Slashdot Mirror

which is measured differently than pretty much every other First World nation on the planet

Says in the Wikipedia article that UNICEF tries to compensate for such errors in their statistics. Sourced from here: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=0&SeriesId=562

Statistics are always misleading however, being political tools and by their very nature of reducing large datasets into curves and numbers (a form of lossy compression one could say).

Nice try.

Rights guaranteed by UDHR which are really controls on the actions of non-government others:

• Art II: freedom from discrimination
• Art III: life, liberty and security of person
• Art IV: freedom from slavery
• Art XII: privacy and freedom from interference
• Art XX: freedom of association
• Art XXIII: right to equal pay for equal work
• Art XXV: health care
• Art XXVI: education

It's a nice idea that the only effect of a right is to entitle an individual to act in a particular way without interference from others. Unfortunately that's not how rights are defined. Rights are merely inaliable entitlements: things to which everyone is entitled, their entitlement to which cannot be removed.

It's always nice to see companies following local laws.

Examples of immoral behavior aside, yes it is.
If a country has say, a ban on advertising cigarettes to children, then that's a perfectly sane thing to comply with.
If a country doesn't have the draconian copyright laws the US has, refusing to enforce them there is perfectly sane as well.

OTOH, assisting in silencing political speech is hardly moral. If only there was some universal minimum standard for what's okay and what's not...

Oh right.. there is: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Which didn't exist in the 1930's, although I don't feel that excuses IBM - considering the Allies penalized the German corporations who assisted the Holocaust)
And from that declaration, it's entirely clear-cut the first two examples are fine, and the third isn't okay. While we all know that China doesn't give a damn about the UDHR, it doesn't change the fact that they've ratified it (and in fact, Nationalist China was involved in drafting it). They can't legitimately complain about 'cultural bias' or respecting their system or whatever.

It's a matter of holding them to their own words. And holding our corporations responsible to follow at least those basic rights.

By value the U.S. is still the #1 manufacturer in the world ( http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33962 ). And our research system, considered as the sum of government, corporate, and university research progams, is still very strong. (I'd say it's the best but don't have a citation...who's better?)

So if the US is pro freedom, pro liberty, pro openness, but also pro capitalism, the question instead becomes: What takes priority among these values ?

Well I was particularly impressed with the EP motion B7-0180/2010 as it is very clear and logical (and long-winded..):

B. having regard to the necessity to fight counterfeiting and to protect certain rights which, however, cannot take precedence over human rights and fundamental freedoms that are the keystone of our societies and of democracy[emphasis mine]; considering the various domains that the negotiators aim to cover in their agreements and the fact that they negotiate secretly,

So basically, your right to fight counterfeiting and protect your trademarks, copyrights and patents ends where it infringes on your fellow human beings' fundamental human rights.
Spread the word, otherwise only old people will know this ;-)

Actually, everybody is deciding to reproduce less, does this mean they are getting smarter?

(It probably does.)

This is where you say you know better than statistics. These statistics. Wherein you would see that each generation of women is having fewer children, almost everywhere with few exceptions, even in Africa, even in places where the birth rate is still high (because once again that is NOT THE SAME as fertility rate, you DOLT). It is not just the West as you want to fantasize in your ignorance. Your anecdotal evidence is not statistically valuable. Shut up and go away.

If you'll pardon my ranting, what sickens me is that this douche gets moderated to the moon with 'Informative' for pushing these demonstrable myths. If people could get Malthus' necrotic dick out of their mouths for just a minute and look at the raw data, maybe we could move society forward in an informed way.

It's not limited to the West, that's just what you, in your ignorance, want to believe. As I said elsewhere, go here click on 'Select pivot column' and then select 'Year'. Look at the results, then shut the hell up.

You back up your claim of bias with no evidence. I didn't say anything about a specific region, there is no proximity. Birth rate is a statistic that only tells you how many people are being born in a given period (usually a year). Fertility rate tells you how many children a woman is likely to have in her life. Fertility rate is a much more important demographic trend modeling tool, and it's going down everywhere, including the third world, even where birth rates are still high. How quickly a generation produces x people is not as important as what the value of x is, and if that value keeps dropping, the speed of going from 0 to x becomes increasingly irrelevant.

