Clark: Global Warming Is a National Security Issue

[Adelante]

Global warming is a national security issue
Wes Clark's picture
Posted by Wes Clark on September 22, 2005 - 11:09am.

The mildest projections by experts predict a 10-degree average increase in global temperatures in the next 90 years. This will cause sea levels to rise approximately two feet, displacing 100 million in low-lying areas of the world. Other estimates are less optimistic. For example, if the Greenland icecap were to melt, then sea levels could rise between 7-10 meters, making large areas of our world today uninhabitable.

The difficulty is that the carbon in the atmosphere will remain suspended for 100 years or more. So global warming is in place and according to scientists, it is unlikely to be reversed.

What can we do to slow the rate? And how do we deal with the consequences?

To slow the rate of global warming is to reduce appreciably the greenhouse gas emissions. This is the familiar agenda of the global warming concern. However, with the consequences of global warming already so severe, global warming has to be treated as a national security problem, involving not just the EPA but also the National Security Council and the top leadership of America. Global warming is a national security issue.

In my view, global warming's impact on climate change will impact human populations in three ways: displacement, disaster and political tensions.

First, warmer temperatures thin arctic ice sheets, raising sea levels. Higher water levels will dislocate 100 million people currently living in coastal areas.

Disasters will come with warming sea temperatures and changes in salinity levels which lead to stronger and more frequent hurricanes which means storms such as Rita and Katrina, more tornadoes, and extensive droughts. Furthermore, these massive storms could strike not just the Gulf Coast, but the Pacific Coast as well, causing vast destruction. Shifts in precipitation patterns will impact agricultural capacities and complicate access to drinking water.

Dislocation and disaster will force people and nations to compete for land, food, and water. Although these effects will not imperil American security per se, many other nations will be forced into a state of strife while coping with these changes, causing tension between countries and providing a destabilizing force in the world stretching to the limits treaties, traditions, and relationships between and among nations.

It is crucial that we begin exercising real leadership now to slow down and begin to confront the effects global warming will have on our national security. What kinds of things can we each do to make a difference? I look forward to reading your thoughts on this issue.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/1023#new

Note to mods: This is from Clark's website, not a publication. Thanks.

[daninthemoon]

1. MSM, why aren't we hearing from this man?

[Clark2008]

19. Because he would be wildly popular, get elected

and then re-instate the Fairness Doctrine (he ran on that).

Pretty simple, if you ask me. They want to silence him for their own checkbooks' sakes.

[phantom power]

2. It's about time somebody started re-framing "national security"

We have a whole lot of immediate threats to national security. Climate change, enormous national debt, trade imbalance, total dependence on disappearing oil, avian flu, to name some short-listers.

[Clarkie1]

62. Exactly!

If we reframe "national security" we take away the reasons Republicans keep winning elections, and at the same time give real Democratic issues a new perspective!

[Totally Committed]

3. Thinking outside the box is definitely Wes's strong suit!

His thinking is expansive and open on a number of levels. These ideas are so elegant in their simplicity, maybe he just makes it look or seem too easy. I dunno... I only know it's nice to hear some reframing and common sense about Global Warming and the way it effects National Security. All those "National Security" voters who voted for Bush last time out will be taking a look at Wes, and my guess is they are going to like what they see and hear.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

4. "Thinking outside the box" is what is also called

Leadership, and we need it now! :patriot:

[Adelante]

5. Gimme some

Leadership :patriot:

[Totally Committed]

6. Actually, Frenchie, it is but one component of leadership...

But Wes has all of them, for sure: A heart that cares for all the people and strives to good by all, a mind that thinks outside the box and looks for solutions to problems that no one else could see, a soul that encourages him to do the right thing, and THE GUTS, the SPINE, the BALLS... whatever!... to stand up and speak truth to power, and to be our voice when we are not being heard.

Wes has it ALL! :patriot:

TC

[Peace Patriot]

7. Well, if you want to elect a GOOD president--as opposed to having the

Bush Cartel and War Democrats destroying our country (and others)--you first have to deal with the two Bushite electronic voting machine companies, Diebold and ES&S, who "tabulated" the nation's votes in 2004, using SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it.

It's a no-brainer, really.

We need..

Paper ballots hand-counted at the precinct level (--Canada does it in one day, although speed should not even be a consideration, just accuracy and verifiability)

or, at the least...

Paper ballot (not "paper trail") backup of all electronic voting, a 10% automatic recount, very strict security, and NO SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code! (...jeez!)


And we also need to expel corrupt election officials of both parties who signed these contracts containing "trade secret" vote tabulation. Reform at the federal is hopeless (Bush's "pod people" Congress, who brought us "trade secret," proprietary vote tabulation by Bushite companies, in the first place--no hope there); reform has to be done state by state, county by county.

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor'(so to speak) NOW! (--or a Louisiana levee might do!)

Then we'll see some new life on the political horizon--maybe even democracy!

[welshTerrier2]

8. Clark is right BUT ...

Clark is dead on in his analysis about the devastating effects of global warming ... too many think their biggest worry will be that it will be a degree or two hotter at their summer picnics ... global warming will be no picnic ... reports show a massive increase in worldwide diseases, droughts and famine, global war and political disruption not to mention the loss of hundreds of species and cultures ...

but again, why can't Clark take his case to the next level??? ... the reason we have problems with global warming is that we continue to burn fossil fuels ... and the reason we continue to burn fossil fuels is, as John Kerry correctly pointed out in his 7/29/05 speech:

"The bottom line is the Administration's energy policy works for Saudi Arabia, it works for big oil and gas companies, but it doesn't work for the American people."

Clark needs to clearly identify that our current policies that cause global warming are driven by the pure greed of big oil and corporatism and a government willing to cater to them ... Clark understands and articulates the depth of the problem very well but weakens the potency of his own argument by failing to "out the enemy" ...

[1932]

9. That ties in with your exchange with Clark at TPM Cafe Table for One

Iraq isn't about democracy for Iraqis or America being seen as successful so that small countries don't pull shit with us. It's about the US establishing an imperialist corporatocracy on behalf of oil companies, large engineering firms, and anyone who wants to make a lot of bucks off oprivatization in Iraq. That it's in America's interest to have access to cheap oil doesn't justify the corporatocracy's behavior.

You can't just say that global warming is a national security issue and expect the solution to naturally follow. (Is this is just a frame for the issue that is meant to make people think, "hmm, then maybe we should put a former general in charge," without being clear about what that general would do?)

To me, global warming is part of a bigger problem where so much political and economic activity is really about shifting wealth around. It's about shifting wealth from poor people to rich people. We tolerate the oil industry doing this because they've bought themselves a government -- and they do it on every level -- by impovershing people in Ogoniland, Nigeria for cheap oil, by buying politicians who won't even require airconditioner manufacturers to make more efficient products or who protect Enron's rape of Californian electricity customers, etc.

We don't need to just put Global Warming in the context of a security problem. We need to put it in the context of the corporate exploitation of the powerless for the benefit of the powerful.

On edit:

I just reread Clark's statement, and I'm curious about one of its implications. His frame is that global warming is going to happen. He says we need leadership to confront the consequences (displacement, disasters, etc.). Nothing in that statement asks the corporatocracy to change their behavior. I know Clark believes in conservation, etc. However, he hasn't taken the opportunity in this statement to ask the oil companies or the corporatocracy to do anything to change their behavior.

I think the kind of leadership we need is leadership that not only confronts the consequences but also leadership that stands up to the corporatocracy so that we don't get into situations like this in the future. Whether the issue is taxes, imperialism, polution, health care, education, we need a leader who will say that shifting wealth and power to the powerful while making the powerless bear all the costs of their activities is not the answer.

[welshTerrier2]

10. you keep going on and on about the imperialist corporatocracy ...

thanks !!!! :yourock:

[1932]

11. As The Clash sang,

"The more I know the less my tune can swing."

For some people (thankfully, not you and many others here at DU), it may not swing to keep hearing about the imperialist corporatocracy, but the more I learn, the more it becomes clear that this is the problem.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Sorry, but.....

