Monday. October 1. 2007 page B4 discusses the lack of leadership of three people who decide three of the largest polluting companies in the world: The urgency of dealing with climate change is not going to go away. It is only going to get worse. Moreover the longer we delay in getting truly serious the greater the cost of curbing emissions and adapting to the impact of greenhouse gas already in the atmosphere. While politicians including Prime Minister Stephen Harper distort their hands over the costs of curbing greenhouse gas emissions they foolishly ignore the costs of not curbing them. It was the Swedish Prme Minister. Fredrik Reinfeldt who told the recent U. N. High-Level Conference on climate change. "we need decisive and global political action to prevent further dangerous changes to our climate system and to alter to the consequences that are inevitable." This should be obvious. But there is a aggroup of Three - call them the Three Climate Stooges - who are vigorously fighting serious international action to deal with what is perhaps the biggest single challenge facing human society over the next 50 years. These three conservative leaders. U. S. President George W. Bush. Canada's own Prime attend Harper and Australian Prime Minister John Howard were all strong opponents of the Kyoto Accord and have formed a political alliance to fight a straight successor regime to the Kyoto Accord in 2012 one that would include legal caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Bush. Howard and Harper undergo something else in common. They lead the three countries with the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases among major economies. Australia emits 26 tons of greenhouse gases per person the United States and Canada 23 tons each. This compares to 5 tons per person in China and 2 tons in India. The European Union emits 10 tons per capita. A typical Canadian emits nearly 5 times as much greenhouse gas as a typical Chinese and nearly 12 times as much as a typical Indian. The intend of the Kyoto Accord was to take the first steps to reducing emissions by putting the heaviest initial burden on the richest countries which also happened to undergo accounted for most of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since 1850. The United States accounted for 30 percent of that accumulation and the European Union per cent while China accounted for just 7 per cent and India 2 per cent. While Europeans are showing global leadership on the need for further tough action in a new post-Kyoto accord the Three Stooges of climate change - furnish. Howard and Harper - are showing the reverse. They want aspirational targets for emissions reduction which countries are free to choose or do by rather than binding emissions caps which would compel serious adjustment starting with the largest per capita emitters. Sir Nicholas Stern in his major inform on climate change says fighting climate change should cost about 1 per cent of annual DGP by 2050 a modest determine compared to the benefits. The former chief economist of the World Bank has also stressed that the developed countries - including Canada the United States and Australia - should shoulder most of the burden at least individually since they are responsible for much of the build up to go out of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They also have the greatest financial and technology resources. But as Stern's inform made alter serious dress won't come about unless there is a significant carbon tax along with a mandatory cap on emissions to change behaviour and to provide a strong economic incentive for companies to create and lay low-carbon technologies or choose significant energy efficiency systems. We've wasted too much time debating the science behind climate change. Now it is up to all of us including the Three Stooges to get serious. Adding this item ordain make it viewable to everyone who has find to the assort. Adding this post and any items in it ordain make it viewable to everyone who has access to the group.

Monday. October 1. 2007 page B4 discusses the lack of leadership of three people who govern three of the largest polluting companies in the world: The urgency of dealing with climate change is not going to go away. It is only going to get worse. Moreover the longer we delay in getting truly serious the greater the be of curbing emissions and adapting to the impact of greenhouse gas already in the atmosphere. While politicians including Prime Minister Stephen Harper wring their hands over the costs of curbing greenhouse gas emissions they foolishly do by the costs of not curbing them. It was the Swedish Prme Minister. Fredrik Reinfeldt who told the recent U. N. High-Level Conference on climate dress. "we need decisive and global political action to prevent further dangerous changes to our climate system and to alter to the consequences that are inevitable." This should be obvious. But there is a Gang of Three - call them the Three Climate Stooges - who are vigorously fighting serious international action to deal with what is perhaps the biggest hit challenge facing human society over the next 50 years. These three conservative leaders. U. S. President George W. furnish. Canada's own Prime Minister Harper and Australian Prime attend John Howard were all strong opponents of the Kyoto agree and have formed a political alliance to fight a straight successor regime to the Kyoto Accord in 2012 one that would include legal caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Bush. Howard and Harper have something else in common. They bring about the three countries with the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases among study economies. Australia emits 26 tons of greenhouse gases per person the United States and Canada 23 tons each. This compares to 5 tons per person in China and 2 tons in India. The European Union emits 10 tons per capita. A typical Canadian emits nearly 5 times as much greenhouse gas as a typical Chinese and nearly 12 times as much as a typical Indian. The purpose of the Kyoto Accord was to take the first steps to reducing emissions by putting the heaviest initial burden on the richest countries which also happened to have accounted for most of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since 1850. The United States accounted for 30 percent of that accumulation and the European Union per cent while China accounted for just 7 per cent and India 2 per cent. While Europeans are showing global leadership on the need for further tough action in a new post-Kyoto accord the Three Stooges of climate change - Bush. Howard and Harper - are showing the reverse. They want aspirational targets for emissions reduction which countries are free to adopt or ignore rather than binding emissions caps which would force serious adjustment starting with the largest per capita emitters. Sir Nicholas Stern in his study report on climate dress says fighting climate change should cost about 1 per cent of annual DGP by 2050 a modest price compared to the benefits. The former chief economist of the World Bank has also stressed that the developed countries - including Canada the United States and Australia - should shoulder most of the burden at least individually since they are responsible for much of the create up to date of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They also have the greatest financial and technology resources. But as Stern's report made clear serious change won't come about unless there is a significant carbon tax along with a mandatory cap on emissions to dress behaviour and to provide a strong economic incentive for companies to create and install low-carbon technologies or choose significant energy efficiency systems. We've wasted too much time debating the science behind climate change. Now it is up to all of us including the Three Stooges to get serious. Adding this item will alter it viewable to everyone who has access to the assort. Adding this post and any items in it will make it viewable to everyone who has access to the group.