More concretely, if a woman has two kids in one year (which although uncomfortable does happen occasionally), you look at that as a birth rate and say 'holy shit! that's TWO KIDS A YEAR!' However, if those are the only two kids she ever has, you look at the fertility rate and say 'wow, that's not even enough for replacement.'

Go here click on 'Select pivot column' and then select 'Year'. Look at the results, then shut the hell up.

UN Declaration of Human Rights? That's funny. From the Universal Declaration of Human 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.

I'm sure politicians everywhere could argue that Article 29 Section 2 covers this. If not, Article 29 Section 3 seems to be able to cover just about anything regarding an individual's rights.

The "Purposes and Principles" of the United Nations can be found in their charter: Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles. The word "individual" is not found there.

UN Declaration of Human Rights? That's funny. From the Universal Declaration of Human 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.

I'm sure politicians everywhere could argue that Article 29 Section 2 covers this. If not, Article 29 Section 3 seems to be able to cover just about anything regarding an individual's rights.

The "Purposes and Principles" of the United Nations can be found in their charter: Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles. The word "individual" is not found there.

You should read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically article 25 and 26.

The fucking Declaration of Human Rights states that elementary education shall be compulsory. And rightfully so, to prevent parents with wacky beliefs from ruining their kid's future chances.

The fundamental right in question would be that of the parent to raise their own children, as opposed to the State doing so.

This is unfortunately one of those rights that never got expressly enumerated in the Constitution

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights covers it. Maybe we should haul Germany in front of the Security Council to explain their wanton violation of basic human rights?

Article 26 (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

I find it amazing that nobody seems to notice that adding an ECHELON and a DCS1000 feed to Google is making it like the NSA, but where people actually VOLUNTEER data. In addition, it's Terms of Service give it more legal freedom to use and abuse your information and intellectual property than even the US border control can with accessing laptops of people entering the country.

It appears 8+ years of indoctrination is paying off big time - nobody appears to remember that privacy is a basic right. All it takes is some BS about "not being evil" for people to miss the shocking depth to which they can access all your personal data. Even the stuff they don't hold themselves will come up through the search engine. By matching up DNS records they will be able to add your entire Internet activity to your identity.

That's going to be fun when you catch some sort of virus downloading porn - and the next time you apply for a job..

Sorry but that is just more personal attacks and bigotry towards religious people.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 grants protection to people via race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, etc.

The UN has human rights that cover religion as well.

You are arguing against known civil rights and human rights laws showing your ignorance of them.

Except that lasers for blinding are against the additional protocols of the Geneva convention. cf Protocol IV of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm

Any military that uses these are going to have to prove that the primary use of the weapon is NOT to blind, as blinding weapons are banned by the Geneva convention, as stated here:

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.

The UN was originally the alliance of anti-Nazi powers: US, UK, and USSR. Out of the three, two were western. Now, however, most countries are not western and not interested in becoming western.

I don't see why the US is paying 22% of the costs.

Insightful? I don't think so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population http://esa.un.org/unup/index.asp?panel=2 It will be interesting to have a poll on how Slashdotters have been to China. I am rather surprised that many Slashdotters have traveled to many places of the world http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1863&aid=-1 and yet the misconceptions. As an Asian born and bred here, I am always amazed at how some American friends of mine have the concepts that some Asians are still living in the cave or on the trees (the most common questions that I get).

Nice boogy-man stories but look at any reputable stats, such WHO's Age-standardized mortality rate for non-communicable diseases (per 100 000 population), and it's clear which system has the most horror stories attached to it.

Australia 362
Canada 388
United Kingdom 434
United States of America 460

Out of the above four nations, the US has the most expensive health system on a per capita basis, and gets the lowest quality care in return. Conflating Stalin with health care over the last 40yrs has done the US a great diservice by way of the ideologically convoluted health "system" it has created.

