The relevance of intent

Intent is an important - essential - ingredient in determining, for example, the nature of a crime that has been committed. Unless there was a  intent to kill we call it manslaughter or negligent homicide.  We save the word murder for those cases in which the death was the objective.  Even in chess contests intent must be present to enforce the requirement for moving a "touched piece".  Players, who wants to simply adjust a piece on a square, have long used the French expression J'adoube (I adjust) before doing so in order to make it clear that moving not their intention. In this context  "touch" a piece  has been clarified to mean "touch with the intent to move ".  

One can overdo the importance and role of intent.  If you listen to the debate over the Obamacare act you will hear, hidden between the adulatory adjectives, the supreme confidence that the left holds in intent.  The aim is to give every American healthcare. Therefore the outcome must be good.

After hearing Bill Maher explaining to his audience the unmitigated horror that religion has always delivered for our species, I mentioned to a friend who more or less shares that opinion, that I disagreed.  I believe that the conflict between church and state was a major contributor to the development of modern humanism and human rights in the lands that had been Christendom.  The Muslims on the other hand combined church and state into a theocracy which shined for awhile and then sank into such a sorry state that theological leaders who have no base of secular power can order the death of anyone who is, in their mind, in conflict with Islam. My friend thought that the argument had no validity because the leaders, both secular and spiritual, were pursuing their own interest and did not have as their objective the improvement of the lot of the average person.  This is the flip side.  If the intent is not good then the result cannot be good either.  I think this helps turn liberals away from capitalism.  I heard William Ayers respond to the argument that American Capitalism was the greatest wealth building machine that had ever been created.  He dismissed the argument as irrelevant because we stole the land from the Amerindians.  The intent of the capitalist is to get rich.  Therefore he cannot get credit for even “incidental” accomplishments of his system. 

One of my two central beliefs on this is that the Church prevented the European Kings from gaining absolute power.  Because of that the people could benefit from their conflict with each other and internally.  For example, out of the 14^th century peasant’s revolt came the following ditty:(gentleman = nobleman)

When Adam delved,

And Eve spann.

Who was then,

The gentleman.

Another example of how intent does not necessarily determine the primary result.

In 12th century England Henry II (whose "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" led to the "Murder in the Cathedral" of St. Thomas Becket) was a very strong king.

The nobility ran the courts of the land and collected the fines that came from them. Henry thought that the King's courts should determine what was justice in England.  The Baronial courts used various means to determine guilt:  trial by fire, by water or sometimes even trial by combat.  Not the kind of courtroom you'd like to go into.  

Henry offered a different kind of justice.  His version had one of his agents call on all of the people who knew anything about the case to come and tell what they knew.  His courts then acted on that evidence.  People got to choose which court to use.  Thus was born the grand jury in particular and the jury in general - that renowned bulwark of English-American freedom.

Now perhaps Henry had a deep appreciation of modern ideas of justice and knew what the outcome would be.  But my bet is that he wanted the money and power.

comment on Bruce's comment of October 7, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Bruce's comments are in black my remarks are in red.

If the Rs trying to force a person (the President) by force, intimidation or undue power It is not undue power.  I know from your previous posts that you do not like the fact that the Congress has the power of the purse – in fact the HR has the power of the purse - but there it is, in Article one of that pesky Constitution.  (not only shutting down almost the entire government, not anywhere near the entire federal government much less the states but blaming it on Obama because he won't capitulate...oh, I mean "negotiate") I have seen Obama on TV saying repeatedly that he will not negotiate on this or the debt limit. doesn't meet the definition of extortion as posted above, then I don't know what to say. What would they have to do to meet the definition in your eyes? Is there anything legal that they could do that you would call extortion? I would love to read what that would be. 

Since extortion is a crime it will be hard to arrange .  I gave Wikipedia’s definition before:       Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

 Also see merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extortion:  ex·tor·tion noun \ik-ˈstȯr-shən\ :            the crime of getting money from someone by the use of force or threats

 If they are committing a crime, then Obama should have Holder arrest Boehner. There's a headline for you.  That is where you end up if you follow the logic of this kind of rhetoric. The real question is: does this kind of rhetoric improve your argument?  I would think only with those who are already in your choir.