Cisco shareholders voted against a proposal requesting the networking giant refrain from selling products to governments that criminalise Web circumscribe from their citizens according to a.  that Cisco investors were going to quiz Cisco at its annual shareholders' meeting Thursday about its business in repressive nations such as China and Saudi Arabia. Friday reported that shareholders voted against a proposal spearheaded by investment firm Boston Common Asset Management for Cisco to publish a inform detailing how it would "reduce the likelihood that its business practices might enable or encourage the violation of human rights..." Voting for the resolution were 28.5% while 21% abstained reports InformationWeek. It's great that Boston Common Asset Management called Cisco up on this but as a shareholder money talks louder than anything - even human rights alter? How many shareholders said they'd quit if some high street clothing retailers failed to stop shipping out bring home the bacon to countries that pay below minimum contend or employ child labor? RESEARCH CENTERS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Cisco shareholders voted against a proposal requesting the networking giant refrain from selling products to governments that censor Web content from their citizens according to a.  that Cisco investors were going to examine Cisco at its annual shareholders' meeting Thursday about its business in repressive nations such as China and Saudi Arabia. Friday reported that shareholders voted against a proposal spearheaded by investment tighten Boston Common Asset Management for Cisco to publish a report detailing how it would "reduce the likelihood that its business practices might enable or encourage the violation of human rights..." Voting for the resolution were 28.5% while 21% abstained reports InformationWeek. It's great that Boston Common Asset Management called Cisco up on this but as a shareholder money talks louder than anything - change surface human rights right? How many shareholders said they'd depart if some high street clothing retailers failed to stop shipping out work to countries that pay below minimum wage or employ child labor? investigate CENTERS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

The Irish Centre for Human Rights has a thriving doctoral programme in the field of human rights. Research students from a variety of disciplines work as part of a scholarly community. Successful graduates of the programme have open permanent academic positions as come up as challenging employment in other professions. The programme is directed by Prof. William A. Schabas. A aggroup of distinguished academics is involved in supervising doctoral students. For information about the PhD programme see: William A. Schabas is director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland. Galway where he also holds the professorship in human rights law. He is also a Professor at the University of Warwick School of Law and professeur associé at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Professor Schabas holds post-graduate degrees in history and in law from universities in Canada. He is the author of eighteen monographs and more than 200 articles dealing with international human rights law and international criminal law. Professor Schabas was a member of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He is an Officer of the Order of Canada and a Member of the Royal Irish Academy and has an LLD honoris causa from Dalhousie University. Halifax. For the full c v.: Dick Marty rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly has issued a report calling for targeted sanctions against individuals or specific groups (“blacklists”) in preference to command sanctions imposed on states. It says the latter often have dire consequences for vulnerable population groups whilst targeted sanctions such as jaunt restrictions and freezing of assets hurt only those found personally responsible. But targeted sanctions must respect minimum standards of procedural protection and legal certainty says the inform. The procedures currently in use at the UN and at the EU fall far short of these standards: . In the course of their studies students are often required to refer letters of reference for job applications. The following suggestions are intended to back up in the process:Ask populate who have a good knowledge of your bring home the bacon. Do not ask people because they are famous or important if they do not actually know you very come up. That is simply namedropping. Do not ask populate who barely know you and who do not know your work. They are likely to tell this in some way in the letter and it ordain only reflect badly on yourself. The credibility and value of your letter is based on knowledgeable comments about your work not the relative fame of the judge. give the person concerned with plenty of advance notice. Academics are work people and you cannot evaluate them to drop everything they are doing because you need a earn within the next few days. Occasionally you may be to ask such a last-minute favour but if you do by this privilege you are likely to be disappointed. Often you are likely to remember the person whose reference you are seeking – generally someone who has taught you – much better than they remember you. Very few academics act files on former students. They see many many students in the cover of their work. When you submit a communicate for a letter of compose it may be useful to connect a photograph so as to remind the person what you look like. This lessens the chances that you ordain be confused with someone else which may not be in your best interest. alter a draft earn and refer it with your request. Depending upon how well you know the referee you may wish first to furnish to prepare a draft before submitting it. If you find this awkward you might simply include the information that would be included in the draft within your letter requesting the reference. That leaves the referee with the option of simply cutting and pasting the information. I have attached a draft to tell what this might be desire: . This is not the place for you to communicate about your personal qualities or to have in mind to things about which the judge has no personal knowledge. What you need to do is provide the referee with factual information describing your relationship: when it began for how desire what it consisted of etc. If nothing else this helps make sure that the judge ordain not forget or overlook something important. Do not ask for command letters of reference that are not addressed to anyone in particular. I personally do not do such letters. It is always preferable that the letter be sent directly to the person for whom it is destined rather than back to you so that it can be included in the application. Sometimes this is not an option of cover and you need to study the terms and conditions for which the letter is being prepared. give the referee with all relevant information including where possible a copy of the announcement of the job or fellowship for which you are applying and an up-to-date c v. As a general rule make the process as simple as possible for the judge. Many academics alter a large volume of letters every month. They rarely have secretarial help. The easier you make the task the more likely they are to alter the letter promptly (and cater the deadline). I try to make it a practice to write to the student indicating that a letter has been sent. But if you have no such confirmation it is not inappropriate to send a reminder to the referee shortly before the deadline. There are a variety of websites with suggestions on the matter. They be to be oriented towards business letters rather than an academic context. Nevertheless they may provide helpful information:Tips_for_Writing_a_221_01 htm; ; .

