Demboy08's Blog

I personally find the idea of white guilt stupid and backward thinking. The idea that we should look back racially and try to change the world for African Americans because of slavery seems fundamentally unfair. Barrack Obama was elected on a idea of no longer looking at people through the lens of race. He was not elected as a black man but as a multi-racial change candidate. The majority of American judged him to be ready to be president and as a better candidate than MCCain. What we need is a fully equal society where we no longer have minority groups in radically different socio-economic conditions. That is why although I think that white guilt is stupid we need affirmitive action. Large parts of America remain racist as was shown by the huge amount of votes that McCain got in the Soth and Clinton in West Virginia. Once we have across the board same percentages of people in all ethnic and and racial groups at the samesocio-economic level then we will have overcome racism and have a truly homogeneous society. Thought the election of Obama makes me think we are closer to overcoming racism than even twenty years ago I think we still have a way to go. Luckily the newer generations don't seem to have close to the racism of the older ones.

If anyone remembers the 2000 and 2004 election this election was very easy to predict. Bush has been trying to live out the last few hours of Reagans "Morning in America" with very close elections and constant fear mongering about terrorism while touting free market economic success. Reagen did similar things but his enemy, the Soviet union was much more palpable and was more legitimate in the eyes of the American people. Terrorism just is not as legitimate a threat as the soviet union was. By using excessive fear when there was nothing to fear and trumpeting capitalism while throwing away fiscal conservatism and regulation thus creating an economic bubble while increasing government debt I think that Bush has done vast dammafe to conservatism as a political and social philosophy. Current American concerns the economy, environment and health care are pretty far away from what the Reagan coaltion was based upon which makes me doubt that going back to Reagan's poliitcal philosophy to reinvigorate the GOP will work. Bush won elections by just getting the base turned out for him. But doing that angers conservative Democrats and independants. If the Republicans decide to go back to Reagan I thik that the Democrats will just keep getting bigger as a party. In 2004 both parties had about 34% of the electorate as registered Democrats and registered Republicans. Now the Democrats have about 40% of registered voters and Republicans have 32%. If the Republicans decide to fix their problems they have to go more Regan I fear that they will continue to decline. It has been almost 30 years since 1980. The Republicans need to chart a new path.

The election is over the Democrats have won and liberals across the country have taken over all levels of government. Proposition 8 appears to be going down to defeat and both the house and senate are heavily Democratic. Barrack Obama has won an overwhelming victory in the electoral college and has won the popular vote. This appears to be a realigning election in which the country shifts one way or another. This time it was a leftward shift. Will it hold? That is all dependent on how well Obama does as president. Will his policies be implemented effectively? Will he end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with an American victory? Will his administration effectively restore confidence in the economy?

I do not know but one thing is for sure liberalism has triumphed tonight.

Like the rest of his socialists brethren comrade Obama wants to redistribute wealth by an increase in taxes on the richest 95% by a whole 3%. He joins other known socialists like Teddy Roosevelt who introduced the progressive income tax and  Ronald Reagan who supported the earned income tax credit paying couples money who were in the lowest income bracket. Comrade Obama is sure to make his place in history along the side of these great socialists taking all your tax dollars (if you make over 250000 a year) and giving it to welfare bums. (the majority making between 40,000 and 100,00) Why don't we just raise the red flag and throw liberty out the window? Better yet lets let heroes like Joe the plumber (who wants other people to come up with the facts behind his opinions) lead the nation? That would get us on the right track. Long live Socialism and Comrade Obama!!!!

This election appears to be heading to a major power change in our government. Though Republicans have been attacking Obama on his associations from terrorist to socialist to being a secret Muslim none of this seems to be working as Obama has actually gained in the polls since mid-October when these character attacks began in ernest. Montana, the Dakotas, Virgiania, Nevada, and Georgia all red states he appears to be gaining ground or in the lead. With Obama's money advantage and a huge turnout from Afrian Americans, independants and new voters Obama is almost to a double digit lead. At the same time the RNC is abandoning house and senate seats daily with Dole, Sunuunu, Schafer and Smith seats all counted as lost for the GOP. Stevens, McConnel and Coleman are all in tight races. If the Dems win some of the tight races they will probably reach 60. In the house the Dems are poised to pick up another 30 seats. We are looking at what could be one of the biggest landslides in history. The Democrats might have complete control over every legislative body of the government by November. Can the Republicans hold onto 40 in the senate to slow the Dems down or could John McCain pull out an upset? maybe but it seems hard to envision unless a major terrorist attack takes place.   

