Ed & Tom,

>>You are absolutely correct, except that we (the United States) are already very socialist (ie, Social Security ponzi scheme, Dept. of Education, welfare, etc., etc.) Progressives/liberals "started small" a hundred years ago. What I find really sad is that many people do seem to believe the false premise that if something is run by "the government" it is somehow more secure or immune to corruption (ie health care), which history has shown us not to be true. The sad reality, imo, is that "we the people" have let our system of government become exactly what the founding fathers fought so hard to avoid - a huge, centralized, federal power that strives to control every aspect of people lives and make laws to "protect" the "unwashed masses" from every possible bad event (real or imagined) that might ever occur. IMO, all the stuff you've cited is dead accurate, but it's not the beginning of socialism. It's just yet another manifestation of it, one among many.

First off, thanks to both of you…

Second, I know that some folks that read my posts probably scratch their heads regarding the relevance to herps but, it is completely relevant in that, our issues (H.R.669, S.373, ROC’s in Florida, etc) are what they are because of a “quasi-shadow government” that is not only domestic but international in nature. Our issues here are only a small element of the big picture and it is the one that they want us to see…This is their propaganda banner to demonize to further what they are really up to. A giant snake is an easy demon…Especially when it can scare the public into contacting their representative to encourage them to vote for something that they (the citizens) are concerned about…They have no idea what they are actually going to allow to happen…

A case in point is the Brown Tree Snake on Guam. The legislation that was passed to fund eradication, control, etc for FY2006-2010 is not completely “honest” about what this funding was really intended for. Notice one of my previous posts on the same subject – NASA partnership and a new computer system to create a new database…

In total, this “not more than funding” provides for $126,713,000 for a National Mapping Program and $88,036,000 for Facilities ($214,749,000 total between the two)…These items are “Capacity Development (CD)” – infrastructure – and have very little to do with “eradication” of the Brown Tree Snake…By at least 2000, the UN determined (probably much before then) to start their database and information management with the Oceanic Islands and then use this a pilot for further implementation…Does Guam meet the criteria of an Oceanic Island?

Without going into too much background, in 2000, the UNDP (UN Development Program) and the GEF (Global Environment Fund) – as “strategic partners” – had a report written (link below) to analyze Capacity Development (CD) of UNDP’s CD projects. Keeping things simple, CD is the development of the infrastructure of the program and not the program itself per se. In other words, this about money to fund the support “structure” (i.e. computer, computer database, etc)…The issue at hand (Brown Tree Snake) is the propaganda “crisis” to bring to the attention of the policy-makers (politicians) for tax-payer monies. It is that simple after you cut through all of the mumbo-jumbo surrounding the “crisis”. Which begs the question of, is the US tax payer funding the voluntary “partnership” of our government and the UN? You decide for yourself…

One of the major problems that the UNDP, UNEP (UN Environmental Program), etc has is the lack of information on their projects – projects that support sustainable development, Biodiversity Conservation (Invasive Species is part of this agenda), Climate Change, etc – is that the agencies of the UN are on the outside regarding the information loop. What I’m beginning to learn is that they have an agenda and they are attempting to track its progress over time to measure its success or failure. This is where CD comes into play. By using the private sector (DOT-ORG’s, NGO’s, etc) and academia (colleges and universities) they gain access to the information that they need. If this strictly a US government project, depending on who is leading congress at the time, obtaining the information could be obtained voluntarily…If the US governmental agency did not agree to do this, then the UN is out of luck.

I believe that we already know that the eradication of the Brown Tree Snake is not in the cards because there is a quantifiable and successful method of eliminating “pest” species…Bounty Hunting. What happened to the Gray Wolf and the Grizzly Bear (and would have happened to the Buffalo) in the lower 48? With this historical evidence readily available, it is clear that “eradication” is not what they are really attempting to do…The articles that have been discussed here on this forum indicate they’ve “considered” it but, downplay it at the same time…As they already know that it would work over time…

Just my 10-cents worth and that won’t buy a cup of coffee…

Later,
Jim.

PS: Go read it for yourself…I can’t remember where exactly you’ll find what I’m talking above…I remember that there is a LOT of interesting information in pages 50-93 (of the document itself, not as it appears on the computer) – particularly the Environmental Law, Invasive Species and Information Clearinghouse information…Note what’s at the very end of this report…The World Bank Group’s Portfolio…An investment “portfolio”? Ummm.

Capacity Development Initiative, Assessment of Capacity Development in the GEF Portfolio, by the GEF-UNDP Strategic Partnership, GEF, UNDP, September 2000
http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Enabling_Activity_Projects/CDI/documents/Consolidated_CDI_IA_portfolio_assessment_reports.pdf
-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]