Slashdot Mirror

You have something to back this up?

The UN says otherwise (PDF).

As others have mentioned, this is clearly GM propaganda advertising. Quite apart from curbing wastage there are also subsidies in most developed companies which pay farmers for not growing crops. If there were a problem feeding the population (and it may not be at 9 bil but it will come eventually) the solution will be in curbing population growth not in creating more food. Other resources even scarcer than food like energy and clean water will be a major problem before food is. There is a clear and obvious way to rein in population growth, and no white elitists, it is not to kill off all the poor brown people. Even ignoring the ethical side of this suggestion it is still merely a temporary drop in population. We are talking about a growth problem not a numbers problem and any solution that does not curb growth is not a solution at all. Statistically richer developed countries have little to no population growth outside of immigration, and even in those countries the impoverished contribute much more to the birth rate. The statistics clearly show a connection between poverty and population growth. The key then to bringing world population growth under control is eliminating poverty. The cost of eliminating poverty worldwide would run into the 100s of billions for a few years and would then be self sustaining. In terms of global spending for example defence spending, this is peanuts. Given the clear solutions available for the actual problem at hand, and the relative cheapness and massive cost effectiveness of those solutions, anyone who claims that this is an issue of food production is either failing to look at the big picture, or has another agenda. I can understand that the rich elites of the world don't want to give up their stranglehold on world economics, but I won't swallow this crap about it being a food problem. We have a population growth problem, which is caused by a poverty problem, prevented from solution by a greed problem.

Connecting facts to those statements requires logical leaps that would impress Evil Knievel.

First, the "genocide" links don't actually talk about genocide. Two discuss alleged rape by UN peacekeepers, which has already been acknowledged as a problem by the UN, which primarily is the result of countries themselves picking which soldiers serve the UN missions. The Democratic Republic of Congo wants to torment its own people, so it sends its worst soldiers to the UN-controlled areas. That's hardly the result of any incompetence within the UN.

The other link goes to a page discussing the Congo Crisis, which conveniently makes the logical leaps for you. Long story short, the UN had worked out a treaty to set the Congo free from Belgian control, and made the first steps toward that goal. Then a political leader, Moise Tshombe, used the instability to split off his own country under false pretenses. When it became clear that Tshombe would not follow the arranged agreements, instead opting to promote civil war, the UN intervened. Tshombe waged war against the UN, instead.

Interestingly, this escalation couldn't have happened under the League of Nations, which you also don't like. The LoN could only issue sanctions, and those had to be passed in unanimous agreement by the members. One of the League's primary goals was the near-complete disarmament of the world, with little regard for things like "safety". Poland was worried about German invasion before Hitler even came to power, so followed the disarmament procedures as little as possible. Poland didn't want to disarm, so Germany opposed as well, fearing an attack from Poland in retribution for WWI. The League of Nations was also biased from the start, being mainly comprised of the victors of WWI. Germans perceived this as a global threat against them, which is how Hitler was able to rise to power on a promise to restore Germany's reputation. It's wasn't the League' fault, and the United Nations is a different beast, generally unbiased and actually capable of being effective.

These organizations have continually demonstrated interest in opening a forum for international discussion, backed by force as needed, and generally funded by member governments and private donations. The highest salary in the UN is roughly $200,000. Lloyd Blankfein had a base salary of three times that much, plus other bonuses.

If the Libyans knew what they were getting into, they'd hope that somebody would stop their own military from attacking them.

Let's just review:

IAEA - Because pakistan doesn't yet have hydrogen bombs. Oh and pakistan won't help Iran (the one smart decision in a forest of lunatic, delusional decisions that border on warcrimes), so someone else will have to give them the bomb.

...Because nuclear power reactors are related to nuclear weapons only in that they both use fission, so a nuclear power plant built with IAEA help can be sure to actually be a nuclear power plant, and not a uranium-consuming munitions factory.

IMF - Because the UN does not yet control the money of every state

...Because now and then, developing countries needs a loan, and the IMF is there to provide that loan in exchange for a promise of adherence to financial best practices. Those practices haven't always worked out, but that's why the idea of "best practices" is always changing.

