Obama climate czar has socialist ties

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/

Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution
Stephen Dinan (Contact)
Originally published 05:45 a.m., January 12, 2009, updated 05:45 a.m., January 12, 2009

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama's transition team said Mrs. Browner's membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

"The Commission for a Sustainable World Society includes world leaders from a variety of political parties, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who succeeded Tony Blair, in serving as vice president of the convening organization," Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

"Carol Browner was chosen to help the president-elect coordinate energy and climate policy because she understands that our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate change demand integration among different agencies; cooperation between federal, state and local governments; and partnership with the private sector," Mr. Shapiro said in an e-mail.

Mrs. Browner ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton. Until she was tapped for the Obama administration, she was on the board of directors for the National Audubon Society, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress and former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

Her name has been removed from the Gore organization's Web site list of directors, and the Audubon Society issued a press release about her departure from that organization.

**dogma**

What kind of socialism? The European derivative of capitalism, or the property seizing derivative of royalism?

Also, I find it funny that the article tries to use the term 'global governance' as an epithet.

Also, out of this entire article, which includes the mention of Browner's directorship of the Audubon Society, the League of Conservative Voters, and the Center for American Progress, you thought that the most important point was an ancillary tie to Socialist International?

**Arctik_Firangi**

It's going to take a while for America to get over the fifties, isn't it?

**Chimera_Calvin**

Obviously if this person is a 'czar' then she's russian and so must be a filthy commie...

OT but should it not be a czarina?

**Typeline**

SOCIALISTS!

**Frazzled**

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Obviously if this person is a 'czar' then she's russian and so must be a filthy commie...

OT but should it not be a czarina?

Browner, Czar of all the Environments!

**Ghetto_Fight**

It's funny people are still claiming what Obama is not. Obama is pretty much exactly the same as Bush.

**Wolfstan**

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

It's going to take a while for America to get over the fifties, isn't it?

Sigh... change 'while' to 'never' and you've got it. Social responsibilty has been there in some form since we climbed down the trees and left the forests, so Marx has no real claim to it. It's just a shame that a large percentage of the US population treat it as some kind embaressing social (no pun intended) disease or weakness. Who needs Vampires, Werewolves or blood thirsty manics, just release the 'Tax' monster on them and see the panic! Hmm, perhaps Orson Wells should of done a radio broadcast on an intended tax increase rather than War of the Worlds, that would of caused real panic!

**sexiest_hero**

Hey America is a lot better than it was in the 50's. Mod edit: Comments about real world religious groups may be inflammatory and need to made with caution. And racial slurs are kept to Online gaming voice chat. Things were really really bad in those days......

Back on target. "Mrs. Browner ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton". She served her country faithfully already, So I don't care if she belives in The Great Golden Whale of Shang-Karaba. The days of Witch trials are behind us, right where they belong.

**Taco_bat**

Socialism is pretty cool tho

Ghetto_Fight wrote:It's funny people are still claiming what Obama is not. Obama is pretty much exactly the same as Bush.

This is a pretty silly statement.

Obviously if this person is a 'czar' then she's russian and so must be a filthy commie...

White army?

**Frazzled**

Thats great golden whale of Karaba-Shang to you buddy!

**focusedfire**

In a "free" country. There should be the right to any political belief and party. The 2 party system proves, to me, this is not so in this country.

It is ok in a free country to have differing polical beliefs, to discuss those beliefs, and even vehemently disagree. The politically correct movement in this country shows again, to me, we are not free(You don't discuss politics)

The rise of socialism proves Karl Marx right. His idea that the bourgeois middle class would grow so decadent that they would no longer wish to be troubled with running their own country. That they will turn to the country saying lead us, thus creating the most effective tyrrany.

We increasingly ask our national government to do what we should be doing ourselves, either indivdually or on a local governmental level.

This argument is like everything else in life, a matter of perspective. The downside to this is that many, in this day of the thouroughly self involved individual, lack perspective. They haven't or won't walk a mile in anothers shoes.

So this leaves me to my own Humble Opinion, that a responsible & self reliant person will view socialism as wrong or bad. While a decadent individual, that has become dependent on the system and luxuries it provides, will see socialism as the next logical step in social engineering.

Do my statments have a bias against socialism? Yes.
Is that wrong? No.
Do I believe a move towards a one world government is moving towards an unbreakable totalitarian regime?Yes.
Will I be alive when it happens? Probably not.
Is my point of view the only relevant one? No.
How do we determine which course is the correct one?
Which is the right course is going to be determined by how you were raised and how you choose to live your life.

This old man is gonna shut-up now

**Taco_bat**

except that Marcist doctrine states that ultimately all systems will end with communism which is extremely unlikely given its performance in the 20th century.

So this leaves me to my own Humble Opinion, that a responsible & self reliant person will view socialism as wrong or bad. While a decadent individual, that has become dependent on the system and luxuries it provides, will see socialism as the next logical step in social engineering.

your own 'Humble Opinion' that you just happened to subconsciously capitalize. Amazingly enough, most occupants of socialist countries aren't a bunch of lazy lay abouts!