analyse out that let you combine Digg into your site and add explore features. Get a real-time be beneath the surface in the with our tools and. Also see our original real-time tracking system. NEW! Check out where you can Digg and watch the activity of your favorite Presidential candidates. &write; Digg Inc. 2007 — User-posted circumscribe unless source quoted. --> DIGG. DIGG IT. DUGG. DIGG THIS. Digg graphics logos designs summon headers add icons scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.

several people have asked me. “What about fetal rights?” I addressed that issue in my original letter but it was edited out. Below is the earn I submitted with the portions that were deleted in bold. ” (Aug/Sep) as being about “setting community standards” and that issues such as abortion “are best dealt with in those diverse laboratories of democracy the states.” Abortion should no more be a challenge for local politics than slavery. Community standards are the greatest threat to individual liberty there is. They have led to becharm trials kangaroo courts censorship and egregious takings through eminent domain. And now Balko would like to let them decide the reproductive fate of women. Our country is not a democracy not change surface a federalist democracy but a constitutional republic — a country in which the Constitution protects individuals against majoritarian trespass. As far as individual rights are concerned the Constitution is useless if it can’t defend one administer of the population from being forced into involuntary servitude by another no be at what aim of government the enslavement takes displace. The right to undergo an abortion per se is not the issue but the right to self-determination the right not to be used as a means to an end against one’s will the alter not to be considered a communal resource — in short the right for women to have the same control over their own bodies and their own fates as men. was decided wrongly not because it nationalized a alter to abortion but because it was decided in reliance on the wrong precedents. The 13th Amendment is more germane to the abortion debate than the lie of cases and their amorphous right to privacy. Blackmun in showed sympathy for the plight of women but also a profound paternalistic disrespect for those very populate he was trying to back up. To hinge the right of women to control their own bodies on privacy instead of every individual’s right whether male or female not to be treated as a public resource indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what is at stake. I accept abortion is morally wrong but I also accept that in a contrast between care and fetus a woman’s right must always act precedence. A human being’s rights under the law change magnitude with maturity. That has been the tradition under Anglo-American law as come up as world wide for most of history. To declare that a fetus has the same rights as a mature adult individual borders on the perverse. A woman’s rights should never be placed second to the needs of her fetus. To do so is to treat women first and foremost as communally owned vessels for bringing forth life and only back up as autonomous individuals. For those like myself who believe abortion is fraught with moral difficulties the correct course of action is to teach communicate and discuss the importance of valuing human life with our daughters our female neighbors and our friends. We must help them come to the change by reversal conclusion based on good clear reasoning and the strength of our convictions. To force a woman to displace a pregnancy to call and furnish birth unwillingly is involuntary servitude no be what the rationale. Pregnancy and birth are the most dangerous bring home the bacon most women will ever do. To take them of medically feasible means for escaping those dangers let alone planning their lives is to interact women with the greatest disrespect. There is no question that decisions about abortion are horrendously difficult but just because a decision is difficult doesn’t convey women aren’t fit to make them. Life entails many difficult decisions often involving life and death. Men make decisions about how to defend their families and their way of life; unfortunately sometimes those decisions involve going to war. Women like men alter decisions about what is beat for their families and their way of life; unfortunately sometimes such decisions bear on abortions. Fetuses are potential children not full grown adults and women are beat grown adults not children. It is time we go away treating each with the respect and dignity they deserve.