Even though Chicken Little hasn't replied to my previous post, I thought I should add the following. On March 30th The Economist, a British publication, had an article about the failure of the "science-is-settled" climate models. This is the first time The Economist has deviated from the alarmist political line. Some climate bloggers think that the whole climate argument is about to collapse.

The article suggests the following possible reasons for the failures of the climate models. The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

OPP, you've got to stop posting every stupid story you see. Inundation is not discussion.

As for "global warming/climate change, etc." there is a vast amount of nonsense out there even from people who should be more careful. Gore's "Day After Tomorrow" was filled with claims that have been debunked. But that doesn't prove/disprove anything by itself. Claims of more extreme storms caused by Global Warming are heard from many sources, even the New York Times.

However, Extreme Climate Change: Global Warming Does Not Cause Severe Weather - Confirmed By All Peer Reviewed Empirical Research
Climate doomsday scientists and chicken-little pundits claim AGW is causing more frequent severe weather events – empirical research though can’t establish any link between extreme climate change, severe weather trends & global warming. Source: http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/06/extreme-climate-change-global-warming-does-not-cause-severe-weather-confirmed-by-all-peer-reviewed-empirical-research.html

The fact is that it has been 16+ years since the global average temp increased. It is also a fact that there has been a slow but steady drift of scientists leaving the "science is settled" camp. Recently 10 former NASA scientists joined the list with a public statement. See http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

Another interesting article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

Germany has been subsidizing the installation of solar power panels and recently had to stop because it was costing so much. They spent $130 billion to achieve an estimated 37 hour delay in global warming. See http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html

Read my post on "Core Value of Progressivism" on this forum: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-605-1.html

Perhaps you will understand.

Thanks. I'll file that in my store of possibly useful information. By the way, the burls must be rewarding to work with.

My understanding is that the canoe is primarily Western Red Cedar which can be either dark (heartwood) or light (sapwood). The narrow white accent strips are something else, don't recall for sure. If you can 'splain the "very distinct difference" you mentioned, I'll hear you out.

An Obama Progressive. I'm not going to try looking that one up. I already spent way too much time researching "Pragmatic Progressive" which is what Obama said he is. My findings on that are on page 3 of your Socialism topic. http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-299-3.html#4765

There is also a topic on this forum titled "Core Value of Progressivism" that explains much. http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-605-1.html

Back on page 1 of this lengthy topic you provide the above link without explanation. Since your post follows several requests for documented support of your contentions, I assume that is what it is for.

I reviewed the linked article and found that the author presented a rather weak case. Most of the "crazy things" were uttered by attendees at the conference, not the primary speakers. Somewhat like quoting Occupy Wall Street attendees to discredit whatever its purpose was.

However, he did provide two crazy quotes by speakers.
Sarah Palin: "Background checks? Dandy idea, Mr. President. We should've started with yours." This is used to imply without substantiation that Palin is a birther. If you will recall the media army that went to Alaska to examine every detail of her life and contrast that with the complete lack of media interest in Obama's history, her comment is easily understood.

Jenny Beth Martin: "Our country's equivalent to The Hunger Games' tribute will be the patients who die under this law."
This one does kinda sound crazy, but consider the following statement by an Obama adviser.

A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”

Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, “We need death panels.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obama-adviser-admits-we-need-death-panels/#b3Hq0Rw4Z02edRTZ.99


I would like to see you provide documented evidence of each point you try to make. It would make your case much stronger.

The dailycurrant must be the web substitute for the "National Inquirer" supermarket tabloid. Other headlines of note at the daily currant:
Paul Krugman Declares Personal Bankruptcy
Santorum Claims Minority Cardinals Voted Twice in Papal Election
U.S. Sends Toy Guns to Syrian Opposition
Hugo Chavez Will Remain President of Venezuela

Please keep us informed of more breaking news from this source.

You can see how I used cedar strips at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/

I also started a topic here called "Core Value of Progressivism".
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-605-1.html

Welcome to the discussion.

You might be interested in the topic "Core value of Progressivism" at http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-605-1.html

An update on my post above. To review, Chardo was addressing the question of whether Obama was a socialist, etc. etc. I found a statement by Obama that he is a "Pragmatic Progressive". I wanted to find out if that had any concrete ideological meaning that might provide a definitive answer to the "socialist" allegation.

I haven't found proof of anything, but I have found suggestive connections. Some philosophers associated with Pragmatic Progressivism include William James, John Dewey, and Richard Rorty who passed away in 2007. I have been looking for a web site that has some extensive writings by Rorty to get some idea of where he stands. I finally did find such a site and it also has full essays by Dewey and James. Check out: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/rorty.htm

Your post refutes itself.

It is good to have a place where we can kick around some of our ideas. For Chardo and any others interested in this topic:

I have quoted John Dewey several times in my posts primarily because he was very influential and there are enough of his writings available on line to follow his arguments. One liner quotes can be misleading. However I periodically look for more current similar material. Yesterday while pursuing "progressive philosophy" I came across two sites relevant to this topic.

First, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/01/obama-dubs-hims/ where Obama says he is Pragmatic Progressive.