Who is "thinking" this according to you? You can't just say that global warming is a national security issue and expect the solution to naturally follow."

Clark sure in the hell doesn't.

and in reference to this..."I know Clark believes in conservation, etc. However, he hasn't taken the opportunity in this statement to ask the oil companies or the corporatocracy to do anything to change their behavior.

Maybe its because Clark is smart enough to understand that "asking" the oil companies and corporatocracies to DO anything ain't gonna get it done. At this point, seeing what the these two powers are capable of, its past time for good government TO ASK, and time TO TELL these entities what NEEDS TO BE DONE. That is the only place that we will affect change for the better......not by asking corporatocracies to "do something".

Clean energy/global warming.This nation can no longer defer serious action to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. We urgently need to confront the challenge of developing a 21st century energy policy, both as a matter of national security -- to reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- and to combat the profound danger of global warming.

This is a challenge that we can meet with American ingenuity, resolve, and technological leadership.

Yet the Bush Administration has adopted a head-in-the-sand policy of denial, delay, and deceit. Its energy plan is stuck in a past when it seemed that fossil fuels could be burned with impunity. --Wes Clark
http://clark04.com/issues/environment/

[1932]

39. I address this in post 33:

i think Clark's frame implies Clark's solutions.

I also think you're underestimating the ability of the government not to completely serve corporate interests.

[FrenchieCat]

51. You mean.....

Your Frame of Clark's solutions implies something other than what they are? Yes they do.

[1932]

55. Well, he doesn't propose any solutions.

I've said that his frame of the problem implies solutions.

Saying global warming is a national security problem is true. Saying that it's primarily a national security problem is sort of like saying that N.O. is primarily a law and order problem. When you do that, people think the solution to the problem is to get rid of the Posse Commitatus Act (rather than repair infrastructure and shift wealth and power to the people).

[FrenchieCat]

60. You are so, so wrong......

But do you do this on purpose, or what?

You say..." Saying that it's primarily a national security problem is sort of like saying that N.O. is primarily a law and order problem.

No, it isn't what he's saying. You've missed the mark, again.

[dogman]

14. You may be right but if the American people don't see a problem,

they won't even be concerned about a solution. You have to get people engaged in the discussion before you can move to the next step.

[1932]

16. How does this statement do better than the pictures from New Orleans?

And how does characterizing that as a national security risk help people understand the solutions to that problem? (And aren't we trying to move people from thinking of the victims of environmental disasters as security risks to thinking of them as human beings whose misery we need to alleviate?)

Clark says,

Dislocation and disaster will force people and nations to compete for land, food, and water. Although these effects will not imperil American security per se, many other nations will be forced into a state of strife while coping with these changes, causing tension between countries and providing a destabilizing force in the world stretching to the limits treaties, traditions, and relationships between and among nations.

That's not what is happening in New Orleans. Bush wanted us to believe that that's what was happening. But we learned that that was not the true story. If Katrina struck Nigeria or the Philippines or anywhere else, I would think that the human stories would be no different. Rather that talking about dealing with tension, strife, instability and competition, we should be talking about creating political realities everywhere and not just in the US where those aren't the consequences of misery, and I suspect that the solutions for New Orleans will have a lot in common with solutions in the rest of the world.

[dogman]

18. Did you read your post?

Snip> Although these effects will not imperil American security per se, many other nations will be forced into a state of strife while coping with these changes<snip
He is not referring to Katrina, it's bigger than that. See, even as aware of the problem as you are, you aren't looking at the big picture. He is trying to engage those that are aware and get the message to those who here daily RW spin that there is no real problem.

[1932]

21. Did you read my post?

I'm saying that it's strange that Clark thinks there's a solution for the rest of the world that is very different from the solution for the US.

Think hard about this. In the US we've just seen impoverished people devastated by a natural disaster. Lots of Americans are out of work. They have nothing. And they got that way because of a bad political situation that existed before the disaster struck. In many ways, these people are in the same (or worse) postion than someone living in a developing country in South America, Africa or Asia.

Clark is taking Katrina and Rita to make an argument about the relevance of military leaders is a world that will suffer more natural disasters because Clark thinks that the consequences will be strife, instability and chaos (which sounds like what Republicans were telling us was going on in New Orleans) and that we need to be prepared to deal with that. Incidentally, HOW does he think we need to deal with that? Is he saying we'll need to invest more in our military so that it can parachute into these countries to mediate or fight? Is he saying the future will be one marked by constant war?

I suspect that the truth is that the same solutions we would suggest for N.O. would apply all over the world. Just like Miccah's prophecy, people need their olive trees and orchards if we expect there to be stability in the world. We need governments that help people relocate, and work and eat. We need to confront the corporatocracy whose great accumulation of wealth is creating much of the poverty that is making it hard to deal with crisis (whether in N.O. or Africa or South and Central America or Asia).

Incidentally, the Tsunami was a terrible natural disaster, and I didn't see chaos, strife and war resulting from it. I saw a lot of people and governments reaching out to help citizens cope (and they did a much better job than we did in the US, probably because the governments of the countries hurt by the Tsunami tried to instantly help all the victims).

[dogman]

22. It seems less complicated than you make it.

He is not talking about Katrina and NO. He is explaining that beyond the obvious environmental effects there are also long term NS problems that could arise. Take it for what he states. He is appealing to security concerns, hence his web site, securingamerica.com. This is one aspect, not the whole argument.There are obviously people in this country that are not concerned with poverty and all, they are however concerned with their own security and he is broadening the argument to let them know that they are more involved than they care to think.

[1932]

25. Ok, here are my questions:

1) What do you think should be the policy solution for the economic, social and political problems Katrina revealed?

2) What do you think the policy solution should be for the economic, social and political problems a similar disaster would cause in a developing country in Africa, Asia or South or Central America?

3) Presuming you think the approach should be different and that the implied (not explicit) solution one would draw from Clark's statement is the answer to #2 (that we should have leaders prepared to deal with serious political upheaval and perhaps wars), why should that be? Why isn't the solution in the US the same as in any other developing country?

I think it's interesting that the picture Clark tries to paint of the consequences of Katrina-like disasters in other countries (strife and chaos) is similar to the picture Republicans tried to paint of New Orleans. Why is that? Or at least, you should ask yourself what the policy implications would be if people saw N.O. primarily as a break down of law and order initiated by savages. And you should ask yourself if this vision of Clark's suggests the same thing set of policy implications in our dealings with foreign countries.

I think it's starting to look like America could develop a little bit too -- that our problems are VERY similar to the problems in developing countries -- and I'm going to guess that the solutions PROGRESSIVES have for N.O. are going to have a lot in common with the solutions that will work in the rest of the world, and they're not going to be solutions that evolve from a frame of chaos, strife and fear.

[dogman]

64. I think the point is that we don't have the ability to affect global

problems in the same light as domestic problems. As a sovereign nation we can come together and solve our own problems. As a member of nations we can only suggest and guide the solutions facing other nations. That requires leadership. The article Clark wrote was not an answer, it was a question.
Snip>It is crucial that we begin exercising real leadership now to slow down and begin to confront the effects global warming will have on our national security. What kinds of things can we each do to make a difference? I look forward to reading your thoughts on this issue.<snip
His article was designed to frame global warming as not just a national issue on environment but also it is a national security issue and needs to be looked at as such. You are obviously welcome to post your ideas in his forum. That is the purpose of his posting. He has set out an idea he has and welcomes response and discussion. He has framed it in the context of his site, once again, securingamerica.com. This is not a discussion of Katrina, it is about global warming and is a carryover of the Clinton Global Initiative where he was a speaker. You can find more about that event at his site.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/979

[1932]

71. It's American corporations and the US-dominated IMF/World Bank nexus

that is responsible for impoverishing much of the developing world.

Algiers in New Orleans has a lot in common with Algiers in Africa and with many other developing countries, and American politics has a tremendous influnece on what happens in those countries as it does in N.O.

