Overview of the US Development Strategy

Gertee Traveler goes traveling

inside fireplace made from metal scraps and foil

An email from Old Dog sent me to this article just posted at newswithviews: U N SEEKS CONTROL OF PLANETS DRINKING WATER by Jim Kouri, http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news220.htm. This article refers to the latest "rights" resolution adopted by the U.N.; it's recognized we all have the right to clean drinking water and sanitation.

General Assembly Adopts Resolution Recognizing Access to Clean Water, Sanitation as Human Right, by Recorded Vote of 122 in Favour, None against, 41 Abstentions http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga10967.doc.htm

I haven't followed much of what happened at the big UN Summit last week so I poked around a few UN sites and their U.S. affiliate sites for updates.

UNMC NORTH AMERICA RESPONSE
http://www.endpoverty2015.org/en/end-hunger/news/overview-us-development-strategy/22/sep/10

President Obama’s speech fulfills the commitment he made at the United Nations a year ago to “support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.” The policy outlined by the President has four pillars which will serve as the lynchpins for the Obama Administration’s improved, intensified and coherent approach to foreign assistance.

The President’s announcement of a new US Global Development Policy has four principles that will guide US foreign assistance in not only in addressing US commitments to achieving the Millennium Development Goals, but also bringing coherency and leadership into managing the breadth and depth of the US foreign assistance apparatus. The four pillars of the new US Global Development Policy are:

1. The US recognizes that aid alone is not development. Available tools must be harnessed – including diplomacy, trade and investment policies – to help countries move from poverty to prosperity; (Some Americans think that "innovative finance mechanisms" means Global Taxes: http://www.usasurvival.org/ck09.14.10.html)
   
2. The US will strive to offer people a way out of poverty by working with governments to improve societies in the long term;
3. In order to bring countries out of poverty, the US will emphasize broad-based economic growth; and,
4. The US will insist on mutual accountability for themselves as well as partners, better matching investments with the priorities of partner countries

The President’s speech is a call-to-action. It recognizes the power of partnerships with not only multilaterals such as the United Nations, but also recognizes the powerful catalytic role that the private sector, foundations and civil society does and can play in “realizing the future that none of us can achieve alone.”

President Obama calls upon his fellow leaders to lead and succeed noting that “no country wants to be dependent on another. No proud leader in this room wants to ask for aid.” He outlined broad governance ideals to help leaders unleash the power of the entrepreneurs, to engage women in the economic prosperity of their respective countries by opening schools and providing opportunities for them to attain economic well being and health.

It is clear this is not a “We lead, you follow.” policy. It is a clear departure from the past policies, a unambiguous articulation of doing business in a better and smarter way. Although we await the details to fill out the brief outline in his speech, the tidbits in the speech offer a sign that the US will no longer continue to do business as usual in its foreign assistance portfolio.

Here's a recent speech by Frederick Tipson (Director UNDP Washington) talking about the global Stand Up and root for sustainable development campaign:

Let us root for the team at the Peace Corps just three blocks to the west, and the team of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service over at the Department of State.

Let us root for the new team at the Agency for International Development (USAID) down the hill in the Reagan Building, and the Millennium Campaign Corp. (MCC) just two blocks to the East.
For the congressional staffers on Capitol Hill, and for the many think tankers, scholars, university students, church groups, and non-governmental organizations, and for the consultants, contractors, and corporations, who work within a few miles of this square to make a difference to those living in poverty and the conditions that keep them there.

And, yes, I would ask also that you root for the teams of the United Nations, such as mine, the UN Development Programme, and for the teams at UNICEF, at the World Food Programme, the UN Population Fund, and many others. And for those at the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund -- all within a short walk from here.

http://www.us.undp.org/TipsonSpeech.shtml

This sure is the decade of action and innovation:

http://www.america.gov/st/energy-english/2010/September/20100921123517lcnirellep0.3127405.html?CP.rss=true

Global governance is not global government?

We keep getting search engine hits for the "Agenda 21 conspiracy." Apparently the official blueprint for global governance doesn't mean the creation of a global government. How silly of us to wonder what kind of a world is being created with all this collaboration and informal arrangements between state and nonstate actors. Governance doesn't exist within the parameters established for governments in the "free" nations. "Government" exists within strict legal guidelines and boundaries in the U.S., all under the direct supervision of the American people. Global Governance eliminates the people's direct power over their governments. The capacity to self govern our government employees is a non issue in a transnational setting.

Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture

"The term “global governance” as used in this
paper includes all the institutions, regimes,
processes, partnerships, and networks that
contribute to collective action and problem
solving at the international level. This
definition subsumes formal and informal
arrangements as well as the role of nonstate
actors in transnational settings. Regional
cooperation may also be regarded as an
element of global governance insofar as it
contributes to broader efforts. Governance
differs from government, which implies
sovereign prerogatives and hierarchical
authority. Global governance does not equate
to world government, which would be
virtually impossible for the foreseeable future,
if ever." http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf

Maybe the CIA can use Lady Gaga to teach us what global governance really means.
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/21519?c=airport_aviation_security

Maybe the Global Green Police can explain what happened to our local American police.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/the-green-police.html

Common Purpose UK Mind Map

Here's a neat way of teaching how Common Purpose operates in the UK:
http://www.stopcp.com/cpmindmap.php

Thanks John!

PG&E ~ Strategic Plans & Goals by the year 2020

Not all pilot programs are advertised or widely read by the general public. Some pilot tests, like COMPASS in 2000, are actually denied being in existence. And, not all national/state programs that adhere to U.N. Local Agenda 21 "suggestions" openly establish that connection for voters.

This is a telling matrix sent from our friend Giesla with Alaskans Against the NAIS:

January 22, 2010
Advice 3082-G/3598-E
(Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U 39 M)
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Subject: Green Communities Program Advice Letter Pursuant to D.09-09-047

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby submits its Green Communities (GC) Program Advice Letter for its 2010-2012 Energy Efficiency (EE) Portfolio in compliance with Decision (D.) 09-09-047, Ordering Paragraph (OP) 20 and other directives of the Decision.

From: Brian K. Cherry
Vice President
Regulatory Relations
77 Beale Street, Room 1087
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mailing Address
Mail Code B10C
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
P.O. Box 770000
San Francisco, CA 94177

"This program supports the Strategic Plan’s goal for 50% of governments to
adopt energy/sustainability/ climate action plans by 2015 and 100% by 2020."
http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_3082-G.pdf

The Center for Sustainability California explains:

Energy Efficiency (R.09-11-014)

What’s this? This rulemaking continues the work of R.06-04-010 and serves as the forum for the CPUC’s continued implementation of the California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan as well as the forum for initiating the next planning cycle for 2013-2015 energy efficiency program plans, funding levels, and related issues.

What’s new?

On August 24, the CPUC issued a Proposed Decision, proposing to adopt the Lighting Chapter of the California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan and require that the chapter’s adopted strategies be incorporated into energy efficiency program planning and implementation starting in 2011. Decision (D.)09-09-047 directed the CPUC Energy Division to create a lighting chapter for inclusion in the plan, including specific goals, strategies and milestones in the chapter for transformation of the lighting market in California and to solicit the input of key stakeholders through meetings and/or public workshops. Comments on the proposed decision must be filed by September 13, and reply comments must be filed by September 20. http://energycenter.org/index.php/public-affairs/whats-new/1044-energy-efficiency

Green Communities http://www.greencommunitiesonline.org/ offers Sustainability Training Grants too.

Is there a Constitution for the New Green Order? http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

Is there a Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Program? http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/448-2/ From this link:

FOREWORD

By Maurice Strong Chairman, Earth Council

In 1992, the leaders of 179 countries gathered in Rio de Janeiro for the United Nations Earth Summit to finalize a global action plan for sustainable development, called Agenda 21. In this document, they recognized that because “so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives.” Agenda 21 further calls upon local authorities in every country “to undertake a consultative process with their populations and achieve a consensus on ‘Local Agenda 21’ for their communities.”

When this mandate was set out in 1992, there was little information available on how to proceed. It therefore gives me particular satisfaction to report that, since 1992, more than 1,300 local authorities from 31 countries have responded to the Agenda 21 mandate by developing their own Local Agenda 21 action plans for sustainable development.

The task of mobilizing and technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and national associations of local government. Now, with the further support of the International Development Research Centre and the United Nations Environment Programme, ICLEI is able to present the first worldwide documentation of Local Agenda 21 planning approaches, methods, and tools in this Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide.

