Next is the Democrats endorsing an endless global war on terror by passing HR 1, a bill which supports an endless global war on terror.

Last up is a real investigation of 911.
Comments on political boards may number in the hundreds while gaming and trivial computer blogs number in the thousands. Politics just is no longer “popular” in this society.

I don’t know if you are reading through the thread after the fact, but I’m a constituent and wanted to thank you for standing up against the “torture” bill last year and against a troop increase in Iraq this year.

I am part of the progressive community who supported Ned Lamont, and wanted you to know you have a lot of support among the grassroots.

Okay, a question or two for Sen. Dodd, based on three premises:

1. Military spending is no longer a reflection of the actual needs for the defense of the nation. This spending is increasingly used to supply a foreign legion operating offshore to seize and hold markets for risk-averse multinational corporations.

2. Tax cuts for the wealthy and for said corporations, in combination with item 1, have produced cumulative debt which has expanded the interest on the debt to the point where that interest, along with defense spending of all types, has the potential to choke off other government spending on the discretionary side of the budget.

3. National energy policy has, and continues to be, written by corporations for corporate interests. The 2005 energy act remains the most egregious example of that trend.

How do we fund, over the long term, the coming national necessities of energy independence (in a real, rather than token, way) in an age of declining petroleum reserves and sharply increasing demand, and the inevitable additional costs associated with effects of climate change and cooperation with world demands for carbon reductions, without addressing the three points above?

To my mind, these items are all interrelated and inseparable from one another. If energy policy is written in a way that protects the effective monopoly of a few large corporations, that will very likely create new problems, especially if effective solutions (conservation, foremost among them, decentralization, another) are at odds with corporate profitability.

Increasing debt, via annual interest payments, hinders the ability of the government to seriously fund new technology and the start-up companies developing that technology for commercialization.

Further, military spending concentrates talent in areas the research of which is hidden from commercial exploitation. There’s an old adage in R&D: talent follows the money. The more we spend on defense research, the more we intellectually impoverish the programs necessary for addressing energy problems.

There’s much more to this, in detail, but, I think it important to say, plainly, that the general trends mentioned above actually harm our security, rather than enhance it. The very long-term view must, of necessity, then be to reverse those trends in order to free up the resources necessary to solve, rather than postpone, the problems inexorably advancing upon us.

I think, right now, that anyone wanting to be President at this time in history is going to have to address all those problems, and is going to have to convince the public of the necessity to change the way we think about defense, security, debt and corporate influence on government.

excellent questions! i hope Senator Dodd will address these related issues seriously.

SOTU spoiler:

The British government has learned that Iran recently tried to purchase large quantities of uranium from Barack Obama.

-GSD

…And he wants to steal Bush’s Illudium Q-36 space modulator, too

;>)

1. Military spending is no longer a reflection of the actual needs for the defense of the nation. This spending is increasingly used to supply a foreign legion operating offshore to seize and hold markets for risk-averse multinational corporations.

2. Tax cuts for the wealthy and for said corporations, in combination with item 1, have produced cumulative debt which has expanded the interest on the debt to the point where that interest, along with defense spending of all types, has the potential to choke off other government spending on the discretionary side of the budget.

3. National energy policy has, and continues to be, written by corporations for corporate interests. The 2005 energy act remains the most egregious example of that trend.

How do we fund, over the long term, the coming national necessities of energy independence (in a real, rather than token, way) in an age of declining petroleum reserves and sharply increasing demand, and the inevitable additional costs associated with effects of climate change and cooperation with world demands for carbon reductions, without addressing the three points above?

To my mind, these items are all interrelated and inseparable from one another. If energy policy is written in a way that protects the effective monopoly of a few large corporations, that will very likely create new problems, especially if effective solutions (conservation, foremost among them, decentralization, another) are at odds with corporate profitability.

Increasing debt, via annual interest payments, hinders the ability of the government to seriously fund new technology and the start-up companies developing that technology for commercialization.

Further, military spending concentrates talent in areas the research of which is hidden from commercial exploitation. There’s an old adage in R&D: talent follows the money. The more we spend on defense research, the more we intellectually impoverish the programs necessary for addressing energy problems.

There’s much more to this, in detail, but, I think it important to say, plainly, that the general trends mentioned above actually harm our security, rather than enhance it. The very long-term view must, of necessity, then be to reverse those trends in order to free up the resources necessary to solve, rather than postpone, the problems inexorably advancing upon us.

I think, right now, that anyone wanting to be President at this time in history is going to have to address all those problems, and is going to have to convince the public of the necessity to change the way we think about defense, security, debt and corporate influence on government.