UNRWA - Because, let's face it, palestinians might finish what hitler started, wouldn't that be great

...Because people affected by war need help, and since Palestine isn't universally recognized as a state, these people

so I had a bad source of information. I can still quote another report saying that 'Chernobyl disaster still hurting millions'
http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/docs/dev2373.htm

Yeah, did you even read that report you linked to? It's about how they think "[r]esources should be concentrated on mainstream services which have the greatest effect on life expectancy and general well-being, including primary health care, health education, clean water and economic development."
It's goal is to promote "[i]mprovement of environmental policy planning, implementation and management at the local, national and transnational levels to build on lessons learned and develop innovative approaches to land use as the radiation threat diminishes over time"

In any case, I would like to see at least the same amount of money is being spent on windpower as on nuclear energy for the forseeable future, and it not being actively being sabotaged like in my country (Belgium).

Google for "liquid thorium reactor" and see what real sabotage action looks like. There ARE safer, cheaper, more environmentally friendly alternative reactor designs out there, but the reactor fuel companies don't want anything to do with these - it would put them out of business. Thorium is more abundant by a few orders of magnitude than uranium/plutonium, doesn't need to be refined, can be utilized almost 100% as compared to 5% for uranium/plutonium, and is a sideproduct of mining for rare earth metals. It's so cheap you can't even give it away. And best of all - a single year's production of thorium from a single rare earth mine is enough to cover the whole earth's energy needs for one year - if only there were enough reactors to use it.

Furthermore, a liquid salt reactor is passively cooled, has safety blowout valves that depend on the laws of physics and nothing else, can be run at atmospheric pressure and can be refueled without stopping the reactor. Did I mention it burns almost 100% of the fuel? - which means a lot less dangerous waste.

Really, go google it. It's the future of our energy needs.

so I had a bad source of information. I can still quote another report saying that 'Chernobyl disaster still hurting millions'
http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/docs/dev2373.htm

In any case, I would like to see at least the same amount of money is being spent on windpower as on nuclear energy for the forseeable future, and it not being actively being sabotaged like in my country (Belgium).

Where did you get "UN Human Rights" from?

Um, because that's where this concept of "Government is the grantor of rights" originally came from, way back in 1948, long before the EU formed. The EU more or less just copied some of the original UN language. But, now that I look at it, the UN's version is much better than the EU's. FAR less "asterisks". I do note that in 2008, the UN Council on Human Rights formed. I have no idea what shenanigans they may be up to, though.

The GP is talking about The European Convention on Human Rights. It has nothing to do with the UN. It is a treaty for the protection of fundamental rights within Europe. The UK is a signatory to the treaty. Also, do you really think that codifying a law as coming from "God" makes it harder to change? I'd never thought about it before - it's an interesting concept, although I think a modern version would have to be secular. Perhaps a law of the universe? I think that one of the the main reasons the constitution is so hard to change is because the idea of its supremacy is socially entrenched in the US. We don't have a specific set of codified, core values with which the whole country can identify like that here in the UK, but I really like the idea. I would be very much in favour of drawing up a constitution of universal rights and freedoms that is strongly protected from change.

I'm not an FSM believer, either. I was just saying that people in the USA more or less universally recognize those words as meaning "You are born with these rights, and no law can be created, and no action of government can be allowed that materially restricts them."

Now, having said that, of course there are minor restrictions on those freedoms everywhere: Can't walk outside without pants on (and women without just a shirt), FCC restricts certain images and language from broadcast, can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc. But those restrictions are, by and large, at least, somewhat understandable (although the censorship has always been over-the-top prudish, IMHO). When it gets dangerous is when the gummint says you can't say stuff about the gummint itself. Until then, you essentially have what most people would agree is free speech.

Contrast this with the countries that imprison/execute those who disparage, or satire, political or religious figures.

Bah, screwed up my link.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

The way a society treats its least powerful and valued members, its enemies, and its critics is a measure of that society's strength and fitness.

Why do it's enemies matter?

Because they are a useful metric. The lowest level or respect a society shows for anyone, in my opinion, can be a good measure of how just, honorable, fair, etc. that society is overall. You don't get many "points" for treating your kings well - everyone does that. Treating your enemies well takes some serious effort.

And these people are treated badly because they are criminals, not because they are the least powerful or least valued.

