America, Global Enemy #1

---

Jameson March 18, 2012 6:48 am (Pacific time)

I found this article to be unjustifiably slanted and one-sided. There were some valid points referenced, yet I'm still not compelled to believe that the US is the biggest culprit and perpetuator of environmental destruction on Earth. But go ahead and continue your trite rantings. After all, it is fashionable to blame the US for all of the international community's problems, right?

---

Anonymous May 5, 2011 12:48 pm (Pacific time)

Regardless of the number of voters available in that "registered voter-pool universe," it is ultimately those that vote who decide who gets/maintains power. As far as a minority party increasing it's base, then if that means anything of relevance, future votes will be the ultimate evaluator. Meanwhile, it is clear that Harper has won a major victory, and considering his political experience, he has the know-how to solidify his power for future conservative victories far into the distant future. Since money greases and helps remove problems, some liberal political party can promise what? Higher taxes? The conservatives will grow the economy with energy exports, so people will have their needs met. My hope is that we see a movement towards making people realize the importance of individual independence and how they do not need a nanny state environment to look after all their needs. I see that some private medical insurance outfits are expanding their presence in Canada, which will help in attracting much needed medical personnel. Unfortunately they may come from America, which would be a reverse trend. If Harper can do that, then the conservative paradigm will be firmly entrenched. Here in America, liberals account for just 18% of the voters and conservatives in the current trend will be over 50% very soon. The masses in North America are starting to learn, as are the people in Europe. Times are changing for the better.

You have your head up a very dark place. See my forthcoming piece, "Canada Elects", to be posted in the next few days to give misinformed Americans such as yourself, some much needed  enlightenment.

---

Anonymous May 5, 2011 7:21 am (Pacific time)

Daniel's query to other poster..."...And, for whom would socialism be an excellent paradigm?" That is an interesting question. From a historical perspective, no country that pursued a total socialistic form of government (realize that would be hard to define with set parameters)has actually been succesfull, and unlikely one would ever exist in my opinion. Considering that a significant percentage of people have very little training in history, many would become prey for those "barkers" who would paint a socialist government as some kind of utopia. The people who would most easily fall for that fabricated nonsense would be those with dependency issues of some kind. Though most countries in Western Civilization have many government run programs based on a socialistic design, that's a far cry from actually embracing socialism as the be-all way to govern. Canada provides an excellent example of their voters rejecting liberalism/socialism in favor of a more conservative approach to governance. I am so very proud of my Canadian friends, many who I call close personal friends.

Your suggesting that  "Canada provides an excellent example of their voters rejecting liberalism/socialism in favor of a more conservative approach to governance" is a tad inaccurate. Sure the Conservatives got their first majority, but the socialist party, the NDP, went from 37 seats to 102 seats--an increase of 66 seats or 276%. Harper has a majority, but because, like all politicians he governs with public opinion polls in mind, it's going to be an uncomfortable majority. Don't forget that 60 percent of those who cast a ballot did not vote for a conservative candidate.

---

Anonymous May 4, 2011 8:51 am (Pacific time)

Daniel looks like voter participation is down all over, but Canada (2011) shows an increasing pattern. So maybe as your citizens learn more about conservatives they will increase their participation to assure continuity? Also there is some haze involved in getting an actual count of voters in your country as per my literature review. Here is some excerpts for ya: "Canada's voter turnout rate inched up to 61.4 per cent, according to Elections Canada's preliminary estimates. There were 14.7 million Canadians who elected a Conservative majority government on Monday night, pushing the preliminary voter turnout to 61.4 per cent up from 59.1 per cent in 2008. Prince Edward Island had the highest voter turnout in the country as 74 per cent of registered voters cast ballots. Meanwhile, only 48.5 per cent of Nunavut voters marked ballots in the election. Canada's two largest provinces also saw their voter turnout rates rise from 2008 levels. http://news.aol.ca/2011/05/03/voter-urnout-inches-up-to-61-4/ The 2011 election saw a rise in voter turnout compared to the 2008 elections, with the preliminary estimate of 61.4. This rate may rise modestly as the initial figures do not include some special ballot votes. The 2011 turnout marked an improvement over the participation rate seen in 2008 (58.8%). Worldwide, many industrialized countries are experiencing a decline in voter participation. In France, the voter turnout rate for parliamentary elections has fallen from nearly 80 percent of registered voters in 1945 to 60 percent in 2002. Voter participation in U.K. parliamentary elections fell from over 70 percent in 1945 to 59.4 percent in 2001. In the United States, voter turnout for the presidential elections fell from 79.9 percent in 1972 to 67.4 percent in 2000. (Source: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance)."

