http://americanchronicle.com/

The word soviet means council, as in city council or a committee. It is a democratically elected body of people set up with the purpose of controlling the lives of others. These people would get together and plan the lives of those in their local communities, answering to higher up, larger soviets until they reached the Supreme Soviet where the central planning happened. That is basically how the Soviet Union was run, with the consent of the governed. The community soviets would lay their plans, make their laws, and institute their plans and if you didn´t like it, tough. The people in charge of the soviets had their visions and come hell or high water they were going to see to it that those visions were made into reality. In the Soviet Union, if you thought better of the local soviet´s plan and spoke your mind or dissented, the punishment was severe. But then again in the Soviet Union most people were dependent on government for their existence. Why, their whole lives were planned for them from cradle to grave by the government. At least, that´s what I was taught.

Today, we have similar institutions in the United States. We have city councils. We have county boards. We have committees that pass laws and make their plans for your property and the property of your neighbor. They believe that since they have the power to do such things and since they collect your money in the form of taxes that they can tell you what you can and can´t do with your property, the same property that you are paying for, that you are supposed to be the sovereign of. A meek and docile public hardly ever takes the time to even question what these people are doing, they simply assume these people have the best interests of the general public at heart and obey the dictates that are thrown their way. They go along to get along. And if they violate an ordinance and are cited and fined for it, they mostly merely grumble, pay the fine, correct the problem the soviet – I mean the bureaucrats – have with it and move on with their lives as if nothing happened. How easy it seems for these people to forgive, or how hard it is for them to figure out they´ve been ripped off.

In Keene New Hampshire there is a person known as the city planner. Her name is Mikaela L. Engert. Judging from her bios and the information she posted about herself online, she seems rather proud of her position in the local soviet, I mean the city government. She seems particularly worried about the effects of climate change in Keene and is making plans to help the residents there deal with their greenhouse gas emissions. Good thing, because I´m sure the citizens of Keene contribute mightily to the greenhouse gases in this world with their gas lawn mowers and they would want to do their share to make things right, particularly if it means giving more of their hard earned money to government in the form of greenhouse gas taxes. But, we shouldn´t worry about that. I´m sure these bureaucrats know exactly what they´re doing and they have only your best interests at heart, and that´s why they should be able to tell you what to do with your private property.

Read More…

Sorry, I mean global climate change.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

Arguably the most influential graphic from the latest IPCC report is Figure SPM.2 from the IPCC WG 2’s Summary for Policy Makers (on the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change). This figure, titled “Key impacts as a function of increasing global average temperature change”, also appears as Figure SPM.7 and Figure 3.6 of the IPCC Synthesis Report (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf). Versions also appear as Table 20.8 of the WG 2 report, and Table TS.3 in the WG 2 Technical Summary. Yet other versions are also available from the IPCC WG2’s Graphics Presentations & Speeches, as well as in the WG 2’s “official” Power Point presentations, e.g., the presentation at the UNFCCC in Bonn, May 2007 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/pr-ar4-2007-05-briefing-bonn.htm).

Notably the SPMs, Technical Summary, Synthesis Report, and the versions made available as presentations are primarily for consumption by policy makers and other intelligent lay persons. As such, they are meant to be jargon-free, easy to understand, and should be designed to shed light rather than to mislead even as they stay faithful to the science.

Let’s focus on what Figure SPM.2 tells us about the impacts of climate change on water.

The third statement in the panel devoted to water impacts states, “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” If one traces from whence this statement came, one is led to Arnell (2004). [Figure SPM.2 misidentifies one of the sources as Table 3.3 of the IPCC WG 2 report. It ought to be Table 3.2. ]

What is evident is that while this third statement is correct, Figure SPM.2 neglects to inform us that water stress could be reduced for many hundreds of millions more — see Table 10 from the original reference, Arnell (2004). As a result, the net global population at risk of water stress might actually be reduced. And, that is precisely what Table 9 from Arnell (2004) shows.

It’s been a while since I read through the IPCC report abstract but I recall several instances where they made dire predictions without adequate backing or explanation. Perhaps it was due to it being an abstract but at 70+ pages if I remember correctly they could have in the least made reference to the data.