However, Hezbollah is devoted to destroying Israel. Here [nybooks.com] are [standwithus.com] some [un.org] links [www.unb.ca], in case [psepc.gc.ca] you didn't bother to find them.

You copied those links from the Wikipedia article didn't you?

The first one:

Adam Shatz (April 29, 2004). "In Search of Hezbollah". The New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060. Retrieved 2006-08-14.

Hezbollah's announced long-term objectives-- [...] the elimination of the State of Israel

Unsupported allegation, which continues

but it interprets its founding principles with considerable suppleness, as when Nasrallah says he will not sabotage an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement

Next up: http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/hezbollah_program.pdf

The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel[*]
We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. [...] Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.
We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, [...], and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

Oh, what does that little [*] there mean?

The Jerusalem Quarterly, number Forty-Eight, Fall 1988
This is a slightly abridged translation of "Nass al-Risala al-Maftuha allati wajahaha Hizballah ila-l-Mustad'afin fi Lubnan wa-l-Alam", published February 16, 1985 in al-Safir (Beirut), [...]

[*] This paragraph did not appear in the original translation published by the Jerusalem Quarterly.

Ah, "this paragraph did not appear in the original translation. Why?

It is possible [possible?] that this omision is due to the fact that the source (al-Safir) for the translation did not include this text, which appears in the original Hizballah Program.

Appears in the original, sez who? Wikipedia says:

Some translations of Hezbollah's 1985 Arabic-language manifesto state that "our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated".[10] However neither the original publication of the manifesto, nor those found on Hezbollah's website, include the statement.[10]

God, this is boring, anyway, struggling on we have http://domino.un.org/unispal.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/50862df07adbd884852569ad0054a527!OpenDocument

Error 404
HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - Entry not found in index

Well, got 'em bang to rights there.

Moving on you cite http://www.unb.ca/web/bruns/9900/issue14/intnews/israel.html

Sorry, the page you're looking for can't be found.

The Brunswickan Student Newspaper is no longer hosted at the University of New Brunswick.

Please update your bookmarks to http://www.thebruns.ca/

A broken link to a student newspaper?

And last, and least of all http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp#h20 - "Public safety Canada" whoever the fuck they are say that that Hizballah is a "listed entity". Sounds bad. They seen to have read the dodgy PDF above.

You know, [citation needed] doesn't mean [stick in an unsuppo

Why did you stop reading the article there? Sure, Hezbollah does some positive things, and has a broader scope than just the destruction of Israel.

However, Hezbollah is devoted to destroying Israel. Here are some links, in case you didn't bother to find them.

Am I the only one who recalls Article 12 of the Human Rights?

No, but you are perhaps among the many who never read as far as Article 29, Section 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Your "rights" under the UDHR end where they conflict with the "purposes and principles of the United Nations" and you don't get to have a say in what those purposes and principles are.

It's a shame I have to put up a reminder - sign of the times I guess.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights :

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This is, in a nutshell, the simplest argument to respect someone's privacy. It is a basic human right. It really is that simple..

Physical property though has 2 things that make it sane, for one is natural scarcity, that is if I want a house it costs money and a lot of money even if you take no profit off of it. On the other hand, for just about nothing you can make 100 digital copies of a CD, each exactly the same as the original without the original being destroyed. And another thing is that physical property is able to be secured. If I have a gold coin I can hide it, I can put it in my pocket, I can put it in a vault. On the other hand, intellectual property is akin to showing someone a gold coin and then telling them not to remember it, it is illogical.

And if you look at places with little to no government intervention you will see capitalism. For example, Somalia has a strong free-market economy that surpasses many other economies in Africa ( http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25433&Cr=Somalia&Cr1= ). Similarly, in most tribal lands you will see, once again, capitalism. Capitalism is the basic human economy, while some are mixed with religion and other things giving some people more wealth based on reverence for them, you will see capitalism in most economies, even ones with little to no recognizable government.

Slavery is an interesting one, as it depends very much on how you decide to measure it. Clearly, as a percentage of the population, slavery is marginalized, especially in the developed world, but if you measure the population of slaves, you can find people claiming that there are currently tens of millions of slaves (as opposed to the 4 or 5 million people that were slaves in the American south, which is the most likely immediate conception of slavery for most Americans). Note that is without drawing any euphemisms about 'wage slavery' and the like, it is the estimate of people laboring under force.