---

Anonymous May 4, 2011 6:46 am (Pacific time)

It's apparent that Canadians have a different interpretation of "conservative" than we Americans, but the Canadian version is still significantly different than the NDP approach to governance, thankfully. Harper will certainly allow for an expansion in developing the oil (sand) resources and uptick those exports to other markets, most likely asian markets. There will be considerable wealth development which will allow the conservatives to grow and solidify their power. I have high hopes for Canada, and intend on exploring additional investment in the Calgary/Edmonton vicinity. This current mandate may be upsetting for some liberals, but in time they will be benefitting from improved quality of life and will ultimately realize that socialism, while an excellent paradigm for some, is unhealthy for a nation's need to improve the individual's condition. Maybe they will start expanding handgun ownership, and make it easier to qualify for concealed licenses. Here in America, the crime rate for those with concealed licenses is literally nil.

Despite the fact that English is the dominant language in both countries, you seem to be operating from the assumption that Canadians and Americans are somehow the same. We are not, so why should we follow American conservatives into such pathological notions as increasing gun ownership? We are almost a completely secular society, in contrast to American society. And, for whom would socialism be an excellent paradigm? 

---

Bill May 3, 2011 6:09 pm (Pacific time)

Essentially Daniel you have a trend that does not bode well for non-conservatives. That trend is happening throughout Wes. Civ. My guess is that regardless of Harper never having a "real job" has about as much impact on your voters as it does on ours, which is a shame. Though I admire your happy face smile on the results, and I guess we'll see what Mr. Harper does in the future, for the trend does acknowledge mandate. Anyway congrats to those voters who understood the importance of their vote, or at least those who voted for a positive future.

Don't forget that those voters are a minority. There was a 61% turnout so Harper really has the votes of just under 25% of the electorate. The NDP got the votes of just over 18% of the electorate. Not that big a spread, really. And don't lose sight of the fact that we are Canadians, not Republicans. We don't salute the flag and put our hands on our hearts when it goes by. And Harper, as a Bush wannabe, used to say God Bless Canada after his speeches, but he quit doing that.

See this column by a Calgary columnist at the conservative Calgary Sun newspaper: "Don't confuse Conservative with conservatism"

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/05/03/dont-confuse-conservative-with-conservatism  

---

Daniel Johnson May 3, 2011 5:36 pm (Pacific time)

Addendum to Bill May's earlier comment:

Now that I've had a chance to look more closely at the results, there are a couple of points to make.

First, the Conservatives only received 40% of the vote, which means, of course, that more people voted other than Conservative than for them.

The NDP received 30% of the vote and 33% of the seats. The Cons received 54% of the seats, a majority that is not as solid as it appears.

It's only been a day, but there are significant events to come. If Harper tries to govern as a Republican, which is what his political inclination is, he will be soundly repudiated. Except for Alberta, Canadians are not Republican-leaning.

---

Bill May 3, 2011 9:08 am (Pacific time)

Canada Ping! Congratulations Lads! Kudos to Harper, a majority government of......Conservatives. Excellent move for Harper to call for doing this election. I didn't think he could pull this off, but running a coalition Gov't was not going to get anything done anymore. Congratulations to the True, North, Strong and Free. Harper gets a majority, CBC near suicidal, reports of crying at Liberal headquarters as they saw the results come in .... and now Ignatieff is declared the loser in his own riding. Good for Canada and I guess the commie rag Toronto Star can cry a little more about Harper's desire to “diminish the role of the government in shaping the future of Canada.” Let the people shape Canada's future and the government can sit by and watch !!! just read where Canada had their first conservative news cable station. ‘FoxNews’ Canada. Go Canada! God, what a beautiful day!!!