But I feel that we are drifting off into semantics now. Precisely. What the Rs have done in shutting down the government, and soon holding the debt limit and the country's credit rating hostage (yeah, I said it...hostage), is wrong no matter what you call it. The monthly income of the Feds is about 10 times the interest on the national debt.  The Full faith and credit business is a straw man, issued by people who believe that there should be no limit to how much debt that we run up.  I don't care if its a political tactic practiced by everyone including all of my friends and my entire family, it's still not right. Shutting down the government is just too much, too painful for too many. It's way off balance. It's bringing a bazooka to a knife fight. Its having your Dad beat up the elementary school bully. It's putting a yacht in a stock pond. Its fishing with dynamite. All over one law.  Will they try to change the law to make it better? Nooooo. It's got to go or nothing. I've heard some of their ideas about changing it, but that's just gutting it and taking the teeth out of it. If Obama drops the employer mandate – no problem.  If the Rs insist on dropping the individual mandate – then all the above slurs apply.  I understand about the Peter and Paul stuff. But frankly, that's the way that insurance works too.  If you think that “that Peter and Paul stuff” is the way insurance works, then I’m not sure that you have got a handle on the one very large difference between "the stuff" and insurance.  In our society the government uniquely has the right to the initiation of the use of force.  A regular insurance company cannot force you to buy their product.  The government can, eg SS, ACA, Medicare.  That is the real and substantial difference: force.  The insurance companies want Peter to pay for Paul   that is if they have to have a Paul. They would really rather keep Paul out of the system so that Peter is actually paying for nothing at all. Does Peter like that better?  That is why this Peter supports the ACA and the eventual implementation of national health insurance.  But I believe in looking the downside straight in the face and not pretend that it doesn’t exists.  This is another example of the Government forcing us to do something “for our own good”. 

Those things are very dangerous for two reasons. 

1.  It is hard to honestly finance them (see medicare). 

2.  If I may borrow from Thomas Jefferson Gerald Ford (corrected - 10-09-13):

“A government that is big enough to give you everything you want,

 is big enough to take from you everything that you have.” 

So I say again that in view of the fact that it is our side of this debate that is supporting a program that involves force, it seems passing strange that some on our side should accuse the other side of extortion.  Perhaps we hope that if we assert loudly enough the claim that they are doing it, then no one will notice that we really are doing it.  I prefer straight forward argument and I think we have a good case.  I think name calling makes us look like we have a bad case. 

The Current Language of Politics

Apparently I am not (in the last two entries) communicating well in the exchanges in the posts of Oct. 3 and Oct. 4.  Whether we continue them or not I want to try again to state what  I think about this and some things that I don’t think about this. 

1.  I am with the supporters of the ACA on the issue.  However, the Republican general position (smaller government) is a legitimate position and they have a right to use all legitimate methods to pursue it.  One is to use the rules of the House to prevent a vote on "the Senate Bill".  They can do that - and Obama can get on TV and say: "Just have a vote!" and make them look bad.

2.  I am offended by the tactics that my side (let’s call them the Ds) is using – in particular the name-calling.

As was noted in one of the posts "extortion  does have a definition": 

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.  

Please note the word criminal.

3.  It seems to me to be particularly offensive to call the opponents (let’s call them the Rs) “extortionists” when the Rs are using the same tactics that the Ds have used in the past (when the Rs and Southern Ds held a majority in one body or the other of Congress).  This kind of hyperbolic language was not used.  You can say that it is because our politics was not so bitter then, and I will say sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between cause and effect.

4.  Since a basic principle of the ACA is that the government will “rob Peter to pay Paul” by forcing the payment of a fee or a tax or a premium by Peter. (I agree with C J John Roberts that a rose by any other name …)  The money will be used to provide “affordable” health care for Paul.  Does that sound like any criminal activity mentioned above?  I would agree that the operation of the ACA is technically not extortion.  But I agree only because it is the government which is doing it and it is done according to law.  Still, it seems to me to be spectacularly ironic for the Ds to say that the opponents of the ACA are engaging in – extortion.

5.  Consider the following two things in connection with Obama’s sudden adoration of “the law”.
1. a) About the ACA's health care individual mandate Obama says: “It’s the law we can’t delay that.”
b) About the ACA's health care employer mandate Obama says: “We are delaying that.”
2. About the “Dream Act” (which did not pass and change the immigration law) Obama said I’m not going to enforce that part of the immigration law. Poof

This is not a minor irrelevant discrepancy from out of the blue.  Obama makes 1.a)  the justification for calling the Rs extortionists.  Because “the ACA is the law and therefore I can’t negotiate about that”.  The other two are the evidence that he doesn’t take that argument seriously.