I have never thought that terrorism was a real threat. Sure terrorists can kill people and make others fearful but they really can do little in the larger scheme of things unless the country being terrorized decides to devote all its strength to fighting them. That seems to have been what has happened in this situation. Russia has attacked Georgia a sovereign nation without pursuing diplomacy or restraint. The U.S. by all intentions should have troops standing by their ally and trading partner but how can we? President Bush is a very small thinker and decided that the threats to America were a few dictatorships looking for atomic weapons. Russia has completely flattened Georgia's U.S. trained army and our army is not going to be able to intervene any time soon. Why? While our whole army is deployed and stretched thin fighting low level wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if we win these wars no one has any estimates as to how long. Meanwhile the Pax Americana has been broken. The U.S. can only say it "disapproves" of the Russian invasion. I completely agree with most of John McCain and George Bush's rhetoric in this but what is rhetoric going to do? They got us into Iraq and Afghanistan and now have put us into a position of having no way to deal with Russia. By concentrating on the most obvious, extreme threats our leaders have left us and the rest of the West exposed to the bigger more dangreous countries notably Russia and China. Masybe the U.S. can salvage something from this but I do not know how? I think the longer the U.S. has all its military in the middle east the worse this will get. Both China and Russia have a free hand with their vulnerable neightbors while we are busy fighting to endless wars.

Forgetting about the presidential race for a second I want to talk about the rising tide of liberalism sweeping this country and how it will affect both countries. In the 60s and early 70s liberalism was at its height but In the late 70s and early 80s we saw a backlash to liberalism with Reagen and a more conservative president due in part to what many Americans saw as a disastrous liberal president Jimmy Carter. But with the 90s we saw a very centrist divided government with a Democrat in the white house and a Republican congress. Our nation was very closely split in 2000 one of the reasons the election was so close in my opinion. Now Bush through 9/11 and national security fears has managed to push the country a bit to the right which is evident in the 2002 and 2004 elections. Now with years of an unpopular president and with the recent 2006 landslide for the Dems it appears that liberalism is making a comeback.
Now there are a number of reasons why I think this si happening: First of all While around the 2004 election both parties were around 33% of the American electorate. In the last 4 years a large gap has emerged the Dems now have 40% of the electorate as registered democrats and the Republicans now have 32% registered republicans which is about where it was when libealism and the Democrats were predominantly in power in the 60s and early 70s. Also Bush seems to have the potential to be a Carter or a Hoover for the naton a president who the majority of the populace believs messes up the country so muuch that their party suffers in successive elections. Also recently there seems to be an overwhelming amount of support among americans for increased government intervention in the economy and social structure of the country at the expense of profitablity. With over 80% in a  recnt poll by time saying they would support increased government at the expense of profitability for more economic security. This comes at the same time a similar number of Americans seem to facor a new social constract one more based upon government intervention and less on the free market. This all points to the rising of the Dems and liberalism.  The affects of this are already apperent the Republican party is begining to move to the center as the Dems had to move to the center when conservatism was rising in the 80s. McCain takes more liberal views of issues like the environment which his presecessor never would have. I think McCain might well win this election but he may lose the war. Ted Steven's recent inditement raises the spectare of a Democratic landslide in the congress this year when they are already expected to lose at leats 3 in the senate. McCain if elected will have to deal with an even more democratic congress with only him in the way. I wonder how long the republicans can put off this wave until it crests and falls on them. They have to wait until liberalism runs its course just as conservatism did but I wonder if the Republicans keep delaying will they be ready when it call comes apart and they have to deal with a heavily democratic controlled government?