**sexiest_hero**

I stand corrected on the Great Whale

.

I agree on most points but. "that a responsible & self reliant person will view socialism as wrong or bad."

I disagree with people, (being center-left myself) But I don't think people opposed to my point of view are sloths while I'm somhow better because of my way of government. I know a lot of people in socialist counties who are just as hard working as anybody else.

I'll argue with right leaning people all day but in the end we both want what's best ad have the common goal of peace and prosperity.

Bias against a form of government is fine and dandy. Calling people who use that form of government decandant, is just an veild insult aimed at people for what they belive in, and thats not fine and dandy at all.

**focusedfire**

Dude, we're not in the 20th century any more.

Wasn't subconscious, completely deliberate.

Also, show me exactly where I called them lazy lay abouts. All I did was to casually refer to the keep them working, fed, and comfortable system of securing the support of the masses.

But as I said, my point is not the only relevant one. Please feel free to add your own relevant point of view.

**focusedfire**

@Sexiest_Hero, So Americans aren't decadent? We don't spend a disproportionate amount of our incomes on discretionary purchases?

responsible: accountable or marked by accountability or responsibility.
In this instance was refering to one who would rather shoulder the burden, making small day to day decisions or be involved in the day to day handling of their local government as opposed to having the national government legislate on a local level.

Edited for clarification updates

**Ahtman**

I thought this was going to be about some guys Socialist themed neck tie collection and now I am very disappointed. Not a neck tie in sight or even or bow tie with Mao on it or nothin'.

Taco_bat wrote:except that Marcist doctrine states that ultimately all systems will end with communism which is extremely unlikely given its performance in the 20th century.

Well that is because you are attributing to Marx what Stalin and Mao did. Marx's writing and their application of their interpretation of it are not the same things.

**Taco_bat**

focusedfire wrote:
Also, show me exactly where I called them lazy lay abouts. All I did was to casually refer to the keep them working, fed, and comfortable system of securing the support of the masses.

You essentially just refered to all europeans as 'decadent'.

Yea universal healthcare, state sponsored universities, government regulated essential infrastructure, no blackwater.

What a bitch.

Also the 20th century has massive bearing on what is going on today, including many lessons learned, we don't exist in a vacuum.

**Ahtman**

Edit: in glancing through the posts I think I misunderstood the context of the specific exchange I responded to so I am removing this post.

**focusedfire**

@ Ahtman-Yes, I'm a horrible person and obviously a hippocrit simply for having a hobby(One that requires interaction with others, thus giving me a chance to learn about them)and for being on the internet. So, I obviously don't do much else.
Not like I contribute to food banks, but wait ,I do.

Not like I help less fortunate neighbors by giving them rides into town, but wait, I do.

So if I'm on the internet there is no way I can be self-reliant, but wait, I'm an independent businessman that has no debts. I, also, Hire people in the slow season just to keep them making money when I could be doing the work myself. I'm not rich but I make enough to feed my wife and myself. We're not in debt because we deon't live beyond our means. And we're self-reliant because whether we succeed or not is purely dependent on how we run our business.

Why would I give extra money to the most inefficient means of helping people? Go directly to the community shelters. Thats how you make a difference. But thats just my opinion.

Seriously, this time I'm out. Tear me apart looking for percieved slights and try to correct me or put in your perspective so that I may learn your point of view.

Just saw your edit, nevermind.

@_Bat, If we really learn the lessons then why do we so quickly repeat the same mistakes? And the things you just listed are the things I have a problem with. The universities are not the best, niether is the health care, And I don't want the government regulating down to the most minute level. The bueracracy it creates will consume us all.

**reds8n**

Taco_bat wrote:You essentially just refered to all europeans as 'decadent'.

We are though.

EDIT
Incidentally is there any chance you could perhaps sort the mahoosive problem that is your sig gif thingy please, it's far too large. Thanks.

EDIT 2: Thanks overlords !

**Taco_bat**

focusedfire wrote:Yes, I'm a horrible person and obviously a hippocrit simply for having a hobby(One that requires interaction with others, thus giving me a chance to learn about them)and for being on the internet. So, I obviously don't do much else.
Not like I contribute to food banks, but wait ,I do.

Not like I help less fortunate neighbors by giving them rides into town, but wait, I do.

So if I'm on the internet there is no way I can be self-reliant, but wait, I'm an independent businessman that has no debts. I, also, Hire people in the slow season just to keep them making money when I could be doing the work myself. I'm not rich but I make enough to feed my wife and myself. We're not in debt because we deon't live beyond our means. And we're self-reliant because whether we succeed or not is purely dependent on how we run our business.

Why would I give extra money to the most inefficient means of helping people? Go directly to the community shelters. Thats how you make a difference. But thats just my opinion.

Seriously, this time I'm out. Tear me apart looking for percieved slights and try to correct me or put in your perspective so that I may learn your point of view.