Criminals, in general, are not valued highly by a society. In some sense, they are "enemies" of the society. I think it degrades us all when we treat them as less than human, even (or especially) if we feel that they have behaved in a less-than-human manner. Fortunately back in 1948 we all agreed to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", so these types of abuse are purely theoretical at this point, no?

Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

As an aside, I heard an interview with a military doctor serving in Afghanistan who spoke about their policy of treating the wounded of the enemy Taliban. He said that personally he would be more than happy to leave them dying on the field, but that he recognized the tremendous PR value of actually fixing them up. He claimed that the Taliban were actually leaving their wounded by the side of the road on occasion because they realized they would get better treatment than could be offered by their own side. The doctor wondered how long the Taliban could maintain the idea that the west were a bunch of evil devils while implicitly stating that they gave their enemies as good treatment as they did their allies.

Wow, what a horrible site full of misinformation and straw man arguments.

This site was funded by the Bradley Foundation

I was not aware of the dubious groups funded by the Bradley foundation, although looking down the list they also fund anti child abuse groups and some of the most quoted and respected think tanks in the US. How and ever, this is an ad hominem reaction.

The only legitimate argument on the site is that the Earth can produce enough food, although the argument relies on petrochemical fertilizers, and does not acknowledge constraints on the petrochemicals.

You don't need oil to produce nitrogen fertilisers. Please read this:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/314-peak-oil-and-fertilizer-no-problem.html
We have no shortage of any of the ingredients needed for it.

The site does not even acknowledge concerns about the high risk of global diseases, the massive amounts of waste products and pollution from industry and agriculture, or constraints on energy and water supplies.

Surely global diseases would reduce the population? Waste products and pollution are being dealt with over the course of decades via various environmental initiatives such as carbon taxes. If you were to cover 2% of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara desert with photovoltaic cells, you would supply 100% of the world's power requirements. I'm not saying that's a good idea, I am saying that we are swimming in energy. Water resources follow on from this, in those areas where water is in short supply, which I doubt would be tha majority of settled areas.

Oh, and nobody has even mentioned that there might not be enough jobs for everyone in the world.

Mmm, funny thing, the more people there are, the larger the economy. People produce as well as consume. This was covered by one of the videos.

In one section, the authors "prove" the Earth's population will peak around 8 B in 30 years and begin to decline by linking to the UN Population DB and telling you to use the "low variant" model. They don't tell you that the other three models (constant fertility, medium, high) all show the population continuing to rise for the duration of the model (present - 2050).

Talk about selective information. What a crock of shit.

As lifestyles improve, population growth declines. This is readily observable. There is no shortage of energy and hence other materials available, so there is no reason why the people of China, India, and Africa shouldn't have a fully westernised lifestyle, whatever that may be. We aren't choking on our own wastes, we aren't running out of things we can't replace, we are in short doing alright.

Malthusians need to recognise the facts, including the fact that the priest who gave them their name advocated killing off the poor to sustain the lifestyles of the rich.

Wow, what a horrible site full of misinformation and straw man arguments.

This site was funded by the Bradley Foundation, who also funded hard-right "think tank" groups such as PNAC, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Federalist Society. The authors affirm they are a network of "pro-life" groups.

The site begins by linking belief in overpopulation to efforts to kill the poor and promote Chinese abortions, then proceeds with meaningless factoids (all the humans on earth could fit in Texas) to conclude that overpopulation is a myth.

The only legitimate argument on the site is that the Earth can produce enough food, although the argument relies on petrochemical fertilizers, and does not acknowledge constraints on the petrochemicals.

The site does not even acknowledge concerns about the high risk of global diseases, the massive amounts of waste products and pollution from industry and agriculture, or constraints on energy and water supplies. Oh, and nobody has even mentioned that there might not be enough jobs for everyone in the world.

In one section, the authors "prove" the Earth's population will peak around 8 B in 30 years and begin to decline by linking to the UN Population DB and telling you to use the "low variant" model. They don't tell you that the other three models (constant fertility, medium, high) all show the population continuing to rise for the duration of the model (present - 2050).

Talk about selective information. What a crock of shit.

Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?

It's convenient to dismiss the problem of Palestine as a problem between Jews and Muslims that's been going on for hundreds of years.

It's also wrong.

