Human rights activists and environmentalists will love this story.
The Ecuadorean Constitution declares that their lands are “irreducible and intangible,” that the state guarantees their voluntary remove from the rest of the world, and that any extractive activities on lands of the uncontacted tribes is to be considered ethnocide.
Four decades of drilling by foreign companies in the oil-rich province of Sucumbíos left behind little but an 85 percent poverty rate, cancer rates of 31 percent and a 20-year-old class-action lawsuit against Chevron for profligate pollution that still hasn’t been resolved.
Since Correa’s “21st century socialism” government was elected in 2007, the state has spent more than $1 million to promote the Yasuni ITT Initiative: a scheme for foreign governments and corporations to pledge money to spare the ITT from oil extraction. The Initiative hyped the ITT land as “the most biodiverse place on Earth” and home to thousands of endangered species, as well as uncontacted tribes. Here was the audacious offer to the world: If the ITT fund reached $3 billion by this year, half of what the 845 million barrels of crude underground Yasuni ITT is said to be worth, then Ecuador would not drill there.
When the deadline for the initiative came and went this summer, Correa announced that “the world failed us.” In August, he officially asked the National Assembly to approve drilling in Yasuni ITT, and they did.
Although Correa (the Ecuadorian president) may have jumped from “Save the Yasuni and the Taromenane!” to “Drill, baby, drill,” in a matter of weeks, most Ecuadoreans weren’t ready to make that leap.
Ogaz saw the Yasuni ITT initiative as a promise to Ecuadoreans that the country could end its dependency on oil for income, and find an alternate (and sustainable) way to develop. If that promise is broken, he says, Correa’s radical reform is a lie. “The rich are getting richer in this country, now more than ever,” he says. “Why can’t we get the money from them, instead of putting more pressure on the most vulnerable people?”
Under the guise of protecting the rights of disabled people, a United Nations treaty (Treaty 112-7) which could seriously curtail Americans’ liberty has been submitted to the United States Senate for approval and ratification. According to a senate press release announcing bipartisan support of the treaty, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities “will recognize the fundamental values of non-discrimination and equal access for persons with disabilities in all areas of life.” However, the treaty also removes the rights of parents of disabled children to make decisions for their children’s welfare and, if ratified, will place the United States’ government in subjection to United Nations regulations. In an action alert Michael Ferris, President of ParentalRights.org, points out that this treaty will not only apply international disability law to the United States – effectually removing any individual state controls of disability law – but will also give the UN authority “to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the United States budget” and to require that US funds be given to support disabilities programs in less wealthy nations. Moreover, in ratifying this treaty, our government will not only be handing state and local government rights to the UN, but they will also, in effect, allow the UN to dictate disability compliance to private businesses, organizations, and persons. In view of this and similar attempts to usurp the rights of parents to direct their children’s upbringing and education — most notably, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would effectually remove the rights of all parents, not only of parents of disabled children — concerned Mississippians sought a constitutional ammendment as a permanant safeguard for the rights of parents. This spring Mississippi House Speaker Phillip Gunn introduced a bill requesting the US Congress to call a convention in order to add an ammendment to the US constitution to declare that parental liberty is a fundamental right. The bill died in committee before it could come to a vote; however, its message — that parental rights are important to at least some Mississippians — has set the stage, perhaps, for other efforts to protect parental liberties in our state.
Smart people are able to accumulate wealth by doing things that benefit them but that also benefits other people. But they will not waste their money on things that do not help them make money. But why should they? They are not under any obligation to provide their time, energy and money to other people at their own expense. Forcing the able bodied to provide for those who are less able is like forcing someone to live his life for the sake of someone else. In other words, those who are better off are being punished for being better off. Imagine if you had to work a certain number of months during the course of the year just so that someone less able than you can have a better life. You would be happier if you were to volunteer but not if you were forced. And what if the successful people decided that they would rather not be so successful so that they can leech of whoever was more successful than they. Then the standard of living of everyone would go down.
There are a lot of debates about religion and what's right and wrong out there. It's almost as if in the past we had a set of rules (religious or moral) to follow. We knew what was right, what was wrong, what was apropriate behavior, what was not apropriate behavior. We knew what was expected of us and how to act. Now..., it seems like we may have lost all of that and people are trying desperately to get it back. A lot of people out there want guide lines. They do not want to be allowed to do whatever they want to without any responsibility for their actions. But there are also a lot of people that don't want to take responsibility for anything either. They do not want to be told what to do, nor how to do it. They just want people to accept them for who they are and have someone else help them out when they screw up. Those two groups seem to be battling it out. Do we allow more rights or put some boundaries?
Man With 4th Amendment Written on Chest Wins Trial Over Airport Arrest
“Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,”
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
While it is tempting to hold that First Amendment rights should acquiesce to national security in this instance, our Forefather Benjamin Franklin warned against such a temptation by opining that those ‘who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ We take heed of his warning and are therefore unwilling to relinquish our First Amendment protections—even in an airport.
The government can hand out benefits as it sees fit.
For example, when the government hands out farm subsidies, am I being discriminated against since I'm not a farmer and I don't get my share? Are my civil rights being violated if I don't get the same benefits? No.
Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
For example, gay marriage is not a right because the government is not denying gays anything except benefits (not rights). The government can hand out benefits as it sees fit. Just because gays call these benefits rights does not make them rights. They are benefits.