The whole global climate change movement is sneaky like this. Even when they are honest the solutions to any problem is increased government control even though in almost every country it’s in fact the government which does the most polluting and is responsible for ignoring property rights thereby allowing others to pollute.

I can’t find an online article to confirm but Butler Shaffer over at LewRockwell.com/blog posted this:

The government of Salt Lake City has undertaken the prosecution of persons who recycle the rain water that falls on their lands. Those who collect such water for use on their gardens, or for household purposes, etc., may be visited by the rainwater police. The city’s rationale is that such recycling interferes with the rights of other property owners who might seek to claim such runoff when it would otherwise come to their lands.

But not to worry about any possible water shortages. In a number of communities - I don’t know if Salt Lake City is one of them - city governments are recycling sewer water - including water from toilets - and pumping it back into city water supplies to be returned to homeowners for drinking, bathing, and cooking purposes!

As Voltaire so wonderfully satirized the Leibnizian doctrine: things are all for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Let us drink to the wonders of our brave, new world, . . . but be sure to use bottled spring water in doing so!

bosco, better hope New Jersey doesn’t pick up on this trend.

The problem here isn’t free speech cages in and of themselves. The right to speech is derived from property rights. Since these lands are owned by the public government, according to rights theory, they should have the ability to dictate what is done on their plot of land. However, as a result of the whole “the public owns it” farce we come to a situation where there is a tragedy of the commons. Their founding documents claim that the public has the right to peacefully assemble and freedom of speech. Therefore one would derived the right to use common land as a platform for those. Let’s accept that as I think historically that can be shown true. What these protesters need to do then is disobey. Stop listening to the thugs who are attempting to disrespect their rights. During the 2004 Republican National Convention the NYPD had setup similar free speech zones. The Manhattan Libertarian party told the city to go pound sand and went off to Central Park and protested there. They received international attention for doing so and no one to my knowledge was harassed. I, however, who at the time was not an MLP member nor protesting, was nearly caught up in one of the NYPD’s protester nets where dozens were taken to Pier 57. Had I not found a low part in the orange netting and hopped over I may have ended up at the pier for just walking down the street. No damage should come of the cages or cameras nor should anyone get violent obviously. They should just not listen, en masse.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/…

Under state law, rainwater is considered a water resource of the state. To use the waters of the state, an individual or group is required to get permission from the Department of Ecology in the form of a water right permit.

The state agency wants public comment on what the threshold should be for requiring a water right permit for those systems that could affect the water supply of senior water right holders or stream flows in some river basins.

Isn’t it swell that they are asking the public to comment? If you want more water for your river feel free to send a SMS to God and ask for it.

http://rawstory.com/…

Walt Disney World, backed by the Florida Retail Federation and the Florida Chamber of Commerce, has sparked a row with state lawmakers and the National Rifle Association over Florida’s “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008,” enacted July 1, which allows employees with concealed weapons permits to store their guns in their cars during work hours.

Disney maintains its zero-tolerance policy towards guns, warning that taking a gun onto company property could be grounds for termination. Disney’s Animal Kingdom security guard Edwin Sotomayor, accordingly, was fired on Monday following a Friday suspension; Sotomayor had announced to local media that he would be storing a gun in his car in accordance with the law but in violation of Disney’s policy. He refused to let his employer search the car.

“It seems if you work for Disney,” the NRA said on its website, “you give up not only your Second Amendment rights, but your First Amendment rights as well.”

This is stupid. The 2nd Amendment is derived from general property rights theory. As Anthony Gregory over at LewRockwell.com said of this:

They want to force Disney World to allow weapons on their private property. This is self-defeating. The right to bear arms, like all rights, must be rooted in self-ownership and private property. Otherwise, I could impose my “right” to bear arms on someone else’s land by forcing myself, armed, into someone’s home. That defeats the whole purpose. If you can’t respect someone’s right to keep guns off their private property, it’s hard to get others to respect your right to keep guns on your own. The current situation is intolerable all around: Even under Scalia’s standard, people can’t keep own, and carry any weapons they choose within the bounds of private property, and yet at the same time people can’t forbid weapons on their own property.