If Clark is implying that the US needs to be prepared when countries fight over resources and land as a consequence of global warming, I think he's implying that the US has power and influence of one sort. It would be nice if we used our power and influence to make sure these countries have the money to build infrastructure and aren't run by the sort of corporatocracy that's crippling the US (as we've discovered in the Gulf).

Perhaps the most important thing we can do to help countries that will suffer from global warming is debt relief. I would like to see American leadership on that issue.

[dogman]

85. Clark is implying we must stop global warming.

Your posts remind me of the new commercial about tennis in another world. The game evolves while it is being played. Clark is stating that global warming is a threat to global stability and you have moved it to the IMF/World Bank. If that is the political fight that evolves from stopping global warming it seems obvious he is prepared to wage that fight.

[FrenchieCat]

23. 1932.....Clark never gonna please you, period.

The problem with your arguments on the topic of Wes Clark's statements is that your true purpose for posting is to consistently attempt to portray Wes Clark has less than. I find you effective BUT disingenious in the way that you show up in every Clark thread to make the issue be about what Clark "thinks" (as though you have a key to his mind), and always and only according to you.

Here you tell us what Clark thinks....which is not what Clark thinks:
Clark thinks that the consequences will be strife, instability and chaos (which, incidentally, sounds sort of like what Republicans were telling us what was going on in New Orleans) and that we need to be prepared to deal with that.

MORE of what you Clark thinks according to you....it's strange that Clark thinks there's a solution for the rest of the world that is very different from the solution for the US.

Then you cite books, and unsourced summaries of what we should accept as being right, and it is always is presented as the opposite of whatever the issue is that Clark is addressing...but what makes you think that Clark disagrees with your statement here? "Just like Miccah's prophecy, people need their olive trees and orchards if we expect there to be stability in the world. We need governments that help people relocate, and work and eat. We need to confront the corporatocracy that whose great accumulation of wealth is creating much of the poverty that is making it hard to deal with crisis.".. the fact is that you don't know if he does or doesn't, yet that's how you frame the post.

This has got to stop.

In the meantime, John Edwards, Mr. IRW Vote/Corporate Bildeberg star doesn't have to say much of anything other than to hold up his two fingers, and yet you love him and his 30 day old dirty drawers to death...

[1932]

29. I think Clark is raising some of the most important issues out there today

Is it OK if I talk about them?

I'm also very amused that you think that I'm mischaracterizing Clark's statement. What I wrote is almost verbatim his characterization of the consequences of global warming from this very post. Unlike your other allegations in this post, it's easy enough for readers to scroll up and read Clark's quote.

And the second quote: as dogman noted CLARK EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT HE THINKS THE CONSEQUENCES IN THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE IN THE US. Read dogman's "did you read your post" post.

I am so confident that the books and articles I cite are sufficiently authoritative and credible that I don't have to defend them. Address them if you want. It might be more compelling reading for other people here than mischaracterizing them or me.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

38. Your third paragraph:

What are you trying to say?

[dogman]

65. It's hard to find a comfortable pair of shoes when you have a rock

(military) in your sock.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I disagree with your statement here....

"If Katrina struck Nigeria or the Philippines or anywhere else, I would think that the human stories would be no different".

I think that the Human stories would be more numerous and even worse. Why do you not think so?

[1932]

30. I think the story would be about how to alleviate people's misery

and not about the chaos and strife that might ensue (thus requiring some vaguely military solution).

[Stinky The Clown]

31. I have a question for you .......

..... do you post to anything besides Clark threads?

I spend a good deal of time on DU (cuz I can) and seem to never see your posts except in threads having anything to do with Clark, even if not the thread's original topic.

I'f I'm wrong, please tell me to shove off and I will.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

37. So?

You've seen the books I've read. Much of the things I'm interested in reading manifest themselves in what is apparently a debate that Clark is on one side of and in some areas (but not all) Edwards is on the other side of.

The Edwards threads I've posted to have been about what? Poverty. The corporatocracy. Two Americas. I can't apologize for the fact that those issues make me think.

I also can't deny that I'm interested in the consequences of the next presidential election (as you obviously are too). And I told you last time you raised this issue, I plan on taking up all the issues and candidates as they develop with the arguments I'm making.

It just so happens that because of 2004 and Katrina, I'm more familiar with Edwards and Two Americas right now. And because of the frequency of Clark posts and 2004, Clark is relevent. The Kerry posts here don't discuss ideas so often (a lot of people just want to slam him for reasons other than his ideas) so I haven't gotten into them.

As we learn more about other candidates (like Feingold and Clinton) -- as they put more of their ideas out there -- I'll be thinking about and writing about them too.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Sooooo

You say...."I'm more familiar with Edwards and Two Americas right now."

So what is John Edwards "doing" with his Poverty Center to alleviate the human suffering going on in NO? Did he charter planes, work with Witt to counter FEMA's inability, or what?


And what does Edwards say about Iraq? Should we stay, should we go, when and how? Of course this issue is still looming even after and certainly prior to Katrina. So please tell us what John Edwards is saying about Iraq, why he voted for it, and what does he want to be done about it now? Should we stay or should we go? When? How? Why does he say we are even there?

And what about Global Warming? What are his ideas and does he say we should end all corporatist and big oil companies from doing business that are directly linked to Global Warming?

Please do tell!

I know that Edwards' been to Iowa 4 times...more than any other interested in 2008....so certainly while boosting him, you must know and fully understand his views, and they must be in full agreement with the myriad of books that you quote.

[1932]

44. I don't know.

I think I heard on CSPAN that he was in Baton Rouge. He talked about what he saw and heard from the victims in a speech where he was working with some activist group to raise the profile of these issues.

I have to say what he's doing is working, because it's informing the way I think about the social, economic and political causes of the problems in New Orleans.

What is he saying about the other things? I don't know. If you want to quote him, do so, and I'll talk about my impression of what he's saying.

[FrenchieCat]

52. That does not answer my questions.....

What did Edwards "DO" about Katrina via his Poverty Center. Not what speech did he give? That's not a deed in my book.

Also,how is it that the less you know about a candidate, the more you support them? How does that work? :shrug:

[1932]

54. If you want to quote something, or break down an argument, let's do it.

But you're going to have to quote something or state an argument.

As for what Edwards is doing, I'll repeat: he's making speeches that have influenced the way I think about Katrina and about society and politics and the economy. An idea is a powerful thing. Some of those ideas, you'll see in this thread.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. I found this thread kind of interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2088017

[1932]

49. Me too!!!

I'm glad we agree about something.

:)

[1932]

48. I post where I can provide an informed opinion.

I've read Clark's books, so I felt informed about him. I'm reading Development as Freedom and I read Globalization and its Discontents, so I feel like I have something to add about poverty and development. I read Health of Nations, so I repeated a few things I learned in that book in posts about inequality. I read a Galbraith biography, so I felt like I had some historical information to share about the corporatocracy and the Wall St-West Point axis of power. I read God's Politics, so I've shared some things from that book. I read The Roaring Nineties, so I think I have something to add about Sumners, Gore and Rubin.

FrenchieCat has been paying close attention to my posts, so she sould probably answer this question too. :)

[Uncle Joe]

56. For a full rounded perspective of Al Gore,

may I suggest "Earth In The Balance".

[FrenchieCat]

34. You didn't answer my question......

The story is about how to keep those things from happening that add to people's misery.

Maybe prevention is worth an ounce of cure.

[1932]

40. And what do you do to prevent those things from happening?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

45. I was actually trying to employ the Socratic method to develop this idea.

If you don't want to answer, we don't have to do this. But I did have a follow-up question for you depending on your answer.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

72. Any time you want to discuss the issues Clark raises,

let me know. I'm happy to discuss them...in this discussion forum...where we discuss issues.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

82. Then why the personal attacks.

Below, wiley's post seems not to agree with you.

