BBC Blog Network

User Profile

dsanthony

Listed below are comments made by dsanthony between Wednesday, 26th November 2008 and Tuesday, 9th December 2008.

«Newer
Older»

The case against Obama's New Deal 01:21am on 09 Dec 2008 The case against Obama's New Deal is the same as the one against FDR's New Deal. Despite the hoopla and liberal lionization of FDR, his New Deal did nothing to end the Depression. Unless the US decides to become a socialist nation, Government funding can only produce short term employment gains. NRA and WPA projects did much good in the 30s, no one is denying that--road, bridges, dams and other building projects are important. But nothing in the WPA or any other New Deal program created a self-sustaining private industry. Only the massive armaments and military draft of World War 2 provided the long term employment needed to end the depression.

All the govt. programs proposed by Obama provide short term employment prospects. The economic infrastructure of the US can only be improved by the the development of private industries. And the "green" technologies pushed by Obama and others are not self-sustaining industries. Like the farcical Ethanol program, these "industries" will require long term subsidies from the US govt--mainly because they are not free market industries. They are being forced on the US public by government decree, regardless of whether there is any market for them.

Despite the rebuke of President Bush's administration, Americans are a center-right population. Obama's welcome will disappear quickly if he begins pushing the anti-free market agenda being celebrated on the internet. Remember, America elected Eisenhower over Stevenson, Nixon over Humphrey and Reagan over Carter. They will return to their senses soon enough.
Change we can believe in? 1:01pm on 08 Dec 2008 As America should have learned in the 1930s, these public work projects do not really improve the economy. While a few hundred workers in a community may get short term jobs repairing roads or improving buildings, they are back on the unemployment line once those individual projects are completed. These projects, like the WPA under Roosevelt, are feel-good, busy work for the laboring classes, but do not affect the underlying economic structures.

These projects also keep alive the disproven theory that government spending can run the US economy. If this is Obama's big idea of change, recreating the National Recovery Act of the 1930s, that is change America can't believe in.
Is Obama's honeymoon really over already? 8:32pm on 03 Dec 2008 Since this debate has evolved, or devolved, into a debate about Israel, I have to say I do not see how Israel can survive in the long run. Israel's position in the Middle East is analagous to the early American colonies' position on the Eastern coast of America. The colonies survived because they had a technological superiority to the Indians, and because they continually increased that advantage. They also increased their population and pushed the boundaries further west, weakening the tribal peoples.

Now imagine a static, ungrowing colony existing on a narrow strip of land along the coast. They might survive as long as they kept their technological advantage, but if the stalemate lasted long enough for the Indians to close the gap, say by building a nuclear arsenal, the colonies would not have a chance. In that same way, I don't see how Isreal can survive for another century in its present existence.

It was foolish of the west, and the zionists, to found a nation which was completely surrounded by their enemies. A 45 mile wide stretch of France, or of America, could easily replace the current geography of Israel. I doubt any nation would cede the land, or the Israelis would choose to accept. But, in the long run, that is the only way the nation of Israel can survive.
Is Obama's honeymoon really over already? 00:05am on 03 Dec 2008 Obama presented himself as the protypical tabula rasa, and people threw all kinds of hopes and dreams onto that slate. Shouting Change! was good politics, but poor policy. Like children waiting for Santa Claus, or a group of millenial apocalyptics waiting for the world to end on January 1, 2000, many people deluded themselves into thinking that electing a second-rate lawyer with 3 years' experience as a US Senator was going to create utopia. It's funny but sad.

Obama was elected without experience and without any real ideas of how to enact real change. The wisest thing he could do was put himself under the wing of the Clintons.
Does belief in God lead to peace? 11:52pm on 02 Dec 2008 I guess Nobledee has never heard of the three estates, or the belief that the roles of nobility, clergy and laborers were indeed seen as ordained by god. Or the belief by the US founding fathers that they were building a society based on "self-evident truths" or natural laws, or that their creator endowed people with those rights.

Flippancy is not a replacement for dialogue.
Does belief in God lead to peace? 04:57am on 02 Dec 2008 Religion is like any other social institution, and can be used for peaceful or violent ends. Religion has historically been a promoter or focus of violence, in almost all cultures and nations. Modern nations have compartmentalized religions, forcing (yes, forcing) religious groups to subordinate their beliefs and practices to the nation state. Personally, I have no doubt that if the laws of Britain or the US stopped forcing religous tolerance, open violence would begin again within decades. But certainly religion has also produced many peaceful and truly saint-like individuals.
Hispanics swing 10:46pm on 30 Nov 2008 Latinos, or Latinas, are people born in Latin America, or their descendents. Hispanics are, strictly speaking, Latinos who come from Spanish-speaking nations like Mexico or Cuba. Latinos from non-Spanish nations like Brazil are not Hispanics, but the distinction is not widely recognized.

Yes, Hispanic or Latinos, are the fastest growing segment of voters in the US. That is a recent trend though, and was manufactured by Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, in the 60s and 70s.

Immigration patterns traditionally mirrored the US population as a whole. The vast majority of immigrants came from Europe. A smaller number came from Latin America, Asia and Africa. That pattern was consistent throughout US history.