When Spain and Portugal persecuted Jews in the late 15th/early 16th century, the Ottoman empire welcomed them. Jews and Muslims lived together in Palestine in relative peace until the British Mandate and the Balfour declaration of 1917. The thrice-dammed British decided that stealing land from Arabs and giving it to Jews would advance the interests of their Empire. Somehow, the Arabs found this idea upsetting and starting fighting back.

Most of the conflicts now going on in the Middle East and Europe have their roots in the colonialism of European powers. We're still fighting out the aftermath of WWI.

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects

Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that you can't have a democracy when the media is controlled by the person in power. It's also quite well documented on how the media in the countries I've listed has been taken over by the government or their freedom otherwise suppressed.

This is from just a quick Google search. The concept of freedom of the press and democracy goes back to the founding of the United States where the press is often referred to as the 4th branch of government or the 4th pillar of democracy. One needs a free press in order to expose corruption and provide an informed electorate which is vital for a healthy democracy.

It's well known among journalists in Russia that reporting on certain things is a good way to end up dead. In Venezuela almost all (if not all by now) of the major TV stations have been taken over by the government and spew pro Chavez propaganda without providing an outlet for the opposition.

http://www.un.org/democracyfund/XNewsSGFreePress.htm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21452
http://www.america.gov/st/democracyhr-english/2008/June/20080630215145eaifas0.6333842.html
http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/news/press-freedom-pillar-democracy-mzilikazi-wa-afrika
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51587-2005Feb24.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7321168.stm
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100430/158814432.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,443543,00.html
http://www.advancingafreesociety.org/2010/12/14/russian-style/
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/fd/droi20071001_russia_004/droi20071001_russia_004en.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Russia

I do not appreciate your rude and condescending tone. There's no need for you to use phrases such as, "Okay? Got it?" to make a point.

What you're saying is technically correct, but as far as language is concerned you're being literal where you needn't be.

I was originally pointing out that ABC was making a bigger deal out of those bombs than they needed to. WMDs are generally regarded as things that wipe out large population segments. The attempt that would've been made with the toner cartridges would've destroyed aircraft in-air. That would've caused some destruction on the ground were it to happen in a populated area, but nothing to the degree that is widely considered to be on the level of WMD.

More to the point most people, when referring to chemical weapons, are referring to things like nerve agents. It may not be literally or etymologically accurate use for the word, "chemical," but the phrase, "chemical weapons," in modern military parlance refers to specific weapons that, "make deliberate use of the toxic properties of chemical substances to inflict death."

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/
http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/

I do not appreciate your rude and condescending tone. There's no need for you to use phrases such as, "Okay? Got it?" to make a point.

What you're saying is technically correct, but as far as language is concerned you're being literal where you needn't be.

I was originally pointing out that ABC was making a bigger deal out of those bombs than they needed to. WMDs are generally regarded as things that wipe out large population segments. The attempt that would've been made with the toner cartridges would've destroyed aircraft in-air. That would've caused some destruction on the ground were it to happen in a populated area, but nothing to the degree that is widely considered to be on the level of WMD.

More to the point most people, when referring to chemical weapons, are referring to things like nerve agents. It may not be literally or etymologically accurate use for the word, "chemical," but the phrase, "chemical weapons," in modern military parlance refers to specific weapons that, "make deliberate use of the toxic properties of chemical substances to inflict death."

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/
http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/

Modern health care is not a right, it's someone's goods and services.

Your own government disagreed when it passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights more than 60 years ago:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

IHMO, this includes pro-active medicine (check-ups and such) and not only trips to the ER. Not only is it practical because it helps keeping costs down in the long run, but if every person has a right to be healthy then it follows that procedures designed to prevent him or her from becoming sick should be affordable to him.

"Sweden is a NATO country like the US so what's secret in the US is secret in Sweden".

No, Sweden is not a NATO member.
If Sweden were to be a NATO member, only data under NATO confidential codes would be confidential in Sweden, not American (or any other countries) confidential/secret data. Confidential/Secret/Top Secret etc. are national criteria, not applicable internationally, unless originating from the U.N. afaik.

"Also you say that like the US hasn't just grabbed people we really wanted off the street and brought them to the US for trial".

But I think of those "grabbings" as extra-legal, one could say "terrorist-state" activities.
Law doesn't come in to it, and it will only move the world in a direction where any American abroad will be viewed as a legitimate target,
out of fear for assassination, rendition and/or torture.