Some would argue that gays are unable to participate in the civil life of the state. But gays are cohabiting and having sexual relations without government interference. They are participating in the civil life of the state. They can have a "wedding" without fear of being thrown in jail. They can tell people they are married without consequence. They just can't say that they are married in order to get benefits.But what about the discrimination or repression? Well, we have hate crime laws and laws against discrimination based on sexual preference. And, no, the government is not discriminating or repressing gays by not giving them certain benefits. Just as the government is not discriminating against me by not giving me farm subsidies. Besides, civil unions give same sex partners the same benefits as married couples so the whole thing is moot.
They made a movie called **No Country for Old Men** now we need a documentary, **No rights for White Men**
I mean think about it, what rights do white men have?
You hear a lot about minorities rights (like their right quotas or gay mariage or no profiling).
You hear a lot of noise about women's rights (like her right to abortion).
You hear a lot of noise about the rights of handicap people (like reserved parking, reserved seating).
But you don't hear a lot about rights for white men?
Disclaimer: I am not white. But I don't feel like I should be given any special consideration. And I resent any special consideration given to someone else at some else's expence. There's all this talk about what's fair but it seems to me that what is considred fair is really a one way street that benefits anyone at the expense of white males.
People who liked this debate also liked:
Think about it:
Your paycheck, should you get a divorce, does not belong to you. If she doesn't work, you have to support her a$$.
Your children, should you get a divorce, do not belong to you. If mom drops them off at the babysitter's house, try to pick up your kids without mom's verbal consent to the sitter.
Your half of the fetus, should you get a woman pregnant, does not belong to you. If she wants to abort, it's not your call.
Your sperm, should you die, does not belong to you. ---> http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_a_mother_be_allowed_to_harvest_her_dead_son_s_sperm
Women have too many rights anymore. We all know that men are dominant in every way, so why do we let them do things like vote and have equal pay?
And yesterday, I told my wife to get in the kitchen and make me a sammich, and she said no!
I bet life was much better in the late 1800's...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/swedens-feminist-foreign-minister-has-dared-to-tell-the-truth-about-saudi-arabia-what-happens-now-concerns-us-all/To be sure, there are Twitter storms about sexist men and media feeding frenzies whenever a public figure uses ‘inappropriate language’. But when a politician tries to campaign for the rights of women suffering under a brutally misogynistic clerical culture she isn’t cheered on but met with an embarrassed and hugely revealing silence.
When someone dies due to an accident caused by negligence, the family members of the deceased do not say, "Oh, it was an accident. Let's move on." nor do they say, "It was negligence, he must do time in jail." Instead they say, "Sue for all the money you can get!" cause that will make it better.... apparently.
Where is the enforcement of our OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and the Law ?
Rep. Jack Murtha presides, ignores reality to push through his preferences without a vote.
This is our Democratic-Controlled house at work.
We are losing our nation and everything it stands for. This is how the House will pass Obamacare!
Does being forced to decrypt a file violate your Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination?
"When it comes to compelled decryption, the Fifth Amendment clearly applies because the government would be learning new facts beyond simply the encryption key. By forcing Gelfgatt to translate the encrypted data it cannot read into a readable format, it would be learning what the unencrypted data was (and whether any data existed). Plus, the government would learn perhaps the most crucial of facts: that Gelfgatt had access to and dominion and control of files on the devices."
The government, on the other hand, argues that providing file decryption is like providing a key to a safe and thus not constitutionally protected.
So who's right?
LOS ANGELES -- After a run of setbacks at the state level, gay rights advocates will take the campaign for same-sex marriage into a federal courtroom on Monday, starting down a treacherous avenue that ends at a U.S. Supreme Court dominated by conservatives.
Opponents frame the case as a challenge to the people's right to make law. In every one of the 31 state ballots where the issue has appeared, voters have defeated it, most recently in Maine. In the five states that permit such unions -- the District will join them this year -- the change came by legislation or court decision.
Millions of clowns all across America are being discriminated against by children who refuse to invite them to their birthday party. This is just one example of what clowns need to be protected from. It is a time honored tradition to protect groups by bestowing rights to them. But we cannot just lump all clowns into a single category. There are many different types of clowns. There are class clowns, circus clowns, Juggalo clowns, etc. So they will each need their own moniker. We can then abbreviate the monikers and lump them all together in an acronym (for example, rights for Lesbians, gays, transgender, queer, etc. are all lumped together under the acronym LGTQ). We must be careful, however, because the "separate but equal" concept has been met with resistance in the past (which is why we don't have civil marriages and regular marriages.). So, since the LGTQ community keeps on adding letters the acronym in order to include other monikers like transgender, bisexual, transsexual, etc., I say we lump the clowns in there as well. Then every clown, Tom, Dick and Harry can be protected by any right assigned to the acronym.
In my idealistic youth, I advocated getting humans off the planet so that we didn't have all of our eggs in one basket (just in case we blew ourselves up or got hit by a giant meteor, or something catostraphic). Now, in my cynical middle age, I don't care.
The followers of atheism have historically made war. They swallow up the worlds resources making war weaponry. This lack of religion has a pattern of bringing the whole planet to the brink of a nuclear disaster which could wipe out most of the human race. This lack of religion seeks the approval of science. This lack of religion uses race baiting and scientific hypocracy to fuel hatred throughout the earth.... So I ask the question...for the good of all peaceful people on planet and the survival of the human race: should they be a continent and be forced to live there and thus be separated from the rest of the human race?
If you're thinking, "Coffee cup," you fail..., epicly!
This is a joe_cavalry debate.
I'm talking about bra-cups (A, B, C, D, DD, etc.).
The purpose of doing such a thing is because it would help match women to potential lovers.
Plus I want to see how they plan to measure the capacity of my mouth ;)