Yes, it is a beautiful day, but not for the reasons you think.

Harper did not choose the election. It was forced on him by Ignatieff, the Liberal leader.

Secondly, the Conservatives did not win, the Liberals lost by being too cute with their hubris.

Most importantly, the official opposition is now the New Democratic Party, a socialist party. with 102 seats. They won't be playing footsie with the conservatives but, rather, will really put their feet to the fire. There was even, for the first time a Green Party member elected.

And Harper--an academic who has never held a real job. What do you think he knows? He may be clever, but he is not wise.

Things are going to be a lot different in five years (or less) when we'll see that Harper will overreach and destroy what he thinks he has gained. 

---

Anonymous April 30, 2011 8:06 am (Pacific time)

America, world's number one Global enemy? What universe?

---

Morrison April 26, 2011 6:18 pm (Pacific time)

Your premise regarding any challenge to existing or projected EPA rules/regs as a danger to the environment is faulty from not just a scientific perspective, but to our form of government and economic well-being. Many EPA regs have been tossed out in court because they were obviously political in nature and were also economically hurtful. There is a congressional movement to dissolve the EPA because their unilateral rules/regs have bypassed congressional oversight. Because this has become a political organization rather than one that uses actual science, coupled with the "people's" oversight, it will be at least two years before anything can be done. Of course if the Republicans get power back, they'll probably kick the can down the road. Just the same our constant (and it is constant by the way) improving technology has been the best litigator of reducing all types of pollution, and that tech development has been by those in business, not those sitting around a table making up rules because they sound neato.

How's the Kool-Aid taste? 

---

Morrison April 26, 2011 1:30 pm (Pacific time)

Well maybe you should look at a number of other countries besides us...like India, China, Japan, etc. who are actually increasing pollutants. We at least have a structural format to deal with pollution issues, not perfect, and considerable political rancor that if anything enhances our pollution legislation more realistically, but we are constantly improving on the emission levels. In fact look at our second to none technology where we have created and improved an endless number of WORLD consumer products (Cars, refers, etc.) over the years that use less energy and produce less dangerous emmissions, etc. Have you factored that in? Hint: It was the free market system that developed those improvments, not some collectivist group (aka socialist groupthink deadbeats) that only whines but never actually creates anything of value.

In the article I gave a few examples (only a few) of Republican efforts to dismantle the EPA and cut back on environmental protections. Do you have a counter-argument? 

---

Morrison April 26, 2011 8:43 am (Pacific time)

Fulminating about America in decline is fashionable today across the political spectrum. Contemporary political commentators are seemingly rewarded for drawing the broadest possible conclusions from an ever-narrower range of data. Whatever the reason for the commentators' grandiose predictions of decline, their conclusions du jour, they are describing what can and should be understood simply as a unique civilization's momentary indigestion.
The international left and its U.S. acolytes welcome decline as long-overdue payback for our past sins, while many American conservatives see it as the inevitable consequence of decades of bad policy decisions. Both are wrong. There is no decline that can't be reversed by electing a real president in 2012 to unleash our country's vibrant political and economic strengths.
I acknowledge that, as they say, "mistakes were made," including under prior presidents, but the mistakes are not ultimately consequential if we can just get a grip on ourselves. Moreover, by comparing ourselves to the mistaken or exaggerated views of other nations' current performance and prospects, we simply increase a perception of decline that doesn't exist in fact.
Take the economy. Obviously, 2008 was a bad year, but the governmental policy mistakes that led to the recession (such as Fannie and Freddie) can be reversed, and so can the political mistakes that followed it (such as the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill). Pointing to the continuing strength of China's economy and straight-lining it forever may suggest U.S. decline, but China's economy will not grow at its present rate forever. Internal political and social strains are already taking their toll, and we will find out relatively soon just how real China's economic statistics actually are, and how much is derived from imaginary government planning figures, a common problem of Communist regimes. And anyone who thinks Europe is prospering needs to respond honestly to the question of which country's government bonds they are really prepared to buy.
Similarly, regarding international geopolitics, observers cite Obama's indecisiveness, his deference to multilateral institutions and foreign governments, his incessant embarrassment about America, and his general lack of interest in national security. All too true, but hardly evidence of decline that an unapologetic U.S. president couldn't fix after 2012.
Americans still hold their fate in their hands, and there is no real reason to bet against us. We will once again confirm Churchill's observation that "you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else."