"We literaly invaded Panama overthrew the existing government and disolve it's defense forces to get Noriega".

Yes, and those responsible for willfull warfare against a democratic government should be brought
before a judge and sentenced. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
Only a group of people effectively above (international) law could do such a thing and get away with it scot free.
And you might even not mind your government being above the law (as long as you're not in their sights), but I guarantee you you won't be pleased with that situation in the long run.
Unless, of course, you're a total lackey ; ).

I will oblige;

- "Running low on gas"
- "Shit, got a flat"
- "Shit, got a flat on the highway @80mph"
- "Government raises taxes on gas to obscene level"
- "Agenda 21 is implemented world wide, car is confiscated"

Yeah, except... nobody owns space by international treaty anyway. So if a satellite malfunctions (or a space ship collides with one), legally it's like international waters.

Articles VI and VII of The Treaty disagree.

Which - for reference - is different from the law of the sea.

No, the problem is that the Palestinians want a small strip of land without any Jews on it.

You mean, the Palestinians want to expel the people who invaded their land? Imagine that.

Jews and Arabs were able to live in relative peace in Palestine until the thrice-damned British decided that establishing a Jewish homeland there would serve their geopolitical interest and started implementing the "Balfour Declaration".

Or Jews on any land, anywhere.

Nonsense. Most Palestinians don't give a damn about Jews outside the disputed territory.

Indeed.

UK: Ranked 20th in list of life expectancy by country.
US: Ranked 30th.

And to imply that socialized medicine is the reason is disingenuous when you consider that Iceland ranks 3rd and has *no* private healthcare available (which is a very rare situation), and even Cuba beats the US (by one place).

Source.

That wouldn't happen to be the "Convention of Children's Rights" which the US haven't ratified... See: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en

To be criminal mean i.e. to go against the laws of your country. If you define the laws, and go according to them, then you aren't a criminal, whatever the laws of another countries say. In fact, under the laws of another country, you or your government could be criminals (think how far from that was Bush last period). Not so much defending North Korea, just attacking that way of reasoning.

There are also international treaties, such as the one that created the United Nations. Any signatory to the U.N. charter must abide by its rules, which includes the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Is The Best Korea a signatory? I couldn't get Google to turn up any information on the topic.

The 1st amendment of the US constitution protects its citizens from their government NOT from corporations.

People tend to forget the "Congress shall make no law..." part of the amendment when they start trying to postulate that someone's first amendment rights were somehow violated.

Let me frame it in more general terms as formalized by the UN, this way everybody can translate this into their respective country's constitution:

It is more accurate that a person's basic human right to free speech (UN article 19) may have been violated if it is shown that it didn't infringe on another person's basic human right to not be falsely accused (UN articles 8,9,10 and most importantly article 30). These are listed within the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the west this translates into - You have the freedom of expression that can not be suppressed by your government, however your freedom of expression does not grant you immunity for any liability that may result.

Of course don't forget the golden rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

in which you have both morale and law on your side.

I understand your point and I generally agree with you. However your final line made me think about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You might be overly optimistic because many of points of that declaration are not taken fully into account by the laws or the common practices of even the major countries of the world.

I love the double standard! So, if that's the case, then people should STFU about Iran building anything, considering they haven't signed that treaty either...

Iran signed 1 July 1968. What was that about a double standard and STFU?

If you're not a dirty criminal, what have you got to lose?

Some people are indeed deemed dirty criminals by their country's standards, but in many cases, this is because they live in a country whose legislators are even dirtier criminals by international standards for encroaching on UN-recognized human rights. In the case of the article, the legislators may have failed to strike a constructive balance between article 19 (free speech) and article 28 (copyright clause).

You talk of our freedom and our survival, so who are they?
Since all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, their freedom should be the same as our freedom, no?

Some highfalutin words that don't mean much, eh? The world population nears 7 billion. Barring major technological innovation (think Star Trek replicator), there isn't enough resources to satisfy a consumption level anything above poverty. You speak of us and them, as if the concept is foreign to you...

It is plain as day what it means. Humans are tribal. Blood ties are the considered extremely important. Ask any parent if he'd kill someone to secure the safety of his children and he would say 'yes'. It doesn't matter whether this is the most logical thing to do, or the most productive thing to do in the long run. It is what it is.