6.  I support the ACA and I think the Rs are messing up bad on this and that they will pay for it.  I think the arguments that can be brought to bear against their position are strong and persuasive.  Instead the Ds have chosen a type of name-calling that leaves their defenders making arguments like, “Well, I don’t really know what the president meant by that.”

I support Obama, but I am depressed about him. In general, I believe that we should not have to wonder what the President intended to say and, especially, the world should not have to wonder whether or not he meant it.

 

Rule by Minority

I just don't get it.  Granted, I have been busy and not able to listen to all of the talking heads about the government shut down or read many articles.  But I work with numbers for a living and the math of this seems wrong to me.  Maybe my assumptions are wrong.  From what I understand a minority in the House is responsible for what everyone else says is crazy (the shut down).  In the House, again as I understand it, a simple majority is all it takes to pass a bill.  So, if the problem here is a minority in the House then I don't get it.  The majority should tell the minority to take a hike and get on with the business of governing.  Perhaps the majority is afraid of the minority because of the Tea Party effect on primaries which are always just around the corner for the House members.

Another thing I don't get...if a law is defunded by Congress leaving the government unable to enact that law, isn't Congress breaking the law or at least obstructing the law?  Even if a law is defunded, the law is still a law.  Doesn't Congress have a legal obligation to fund the laws on the books?  This tactic of trying to extort what the minority wants by holding the country's purse strings hostage leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.  We now have rule by minority if this is a successful tactic.  Law enforcement warns that if you allow yourself to be a victim of extortion, the extortionist will just keep coming back for more.  If this is a successful tactic it most likely will become the norm and will be used by members of both parties, whichever one is the minority at the time.

Whistleblower

Merriam Webster defines civil disobedience as:  Refusal to obey government demands or commands and nonresistance to consequent arrest and punishment.

They define whistle-blower as: one who reveals something covert or who informs against another.

When the government is the entity that is being exposed, should the title of whistleblower, also require "and nonresistance to consequent arrest and punishment."?

Obama and Syria

On June 15 we considered the possibility that:  ...Obama has lost his way and perhaps is not even up to the job.  For example with all of the tough sounding talk about Syria, he placed himself on the horns of a dilemma.  Either he gets us involved in another war or else he makes the U S President (and therefore the U S) look foolish.

Now, with this tepid response, it looks like he will get us in another war and make us look foolish.

Two reactions to the Obama Scandals

It is interesting to watch the reactions to the current scandals.  Here are two examples from two people who both voted for Obama both times.  Here are their reactions to two of Obama's actions:

Syria:
A.  The first is worried that Obama has lost his way and perhaps is not even up to the job.  For example with all of the tough sounding talk about Syria, he placed himself on the horns of a dilemma.  Either he gets us involved in another war or else he makes the U S President (and therefore the U S) look foolish.
B.  The second is also troubled by this.

IRS:
A.  The first finds this outrageous.
B.  The other Obama supporter has reacted to this situation in a manner that seems quite different and out of character.   For example the fact that the power of the IRS has been used to single out one political philosophy (Tea Party etc.) and make it more difficult for them to function effectively in the political arena did not elicit the outrage that I expected to hear from this person.  What I did hear was:
a)    It is the IRS's job to check out such organizations,
b)    those are fascist education organizations, and
c)    the government used the IRS to get Al Capone.
All of this from an avid supporter of the ACLU -- well most of the time.

perpetual warfare

Since I have been complaining about Obama a lot lately I am happy to be able to say something good about him.  He has just announced several things about the "war on terror", a title he doesn't like, that indicate that he considers the war part to be over and that in the future we will treat it like common crimes.  (I think that he has already done that too much of the time.)  I will talk more about the particulars later.

Here I just want to say that we have been warned by everyone from James Madison to George Orwell about the dangers to a republic of perpetual warfare.  I agree with them and with Obama that we should, at some point, mark an end to any conflict.  Perhaps another terror organization will arise that requires a state of war to deal with it, but as for Al Queda lets call it done.

Scandal

This article is by Jillian Kay Melchior in the National Review.

        A tea-party group targeted by Democrats gets attention from the IRS—and the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF.
 

Benghazi 4

The media has found Benghazi with a vengeance.