You might want to take another look at the article because I am not talking about American decline. My point is that Republicans, with support from a lot of citizens, are busy trying to degrade the environment to the detriment of everyone else on the planet. America does not own the earth. 

---

Roger April 25, 2011 8:41 am (Pacific time)

Daniel what is happening is just the opposite of your proposition. It is the conservatives that will get us back on track, for it has been the take-over of the democratic party by radical zealots going back to the mid 1960's (these radicals have been around longer, but it is this past time period when they really started screwing us up). What you envision as some wonderful way of government, has a history of utter failures. You have an example of some massive government and the overspending programs that they develop, having ongoing success? Needless to say we are polar opposites regarding our perception of the best way to approach governance, but your approach has never worked. Unfortunately we had some politicians in the past that went to the dark side, some still are, but we conservatives have been uniting and we are well-funded to carry out our plan. The Tea Party is a distraction, as our people like Palin, Trump, etc., for we are under the radar doing our thing. Currently we have seen enough states re-draw political boundaries that will assure us control of the House of Representatives for decades, and 2012 we will control the senate, even if we have zero unemployment and gas is 25 cents a gallon. So even in a long shot scenario and Obama wins re-election, we will control the government and will impeach and convict. Regardless of who becomes president in 2012, by spring 2013 conservatives will be back in power. All Americans will be taken care of, all their needs will be met, and they will be able to strive for their full potential, all of them. In your utopia, the individual waits for what a few bureaucrats decide they can have. Socialism is slow death, then anarchy and even more death. Yeah we conservatives screwed up in the past, but it is our love for the "individual" that gives us the strength to once again be in a position to empower. You obviously feel that wealthy people simply do not care about those who have less, well we are just the opposite. We provide the environment that lifts everyone by the wealth that is created. Class warfare has always been the strategy of the radicals, the effect is diminishing, have you not noticed? All what you have is because of the pursuit of happiness by individuals, think about that, it is the truth.

You write: "by spring 2013 conservatives will be back in power. All Americans will be taken care of, all their needs will be met, and they will be able to strive for their full potential,"  Change "Americans" to "Russians" and that could be Lenin in 1921.

There is such an egregious illogic to what you say. If your conservatives continue to roll back environmental regulations and safeguards, you'll degrade the planet and everyone will suffer. How is that going to look after your people? What planet are you  from and how long have you been here?

---

Roger April 24, 2011 6:35 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel maybe one's perception of someone falling is actually an upside down perspective on your part? Regarding our pollution situation, we have programs in effect to address that problem. From my life experience reflection it is clear that there exists a clear distinction on how liberals and conservatives approach life, and how we deal with those ongoing problems and their dynamic nature. A liberal knows you need help because he believes you can't get along without someone's help, namely by a liberal injecting themselves into the situation, even when not wanted. Whereas a conservative (not a republican) will tell you, "Look, I made it. You can make it too." A Liberal sees the discouraged and downtrodden, gives them a HAND-OUT and says, "Look what I just did!" Conservative sees the discouraged and downtrodden, gives them a HAND-UP, and says, "Look what you just did! From the Liberals you will hear references to groups --The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate." On the Left you hear talk of group rights.
From the Right you will hear references to individuals, you hear [talk of] individual rights. To understand about America, you should take the time to not only just read the Bill of Rights, but study the background of the Founders, and what their views on them were prior to writing. We are a nation that values individual rights while also valuing community (if not, we would have been conquered before we even began), but not at the expense of violating one's individual rights. We are the most successful country that ever existed, and we are the smartest. Every now and then we get some real dogs for leaders, but this allows for us to get retooled and get back on track. It's called elections, and we will once again, overcome our existing problems. New ones will always pop up, but such is life. It is reported that we have the largest "energy" reserves in the world, which we have barely scratched. Many other countries, including Canada are quickly depleting theirs, or at least at a faster rate than we. So in time, things flip around, and our detractors will once again have "crow's breath," and when they need help, we will give them a "helping hand."