Furthermore, didn't someone respond to a similar post by you in a different thread telling yout that my post was reasonable? Your reply was, "yeah, but '32 does this all the time." What? Ask difficult, but reasonable questions?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

90. What book did I read about Darfur?

[Sparkly]

95. The one where Clark "implies" stuff about corporatocracy, imperialism,

and of course, the "Wall St-West Point axis of power." Seems like that's what you find in most books. :shrug:

[1932]

103. It sounds like you're mixing up a lot of stuff.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

27. I disagree with this statement of yours as well.....

And how does characterizing that as a national security risk help people understand the solutions to that problem? (And aren't we trying to move people from thinking of the victims of environmental disasters as security risks to thinking of them as human beings whose misery we need to alleviate?)

Human misery results directly from the mishandling of natural disasters.....so the security risk is not handling the natural disasters as well as we should.....here and all over the world.

[1932]

33. I read Clark's statement this way:

First, he says the consequences are inevitable. He says what has already happened to the environment started a ball that will roll for the next 100 years no matter what we do (which is interesting in that it shifts the burdens off the corporatocracy in that it doesn't ask them to change their behavior).

Then he lists the consequences, which are, implicitly, inevitable. These are displacement, disaster and political tensions (sounds like FUD, doesn't it?).

So, what's he saying the solution will be? Well, FUD was the way the Republicans framed N.O., and the frame dictated the solutions: heavy hand, shoot to kill, zero tollerance for looters, treat the people like criminals, turn everything over to corporations, use theh crisis to empower the powerful and further enslave the powerless.

I hope some people who respond to Clark's request for ideas have the courage to reject the frame and propose progressive frames and solutions.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

43. I disagree with Clark.

I disagree when he says the invasion of Panama was justified by American interests. I disagree when he says that if the US leaves Iraq without making a corporotocratic success of it that we'll be vulnerable in the world (and that what we're doing there is the alternative to having to fight wars for oil). I disagree with Clark that we don't need to do anything more to the way we tax capital gains then return to the 2001 tax code. I disagree about N.E.D. involvement in Venezuela (represented by Donna Zen's post yesterday). I disagree that virtual American Empire since WW2 has been a force for good in the world.

I think this is a fine forum to raise all these issues.

[FrenchieCat]

50. But....

Clark never says this..."I disagree when he says that if the US leaves Iraq without making a corporotocratic success of it that we'll be vulnerable in the world "

or this..."I disagree with Clark that we don't need to do anything more to the way we tax capital gains then return to the 2001 tax code"

Or this......."I disagree with Clark that we don't need to do anything more to the way we tax capital gains then return to the 2001 tax code"

Nor does Clark agree with NED's involvement in Panama....

Nor does Clark say that Panama was justified although it was a sucess militarily...which is what he was referring to......


In other words, Clark said none of what you disagree with...and hence "LIES" your problem.

[1932]

53. Cites:

1) TPM Table for One and WT2's posts about that thread. Clark says almost exactly that. He said that if we don't succeed, we'll be seen as week. It's a theme that he repeats in relation to Vietnam many times in Winning Modern War. In response to WT2 argument about the corporatocracy and imperialism, Clark essentially responded that we need oil and this is the alternative to waging war. WT2 said in a post that Clark supporters at DU PM'd him/her agreeing that that was a very unsatisfactory response.

2) We had the capital gains tax discussion recently. This is exactly what Clark proposed. Role back the tax code to 2001 for people above (was it) 200K per year and increase earned income tax on income over 1,000,000, and with no other changes to capital gains tax.

3) Clark is on the board at N.E.D. N.E.D. has nothing to be proud of in Venezuela. Donna Z. posted the defense of N.E.D. from the CCN site. I thought it was very unsatisfactory for reasons I posted in that thread.

4) Clark said in a Washington Post chat that the US invasion of Panama was justified by US interests. I found it googling. It's out there. You can pretend that it isn't and you can pull the same thing you did in the N.E.D. post yesterday (accuse me of not supporting my arguments and then abandoning the thread when I do give you the links). But I know what I read. I don't think that I have to defend my credibility. And anyway, if I did give you the links and the page numbers, you're just going to abandon the thread and then repeat your claims that I don't do that, just like you're doing right now.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Cites? I don't think so.....

1) TPM Table for One and WT2's posts about that thread. Clark says almost exactly that. He said that if we don't succeed, we'll be seen as week.

WRONG! - Clarks said IF we don't start to use positive diplomacy towards Iraq's neigbors, and give political autonomy to the Iraqis, and have the world involved in the economic structuring of Iraq's reconstruction then Iraq cannot be stabilized. Then if we suddently leave, we will see a civil war raging behind us as we go, and we will leave the Iraqi people, the middle east, the U.S. and in fact, the world, in a more vunerable position than how things were when we started this. In essence we will have accomplished the opposite of stabilizing Iraq and that's not in anyone's interest at this point, including the U.S. Maybe Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters understood what he said better than you did? Is that possible?

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who formed the Out of Iraq Caucus, said Clark had "such an impact" because he is "well-respected and knows so much about the military and how it operates and what is going on." Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a leading voice among Dems urging a troop withdrawal, said Clark "made a lot of sense," and confirmed what many have long believed, that this war "did not need to be fought."
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5328.html

Clark essentially responded that we need oil and this is the alternative to waging war. WT2 said in a post that Clark supporters at DU PM'd him/her agreeing that that was a very unsatisfactory response.

WRONG! Clark did not say "we need oil and this is the alternative to starting waging war" --What is? What are you talking about? Clark said that oil is a commodity and that we should buy it, not fight for it.

2) We had the capital gains tax discussion recently. This is exactly what Clark proposed. Role back the tax code to 2001 for people above (was it) 200K per year and increase earned income tax on income over 1,000,000, and with no other changes to capital gains tax.

This is your mischarecterization and is not what Clark proposed. The issue of what that is what YOU PROPOSED that the only solution to The our tax code problem is rolling back capital gains. In fact that appeared to be your only solution.... I disagreed, and cited that many others did as well, in particular the many who lauded Clark's tax plan that would bring back progressive taxation as it was intended, beginning by eradicating income taxes all together for families of 4 earning under $50,000.....in where they would not even have to file a tax return, just a simple form to apply for the earned income/child credit (which he would have raised). And yes, he would have put a 5% surcharge on every million reported by wealthy taxpayers after the first, something no other Democrat proposed including John Edwards and his many Tax credits (another name for tax solutions called kiss my ass if your'e poor measures).

3) Clark is on the board at N.E.D. N.E.D. has nothing to be proud of in Venezuela. Donna Z. posted the defense of N.E.D. from the CCN site. I thought it was very unsatisfactory for reasons I posted in that thread.

This is guilt by association. Clark had nothing to do with the RNI's arm of NED and their actions in venezuela. You attempted to imply such in another thread...cause that's what you do.

4) Clark said in a Washington Post chat that the US invasion of Panama was justified by US interests. I found it googling. It's out there. You can pretend that it isn't and you can pull the same thing you did in the N.E.D. post yesterday (accuse me of not supporting my arguments and then abandoning the thread when I do give you the links). But I know what I read. I don't think that I have to defend my credibility. And anyway, if I did give you the links and the page numbers, you're just going to abandon the thread and then repeat your claims that I don't do that, just like you're doing right now.

If you googled it, and found it, then post it

otherwise, yes....

I think you do have to defend your credibility, because it is on shaky grounds.

You distort, manipulate, omit, generalize, and exaggerate to suit your purpose....and it is evident to most but you.

[1932]

63. This is straight from Clark's tax plan:

"A 5 percentage point increase in the tax rate only on income over $1 million per year. This surcharge, which could be used only for working family tax relief, would not apply to the first $1 million of income or to any capital gains - so it will not affect 99.9 percent of taxpayers."

How can we discuss these things if you won't admit that Clark says what he says?

Furthermore, he qualifies every credit he proposes as being for families. It looks like he's wrapping together the EITC and the Child Tax Credit and only giving them to people with kids. The EITC is one of the most important credits keeping even more Americans out of poverty than there are now. It looks like you're going to lose it if you don't have a kid.