Wikipedia has several links substantiating the tens of millions above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Twentieth_century_worldwide

This one at least quotes the figure:

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2005/issue3/0305p28.html

".int" is also sometimes used, although the only example I can think of right now is http://www.eu.int/ .

http://eu.int/ is actually dead, since EU has its own domain .eu now.

On the other hand, there's http://nato.int./ Curiously, UN is at http://un.org./ Here's a WP listing of .int subdomains, though I wonder whether it is complete.

Bullshit!

That's right, you are repeating bullshit.

The European governments, particularly France and Germany thought Saddam didn't have WMDs. Or did you forget all that rhetoric about "Old Europe" and "Freedom Fries" spewed out by Bush and co when they didn't co-operate?

Way to ignore reality just to supplement your own. France and Germany's non-cooperation says nothing to their reasoning idiot. As I already stated before, France was protecting it's secret and illegal oil deals and Germany thought Iraq was contained and didn't pose a threat large enough warranting war. France ended up echoing that sentiment claiming that inspectors could achieve the same goals as war. They both thought it was likely he had WMDs still and was not in compliance with Iraq's obligations under UN resolutions pertaining to the 1990 armistice. Quite rewriting history to suit your own world view.

In the UK there was a huge scandal after it was revealed that their intelligence reports that were used as the justification for their involvement in Iraq were "Sexed up". There was no evidence of WMDs and any mention of WMDs in the reports were our of date or doubtful intelligence that had been passed off as fact.

And when was that realized? Oh yea, after the fucking invasion which means that before the invasion, the UK thought Iraq had WMDs and wasn't in compliance with their obligations. And yes, the scandal resulted in support for the war by an overstatement of the intelligence, not a change in the information presented.

The entire fucking UN thought Iraq had WMDs and weren't in compliance with their disarmament obligations. Hell, Hans Blix who claimed later the Iraq had nothing as his anti war statements became more prevalent said in January of 2003 (2 months before the invasion) that Iraq couldn't explain where 6,500 chemical weapon bombs got off to or some 1000 tonnes of chemical agents, Claimed that they found new documents relating to laser enrichment of Uranium and a nuclear weapons program in a scientists home and adding "we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.". Blix also stated "Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

And yes, France's then president Jacques Chirac said in an interview for Time Magazine that ran in the Feb. 24, 2003 issue (interview taking place feb 16 before) (again, 1 month before the invasion) "Are there nuclear arms in Iraq? I don't think so. Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them. In its current situation, does Iraq-controlled and inspected as it is-pose a clear and present danger to the region? I don't believe so. Given that, I prefer to continue along the path laid out by the Security Council. Then we'll see." How in the world can you remotely claim that France didn't think Iraq had WMDs when their fucking president said they did.

Russia also claimed Iraq had links to terrorism as reported in the Washington post Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page A11
Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Sad

uploading is -not- allowed, downloading is.

It would help if you were more articulate, take these questions as a hint as to what details you could have added.

Who disallowed uploading, the sever admin or is it against the law ?

The law of which country, civil or criminal ?

What if the server is private in my own home is it still illegal to upload to it ?

What if the server is in another country, can i upload to it then ?

What type of content are we talking about, movies/music/software/blogs ?

What is the license of the material you claim cant be uploaded ?

Is it illegal to upload stuff i hold exclusive copyright over ?

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19
What is the name of the person or persons who claim it is illegal for me to impart ideas through any media, and could they please report to the UN for an arse kicking.

The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.....based in Saudi Arabia, tied to Al-Qaeda and banned by the United Nations Security Council Committee 1267.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/

That's because "rights" are an idea from western civilization, and most other cultures had different notions about justice and social harmony. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ By the way, what exactly are you talking about? Chinese have had a turbulent history, so what? We shouldn't be critical of the current Chinese government because 40 million have died at the hands of its predecessor with whom (on paper at least) it shares the same ideology? I don't understand what your point is.