And just what does "Pragmatic Progressive" mean? More searching led me to this site. http://www.questia.com/read/15313861/pragmatism-from-progressivism-to-postmodernism where the whole book Pragmatism: From Progressivism to Postmodernism (1990) is on line.

From the introduction I learned, "In recent decades, things have changed dramatically. Beginning in the 1960s, a cultural reaction against fetishized scientific and technocratic worldviews, and new attraction to aestheticizing, expressive, and participatory conceptions of the lifeworld, began to take shape. This sea-change was doubtless triggered by widespread recognition that enormous power had been flowing to technocrats throughout the century, and that science, when linked to power in that way, was at least as often a force for ill as for good. That is an idea that would scarcely have crossed the brows of most nineteenth-century progressives, including Dewey. This cultural shift stimulated and was in turn intensified by a widespread revolt against positivist philosophy of science by students of many disciplines. Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ( 1962, 1970) was an important catalyst of this revolt. Kuhn argued that scientific theories do not organize data in ways that are any more, or any less, rational than political ideologies, religious beliefs, and aesthetic movements, and therefore that those who would strongly demarcate the rationality of science from the alleged irrationalism of these other dimensions of life were misguided. Against this background a third, and quite distinctive, moment in pragmatism's career began to find a voice. Pragmatism began to disentangle itself from positivism, scientism, and technologism, and to link itself with the humanities."

Comforted by that knowledge I decided to see how Tiger Woods was doing at Bayhill.

While it is true that the word "socialism" was new at that time (later according to some sources), the concept of socialism has been around for thousands of years. Plato's The Republic "entails elements of socialism as when Socrates expresses the desire to achieve happiness for the whole city not for any particular group of it (420b) and when he argues against inequalities in wealth (421d). There are also elements of fascism or totalitarianism. Among others, there is extreme censorship of poetry, lying to maintain good behavior and political stability, restriction of power to a small elite group, eugenic techniques, centralized control of the citizen’s lives, a strong military group that enforces the laws, and suppression of freedom of expression and choice." http://www.iep.utm.edu/republic/

Many primitive tribal societies in North America, Africa, and elsewhere lived virtually pure socialism. The Mayflower Compact is another example. The Compact "required that 'all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means' were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, 'all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.' A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

In his History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines." http://mises.org/daily/336

In your section titled "Socialism, Hitler , and the Liberal Agenda for a Fascist America… Part IV The Hitler Connection
Marxism , Fascism ,Hitler, and Stalin"

You say "Fascism and Marxism are sometimes confused..." I'm sure you had a source for this, but my research indicates that your source was confused! It is Fascism and Nazism that are usually confused. Fascism was defined and stablished by Mussolini well before Hitler took over the National Socialist Party. The following is from http://www.everything2.com/title/Fascism+vs.+Nazism

"The Italian fascists regarded both parliamentary democracy and socialist class struggle as elements that were bound to cause divisiveness in a nation. Hence they introduced the idea of corporatism, a kind of modernised version of the medieval guild system. Here representatives of all trades and industries, employers as well as employees, could settle matters based on mutual understanding. Of course, in reality this was mostly ideological window-dressing. Mussolini was Il Duce (= The Leader) and had the last word.

In general, fascism was an appreciably lighter version of a dictatorial anti-democratic system than the mercilessly brutal Nazism. Fascist Italy never became completely totalitarian, nor did it commit mass murder on the scale of the Nazis'. The monarchy was intact and the bureaucracy, the military and the church remained as complementary power centres. Originally there was no racism in Italian fascism. Due to Hitler's influence this unfortunately changed toward the end of Mussolini's regime."

So why is there confusion? Blame it on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. During WW II the Communist propagandists did not want to reference National Socialism because they didn't want anyone to connect it with Soviet Socialism. So they applied the term Fascist to both Germany and Italy. Journalists everywhere eventually adopted that practice.



The above is your prelude to discussing actions by various presidents that could be labeled "socialist".

Lets add one more quote for comparison. This is from http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1450

"The only form of enduring social organization that is now possible is one in which the new forces of productivity are cooperatively controlled and used in the interest of ... liberty and the cultural development of the individuals that constitute society."
source: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1450

Take a moment to contemplate these three statements. Is there any substantive difference between them? The third quote is from a book by John Dewey, "Liberalism and Social Action" (1935). Dewey is often described as "The father of progressive education" and he was a prolific progressive/liberal philosopher.

I refer to Dewey as a Progressive, but he preferred the term "liberal". The confusion surrounding the meanings of "liberal" & "progressive" is much geater than the confusion about "fascism". I spent some time studying the difference, but I'm convinced that outside of the college philosophy departments no one knows.

Note that in Dewey's statement he uses the word "controlled". There is no question that there need to be laws regulating business activity, but that is significantly different than having "cooperative control". That is another term for corporatism. In the US cooperative control is exercised by various agencies that originally were set up to regulate with a minimum of congressional oversight. The list is long, but includes the EPA, FDA, and HHS. And with Obamacare the control will affect much more than the "forces of productivity".

Now to the question, "Is Obama a socialist?"