Humans optimization is both selfish and local. Greedy algorithms are apt to find the global worst solution. Plan for it, expect it.

We live in a finite planet with very limited resources. When the time comes, how do you propose we secure our freedom (or the remnants of it) and our very survival?

You talk of our freedom and our survival, so who are they? Since all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, their freedom should be the same as our freedom, no? They have the same rights to use the limited resources of this planet as we do. Maybe I'm actually one of them, maybe you are, and you just don't know it?

Freedom must be universal, otherwise it is no true freedom, and if we are to prevail as a species, we shouldn't waste the little resources we have in fighting wars.

I really wish this myth would die already. The US is still the largest manufacturing nation in the world. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp If the US can be classed as not making anything useful anymore, then I would hate to see how little is made elsewhere. We are less dominant now than we were and there are significantly fewer jobs, but we still make more than anyone else.

Wikileaks is supported by the European governments. Sweden does not give a dime about NATO troops and their safety because Sweden is neutral. But they seem to be very concerned about rape. I guess Margot Wallström gave rise to the idea to charge him with rape. Didn't work well with Polanki though.

Citations:

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/681/09/PDF/N0168109.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/638/57/PDF/N0163857.pdf?OpenElement

Not exactly the clearest lot and you can see the work of a committee-

Stressing the inalienable right of the Afghan people themselves freely to
determine their own political future,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial
integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,

and

Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order
throughout the country resides with the Afghan themselves,

but at the same time

Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism

Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the
export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for
providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with
them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the
Taliban regime

Citations:

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/681/09/PDF/N0168109.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/638/57/PDF/N0163857.pdf?OpenElement

Not exactly the clearest lot and you can see the work of a committee-

Stressing the inalienable right of the Afghan people themselves freely to
determine their own political future,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial
integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,

and

Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order
throughout the country resides with the Afghan themselves,

but at the same time

Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism

Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the
export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for
providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with
them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the
Taliban regime

Citations:

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/681/09/PDF/N0168109.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/638/57/PDF/N0163857.pdf?OpenElement

Not exactly the clearest lot and you can see the work of a committee-

Stressing the inalienable right of the Afghan people themselves freely to
determine their own political future,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial
integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,

and

Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order
throughout the country resides with the Afghan themselves,

but at the same time

Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism

Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the
export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for
providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with
them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the
Taliban regime

The second paragraoh doesn't really apply to this data set because it has the information broken down by sector as well as straight GDP info. Looking at other parts of the site it appears they use nation of production rather than nation of ownership of the companies. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/industry/docs/M90.pdf It starts laying out the relevant parts of the methodology on page 13.

The UN stats disagree with you. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp

Both sides are distorting and cherry picking the facts to make their side look more plausible. Linking to the blogs of condescending one-sided pundits doesn't help convince anyone of the other side's position. Links to more neutral articles are preferable, rather than obviously one-sided diatribes that belittle others who don't believe in their way.

Scientists are usually pretty good at writing summaries and showing pretty graphs that the average person (myself included) can digest, so linking to accessible articles at the UN, NOAA, Journal of Climate, or even Nature magazine is preferable. There are many wiki articles that have active links to these articles. Or even just link to the wiki article on the global warming controversy

Ok, let's see.
1) "Libero"'s ownership, according to Wikipedia, (the italian version, which cites a 2006 interview with Giuliano Ferrara) is:

Veronica Lario ha il 38%
Sergio Zuncheddu [1] ha 20 o 25%
Denis Verdini ha il 15%
Giuliano Ferrara ha il 10%
Luca Colasanto (stampatore) ha il 10%

Now:
- Veronica Lario is Berlusconi ex-wife; (in 2006 they still were married).
- Sergio Zuncheddu is a businessman, good friend of Mr. B.
- Denis Verdini is Berlusconi's political party national coordinator.
- Giuliano Ferrara is a journalist (the director, to be precise)
- Luca Colasanto is a politician, member of Berlusconi's party

This is the most blatant case, but the other two are not so different.

2) Newspapers, in Italy, are almost irrelevant -- nobody reads them anyway.
TV is what really counts. Here about 8-9 TV channels have a significant share
in the whole country; three of them are owned by B., three other are public and
under control of the government.