Yes, and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights reflects the western "rights" tradition. You think that just because a document exists in an international peacekeeping organization, that it's really a part of other cultures and accurately reflects their values? If so, that's pretty naive.

My point is that using "rights" as the benchmark of civilization is necessarily a skewed perspective that does not account for cultural needs and differences.

I also mentioned the extreme amount of violence in China's recent history to contrast it with our own country's, which has not had any invasions or sustained any real violence on anywhere near the same scale. The average American Slashdotter is likely to have a very different perspective, in which it seems reasonable to view WoW-deprivation as some sort of evil government tyranny.

Being oblivious to these major historical and cultural differences just feeds into the collective ignorance of everyone here. To me, a real nerd should be smarter than that, and be more informed about history and culture rather than just modern technology.

That's because "rights" are an idea from western civilization, and most other cultures had different notions about justice and social harmony.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ By the way, what exactly are you talking about? Chinese have had a turbulent history, so what? We shouldn't be critical of the current Chinese government because 40 million have died at the hands of its predecessor with whom (on paper at least) it shares the same ideology? I don't understand what your point is.

You mean the same declaration that has copyright enshrined in it as a human right?

You're still dodging the most important questions: why does America's health care system cost twice as much per person as any other public or private health care system in the developed world? Who exactly is paying so the richest of the rich get to have "cutting-edge" health care (which is available elsewhere you know, medical supply companies happily sell to other countries)?

As for my implicit assumption, a surprising number people in most nations also make that assumption. Check this out, Article 25(1).

Hellhole is relative. By your definition, probably. Yes, they had secret police and a fairly oppressive government. They also had sanitation facilities, power, and other infrastructure which we bombed out upon invasion. They had competent public servants with decades of experience who we promptly declared criminals when we outlawed The B'aath party. Employment rates were higher before the invasion. While this may turn out for them in the end, it's far from decided, and as it stands, they're worse off by every measurable economic metric. GDP is rather an unfair comparison unless you compare it to pre-sanction levels, and using numbers from 2003 (brutal sanctions, Iraq couldn't sell oil, just starting to recover from the global recession in 2001-ish) is utterly disingenuous, not that you probably care.

Please explain how Hannibal handled a nonexistent entity (the Roman Empire). It was the Roman Republic. He spent 15 years in Italy, and was unable to come to a decisive finish due to Carthaginian authorities diverting resources to Iberia and Roman control of the sea (preventing Hannibal from getting siege equipment that would let him take major cities), combined with trouble at home (Numidia specifically). Initial success (including what is possibly the most crushing defeat in military history for the Romans), left to languish with limited manpower, dwindling public support in Italy, and multiple fronts from the home government. The Romans (Fabius Maximus) took to a strategy of harassment and delay without any open engagements. Sound familiar? It's an oft-repeated story, yet somehow people convince themselves that "quick, decisive" wars will automatically "shock and awe" the native populace like life is a video game.

As an aside, the Punic wars had fuck-all to do with "tyranny and oppression." They were purely power struggles, with neither side being particularly virtuous. Unless I'm mistaken, "tyranny and oppression" can also be dealt with through other means (British India being a notable example, though there are others historically). Most of the time, dealing with "tyranny and oppression" through force leads to another radical in power when the "force" isn't pressing anymore.

I don't know if he can sue, but under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which France has ratified, it is illegal to discriminate someone because of their political views.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

Article19

Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

You may wonder how armed Naval ships can have and use weapons, but that is because they are not merchant ships and are ruled by other naval treaties in respect to international law.

If this law was changed, you have to keep in mind that would allow Chinese and Russian merchant vessels to be armed while in US ports so it is a very sticky situation.

The fundamental problem with Iraq has always been the program under Saddam Hussein to develop nuclear weapons.

What program? Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India have got serious nuclear programs. Saddam never had. The only 'evidence' to the contrary were some crudely forged documents from Niger indicating that Iraq was buying yellowcake. Note that getting yellowcake is just the first step in getting nuclear weapons. At worst, Iraq was a decade from creating a functioning nuke (and they were making no real progress at the time). There was no credible evidence at all, let alone a smoking gun.