I noticed that the people who explained why no help was sent, talked a lot about the fact that it only lasted 7 hours and it would have taken the military longer than that to get there.

None of our illustrative reporters asked:  "Did you know at the beginning that it would only last seven hours?"

Benghazi 3 - media

Apparently, the nonFox media is finally starting to cover the Benghazi affair.  It occupied a major portion of last Sunday's Face the Nation show on CBS.  Until recently I had seen it only on Fox.

Oct 21 I said here:  "I believe the President was concerned that the terrorist attack on Benghazi would be seen a harbinger of the collapse of his middle eastern foreign policy.  That is why for two weeks his administration conducted a media campaign to convince us that it was a demonstration that got out of hand and not an organized activity." 

 

In the comments there it was noted that:  "... the response by the administration was the standard damage control that we see from our institutions from time to time when events threaten to damage their brand."  That is, of course, frequently true. That is why we need a independent media.  That brings us to the real and double tragedy here. Our mainline media will not only not cover this important story, it assures us that those who do cover it are unreliable.  The majority of  our media apparently sees its role as supporting the administration's (mis?)representation of those events.

Recall how the media handled Bush's claims about African yellowcake?  I have a friend who went on interminably about how the Bush people "outed a CIA agent" (Valerie Plame, author of the subsequent book - Fair Game).  That friend has not been at all concerned about the idea that perhaps this administration left an ambassador (Chris Stevens) and others out to die.  I told her that, contrary to Obama's claims, the Libyan President said (in September) that it was clearly a preplanned attack and she asked, "Libya has a President?" 

I would argue that the blame for my friend's indifference lies not with her, but with the media and its selective reporting. 

By way of comparison the reader should note that Ambassador Stevens will not be writing a book about the treatment that he received from his administration.
 

Margaret Thatcher

Thatcher was a marvelous leader.

But she reminds me of a greater one:

Chuchill's We Shall Fight on the Beaches speech, June 4, 1940.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Thank you Bush 41

Dear President George H. W. Bush,

For over twenty years I have wanted to express to you my appreciation for something that you did while you were president of the US.  I am sorry that I have taken so long.  I love history, but, as will become clear below, I am not a historian

Your handling of the Gulf War was excellent and the wisdom of your restraint in that conflict has been since confirmed.

I very much appreciated your willingness to place our country ahead of your party and even your own reelection by supporting an increase in taxes which laid the groundwork for the surpluses of the nineties which strengthened our country.

However, laudable as those achievements were, they pale in comparison to what I think was your best work.  What I appreciated the most about your presidency was the way you handled the final chapter of the 40 year Cold War – the collapse of the Soviet empire and finally the Soviet Union itself.  It was an extremely delicate situation that could have exploded in many different directions and with incalculable damage to the world.  It is hard to remember the attitude of the American public, and many in our leadership, toward the Soviet Union at end of the Cold War.  After all that time there was in many quarters a visceral hatred of the Soviet Union and while that huge edifice was crumbling you were under intense public pressure to seek a greater American advantage, to inject the US into that collapse in order to “guarantee” this or that outcome. You decided not to interfere in that decline.  I have always assumed that it was because you thought that to do so might have driven the Soviets to desperate measures and/or would have actually made it harder for those nations in that empire to be restored to independence.  

I think your stand against that pressure to intervene went beyond commendable and into heroic and I think that the wisdom of your decision has been supported by the recent history of Europe. 

Thank you.

Sincerely

Wayne Bell

PS Perhaps that is why the comedian’s description of your rejection of some proposal on the grounds that it “wouldn’t be prudent” resonates so well.

PPS I confess that I never voted for you.
.

How Can the Center Be Found—and Will it Hold?

            Yellowarmadillos is dedicated to the proposition that a political center can be found and that such a center can bring great social and economic benefits (not the least of which is that we can avoid disaster) to our society, nation, and perhaps even, by implication, to the rest of the world. 

            This note is an attempt to test that proposition. A famous Roman thinker (probably Cicero) once said that virtus stat in medio (“virtue is found in the middle”)--with the dead armadillos I presume.  Is this true?  Many of us, and not just me and the founder of this blog, would like it to be.  It seems so sensible that virtue should not be found on the extreme ends of any spectrum, philosophical or political.  Further, shouldn’t virtue be more or less equivalent with truth or even Truth of the ultimate sort that religions and religious seekers pursue? I may be stepping on a host of philosophic toes by equating these two, but I will beg your indulgence to continue in this existential vein. Besides, unless we are followers of Machiavelli, we wouldn’t want to equate virtue with dishonesty or untruth, would we?