As for N.E.D., when every article and discussion about N.E.D. in Venezuela says that N.E.D. gave money to opposition groups, and when everyone knows Clark is on the board of N.E.D., why do you think that it was only the Republican group that is responsible for N.E.D.'s activities? And you did read those N.E.D. links, didn't you? I doubt Clark has much to do with the labor group, but the articles say that even the labor N.E.D. group was involved in Venezuela helping the opposition. By the way, Clark was commander of the Southern Cone, right?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

70. That bastard.

I have complemented Edwards for his frame for Katrina. I haven't complimented his IRW vote, or every single aspect of his presidential campaign.

So what were we talking about? Oh yes. A tax plan that doesn't do much to address capital gains and that looks like it's going to take away the EITC for single people and parents whose children are adults? Do you have any comments about that?

[The Traveler]

69. Having read this thread

you argue from the perspective of one who says, "The world should work THIS way" when it is clear that it does not, and will not despite the righteous passion of your claims.

Global warming will impose massive consequences on the civilization that perpertrated it. High energy technology based civilization is about to get its ass kicked. No city in America is more than three days away from food riots. How, given the massive dislocations and disruptions we are certain to face, can there NOT be national security implications?

Clark is saying a) we screwed around too long, the beast is upon us now b) it is going to get worse c) we must (for the long term good) act now to not further feed this beast d) we must prepare for the consequences we will doubtless face.

This is all quite reasonable, in my view.

Global warming is happening, and we are the cause. The trick now is to, as a nation, adapt to the rapid changes hurtling at us and do the right, wise things. As hard as it is on us, it will be harder still on others ... and harsh conditions do tend to produce wars, and that is about the last thing we need right now.

Clark is saying global warming has a major impact on the matter of national security. And he is right.

If we accept that fact, we can through planning and coordination of international effort to much to mitigate that effect. We can save lives and reduce suffering. If we do nothing, a disaster will result.

So, what's your problem with that?

[1932]

73. My problem is this:

I think Clark's frame implies a solution that I don't agree with. Of course, we'll wait and see what Clark explicitly says policy should be.

I don't think I'm overreaching here. As Katrina was going on, there was a debate at DU over the frame for the problem. DU'ers whom I consider conservative wanted to frame N.O. as a "lord of the flies"-like free for all, and wanted to talk about the looters. People I consider progressive DUers wanted to talk about alleviating the suffering.

How the problem was framed deterimined the solution, and is even influencing thoughts on this issue today, with the Republicans saying Katrina proved that we need to repeal posse commitatus and with Democrats saying we have to address the reasons our society is becoming so polarized in terms of wealth and opportunity and outcomes.

By focussing on inevitable strife and conflicts over resources, I think Clark is implying solutions which I think are not going to be progressive. They're going to have to do with intervention and control rather than increasing freedoms. But I'm only guessing, I admit. We'll see what he says. But for now, I'll say that I find his frame unhelpful for understanding the real issues.

Yes global warming will have security consequences. But here's an analogy: I think that in the US, not having universal health care and a good social safety net has domestic security implications (I think our society is going to fall apart if we don't get those things). However, I don't think framing that debate in terms of the possiblity of riots if we don't do those things would be very helpful. In fact, I think if that's how we talked about national health care, we'd probably end up with Giuliani (Mr. Private Security Firm) as our President.

But, let me ask you this: how would you respond to Clark's question in the OP? What do you think the solution is?

[The Traveler]

76. I'll get back to you on this

A thoughtful post deserves a thoughtful response ... and I have to run and join the huddled masses on the morning cattle drive to work.

[Sparkly]

78. You think he may be implying things about which you're guessing but

if he's implying what you infer he is and if your guesses are correct and if his frame implies the solutions you disagree with, then that would be (gasp) unhelpful!! :scared:

Gee, I'll have to rethink my support for General Clark now. :sarcasm:

[1932]

81. There's a dmoestic equivalent:

Global warming -> N.O. floods-> looters -> break down of law and order -> the federal government needs more control/zero tollerance for looters/shoot to kill/it's OK to block the bridge to Gretna/must repeal the posse commitatus.

As I said, I don't think it's a stretch to say the frame dictates the solutions.

You know why salesmen use F.U.D.? It's to get people to give up something (money) they could have used more efficiently for something they didn't really need so that the salesman could get something he didn't deserve.

Bush does this to get people to give up their freedoms (including the freedom that financial security buys) so that a few corporations can get very wealthy. (That's an explanation for the flow chart up in paragraph one, by the way.)

[Sparkly]

86. Who said THAT?!?

Hey, I've got one:

Global warming -> floods -> disease -> quarantines -> imprisonment -> government grants to big Pharma -> opportunity for forced medical experimentation -> secret cult of HORRORS!!

Or how about this:

Global warming -> floods -> deficit spending -> increased debt -> loans from China -> Chinese attempt to take over the US -> Imperialist invasion of CHINA!!!

Or maybe:

Global warming -> floods -> abandoned animals -> donations to PETA -> more anti-fur activism -> anti-fur fashion trend -> anti-leather fashion trend -> designers work with vinyl -> more plastic required to meet demand for winter coats -> plastic coats create increased need for oil -> drilling in ANWR -> harm to animals/ lowered gas prices -> greater fuel consuption -> more pollution -> global warming -> floods....!!!

[1932]

89. Republicans said that.

[Sparkly]

93. Well, I knew Clark didn't.

I'm glad that much is clear.

[1932]

104. He said this:

"Dislocation and disaster will force people and nations to compete for land, food, and water. Although these effects will not imperil American security per se, many other nations will be forced into a state of strife while coping with these changes, causing tension between countries and providing a destabilizing force in the world stretching to the limits treaties, traditions, and relationships between and among nations."

I think if development economists like Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, or public health scholars like the authors The Health of Nations, or anti-neoliberal leaders like Hugo Chavez wanted to discuss the policy implications of global warming, they wouldn't foreground chaos in their framing question about it.

I agree that security is definitely a part of the problem. But I don't think it's the frame for the problem.

I think that there are two parts of this that you need to keep in mind: (1) the difference between the way conservatives and progressives framed N.O. -- looters vs. people in need; and (2) that ALL consequences of the polarization of wealth and power have security consequences, ranging from the sad state of American health care, to a tax code that makes the wealthy wealthier and screws everyone else, or destroying public education -- however, if you address all these problems (including N.O.) with the frame of chaos, destablization and tension (F.U.D.) you're not going to lead people to making the best decisions about solutions. The solutions to F.U.D. problems is always that the less powerful give up whatever power and freedom they have left to people who are already powerful.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. The problem is

that it came from Wes Clark. If Wes Clark made a statement that fluffy puppies were nice, well, the thread about it would end up with a dissertation about the "true" sinister meaning of such a statement and how it simply reinforced how villanous/militarist/corporatist/whatever, General Clark truly is.

There really is no rhyme or reason to it, it's simply an attempt to draw you into a debate in order to engage in rhetorical games, and to have a platform in which to bash Clark over anything he says, or ever possibly could say. If you look at the recent Clark threads here, I'm sure you'll begin to notice a pattern.:hi:

[1932]

77. The one element of truth in this post is this:

I do find Clark to be not so progressive in many respects, which stems from reading his books. I know many of the people who are angry in this thread about me discussing these issues don't agree, but I find Chapter 6 of Winning Modern Wars to be the sort of argument about America's place in the world that does not come from a progressive.

My sensitivities are definitely heightened when it comes to Clark's statements. However, with this different framework for understanding Clark (asking yourself if these issues revolve around a WestPoint-WallSt axis) I think his policies really start to fall in place. School of Americas, the NED involvement, statements about virtual empire, a tax plan that keeps capital gains taxes low for very very wealthy people, using F.U.D. as the prism through which issues become policy -- how do you make sense of all these elements?

From a policy perspective, I think the solutions to the problems our country has require a progressive to solve them. From a campaign perspective, I think voters are not going to rally around a candidate unless that candidate bases his or her campaign around ideas that both resonate as progressive and offer a clear alternative to conservative ideas. Even if I'm wrong about the latter, merge those two concerns and I don't think a democrat is going to come out of an election season with the public mandate to legislate the solutions our country requires unless he or she spends the campaign season explaining to voters solutions that are progressive and that resonate with voters. Coming out of election season with F.U.D. as the nation's frame for seeing the world and without a mandate to fix what's wrong with the tax code, and with a mandate for continued neoliberal foreign policy (which is destroying the American middle class and polarizing wealth globally) will bring comfort to the powerful and wealthy, but it's not going to solve our problems.