Unlike the other nutcase countries, like Iran and North Korea, that want nuclear weapons and have the capability to get them, Iraq has a history of invasion and has demonstrated that it is willing to develop and use weapons of mass destruction.

Wow, are you serious? North Korea famously attacked South Korea in 1950. They have a huge army and the only reason why they haven't tried again is because the US has made it clear that they will defend South Korea with nukes. Iran hasn't invaded any countries recently, instead they arm and support various paramilitary groups, such as Hezbollah. Pakistan and India have been at the brink of war several times. Pakistan has sold nuclear weapons technology to several nations. How are any of these nations less of a threat to our safety than a neutered Iraq?

At the time of the invasion in 2003, the sanctions against Iraq were close to dying (only through the consistent efforts of the US were they still in effect). My take is that within 20 years of the fall of sanctions, Saddam Hussein or his successor would not only have developed nuclear weapons, but would have used them in an invasion. In other words, sure Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat in 2003, but what about 2015 or 2020? How do you keep him from being a threat then?

How would anyone know? There is no way you can predict what will happen in 20 years with any accuracy. It's complete insanity to start a war to prevent something that might happen 20 years in the future. What about waiting and making the choice in 20 years. What is the hurry?

As it happens, the Bush administration found a way. This is the fundamental problem with nuclear proliferation and militarily aggressive nations. For a number of countries, there's a huge benefit to having nuclear weapons. And a fraction of those countries are also very aggressive. Iraq was the worst of the lot. The world simply is not prepared or willing to counter these countries. Even if we accept the commonly held premise that the US is itself a rogue, out of control country, who's willing to counter US military aggressiveness? Some insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US operates in a power vacuum. It does what it does because no one else is willing to take up that role.

The US doesn't operate in a vacuum, there are treaties and organizations that determine how civilized countries should act and those constitute a form of international law. Instead of trying to adhere to and strenghten international law, the US practices exceptionalism. In other words: 'We and our friends can do what we want. If we don't like what you are doing, change or you will be invaded'. The US wants a sort of police state at the global level, with the US as judge, jury and executioner. Understandably, many countries don't want to bow to the US and figured out that a good defense is to have nukes. The invasion of Iraq drove this point home extremely strongly. The US invaded a mostly harmless country just because they could, while leaving more dangerous countries like North Korea and Pakistan alone. Iran learned the question quickly and immediately ramped up their nuke program, while the US had their hands full.

Note that your country has treatened to invade mine if we ever dared to try an American for violating international la

Yeah, well, it's a lot easier to make something structurally sound if it's not expected to have the same occupancy load that would be required for a modern western city. There weren't nearly as many Incans as there are Italians. Particularly since the former weren't Catholics.

This might be funny if it were even close to being true. However, despite their being predominantly Catholic in name, Italians are not in fact Catholic regarding this practice. They are among the heaviest users of artificial birth control in the world, and are not reproducing themselves fast enough to maintain current population levels (around 1.1 births per woman according to the UN [PDF]).

Only immigration is keeping the Italian population stable, and this is true for most of Western Europe as well.

Both major parties have had plans and trials to filter the internet since before DSL and cable were available, still hasn't happened. The reason for this is that we have occasionally have independent senators who's votes need to be bought. It's sort of like 1984's continous war except it's aim is to keep censorship nuts running in circles.

Labor promised that a clean feed would be available to every connection a child could access, nowhere have they stated that their policy is a mandatory filter for everyone. It was and is a hollow promise since the previous government has already set up such a voluntary filter after a similar trial that included mandatory filters and an independent senator with a censorship platform.

In other words it's same political theater we Aussies have been watching for over a decade.

We don't have free speech enshrined in the constitution but our governments are theoretically bound by article 19 of the UN declaration on human rights. I say theoretically because there have been some specific instances of censorship over the last decade. One related to a senator's "right to die" website, the other to an Islamic fundementalist book in a university library. Kiddie porn is evidence of a crime and I have no problems with authorities following the trail to the perps and subsequently dismantling their distribution networks using due process.