When we give the government power it generally is very hard to take it back.  As a scholar of 20th century history who has studied and written about the rise of dictatorships from liberal democracies. That is why I have become very worried about the new FISA law.  By allowing warrentless wiretapping on Americans we are taking a chunk out of the fourth ammendment and giving the government far more power than it used to have. The same goes for detaining terror suspects at Gitmo which has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. Why do we allow the bill of rights to be violated this much? Simple. We fear terrorism above our own civil rights. Many have said that with the globalization which continues we have to give up our rights to deal with terrorism because it is a different sort of threat. But that means that the Democratic Republic which our founders gave us with all its rights which guaranteed our safety is insufficent to fight terror. If we are taking out some of the bill of rights why not just start scrapping the constitution alltogether? The easiest way to be safe from terrorists is to give the government absolute control. If these terrorists hate and fear democracy so much why keep it? That is where our fear of terrorism will ultimately lead to if we continue down this path. This is not about the political parties because both voted for the FISA bill overwhelmingly but about where our country stands. So should we go further down this path or not? This is the classic safety vs. security argument and one side is definitley wining with the passage of FISA is this country headed down the wrong or right path with this? 

People continue to be focused on Iraq. Is the surge working is it not? With two new reports out one saying that the surge is providing the permanent change necessary to stabilize Iraq the other saying it has not the debate continues over the surge even as it is beginning to rap up. Either way it looks like we will remain in Iraq for a long time. But can we ignore Afghanistan? The moderate stabilization of Iraq has come at the cost of Afghanistan where our troops do not have the manpower to beat the Taliban and secure the country. The recent prison breakout was just part of a larger destabilization and with more U.S. troops dying in Afghanistan than Iraq for the first time we face a real problem. The Taliban is trying to prevent our aid and foment the growth of poppies leading to an increase in Heroine production. Our troops cannot win with the numbers they have, the populace needs a surge similar to Iraq to hope to accomplish anything. We need to get basic utilities up and running so the Afghans will support us. Without additional troops that seems out of the question. But where to fet the troops? If we pull troops out of Iraq whatever stability the surge has created will likely collapse and our army is just not big enough to control both countries. We could increase the size of our army, but that would take time, and alot of taxpayers dollars that we can ill afford right now. Other NATO countries probably could contribute more troops but we need to take the lead. I am not sure what a solution is to this problem but something has to be done. We cannot allow the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan for it would spell disaster for the U.S. in the drug trade as well as the terrorism which the Taliban supports.

Since the Supreme court ruled that individuals do have the right to bear arms today I thought It would be a good time to discuss gun control. First, the the supreme court decision District of Columbia v. Heller. It affirmed than individuals have the right to bear arms and not just militias which is how some interpreted the constitution. While I think it is a victory for gun-rights advocates it is both a narrow ruling and only addresses complete gun bans like those in D.C. It leaves other gun-control measures alone and goes out of the way to affirm certain restrictions and regulations on guns as legal while not allowing complete bans like in D.C. I see both sides of the gun control issue.
There are some valid reasons to allow individuals to bear arms and some reasons not to allow them to bear arms. One of the original ones that citizens would be able to overthrow the government if the government was too abusive is not really valid anymore. No citizens can come close to matching our government in advanced military hardware, heck the only ones who could afford the high tech weaponry our government enjoys today are people like Bill Gates unless average citizens can afford Abrams tanks I doubt any average citizen could possibly win a war against the federal government. Than there is hunting which is an enjoyable sport for many, but if crime could be averted by gun control I doubt hunting would truly be a good enough reason to let everyone have guns. I mean sports vs. crime I think crime would win as more important. I think that it is also silly to try to divine the founders intentions because the founders "intended" alot of things that we don't like such as having slavery in the constitution as well as only a fraction of the population eligible to vote. That brings us to the Best reason why we still need to allow everyone to own a gun. Self defense. Now I agree with this one in certyain circumstances. If you live ina  poor neighborhood and are in vulnerable to crime on a daily basis it makes perfect sense to own a gun. As long as we don't spend enough money on our police force to protect us and continue to have violent crime the only choice is to have citzens armed even with all the problems it creates. I live in a neighbrhood with virtually no crime so I have no good reason to own a gun but there are many people who afre not so lucky. We need some restrictions to make sure that the people who arfe buying the guns are those who need it for self defense and protection against criminals and not just commiting the crimes. This issue will probably persist as long as violent crime persists as both a antidote and cause but I think with this supreme court decison clarifying the second ammenment it will be a bit less ideological.         