[Totally Committed]

79. "So, what's your problem with that?"

The problem the poster has with it is that CLARK said it.

His/her problem is with CLARK. If CLARK said it, it has to be bullshit. In this poster's eyes, everything CLARK says is bullshit, and anyone who supports him or the view espoused is a hypocrite, or worse.

Posting in these CLARK threads has become almost fetishistic... (s)he cannot help it, the power of CLARK is so strong and magnetic, and the rush so righteous, it's almost a form of mental masturbation now. Almost a sort of ritualistic release.

I don't care how many people think it's pathetic, his/her behavior on these CLARK threads has been so abusive and so mean-spirited that (s)he just ruins every CLARK thread as a matter of course. It is unfair. It is unnecessarily nasty. And, no matter what is said, it is indefensible.

TC

[1932]

83. Like I said, Clark is raising the most important questions.

And I'd like to discuss them.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogman]

87. Maybe it's the manner of discussion.

When you receive an answer, you usually ignore it and pose a new question. If you receive an answer to that question you revert to your previous question as if it had not been answered. Most people feel a discussion follows a progression.

[1932]

91. Which answer do you think I ignored?

[dogman]

94. The fact that Clark's blog is not about NO.

[1932]

102. It's about the consequences of global warming and how we're going to

deal with them.

N.O. was a consequence of global warming, right?

[dogman]

106. But not the subject of Clark's blog.

It was incidental to his post and only as a precursor of things to come on a grander scale and beyond our immediate control. If people from LA,MS, and AL seek refuge to their North, it is an internal matter. What he is concerned about is when nations are forced to migrate inland and cross international borders in search of food, shelter, and water. At that point it becomes a source of global tension which involves the UN and various alliances. At that point it becomes a national security issue. It is true the stability of our economy is of concern to our national security but that is a domestic issue that would be dealt with through domestic policy. For you to say that Clark therefore reduces it to a law and order problem is ridiculous. He says it is a long term problem with no immediate solution and we must adopt policies to end it and deal with the consequences. Even the President cannot prescribe the remedy, but needs to bring together those with the ability to assess the problem and recommend solutions that can be agreed on to deal with it. His post was not how we are going to deal with the consequences, but to face up to the fact that there will be consequences. At that point he opened the forum for discussion. Once again, if you have suggestions, post them and engage in discussion with the other posters to the forum.

[1932]

107. I don't think that's a distinction with a difference.

There is no reason that displacement within the US should be any more or less violent than displacement across any border anywhere.

With the exception of a few borders, most neighboring countries are not hostile. I suspect even India and Pakistan would set their differences aside if there were a humanitarian crisis the neccessitated a migration of people.

However, I do think that the frames people use to present these crises dictate the perception of the solutions.

If Holland flooded. The French, Germans and Belgians would weclome Dutch people. There'd be no major conflict requiring people to sacrifice freedoms.

If you want the same thing for Africa and Asia and South and Central America, then we should share with the rest of the world the features of the EU that make strife and conflict much less likely. We should let them build up wealth in their middle class, increase freedoms, and we should stop using the World Bank, the IMF, the School of Americas, NED, and our military in way that prevents those things from happening.

And those principles apply to Agiers in New Orleans, just as they do to developing nations (in the traditional sense of "development," which I feel compelled to distinguish, becuase I think there's a modern idea of "developing nations" for which I think America is now going to qualify, thanks to the development freedoms we're losing, like health care, education, middle class wealth, etc.).

And to really hit this point home, I think that Bush doesn't want you to think of N.O. as a development/freedom/poverty issue, becuase that frame encourages solutions with which he doesn't agree. That's why his frame is that it was a looting/law and order crisis.

[dogman]

109. Really?

Snip>With the exception of a few borders, most neighboring countries are not hostile. I suspect even India and Pakistan would set their differences aside if there were a humanitarian crisis the neccessitated a migration of people.<snip
Tell that to the nations in Africa. Look at the history of SE Asia. Have you studied the Balkans. Check out the Middle East. How about our Southern border? Once again, Clark's blog post was not a panacea. It was a statement of fact meant to inspire dialog. It was a framing of a message to affect discussion about the connection of Global Warming and national security. Check out the discussion at the site, there are even posts by people who are more obsessed with hating the military than you. As to your assessment of Bush's framing, I agree that that is his goal, but read his speech. Large parts of it are in agreement with what you call for. If it was not for the fact that he is a proven liar, I might be lauding it along with Donna Brazile. If you feel so strongly about the domestic security aspect of global warming, register at the site and blog your views.

[Crunchy Frog]

100. Moving the goalposts around.

It's a very tried and true tactic in intellectually dishonest forms of debate.

[1932]

105. If you think I'm being intellecutally dishonest,

how would you characterize the exchange in posts 59 and 63 regarding capital gains?

[FrenchieCat]

108. Because you leave out tax measures that Clark did propose....

Which was the answer in helping the poorest among us.

An increase in the Capital Gains wouldn't have helped any families making under $50,000 in the least, although it may have hurt the middle class and those above.

The fact that Clark proposed taxing at a 5% surcharge each million over the first would have hurt more than you want to concede (cause Edwards didn't propose it I reckon).....Yet you ignore that, only to rail on the subject of Capital Gains as though that is the only tax measure that makes a difference, when it isn't.

That's dishonest intellectualism in most people's books.

This guy had it right in reference to Clark's plan,
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

And your obsession with the Capital Gains portion of things is only because that is the tax measure that Edwards proposed, along with his tax credits solution (a standard to appear to give something that is not always a given)that would have helped the rich and the middleclass but not the poor.

You have it wrong.....and that's the truth.

[1932]

111. Frist is powerful because of his ownership of HCA stock and not because

He earns more than 1 million a year from his work as a doctor or a senator.

You can cut fed taxes on a family of 4 earning 50k per year to the bone (and how much do they owe the feds a year anyway, especially if they're homeowners? -- it's the states and local gov'ts taxing those people into oblivion) but that isn't going to help allocate the tax burden fairly at all if you're not going to touch capital gains on a federal level.

The people with the real economic power in America with earned income over 1 million dollars would have no problem shifting their sources of income around so that they were getting their income from dividends or capital gains.

The same thing happened when Clinton increased the top rates for earned income. Revenue from earned income came in much lower because of income shifting. Clinton's tax plan didn't start earning money for America until the stock market went crazy, thanks to capital gains revenue.

Clark's extra 5% on earned income over a million is going to hurt doctors, (non-corporate) lawyers, actors, professional athletes, and rock stars, but it's not going to hurt people like Bill Frists. Given that it's people like Bill Frist and not LeBron James who are using their economic power to hurt America.

If you want to help the poorest among us, allocate the tax burden fairly.

[FrenchieCat]

112. Again, your argument is a false one

That somehow Capital Gains benefits only the rich...and that a $1,500 dollar tax cut should mean nothing to a family of 4 earning $50,000 or less....of the 31 million of those, most who are not homeowners.

Clark's proposed 5% on earnings over a million would hurt the richest the most. period.

I am middle class, and have owned a piece of rental property for some time....but I am not close to rich. I sold it in order to fund my daughter's education. I paid Capital gains. If I had to pay a higher capital gains, it would have been more beneficial for me to take out a loan on the property rather than to sell it.

Message--Lower Capital gains is not just a rich person's gain.

the 5% tax surcharge could only be a rich person's loss, movie star or otherwise. period.

Capital gains is not just about stocks. That's where you get it wrong.

[1932]

115. 90% of stocks are owned by top 10% wealthiest Americans

If you look at the people in the Bush admnistration capital ownership is how they got their political power. The interests they represent are the interests of capital.

Clarks 5% increase will hurt people who can't convert earned income into capital gains or dividend income. We saw this with the Clinton tax changes. Clark would hurt LeBron James and continue to help just about everyone in control today.