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression;[...]
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it
            special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain
            restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are
            necessary:
            (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
            (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of
                                public health or morals.

I am reminded of DeValera's 1937 Constitution of Ireland [...] In my opinion, ICANN's ultimate aim to transform the internet into a place akin to 1950's Ireland

I'm not sure why the text you quote suggests this to you, as it should remind you of something else somewhat more strongly (scroll down to article 10). I don't think we can ascribe the motives you describe to the Council of Europe, so something else is at play here.

In fact, the text you quote is not that far away from the US constitution, or at least the modern interpretation of it, which has exceptions (for example) for protecting the young and impressionable from certain types of speech (e.g. it is not legal to show sexually explicit material to children, the purpose of this is to protect their morals) or encouraging people to violent action (which is for the purpose of protecting public health, by preventing injury). Yes, these exceptions were not codified in the first amendment, but they have been treated as existing by the courts.

The point is that this is a reasonable description of the most universal understanding of the idea of freedom of expression. What ICANN are proposing is in line with the human rights legislation of ECHR signatories (i.e., almost all of Europe, along with most of northern Asia and Iceland). It is similar to language in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which held that the rights it described may be subject to restrictions "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." It isn't far removed from the human rights legislation of the USA. It is also very similar to similar rights in the laws of other countries, including India.

So, really, I don't think you're on the right track here at all. By almost everyone's standards, the description given is a reasonable description of the right to freedom of expression.

The UN Human Rights Committe is a joke. It's not taken seriously anywhere because it's just used by flagrant human rights abusers as a "bash Israel" platform.

What does the situation in the Congo have to do with bashing Israel?

What do reports on the situation in Uruguay have to do with bashing Israel?

Why is it that stupid comments are guaranteed to get moderated "insightful" if they bash the UN?

Seriously, this isn't a troll, even if you disagree with me. But when is the last time the UN did a thing for the US? We get resolutions of "Give money to undeveloped countries" and "Sure, go to war, but we're not gonna do shiat"...when is the last time they actually did something positive for the US?

An organization that has devolved into "the rich countries should give aid to the poor countries", has stopped being useful to anyone but the leeches. Seriously, can anyone tell me what the UN has done for the US lately, and is there a real reputation hit we'd take from leaving it (as opposed to what we do now, which is to largely ignore it)?

I disagree with your ignorance. The UN does a lot of things, you could wander on over to http://www.un.org/english/ and learn about a few of them instead of complaining that the rich countries "give" to the poor countries, which if you weren't so ignorant, you'd more accurately call "loan".

"IP" is not property. It is a temporarily given monopoly, given because of outdated reasons. And human rights can be read here: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html It does not mention "IP" anywhere, so it is not a human right :)

Consumer protection laws!?!?! You call him a moron???

The fact that the laws are poorly enforced does not means that they don't exist, or that they should not be enforced.

Public Education isn't a right civil or otherwise, you moron!

Go, read for yourself.

The US is actually one of the few democratic countries which does not guarantee it's citizens freedom of expression. Most others have ratified the universal declaration of human rights and thus give their citizens the protection of article 19 of the declaration. (See http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

GVU has a nice site for viewing this kind of data (figures from 2002). Alternatively you can check the UN data directly (figure from 2000 since the US figures apparently aren't out yet). Both give a figure of about 7 per 1000 live births for the US and 3 for Sweden (the best performing nation), putting the US in roughly 33d place.

Not horrible, but certainly not great either, let alone "the best".

Actually, those two journals are print journals I normally pick up in a bookstore. As for online sources, I'm not aware of any academic journals that are freely available online (unfortunately). For free online stuff, reading a nice variety of newspaper-like sites is probably as good as one can get. A few worth reading:

Science:

Eurekalert, Scientific Blogging, National Academies

Politics/Current events:

Moscow Times, Al Jazeera, PressTV, YNet, UN News Service, People's Daily

All this plus heavy use of Google News with custom sections, of course.

None of this is as good as the journals, but it's more current.