The planning framework presented in the Guide has been derived from real-life Local Agenda 21 planning efforts around the world. The framework is being tested and reviewed by municipal professionals from 14 countries, North and South, East and West. The Guide should therefore provide a very useful introduction and technical resource on Local Agenda 21 planning to municipal professionals and NGOs facing a variety of development conditions.

The transition to sustainable development is not a soft option, but an imperative for our survival and well-being. It is going to require a great deal of courage and commitment from all sectors, including municipalities, to ensure its success.

Even as urban areas increasingly represent a concentration of our greatest social, economic, and environmental problems, they offer opportunities for some of the most effective solutions. They encompass great pools of talent and expertise within their many sectors, which local government officials can pull together to work on local strategies for action.

In my parting words at the conclusion of the Earth Summit, I said that we all “must move down from the Summit and into the trenches where the real world actions and decisions are taken that will, in the final analysis, determine whether the vision of Rio will be fulfilled and the agreements reached there implemented.” Of the many programs that have resulted from the Earth Summit, none is more promising or important than this one, which has hundreds of local authorities around the world now setting out and implementing their Local Agenda 21s.

Maurice Strong

FOREWORD

By Elizabeth Dowdeswell Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Today, humanity is on the move as never before. Driven from the countryside by political turmoil, population pressures, and ecological breakdown, most of those who head for the city do so to seek a better quality of life.

But this massive movement has only further strained the resources and infrastructure of already overburdened cities. The most explosive growth has been in the Third World, which has 213 cities of more than a million people and some 20 at the 10 million mark. The blanket of smog that hangs over cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, Delhi, Beijing, and tens of thousands of smaller cities is symbolic of more critical problems—of vulnerability to environmental sanitation problems, to natural disasters, and to man-made disasters such as chemical plant accidents and urban fires.

The increasing pace of global integration will determine whether in the future the lines that separate a city, a country, a region, and a continent will become progressively more blurred. But one thing is clear: the fate of cities will determine, more and more, not only the fate of nations but also of our planet. We can afford to ignore the issue of the sustainable management of our cities only at our peril.

How can sustainable development be made meaningful at the local level? How can we develop systems to involve the stakeholders in devising appropriate solutions to local environment and development issues? How can the quality of municipal services be improved and integrated to address the environmental, economic, and social prospects of the communities?

These questions are critical, especially since terms like sustainable development and environmental conservation can often conjure up images of processes too grand for local communities and their organizations to handle and influence. Clearly, sustainable development at the municipal level requires an entirely different approach to the planning and provision of services.

The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, prepared by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), introduces just such an approach—a planning framework for sustainable development at the local level. In simplest terms, the Guide documents a process for developing action plans to address complex problems inherent in modern urbanized societies. It presents a framework for engaging local authorities with residents and local organizations in the design and provision of services to the community, while simultaneously protecting local, regional, and global ecosystems.

In presenting this planning framework, ICLEI has given us a book filled with insights that subvert many of our most basic assumptions and suggest fresh ways to think about them.

For all these reasons, the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide is more than just another book. It is a lever for changing the art of managing sustainable development at the level of local government. Indeed this guide can serve as a symbol of today’s historic transformation in the concept of partnerships—one that no informed person can afford to ignore.

Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Glenn Beck on his missing the point of communitarianism

A couple years ago Tim (my camp host who watches a lot of TV) told me he saw "what you write about" on a TV talk show. I said, "Wow, what show?" and he replied, "I forget, maybe it was Lou Dobbs." "Did they say the word communitarianism?" I asked. Tim wasn't sure, but he thought "they" did. I completely forgot about it until today, when Kevin Eggers sent this:

November 10, 2008

GLENN: Prime Minister Brown has said the international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity. Oh, it usually does, doesn't it? To create a truly global society, a speech that Gordon Brown is going to give today. The alliance between Britain and the U.S. and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules for ourselves but to lead the global effort to bring a stronger and more just international order. He says we are living in a uniquely global age and it is now in our power to come together so 2008 is not remembered just for the failure of the financial crisis that engulfed the world but for resilience and optimism when we face the storm and gird it and prevailed.