3) One of the big issues is that professional journalist, under this law, couldn't even
publish *public* wiretapping content (that is, *after* investigation is completed). We're speaking
about material that anybody, at least theorically, can access.

I suppose that "Checking the facts" can be done at different levels...

The real issue IMO is avoiding irrelevant leaks of wiretapping excerpts, but this should be
done at the source level, not by silencing journalists and publishers.

Even the UN, yesterday, expressed its concerns.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, see Article 23:

Article 23.

        * (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
        * (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
        * (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
        * (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Natural rights do not rest on the belief of the individuals. Rather, they rest on some universal value that is shared by all of mankind.

Can you list just one of these universal values that all of mankind actually does share?

The United Nations created a handy list over 60 years ago.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Sixty-four nations have fertility rates below replacement, and almost every nation on earth has seen a reduction in fertility in the last 50 years (play around with that spreadsheet, it's an eye-opener). All of the most populous developing nations have seen fertility fall by 2-3+ children per woman. However because this reality conflicts with the political agenda of the green cult, many people are still burying their heads in the sand steadfastly believing that a Malthusian disaster is right around the corner.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Here's a link for you to read, fascist. You might want to dwell on the part that says "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind" because that's exactly where you're coming from, blackshirt. There have been many who advocated your views in the past, but since you've never heard of them, I'm sure your "only intelligent people should vote" idea has never, ever been tried before.

If you've reached the point where you have a regime, you've got oppression.

And I'll even narrow that further. Any violation of:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

makes you oppressive. There is your thin red line, with a robust legal ground standing beneath it.

Is there a list of inviolable rights somewhere? I ask because people seem to like saying "this is a right" and "that is a right", and it seems really dangerous to not have a definitive source for what is and isnt a right.

Yes, there is such a list.

The Geneva Convention discusses the treatment of prisoners in armed combat between uniformed foes. You must be thinking of the Hague Accords.
No, according to this these conventions signed in Geneva deal with weapons whose sole function is to blind.

as there's simply no way we can provide a 1st-world standard of living for 100 billion people

Not to argue with your main point but FWIW future projections for the next three centuries estimate the world population to peak at 9.22 billion, or in alternative scenarios as high as 10.6 billion. Either case 100 billion is an order of magnitude off.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18741&Cr=uranium

Yes, prenatal care is probably not being well distributed in the United States. UNICEF puts Canada and Cuba at 5 infant deaths per 1000 births, with the United States at 7, after controlling for differences in reporting:

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx

You will have to drill down yourself, they don't offer any way to link into the dataset, Goal 4, all countries. So that is a likely a significant difference, but I'm pretty sure it is not an unconscionable difference (an American concerned about infant mortality would still best spend their efforts trying to reduce it elsewhere, where rates are enormously higher).

Of course, given that I only said things about the availability of care, and nothing about the delivery of care, I'm not sure why you would expect what I said to address something that is likely quite related to the delivery of care.

In NYC there is a sweatshop tour in Chinatown, a historical building that's like 100 years old. At one point the guide points to the smoke from the current shops. Slavery, people trafficking, semi-forced labor, exist practically everywhere in prostitution, manufacturing, home labor, fashion, many industries, yes, still. I have spoken to immigrants involved in nyc and sao paulo many times, in fact there are thousands of clothing sweatshops not far from here. The choice of place to work is generally based on fear, ignorance, false information, etc there are generally much better options available, but they don't see it, fear blinds people. The sweatshops-masters simply seek out people who can be pressured, conned, threatened, etc but, somehow, won't leave. Some will actually resort to locking doors and putting in high walls and guards, but it generally apparently isn't the most effective method, trickery and lies work better. In fact many companies, armies, managers, use similar techniques to gather lots of cheap, dedicated, qualified labor. Pressure, threats, lies, false promises, legal trickery, indebting, contracts. Soldiers and salesmen are the victims and perpetrators of the same grand scheme, generally to the advantage of a few insane maniacs, ignorant also. Full Metal Jacket sort of illustrated that. The UN and many institutions have anti-slavery campaigns to this day. I heard slavery in fact is growing.

Fertility rates are down in virtually every country, even where birth rates remain high. Of course all the neo-Malthusian twits remain completely ignorant both of that fact and of the difference between the metrics.