of these other countries should be able to say what people outside their own borders publish on the Internet. What you, as an American, put on the Internet from within the United States, is not and should not be under their jurisdiction. If China wants to oppress their own net users, that's China's business, but expecting the U.S. or Canada or Germany or anyone else to act on their complaints should be met with nothing other than laughter.

You think the internet should be controlled? I don't. It's just fine as it is now.
If you don't like a website, you don't have to go to it.