In the 60s and 70s, Democrats made the decision that immigration from impoverished nations should be the goal of US policy. They announced the new immigration laws in moral terms, saying that America had an obligation to open its doors to people who were suffering. They neglected to mention that immigrants from third world nations in Latin America and Africa were much more likely to vote for Democrats than were immigrants from Europe, or even Asia.

Today, a Russian, Czech or Lithuanian must wait years for entry into the US, if entry is ever granted. While legal immigration from Latin America can also be difficult, those who enter illegally are often ignored, and any of their children born in the US are US citizens. And every 20 years (In 1960, 1980 and a failed attempt in 2006) a blanket amnesty has been granted to Latinos who are in the US illegally.

In "hip" Democratic circles, the Eisenhower years are looked down on as the last "white bread" years. There was and is a desire to make traditional American values a thing of the past. Ted Kennedy and company knew that, in the long run, the face of America would have to be changed. Only in that way could the Eisenhower/Reagan power structure be replaced. So far, they seem to be succeeding.
Confirming our prejudices 8:05pm on 27 Nov 2008 Yes, the media hysteria over Obama was unprecedented. There was a qualitative difference in the coverage of McCain and Obama. People might differ with McCain or Obama's views on specific issues-- McCain took a big hit among conservatives by backing what they viewed as amnesty for illegal aliens. Obama scored with liberals by calling for bringing US troops out of Iraq.

What the media ignored was not specific views of the candidates. The media intentionally ignored the fact that Obama's entire history makes him unsuited to be America's leader. His writings are diatribes against traditional American values.

Obama went to so far to attack his own grandmother as racist during the campaign--the same grandmother who worked 12 hour days as a bank manager to put him through school. He created a mythical story of his father--the Black muslim who abandoned him and his white mother, and blamed white racism for his father's failings instead of acknowledging his father's faults and the alcoholism which eventually took his life.

Obama is a deeply flawed person, and could be a real danger as the US President. So far, he has showed himself to be easily led--and has replaced the leftist rhetoric he espoused when being controlled by "Reverend" Wright. So far he has put himself under the control of the Clintons. His cabinet is clearly showing that he intends to lead the 3rd term of the Clinton administration. He seems to have acknowledged the wisdom of his Vice President, who ofen criticized Obama as being unpreprepared for the Presidency; and he has rewarded Hillary Clinton's judgements on his lack of foreign policy understanding by apparently offering her the Secretary of State position.

As Clint Eastwood said as Dirty Harry, a man's got to know his limitations. If Obama continues to allow himself to be controlled by stronger, more intelligent, men and women, then America might survive his Presidency.
The Mormon backlash 00:06am on 26 Nov 2008 Over 70% of black Californians voted against gay marriage in that election, a number far surpassing the number of mormons who voted against the same measure. So why are gays attacking the mormon church, and ignoring black groups? The Democratic Party (post Vietnam) is a collection of victim groups, each focusing their public hatred toward republicans, conservatives and white christians. Democratic politics have become un-democratic, intolerant and a real danger.
Obama aftershocks 00:00am on 26 Nov 2008 As an American, I'm a bit annoyed by the superficiality of Obama's support in Europe and the UK. I don't know enough about internal UK politics to make anything but broad judgements, but I would not say that you should elect a PM of Indian descent because of the years you "enslaved" that nation. So, I'm rightly annoyed when people from Europe are shouting about the righteousness of Obama's election.

Further, the Obama campaign was a major attack on US democratic institutions, and I am afraid they might be seriously damaged. While media objectivity in the US was always more theoretical than factual, it was important that the media at least pretended to be impartial. In this election, the media was rabidly pro-Obama -- to the point they failed to do their jobs. Obama's ties to socialists, anarchists and black nationalists would have been enough to defeat any other candidate, but the media decided to ignore the story. Obama's ties to convicted felon Rezko likewise was enough to bar him from the nomination, but the media ignored that as well. The rabid attacks on Palin, coupled with the hagiography surrounding Obama, destroyed any pretence impartiality, and I'm not sure that impartiality can be renewed.

American democracy is built on tradition, as much as it is on law. For over 100 years, no President directly used the White House for fundraising--until Clinton began renting out the Lincoln bedroom to big ticket donors. Once that tradition was established, however, it was set and sleep overs in the Lincoln bedroom are now a fixture of Washington politics.

More distrubing, Obama's campaign intentionally allowed illegal contributions to his campaign. He disabled routine identification protocols on his website, which prevented illegal contributions and contributions from non-US citizens. If this event is not treated as criminal, as it deserves, it will become a new "Lincoln Bedroom" tradition, and all semblance of fair elections will be lost, for a long time and possibly permanently.

Obama's friends, from Ayers to Flagler to Wright, are nothing more than Stalinists, who have called publicly for an undemocratic revolution in America--Ayers going so far as to participate in a bombing campaign to overthrow the US government. With Obama's election, they have (so far at least) succeeded in toppling some of the primary safeguards of our democratic system. It's hard to celebrate that, and annoying to see if celebrated in other countries.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

dsanthony