70% of Americans (IIRC) are homeowners. Non-home owners are probably disproportionately single people, so families of four probably have a relatively high % of home owners. So, with the mortgage tax credit and existing child credits, Clark's plan is not going to add much more relief to a lot of people in a category which already doesn't pay much in federal tax.

If we had a capital gains tax which was progressive, you wouldn't have to be worried about selling your property to fund your daughter's education. And you should certainly be concererned with a society in which education is affordable for everyone, and that's not going to happen if we don't think about how we're allocating our tax burden among workers and owners of capital.

[FrenchieCat]

116. Again, your premise that you hang to is a false one in

referring to Capital tax gains as being only about stocks....and that somehow a "progressive" capital tax gain...whatever the details on that are....

Single people don't have children.....and so they are not in the same category as those with children. But to add to that, Clark had also proposed raising the single persons earned income credit, along with those with children's earned income credit and child credit...as you know, because you had tried this argument once before.

Like I said, what you are stating is not a full picture of anything...although you are trying mightily hard to twist if for the benefit of John Edwards...who did not do what Clark did, but dealt more with the capital gains issue.

At the end I am tired of arguing these points with you.....as I feel like a dog chasing its tail.

You don't know as much as you think you know, and you underestimate others and what they know.

That's not a good way to be, but so be it. You get the last word...and I will keep this thread handy for the next time you find a Clark thread to cry about Capital Gains tax on.

PS. And you saying that Clark's 5$ surcharge on the first million earned somehow "hurts" anyone is ridiculous on its face and in actual practice.

Beyond that, neither Clark or Edwards became the nominee, and neither is President....so this fucking conversation at this point as run its course, and any additional back and forth is nothing more than a fools errand.

[1932]

118. capital gains isn't only about stock. It's about allocating burden among

buyers and sellers of capital and the sellers of labor fairly and equitably.

And poverty isn't only an affliction of families. It's an affliction for the young, for students, for people who don't have families, and for old people, which makes it curious that all Clark's tax credits are aimed at the number of children a family has.

You keep trying to tie this all into Edwards. I'm not sure if you're doing this for psychological or for rhetorical reasons (you personally need, or you want others to believe that this is about building someone else up rather than about discussing Clark's ideas). I don't know if it's worth my time addressing this. On the one hand, it definitely distracts from a focus on the issues. On the other hand, I think the weakness of that argument is apparent to people who read these exchanges. Furthermore, if you want to continue to attribute these counterarguments I'm making to Edwards (whether he deserves credit for them or not, and I'm not sure that he does in every case -- we'd have to actually discuss what he says to know if that's the case), so be it. It seems like you're just advertising to readers where they can turn for a progressive alternative to a virtual empire, low capital gains tax rate enthusiast.

[FrenchieCat]

119. Wrong, wrong, wrong....

Clark's tax credits are aimed at the number of children a family has. -WRONG

You are an Edward Booster - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2101030&mesg_id=2101030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2099004#2099691

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2096630#2097403

we'd have to actually discuss what he says to know if that's the case

Everytime I ask about Edwards, you blow me off.....so you don't really want to discuss him, but you do support him. So yes, I believe that your reasons for constantly knocking Wes Clark are nefarious......based on the fact that you never agree with anything he has said or done.

Even Clark's tax plan has absolutely no redeeming value to you nor does anything else that has his mark for that matter...and therefore it makes you unreasonable......

So you can just go on and on and on about capital tax gains....but remember this: You and your motives are not as complicated to understand as you might think.

[1932]

122. Jesus. In two of those threads I don't even talk about Edwards.

I talk about Galbraith, Keynes, and the book The Health of Nations (which I think were issues very relevant to the discussion in those threads) and the other thread is a response to you AFTER you made a big deal about Edwards a day or two before.

Why didn't you want to debate the relevance of the points I raised in those threads?

[Crunchy Frog]

97. AMEN TC!

Like I said in my earlier post, we'd be seeing the exact same thing if Clark made a statement that fluffy puppies are good. I think the word "fetishistic" is a very apt one in this situation.

I have politicians whom I positively loathe, and I know you do as well. I never go into threads about them and disrupt. There certainly is a time and a place for debating the merits of various political figures, but IMO, there is NEVER an excuse for the type of behavior that I'm seeing here.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

101. I think if more people did that

the non-productive parts of these threads would dry up pretty quickly. I simply don't see the point in getting drawn up into long, convoluted arguments with someone who isn't even interested in an intellectually honest exchange. I just think that it's hard to hijack a thread if no one will bite, and I wish more people would follow your example.:hi:

[TheFarseer]

113. I think we are on the same wave length here

I can't say I disagree with Wes Clark's assesment of the situation but it makes him sound a bit crazy to a lot of people. Can we just stop at "using too much oil is bad because we are running out, it's funding terrorism, oil companies are gouging us, it's getting too expensive and we need alternatives." We can make a great case without saying Hurricane Katrina is bush and the oil company's fault.

[Totally Committed]

12. The Australian Medical Assoc. agrees with Wes.

Report says global warming could spark conflict

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050922/sc_nm/environment_warming_dc

TC

[Javaman]

13. This is nothing new, get this...

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=3571

Secret Pentagon Global Warming Report
23-Feb-2004
The Pentagon's secret climate report warns that in next 20 years, there could be a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. Major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas and Britain will have a "Siberian" climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, major droughts, famine and widespread rioting will spread across the world. This report has been kept under wraps by the U.S. military, but the contents have now been exposed by a major newspaper in the U.K.
In the Observer, Mark Townsend and Paul Harris reveal the contents of the secret report, commissioned by Pentagon defense adviser Andrew Marshall and compiled by CIA consultant Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall of the Global Business Network. It warns of possible nuclear war over dwindling food, water and energy supplies and says, "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life. Once again, warfare would define human life."
The report says that climate change "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern." Sudden climate change is "plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately." They predict widespread flooding due to a rise in sea levels by next year.
Bob Watson, formerly chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says, "Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. It’s hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defense. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon."
Doug Randall, one of the authors of the report, says, "This is depressing stuff...It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat…We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years. The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile."
Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace says, "You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue."
Jeremy Symons, formerly at the Environmental Protection Agency, says, "This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies."
We have one question: Why hasn't this made headlines in the U.S.?
If we don't clean up our weather act soon, we're going to lose a major part of the world's population. How are we going to explain it to them?

And...

CNN
Extreme weather on the rise
Thursday, July 3, 2003 Posted: 4:38 AM EDT (0838 GMT)

(CNN) -- Anecdotal evidence that the world's weather is getting wilder now has a solid scientific basis in fact following a dramatic global assessment from the World Meteorological Organization.

A study released Wednesday by the WMO -- a specialized climate science agency of the United Nations -- says the world is experiencing record numbers of extreme weather events, such as droughts and tornadoes.
Laying the blame firmly at the feet of global warming, the agency warned that the number and intensity of extreme weather events could continue to increase.
Citing examples, the WMO said the 562 tornadoes which hit the United States in May this year was a record -- far higher than the previous monthly peak of 399 in June 1992.
Far colder and wetter conditions than normal also prevailed in the eastern and southeastern part of the U.S. for much of May and June.
And a pre-monsoon heatwave which hit India earlier this year caused peak temperatures of between 45 and 49 degrees Celsius (113 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit), killing more than 1400 people.
In Sri Lanka, heavy rainfalls from Tropical Cyclone 01B exacerbated already wet conditions, causing flooding and landslides and more than 300 fatalities.
Last month Switzerland experienced its hottest June in at least 250 years while in the south of France average temperatures were between 5 and 7 degrees Celsius (9 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the long term average.
England and Wales also experienced their hottest month since 1976.
On their own none of these events is truly remarkable. But when viewed together they represent a clear and alarming trend towards wilder weather, according to the WMO.
"These record extreme events all go into calculating the monthly and annual averages which, for temperatures, have been gradually increasing over the past 100 years," the WMO said in its statement.
Warning

The WMO normally confines itself to issuing scientific reports and statistics compiled from climate data.
However, the weather events of 2003 had proved so remarkable, officials say the organization felt compelled to issue a generalized warning of the emerging pattern.
The WMO said new analysis of data for the northern hemisphere showed the increase in temperature in the 20th century was likely to have been the largest in any century during the past 1,000 years.
"It is also likely that, in the northern hemisphere, the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year," it said.
"While the trend towards warmer globally averaged surface temperatures has been uneven over the course of the last century, the trend for the period since 1976 is roughly three times that for the past 100 years as a whole.
"Global average land and sea surface temperatures in May 2003 were the second highest since records began in 1880," the WMO warned.
Last year much of Australia was hit by the longest drought in recorded history, which devastated crop yields and sparked continual bushfires which threatened major cities.
Conversely, many parts of China and East Asia were hit by severe flooding resulting in thousands of deaths.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Of course it's not new.....

and in fact, it is getting kinda old....and something needs to be done about it!