Did you actually read my article? The point is that Americans (Republicans) are destroying the earth for everyone. Don't you get it? 

---

Lynn Simmons April 24, 2011 1:24 pm (Pacific time)

The below quotes fit well with this article. The next quote is followed by quotes that preceeded it in time, but their goal/endgame is the same. For those who think a country based on some fully employed socialist/communist utopia is workable, please give an example. Many have tried, and all promulgated tyranny and early death, but those who are essentially dependent individuals will always opine for such a fanasy, maybe besides being ignorant about earth's history, they are also masochistic?:  "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." --Sarah Brady (In a letter to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, page 3)


"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in an address to the Reichstag. It could be that this quote is a loose translation. See the next quote for the intent. Check The AFU and Urban Legend Archive Hitler Gun Control for nit picking and a diversionary white wash. Arguing about the exact words and ignoring the subsequent history is foolish.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police." - Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand
"It is a commonplace that the history of civilization is largely the history of weapons......that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships, and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand grenades are inherently democratic weapons.
A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon.....gives claws to the weak." "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell, from an essay in 1945

Can't help but notice that you don't address any of the issues I raise in the article. Ayn Rand? Give us all a break. Alan Greenspan has been a Randroid since the 1950s and look what he did to the economy while heading the Fed. 

You really don't get it, do you. The American culture of greed and consumption no matter what the cost is contributing to the destruction of the earth, itself. But, as a Republican, you wouldn't notice, being both short sighted and fitting right into the "divided we fall" mind set. You're falling and you don't even notice.

 I don't even know why you read my stuff. On the off chance that you might learn something, perhaps?

---

Roger April 24, 2011 9:26 am (Pacific time)

Maybe you should consider Canada as the chief polluter in North America, or at the very least consider your global pollution in terms of your population ratio. Your statement below is self-serving and avoids reality. Your analysis is in efffect so faulty as to be deserving of a failing grade: "If America could be fenced off so that the harm they do to the environment only applied to them, they could, over time, learn. But when Americans pollute rivers, lakes and the ocean, those rivers and lakes flow into Canada and Mexico, and whatever they do to the ocean spreads from there. Air pollution is the same as contaminants float and settle on other parts of the earth." By the way, what other country on the planet responds as quickly as us rendering aid to those in need? Have you personally ever participated in helping others outsider your borders? Of course you will not respond, for you sit on that rearend just ranting away and having no traction, though probably relieves some pressure, no?

You’ve just committed the logical error, Irrelevant Conclusion: diverting attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly. It’s a favorite technique among children and the uneducated.

---

Colli April 24, 2011 2:40 am (Pacific time)

It is all about greed Dan and Americans are not the only greedy people on earth (although we may be the greediest). If we do not put a stop to what is happening to the rain forests of the world we may well end-up as one more dead planet in the universe. I wonder how many plants that have never been tested for their anti-cancer properties have been wiped-out by the cutting that is going on in the rain forests. We dump our garbage (and worse) freely into the world’s oceans. What we do not dump into the oceans we bury to pollute our nations water supply. While I do not believe that the Republicans stand alone in their disregard for our environment but they certainly are the most honest about it. We have so little "Old Growth" forest (estimates run about 3%) left it is sickening. It bothers me that the same thing is happening in Canada now. In B.C. only the highest elevations have been spared the Old Growth cutting and Alberta has suffered as well. The Rain forests of South America are being raped daily as the slash and burn policies continue there. Rather than being caretakers of this earth that sustains us, we poison it daily, rape it daily, and pollute that which we cannot readily use. There are no limits to greed or selfishness Dan. To some individuals, enough is a word that does not exist in their vocabulary. It saddens me to say it but the majority of those individuals probably make their home in the U.S.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.