You know what, it's funny that he would use that language because that is the language of the Sweater story that I am telling Mao but it is about facing your own storm. But your storm is your storm and that's what these globalists don't understand. It's your storm. It's my storm. It's America's storm. We must work together. We must stay together. We must listen to our neighbors. We must work together as a planet, but we must not ever lose our individuality. And that's what these collectivists want. That's what these communitarians want.

You You know, when I first sobered up and I went back to school, I mean, Joe Lieberman and I had a close relationship, believe it or not, at one point and he actually spoke to me then and I didn't mean to but I usually do end up, because I'm so brutally honest, I insulted him, and we've only -- you'll notice if Joe Lieberman is ever on this program, he will always say things like, "I remember when... but..." he'll also say, "I'm very proud of you because I remember you when... but..." he's never on except for extraordinarily crucial days. Election days usually. And that's okay. But Joe Lieberman and I used to go back and forth. This is right after I sobered up. We would go back and forth and he would say, "You're a Democrat." And I would say, "You're a conservative." But I started reading everything and when I first sobered up, I decided I was going to take absolutely everything out of me. I wasn't going to believe in anything, even God. And I took everything out of me and I only put it back in after I had examined it. I realized it, what was I, 30 something years old, 32 years old? I didn't really believe in anything other than what people had told me, you know? I was the average Schmo that, you know, you're busy, you got life going on and you're like, "Yeah, I think that one makes sense." But you haven't really done your homework on it. And there's a lot of reasons why. I mean, it's tough stuff, man. You really want to look at abortion? You really want to look at all of this stuff? And if you do, then it means you have to live within the parameters if you want to try to be consistent. And so I went to the library and I went to the bookstores and I bought everybody who would disagree with each other. Then I started reading on communitarianism and collectivism. And I'll never forget, I think it was Michael Lerner I was reading and I happened to see Joe Lieberman and I said, "Have you ever read Michael Lerner?" And he said, why, what do you think of him? And I said, I don't know, I like -- I think this is the way that we should be. And he smiled and he said, "I told you." And I said, "Told me what?" And he said, "You're a Democrat. Do you know that Michael Lerner is one of Hillary Clinton's favorite people." And I said, "Really?" I think it was Michael Lerner. If it's not, Michael, my apologies. And he said, yeah, she really believes in that, the "It takes a village." Because I had just started to really kind of investigate and it really started to -- I went back home and I started reading it again but, you know, with fresh eyes, with the eyes of, "It takes a village." And not that it takes a village, because it does. It takes all of us working together. It does. And this is where people are going to get lost. When you hear the rhetoric of "It takes a village, guys, we have to watch out for each other, we've got to work together, we're in this together," you think to yourself, yes, that's true. Why do you want to be such a hate monger and say we're not? But the secret is that village is forced to work together. It takes a village and it takes a village to tell that parent how to raise that child, to police that child. Somebody's at the top of the food chain and it's no longer the parent. It's no longer the individual. It's the community. And that's what people -- that's what I missed the first time I took glance at this and that's what's coming our way. Compassion. Community compassion. That's a lie. That's communism. That's Naziism. That's fascism, statism. It's not the most important ism and that is individualism.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/17999/

A keyword search for this quote brought up some interesting articles, like this:

The Rise of Collectivist Conservatives
by Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and editor of Cato Unbound. Added to cato.org on May 20, 2009. This article appeared in The Week on May 20, 2009.

Is a semi-private police state more livable?

Here's another great example of Big Mother's ideas for building a more livable world:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/08/669723/lists-of-pain-pillpatients-sought.html#ixzz0z2n1Ei9U

The D.C. Communitarian COPS' ideas for data gathering were the focus of all my early ACL research. Wouldn't you like to see your UN Local COPS' "Potential for Crime" file too? Is it too much of a coincidence that the same guy who "invented" the COPS' COMPASS database of American's most private information is now Obama's Drug Czar?

Thanks Curt!

My idea of a Livable Community

vinyl upholstery works great on the floor too!

Gerteeville on a cold and sunny fall morning
low 20, high 65!

I don't think everyone shares the same ideas about what a livable community means.

My idea of a livable community is Gerteeville, Alaska where I now live. I can guarantee you, not very many people would agree with me. Too many summer tourists tell the local kids I'm "weird" for living in a tent year round.