            Yet history might give us reason to wonder about the possibility and value of being a centrist—and some of the statements made recently on this blog also muddy the waters surrounding political centrism. Perhaps we need to ask some questions. Is my center the same as yours?  Is there an essential place to stand in the center or does it the center shift with time, issues, and personalities?  Most Americans, for example, would agree that Martin Luther King pursued justice and truth? Was he a centrist?  What would a centrist do in Nazi Germany, especially after 1938?  Are there some situations where truth is not to be found in the middle?

            To say this—to question the value of centrism—is to locate ourselves in the mainstream of Western thought.  It was Aristotle who said that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.  His thinking was, generally speaking, of the “either-or” variety and this is has remained the primary way of approaching problems in Western history. Indeed, it helps explain the Scientific Revolution of the 16^th and 17^th centuries, the 18^th century Enlightenment (which stressed rationality over emotion and “superstition”), and the Industrial Revolution.  Eastern thinking in India and Chinese are more given to “both-and” ways of coming at truth, a path that has earned them much credit for their spiritual insights, but left them at the mercy of Europe and the United States in science and technology—until recently at least.

            Perhaps it is because of the limitations we now see in Western thinking and ways of living, in the damage our lifestyles have done to the planet, our arrogant assumptions that we deserve far more than our share of planetary resources, that makes some of us see the value of a return to the center, both in a political and socio-economic as well as in a spiritual sense?

            When I was young, we had a teeter-totter and quickly learned that it was impossible to keep the board horizontal unless we had equal weights on each end. Maybe we can learn something about the political center from this device.  Can we find the center without having some weight on each side, that is, some folks on each side who want there to be a center?  Do we have that today in this country?  If not, what should we do? It is almost as if, instead of the pendulum (to now mix metaphors) that travels from one side to the other and then back, we have two pendulums, each coming from a different direction and destined to clash in the middle. Surely that wouldn’t be a good thing, or would it? After the destruction, we might go back to a single swinging pendulum?

However, we are not living in a mechanical world in which teeter-totters can be built to balance, but in an unbalanced human one in which neither virtue nor truth can always be found in the middle.  It might be there on occasion, but only if there are forces that seek balance. And at times, that balance, that truth, may be found somewhere else—on one side or the other, even (and likely) in the midst of error. As a friend once said: “You can find the best things in the strangest places.”

A man's gotta do ...

.
A year ago I suggested to a liberal friend of mine that Obama should advocate an aggressive debt reduction plan involving spending cuts and tax increases.  He laughed and reveled in telling people that I thought Obama should propose tax increases.  Outrageous.  OK.  You gotta get elected.

Then came Simpson - Bowles and I hoped for a strong advocacy, but was disappointed.

Then the Super Committee and ...

Earlier today, Obama endorsed gay marriage. I have no problem with that.
They say there was some risk in doing that, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

Another liberal friend noted that there was a lot of money that would now start flowing as a result.
That is, money for his campaign.  That is worth going to the mattresses.

Apparently our national money problem is not worth going to the mattresses.
.

Birth Control Mandate 2 - Cynical(?)

In the comments on Birth Control Mandate 1 I suggested that Obama did this "as a base rousing action. A chance to change the topic of conversation from money to culture wars issues."

Bruce suggested that this was cynical. I think that raises a good pair of questions:

A. Is it cynical to think that Obama did this thing as a political ploy? Consider Clinton's Sister Souljah moment in 1992 which was a similar gambit. No, I don't think that it is cynical that I believe that politicians try to manipulate our emotions in order to get our votes. I think that it just means that I watch these guys.

B. Would it be cynical of Obama if he did this thing as a political gambit*? Well by doing this he has firmed up an important part of his base and thrown a monkey wrench into the Republican nomination race. Notice how much the Rs have dwelt on it and that Santorum, the quintessential R social issues guy, is now at the front of the pack. This is a great issue for Santorum in the primaries, but a disaster for the Rs in the general.

With a bit of luck Obama may have induced the Republicans to nominate Santorum!!

I don't think it is cynical of Obama, I think it is clever.