This has nothing to do with you personally, and everything to do with statements you have made in regards to a subject that do not reflect the actual reality of it. Socialist and Democracy are not mutually exclusive and having a state control and legislate alot of day to day infrastructure and services is not a bad thing if the state can maintain the a decent amount of checks and balances. Free market capitalism has been highlighted to having some major flaws inherent in its structure. Plus, if you don't think PMCs like Blackwater aren't inherently evil there is something very wrong with you.

**focusedfire**

Like how you put words in my mouth. It helps your credibility, lots.

Blackwater exists because we are not handling the reigns of our government. Proving again we the people are not doing our job.

**Taco_bat**

focusedfire wrote:Like how you put words in my mouth. It helps your credibility, lots.

Blackwater exists because we are not handling the reigns of our government. Proving again we the people are not doing our job.

I didn't put words in your mouth? You stated that people that support socialism are decadent, ergo, since the democratic majority of Europeans are pro socialist they are 'decadent'. Thats not strawmaning, thats just simple logic.

Blackwater is a perfect example of unregulated free market capitalism and what it produces, as is Haliburton, as is Dynecorp etc etc

If we really learn the lessons then why do we so quickly repeat the same mistakes? And the things you just listed are the things I have a problem with. The universities are not the best, niether is the health care, And I don't want the government regulating down to the most minute level. The bueracracy it creates will consume us all.

I live in a country that, while far from socialist, has universal healthcare and government supported universities and both are pretty excellent (with highly streamlined red tape) despite what GOP-esque propaganda would have you believe.

America has a terrible primary and secondary education system (no child left behind, wut?) whereas the majority of European countries have excellent ones, with Finnland being one of the best in the world if not the best (with excellent government funded and regulated childcare that allows parents to remain at work) if memory serves?

**Ahtman**

Taco_bat wrote:Blackwater is a perfect example of unregulated free market capitalism and what it produces

Mercenaries are only the result of free market capitalism? I was under the impression that mercenaries had been around for a long time, before we even had the term free market capitalism.

**Frazzled**

If memory serves didn't the ancient Persians use Grekk mercenaries against Alexander and his Greek/Macedonian mercenaries?

I believe there is something about Washington attacking the Hessian mercenaries in our early history...

**ShumaGorath**

1. The market has existed longer than agriculture.
2. Socialism isn't the black ladder to communism.
3. You guys need to learn what decadent means.
4. Modern wealth redistribution social policies are a realistic approach to the weaknesses of capitalist markets and have been adopted by virtually every nation for the last five hundred years.
5. Private military companies are not inherently evil, however directionless military force is a tool of the market and the market is inherently dehumanizing. Ergo PMCs are dehumanizing by comodotizing the concept of violence.

From now on no posts under 4 full sentences in length are allowed. They add nothing.

**Ahtman**

ShumaGorath wrote:1. The market has existed longer than agriculture.
2. Socialism isn't the black ladder to communism.
3. You guys need to learn what decadent means.
4. Modern wealth redistribution social policies are a realistic approach to the weaknesses of capitalist markets and have been adopted by virtually every nation for the last five hundred years.
5. Private military companies are not inherently evil, however directionless military force is a tool of the market and the market is inherently dehumanizing. Ergo PMCs are dehumanizing by comodotizing the concept of violence.

I agree with this. I'm not 100% on 5 but I'm mulling it over.

ShumaGorath wrote:From now on no posts under 4 full sentences in length are allowed. They add nothing.

I agree.

**dogma**

focusedfire wrote:
responsible: accountable or marked by accountability or responsibility.
In this instance was refering to one who would rather shoulder the burden, making small day to day decisions or be involved in the day to day handling of their local government as opposed to having the national government legislate on a local level.

The highly specialized nature of our communities pretty much precludes a weak national government. Insofar as interstate commerce is a necessity in daily life people will be required to move across larger and larger distances in order to fulfill their economic obligations. In such an environment the standardization of certain legal practices is paramount to continued national unity.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:If memory serves didn't the ancient Persians use Grekk mercenaries against Alexander and his Greek/Macedonian mercenaries?

I believe there is something about Washington attacking the Hessian mercenaries in our early history...

The idea of the mercenary as a soldier of personal fortune is a creation of the national system, and the enlightenment. In earlier times, when identity was defined by language ahead of geographic location, inter-communal cooperation would have been next to impossible due to the inability to speak a common tongue. Its was only those few individuals who lived long enough, and traveled broadly enough, to gain command of multiple languages who could effectively go between populations. These leaders, whose transcendence of the language barrier makes it fairly easy to understand just how the divine right of kings held on as long as it did, would then mobilize their people in pursuance to any agreements made in the course of negotiations. As such, when you hear discussions of mercenaries in the Napoleonic Period, and really any Imperial conflict, what is really being commented on is more akin to what we would currently consider to be an alliance of nations, or action for collective gain.

As such, the idea of the Blackwater style PMC mercenary is something of a new animal. Identity by the dollar instead of by the word. That isn't to say that such groups are somehow immoral, or even dehumanizing, but that they represent a new understanding of what passes for a common cause.