[Javaman]

20. Very true, pardon my poor subject line, your right...

Something does need to be done.

[mvd]

17. Thanks to Clark for bringing up this very..

important issue. :thumbsup:

[jonnyblitz]

26. kudos to Clark for this.

Despite whatever else I take issue with Clark on I am appreciative of this. I don't hear many mainstream politicians bringing this issue up or admitting to it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

46. Clark needs to call for a Manhanttan-type Project for alternative energy

I heard him allude to that briefly in a speech he gave in the Los Angeles area during his campaign. Clark is very much in tune with this subject matter as the former CEO of WaveCrest, the maker of electric engines for vehicles. Clark needs to call for a worldwide effort concentrating as much capital as possible from different nations and the assembly of the world's foremost experts to develop an efficient solar cell. Today's solar cells are hopeless inefficient but researchers have recently discovered means to dramatically increase the amount of energy they can capture from the sun's ultra violet and infrared rays, so that power could be available even on cloudy days. There are even projects now in the works using nanotechnology to make ultra thin films that can be painted on vehicles including windows of office buildings and car windshields to capture the sun's energy. Solar farms could possibly let us dispense entirely with fossil fuels in the future. This technology will arrive sooner or later. But why wait 100 years when we desperately need this technology now?

[Totally Committed]

75. This is an excellent idea....

I hope he does it.

TC

[Gloria]

57. As I found out a couple of days ago, the average guy has a deep

FEAR. He needs safety, even at the expense of his own economic situation. THE GUT LEVEL BOTTOM LINE is SAFETY, which is why Bush is in the WH for a second term (apart from stealing votes--it was close enough for him to be able to do so--shouldn't have been that close if we were dealing with FACTS vs. emotions.)

Clark is addressing the issue on that level...the GUT LEVEL. People cannot be overwhelmed, they just shut down with long arguments.

For now, this is a very good start at trying to reach the GUT, which Democrats have been weak at doing...



Link to my conversation with this guy...it doesn't stress the concern the guy had for safety, but believe me...."all I care about is my little house, I can't deal with politics, People are moving hear for safety, etc. etc. More important that his own economic bind was believing that Bush, even with his lies, etc., was going to keep him physically safe...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2106086&mesg_id=2106086

[Totally Committed]

92. I thought that was a very poignant post.

Working three jobs and enjoying the evening was the best he could hope for in exchange for "Security".

I had been trying to tell people that for months, but your post really brought that point home.

TC

[1932]

124. Isn't giving people hope the progressive antidote to fear?

"You should be afraid" doesn't sound like the road to victory, to me. When people think they should be afraid, the candidate who promisses to be the most agressive (no matter how much that costs the public in terms of hope and opportunity) wins.

Democrats need to tell voters that they understand how they actually live their lives and that we're going to make their lives better. Progressives should not be running on the idea that we're going to ask Americans to accept having crappy lives in the name of security.

In fact, having so many people living crappy lives is making America less safe. In Richard Parker's Galbraith biography he said that Roosevelt's strategy was to make sure that working Americans kept accumulating wealth and power during WW2. He intentionally decentralized government power because he felt that individual productivity would keep the facotries running and keep Americans involved and contributing.

Key to vicotry was maximum welfare of individual Americans. After Germany lost, the US discovered that the Nazis were never working at full capacity. Their factories never had a second shift. They increased industrial production every month of the war (without ever reaching US levels of productivity) up to the end despite intense air bombings, and they could do that because they operated at low capacity. (Incidentally, the air raids proved supremely ineffective, and the alternative British strategy -- destroying the ability of the Germans to transport goods, rather than make goods -- proved to be the key to victory).

Nazis also relied extensively on slave labor, which kept wealth from building up in a middle class.

During WW2, Americans working, and being healthy and happy, getting paid, and the resulting functioning economy was a significant contributing factor to a secure America. That's just as true today.

Rather than seeing progressives tell people they're right to be afraid and to sacrifice their welfare for national security, progressives should be telling people the truth: their welfare IS national security.

[Raiden]

58. Clark has my vote in 2008!

Assuming he runs that is

[Clarkie1]

61. My favorite Clark quote/soundbite on this issue:

"Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it's just getting started as China and India modernize." -Wes Clark

[underpants]

96. THe Pentagon agreed last February

google "pentagon global warming"

[nvliberal]

110. All I am going to say is

it'll be very quiet around here when Clark announces he will not run for president in 2008.

:)

[Totally Committed]

114. Do you know something the rest of us don't?

So far as we know, he's still ruled nothing out. I choose to think it means he is still considering a run.

Wow. What a bummer post. No offense, but a real bummer.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

117. Why do you say this?

I have ears in the Clark domain...and that ain't nothing we are hearing.

Please give us some back up...otherwise, we'll have to assume this is more your wish than anything else!

PS. I've always been suspicious of "disabled" profiles...so I take what you say with 5 grains of salt, but thanks for the unsolicited information that has no source. :hi:

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

121. This is the third time I've seen you challenging us to "test you"

or to ask you to "show" us or to "prove" it.

I'm STILL waiting for a reply to your first one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2108329#2111988

[rfkrfk]

123. What actions does Clark have in mind?

carbon rationing?

who gets the carbon? Current polluters?
if so, how much?

Does Clark know what he plans to do?
If so, why doesn't he tell us?

I'm getting tired of...

'here is a problem,
I don't have any proposed solutions right now,
vote for me" ...

as a stance on critical issues.

[Jai4WKC08]

125. A few points...

First off, Clark isn't saying "Vote for me."

He has, however, spent a LOT of time for the last year and half telling people to vote for Democrats. And it's a fact that people who think environmental problems are important are more likely to vote for Democrats, so just getting more people to recognize how critical the problems are helps immensely. Framing the problem as a national security issue also makes some people reconsider the idea that maybe the Repubs don't do such a good job of defending the nation. Which also helps get Democrats elected.

Second, you really ought to read what he's said on the issue before spouting off that he has no "proposed solutions." Why don't you take a look at what he said at the Clinton Global Initiative conference first and then we can talk.
His statement: http://securingamerica.com/cgi_stat/2005-09-16
Transcript of the Q&A: http://securingamerica.com/cgi_qa/2005-09-16
You might also read his policies on the environment archived at his campaign website: http://www.clark04.com/issues/environment/
There's a reason that Clark was endorsed by Gaylord Nelson, ya know. He really was the greenest of the '04 candidates, with a long record of acting to protect the environment.

But frankly, the most important solution is getting a Democrat back in the White House, one who will appoint responsible people to key govt agencies, and negotiate meaningful, workable treaties; as well as getting enough Democrats in Congress so those treaties get ratified. As long as the Repubs control every branch of govt, nothing at all is gonna change.

Finally, it's pretty easy to take pot shots at Clark for not saying enough about global climate change. Where is your criticism of the vast majority of Democratic leaders who are saying nothing at all?

[LandOLincoln]

126. You kidding, Jai?

Those are the only kinds of Democrats he likes... :rofl:

"Where is your criticism of the vast majority of Democratic leaders who are saying nothing at all?"