* The word "gambit" is particularly appropriate here because, in chess, a gambit is the giving up of something - usually a pawn - in the expectation of getting a lot more back later. In the political case you take some temporary heat for some bigger gain later.
.

South Carolina

.
It appears that Newton Leroy Gingrich will win in SC.

If you do not believe that "the people" are disgusted with "the media" you should find a replay of the opening of 1/19/12 debate and watch it.

If you didn't see it. As the first question John King asked Gingrich about the fact that his second wife had said the day before that Newt had asked her to agree to an open marriage allowing him to continue his affair with the woman who would become his third wife.

Gingrich unloaded on King, the question, and the media. The crowd roared their approval.

More amazing was the fact that King was not willing to defend his question! Which confirmed for the crowd that Gingrich was right.

To win, Romney will need to stay calm until the race moves to an area that is not quite so retro as South Carolina.

I bet you didn't mind my saying Newton Leroy Gingrich.
Would you feel the same about it if I had said Barack Hussein Obama?
.

Jefferson and Lincoln and King

.
Some see in Thomas Jefferson only a hypocrite who owned slaves.

I see Jefferson as a man, admittedly flawed, who lived in a world not of his making which he could not change.

But I will also say that he did not simply "accept that which I cannot change" as in the cleric's serenity prayer. He contributed to the eventual solution in the only place where it could happen: the future. He placed in the hands of, then unknown, leaders a powerful weapon that could be wielded when the time came that it was possible to "change the things they could".

Lincoln: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Gettysburg, November 1863

King: “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’”
Washington, August 28, 1968
.

Monkey Butts

Monkey Butts: In one of the more vivid illustrations of the political landscape in some time David Axelrod had this to say about Newt Gingrich today, Devin Dwyer reports: Â "Just remember, the higher a monkey climbs on a pole, the more you can see his butt," Axelrod said, citing a piece of political wisdom he said he learned from a Chicago alderman. "So, the speaker is very high on the pole right now and we'll see how people like the view."

Capitalism vs Climate

.
KW introduced us to the article Capitalism vs Climate by Naomi Klein in two earlier posts A and B .

He then makes a statement and asks the question:

"Will the private sector be able to deal with the massive climate changes bringing rises in sea levels, increased flooding and drought and widespread population movements? I would like to see someone on this blog try to answer this question in the affirmation, without simply writing off the coming crisis as a plot by leftists who want to destroy capitalism."

I want to try to give my answer to the question in a day or two. But first I want to respond to the statement by KW.

I think that it is relevant that her article is a criticism of a Heartland conference of Climate Deniers. Her arguments seem to be against this omnipresent conference. In the world of this article there is no reasonable person who agrees with her objective, but disagrees with her methods. These characters are convinced that climate change is a plot to destroy their way of life. They are the tools of the corporations who place their profits above the existence of our species or any species. In short, she has selected a perfect straw man.

Now to KW's statement:
I had said, "It seems that Ms. Klein arrives pretty quickly to her solution to the environmental problem – get rid of capitalism."

KW stated: "Wayne, Ms Klein does not say we should "get rid of capitalism" but only that it needs to be regulated and controlled because of the amount of planning necessary to deal with climate change."

I am going to offer some excerpts from her article first noting that the title is Capitalism vs Climate. To facilitate checking the context I will note where they are in the document (My copy is a word document in Times New Roman 12 pt font. It runs 19 pages.) Bold type is my emphasis.

page 5: "The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, “Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation.” Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.
Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong."

page 6: "It is true that responding to the climate threat requires strong government action at all levels. But real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.
Here is where the Heartlanders have good reason to be afraid: arriving at these new systems is going to require shredding the free-market ideology that has dominated the global economy for more than three decades."

page 12: "So let’s summarize. Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency."
...
"But for progressives, there is responsibility in it, because it means that our ideas—informed by indigenous teachings as well as by the failures of industrial state socialism—are more important than ever. It means that a green-left worldview, which rejects mere reformism and challenges the centrality of profit in our economy, offers humanity’s best hope of overcoming these overlapping crises."
...
"Climate change detonates the ideological scaffolding on which contemporary conservatism rests."

So, I (of course) agree that she did not actually use the words "get rid of capitalism" But based on her words, I don't think that I have misrepresented what she did say. I believe that KW advocates "regulation and control", but detonation is more than regulation and 'shredding the free-market ideology' and 'breaking every rule in the free-market playbook' are well beyond control of the free-market.
.