I have always wondered what we plege allegiance to? Though we say flag, what does the flag represent? Is it showing support for the actions of our government or showing support for the principles which we think this nation has been founded on? I have always wondered what one should be loyal to the country they live in or a certain set of values? I have grown up in the U.S. all of my life but I wonder if the people and country deserve my loyalty or the values that the country was founded upon does. Should we even be loyal to a country? It is the place we live in and an entity of people that share a common government and set of laws but should that alone determine our support? If the U.S. say became a dictatorship or started abolishing the constitution is it our duty as citzens to support the country or the values? 

While the Republicans wanted to run against Hillary. They put all their fish in a barrel by portraying Hillary as a polarizing monster who was more oppurtunist than leader. But with all the hatred which actually sounded legit for Hillary they forgot about Obama. Now they have to find a bunch of things to hate about him. So instead of actually having at least a fact or two behind them they have gone to portraying Obama as a secret Muslim and an eiitist neither of which is logical or factual in the least bit. Of course they are also attacking him as a Christian because of the church he goes to which seems to run contridictory to the first idea of having him be a secret Muslim. None of these smears make the least bit of sense and none have anything to do with actual problems and issues. Netherless, people are actually going to vote for or against him based on them. I had hoped that the American public would learn a little from the spurious swiftboating and drunk driving in the last election cycles but these issues come up because the american public is gullible enough to care about them and listen to these people. Democracy only works if the people are concerned citizens and treat the candidates based upon the positions they hold not as another Paris Hilton. Oh well. Wil the American people ever have the maturity to rise above this silliness?

(I have not been Blogging because I have been finishing up high school.) 

Lots of people are angry because of what Barrack Obama said about small town America. Why? Because it was "Elitest." Now maybe I am just crazy but ina  war you would want an elite soldier if you were going to have surgery you would want an Elite docter. So why would you not want an Elite politician? Oh yeah they would be "above" the common man. That is bad right because no president should be above the common man. Wait a minute haven't we carved these guys heads into a mountain if that does not say elite then I do not know what does.

This is the stupidest BS I have heard in a long time. If you actually get close to running for president you are most definitley an elite because it costs a heck of alot to run. Rather then having two presidents who pretend to not be elites like Bush 1 and 2 (both went to Harvard) wouldn't you rather have a president that would honestly tell you   that they were from the upper social crust of society as they all are rather then pretending no to be? The other oint is that the Clintons and McCains are both reputable families that are definitley elite while interestingly enough Obama does not fit the criterea of an elite as he would have to come from six generations of wealth. He4 definitley does not. So why doesn't everyone stop complaining about a presidential candidate that acts elite and is and more about a presidential candidate that does not act elite and is elite?

I am starting this blog because people want to talk about this. The Texas police and social services have raided a Texas compound full of the fundamentalist mormons who split from the church after it banned polygamy. These people were abused and brainwashed which I am sure will lead to calls for more oversight into these types of groups. But then privacy comes in. Should these groups have the government looking over their shoulder constantly? Why did the Texas authorities not do anything before now knowing that this group split because it wanted to practice polygamy? This situation is a mess. I also wonder if this very unequal society of women serving men is a warning for our nation ever going back to something like that. How important ios equality in sexes?

On a previous post of mine someone said that people change their views ever so often which leads them to go from liberal to Conservative or Conservative to Liberal. I wanted to expound on that a little bit. I was quite liberal when I first developed a political ideology at 6 but by the time I was 10 I had become quite conservtive leading to me on the verge of supporting Bush in 2000. After the Iraq war started and I began to see how messed up conservative ideals are I became quite a bit more liberal which is where I am now. There is a chance I might at some point become quite conservative in the future statistically. 

This is just one example of how people's political ideology can change. Now the question is When did you develop your political ideology? How do you develop it? Why?