So how does the livable world system based on perfectly managed urban density accommodate people like me? I know most Americans don't live my way, but other people do all over the world. And if we think those people aren't happy because they don't have a fully plumbed government inspected apartment and a cell phone, we are mistaken.

I really love what I've accomplished here, and I'm rather proud of it too. I've hand built every dwelling we have using both new and used materials. We have no indoor plumbing and use wood stoves for heat and cooking. We burn as much beetle killed spruce as we can get access to (difficult when there's no public wood cutting areas). We haul freshwater from the community well and use about 50 gallons per week for a household of three people. I get electric off the grid.

There is no local government here. There is no county or borough government. Our only police are State Troopers whose offices are 40 miles away. All privately owned land is tax free. There are no land use regulations and no inspectors. We have an all volunteer fire department. We live side by side with moose, fox, lynx, ravens, eagles, owls, dogs, wolves and bears.

We have severe winters and nasty summers. It was 20 above this morning at 8am. I had to get up and saw a load of firewood with a broken chainsaw that barely gave me 4 pieces of slab. Every day presents new challenges, and the only time I get to be lazy is when everything is done. But these are prices I'm willing to pay. I like my independence and honor the personal responsibility I have for my own health and safekeeping. I love opening my strange little home to strangers who meander through our wilderness. I am nourished by the closeness I feel in spirit to the people who live in our neighborhood (except for the WISE bunch, who also happen to be the communitarians out here). We are not isolated nor are we alone, and it's funny that old acquaintances who live antiseptically alone in big beautiful Seattle homes think we are. Will people ever stop projecting their own limited views of life on others?

I was introduced to Building Livable Communities in Seattle, WA in 1999.

Seattle planners told us they were rebuilding our neighborhood to be more livable. They had many new ideas for how they could possibly implement what they called our "local" vision for the future. Several of the ideas included using federal police to gather our private data.

To verify their claims that our rights to privacy and property had been "balanced" against the community, I went door to door on my block (N.E. 65th Street entrance to Roosevelt H.S.) and not one of my neighbors had any idea about the plan to build a livable community.

Over the next year I asked hundreds of Seattle residents what they thought about their plan, and the answer was always, "What Plan?"

Everyone I knew also insisted I made up the quote from the Seattle Police's Mission Statement: "To increase livability by reducing fear." Seattle neighborhood planners refused to define Livability for me. Seattle Democrat Nancy Rising thought it all sounded completely ridiculous. My repeating the planners terminology in my letters to the planners got me branded as a wacko.

My original opposition to Building Livable Communities was based on the fact that the planners lied when they claimed it was what the whole community said they wanted. When I learned Livable Communities was a communitarian idea and that a old Israeli terrorist named Amitai Etzioni was the guru for the big new idea for livability, my opposition expanded to be based against the communitarian theory behind building livable communities.

A recent commenter raised the point that our opposition appears to play into the dialectic. We've pondered that ourselves many times at this blog. The ACL Manifesto is obviously, by default, the dialectical opposite of Etzioni's communitarianism. If communitarianism is not the perfect unnamed final synthesis in the Hegelian Dialectic, it does need opposition to morph into the next planned evolutionary phase. Our antithesis proves it is not the perfect final solution to unjust social systems, because Marxist teachers told us the final dialectical synthesis/solution would be so perfect it gives rise to no opposition. We exist, therefore it cannot be perfect.

So now the question I'm sure most rational readers ask is, does the ACL exist merely because we recognized their imperfect lies or because we are their agents and we're frauds? Are we truly independent opposition or are we controlled opposition? I have no way of proving that to you. All you can wonder is why the hell we're the ONLY dedicated opposition research in the world. If there's supposed to be a "movement" arising from the people that opposes communitarianism, then based on the way that's NOT happening I'd guess we're going to be stuck in the communitarian phase of the Hegelian dialectic for a looooooong time.

Other writers have some evidence communitarianism is just another Hegelian phase of the forced evolutionary process, and I linked down on the right to Bobby Garner's Dialectical Tetrad article for those interested in the theory of Transcendence. Much of the idea is based on Alice Baily's writings, which I've yet to find time to study, and I'm guessing I'm going to learn more about it from Manley Hall when I find time to read his works. Will I stop being the opposition if I become convinced I am only helping move society toward the final Stutopian solution? Good question.