I argue that Obama has gone to great effort to hide whatever actual political philosophy he holds. I don't think anyone can say with certainty that he is or isn't a socialist, Marxist, or any other well defined ideology. I do think he he has a very strong motivating world view, but he has only occasionally given us a peek at what that might be.

One might think that an analysis of his speeches and writings would make it clear. However, all information from his college days is "off limits". Strangely the media don't seem to care. An army of journalists went to Alaska to find out about Sarah Palin. All of her friends and school teachers were interrogated. But no interest in Obama.

He wrote two books, surely they would reveal the inner thinking. There are a couple of strange entries in "Dreams from My Father".
1: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." Was he so concerned about his image that he associated with people he wasn't really fond of? And who was he trying to reassure that he wasn't a "sellout". Is the line about a sellout just cover for his choice of associates? Or was he just struggling to find his identity? Did he find it with these people?

2: "Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe." His only job in the private sector and he felt like a spy behind enemy lines. This is another statement that can be made much of or easily dismissed. Was the corporation the "enemy", or was the research work like spying?

In any event, eventually a few curious journalists (definitely not mainstream) did their due diligence on the book and found that significant parts of it are exaggerated or outright fabrication. That in itself says something, but what?
The following links may be of interest.
http://steveelliott.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/12/06/truth-about-obamas-time-behind-enemy-lines/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911879/posts
http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/476925-quotes-obamas-book-1-i-choose.html

What do his speeches reveal? Primarily that there is little correlation with what he says and what he does, or at least what Reid and Pelosi do while he is campaigning or on vacation. Some examples:

1: "On July 3, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama said this: "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic." I'll only add that half of the Bush deficit occured during the last 2 years when Democrats controlled both houses. Obama voted for every spending bill.

2:Headline on a Politico story dated 2/22/09: Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19124.html#ixzz2OBmSoteB

3:From ABC News 3/13/2013: “We don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt,” President Obama said in an exclusive interview with George Stephanopoulos for “Good Morning America.” “In fact, for the next 10 years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/president-obama-there-is-no-debt-crisis/?.tsrc=sun?date=2000820002000200

3: From Investors Business Daily dated 09/24/12: During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term. But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.
http://news.investors.com/092412-626848-health-premiums-up-3065-obama-vowed-2500-cut.aspx#ixzz2OBnw3vvq

4: In one of his first acts as commander in chief, President Obama in 2009 signed an executive order to close the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It was part of a campaign promise the president made, to close the camp and "determine how to deal with those who have been held there." But four years on, the controversial prison remains open.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas-promise-to-close-guantanamo-prison-falls-short

Is there any other way to get at Obama's guiding principles? I think we all remember Obama scolding the big bank executives. He called them as "fat cat" bankers to their face. He hates them, right? Why do Obama and other high ranking Democrats get so much campaign money from Wall Street banks -- Goldman Sachs in particular? There is a report at http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/04/27/a-list-of-goldman-sachs-people-in-the-obama-government-names-attached-to-the-giant-squids-tentacles/ that is well worth reading. "...it gives the most comprehensive look ever published at how extensive the Goldman Sachs ties are in the Obama administration and the revolving door between the two.

It also shines light on a subject that has virtually received no mainstream media attention: the importance of the Hamilton Project (funded by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs) as the policy voice for their pro-corporate interests. While Matt Taibbi has dissected Goldman, no journalist has looked at the Hamilton Project (Taibbi misses it too) despite the fact that all three of its first directors serve now in the Obama administration. Its current director, its fourth, worked as an economic adviser to Obama Administration and at MIT. It formulates the pro-big business {agenda} that Goldman wants and spreads it through academia and the Obama administration."

=============================================================

I close with some quotes from the Federalist PApers and two Presidents.

Federalist No. 41:
...in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. ... therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; {and} to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

Elsewhere in Fedratlist No. 41:
That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

President James Madison in 1792: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Madison.Quote.24FE


Woodrow Wilson: Socialism and Democracy http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2208
"No man with a heart can withhold sympathy from the laborer whose strength is wasted and whose hope is thwarted in the service of the heartless and closefisted; but, then, no man with a head ought to speak that sympathy in the public prints unless he have some manly, thought-out ways of betterment to propose. One wearies easily, it must be confessed, of woful-warnings; one sighs often for a little tonic of actual thinking grounded in sane, clear-sighted perception of what is possible to be done. Sentiment is not despicable — it may be elevating and noble, it may be inspiring, and in some mental fields it is self-sufficing — but when uttered concerning great social and political questions it needs the addition of practical, initiative sense to keep it sweet and to prevent its becoming insipid."

"For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."

I tried to evaluate the story linked to. Unfortunately several of the links in the story no longer work. It appears to be based on statements by Cheney that Iraq had WMDs. Anyone who was around after 9/11 that doesn't have Alzheimers knows that everyone was sure Iraq had WMDs, including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the other top Democrats. Why single out Cheney?

The story also claims that Cheney said that there were clear connections between Iraq and 9/11. Not so. Cheney said there were connections between Iraq and Al Quida. Well, there were.

Without being able to follow all of the links I'd say it is poorly fabricated hit piece.