What's Happening?
Aimee Clark

Keep Calm and Carry On

Posted Tuesday, March 23, 2010, at 11:31 PM
View 22 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Excellent blog. In the greater scheme of things, it's amazing how our everyday lives will soldier on in spite of major changes on the macro level.

    -- Posted by AmyPeterson on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 6:46 AM
  • This is exactly what I was talking about. Now I don't even get to call myself an American because some anonymous person on the internet said so :(

    -- Posted by stafinois on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 1:20 PM
  • So because I disagree with your ideology of this country, I am anti-American? Those are some strong words! I personally think that calling anybody anti/un-American is in itself un-American, but that's just the duck quacking.

    Personally, I believe that the United States is about balance, not the far left or the far right. Neither could exist without the other, and I doubt that a form of government in either extreme would survive.

    DWD, I have to admit that it's tough take you very seriously when you hide behind a screen name that is asking for a fight and seem to have no ability to sense jest or sarcasm.

    -- Posted by stafinois on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 2:29 PM
  • Keep calm and carry on. Good advice, England! Everyone makes too big of deal out of all this political stuff. Blah, it's for the birds. Live your life and be happy.

    -- Posted by JohnnyMetro on Thu, Mar 25, 2010, at 12:01 AM
  • "You are not American if you believe in Redistribution of wealth or anything else Karl Marx said. America was founded on self reliance and small government. It was founded on personal freedom and liberty."

    DWD, you contradict yourself. You begin by making a list of what you believe makes one un-American. You then say that America was founded on personal freedom and liberty. So, which is it? Do someone's political beliefs, when they differ from yours, make them un-American? Or does being an American grant us the right to choose which political party to support, which words to use when participating in online forums, etc?

    You could argue that if Aimee were the leader of this country and was foisting all those beliefs on the rest of us, that she were being un-American. However, she's not, and her opinion matters just as much as yours (perhaps more, as Aimee Clark is a real person and DOWNWITHDEMS is an annoying screen name that suggests taking out one of the two major political parties in this nation). Who, exactly, is the un-American one, here?

    -- Posted by notinia on Thu, Mar 25, 2010, at 6:45 AM
  • "Name one major piece of legislation that the democrats have created that does not strip us of freedom."

    The Civil Rights Act comes to mind.

    -- Posted by stafinois on Thu, Mar 25, 2010, at 9:59 AM
  • Sorry, DWD, that was a direct quote.

    -- Posted by notinia on Thu, Mar 25, 2010, at 2:39 PM
  • First off dwd we would be in the same situation if we had a republican in office. And secondly to name call like that and put the blame the way you are is not ethical. Its both political parties that are at fault here. Its very entertaining to hear you say it all one sides fault. At leat Obama didn't choke on a peanut or Biden didn't shoot a campaign contributor in the face. Debating politics is juast like debating religion. There's no way to win the argument you are for. So you and all others as well need to realize that cause its gonna be that. Oh and one other thing. "Can't we all just get along."

    -- Posted by buss22 on Thu, Mar 25, 2010, at 8:04 PM
  • i like this look on the matter.

    personally, im not sure how anyone is in any place to condemn government actions. we have yet to learn the ramifications of this bill and its law, and perhaps in retrospect it will go the way of the prohibition. for now, however, we must only watch and speak out (with reserve and intelligence) our beliefs. you may say it is your duty, but an intelligent voice at the right moment will do much more than a loud and rude voice anytime.

    -- Posted by zlastone on Fri, Mar 26, 2010, at 6:53 PM
  • I agree with your original blog 100%, and I am about as American as apple pie! DWD is certainly an extremist and is quite rude too. If DWD calls President Obama a retard, I wonder what he called President Bush. The difference in their IQ's is quite evident. Intelligent discourse should be encouraged but DWD's kind of rhetoric is right out of the pages of Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Both men get paid extremely well for brainwashing.

    -- Posted by jenn711 on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 12:42 PM
  • DWD, she doesn't CONSIDER herself a pinko commie, she just assumed nutjobs like you would.

    -- Posted by notinia on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 1:30 AM
  • DINGDINGDINGDING!!! Notinia wins!

    Would you like what is behind Door #1 or the lifetime supply of canned ham?

    -- Posted by stafinois on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 11:33 AM
  • DWD, by calling Obama, or really anyone, a "retard" your own intelligence is showing.

    -- Posted by AmyPeterson on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 4:14 PM
  • Nope, I already won, and I can definitely read that. I think Ill take the ham ;)

    -- Posted by notinia on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 10:42 PM
  • DWD, you need to work on your ability to sense sarcam and jest before you can winthe canned ham.

    -- Posted by stafinois on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 7:38 AM
  • Wow, DWD, you seriously need to grow a sense of humor before it is too late.

    -- Posted by notinia on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 2:15 PM
  • I thought the original article was very well done. I thought it did a good job of looking objectively and understanding that things are the way they are simply because of the structure of the government.

    I would however like to address an issue that really bugs me in the mainstream. Some people take Marxism to mean that socialism=communism. Look at the differences in definition. Communism is complete government control on manufacturing and allocations of goods. That is it completely removes free market and private ownership. Socialism is a public/worker combined ownership of manufacturing and allocations of goods. I'm studying political science and sociology in college right now and I have to say socialism could take its place. Because of my studies I read about Marx all the time. He did not say that socialism=communism. He said that socialism is simply a step in between Capitalism and Communism. He did say that it TENDS to lead to communism, but they are both very different ideas.

    Another issue that always bugs me is "What the founders wanted..." well what the founders wanted we don't know. It's too hard to actually know what they wanted, the constitution was written too vague. And if you think about it, the founders didn't even know what they wanted. That's why there was the need to change the Articles of Confederation. The constitution was an attempt. They didn't know if it would work for sure, but it was something. And, like today, it was not a complete unanimous decision that the founders didn't want big government. Think back to when you were in school, "Virginia and New Jersey Plans" These were two ideas of what federal government should do. They argued about it as much as we do. Some wanted big govt, some didn't.

    If you look in the constitution, there is nothing about "free market". It is not promised to you. The idea of free market was only implemented with, "big government" restricting monopolies. Socialism can be used while keeping a democracy. It's an economic system, not a political structure system. Besides, can we really expand with out tweaking the way our government is run? The issue was not weather or not the PEOPLE were free from big government, it was about the STATES. Founders weren't upset about individual freedoms, fearful that Britain was controlling every aspect of the colonies' lives. The main issue was they were seeing increases in tax, and they had no representation per colony in British politics. We have that now, do not say you aren't being represented. You live in Iowa, pay attention to the news and you will know that you have the biggest advantage to get involved than most other states. Representatives from Iowa are always involved in almost every big decision made in congress, so vote against your representative. Help who you want to win, win in your district to change who is representing your views. Or an even bigger change would be a push to reform the constitution. let's update it so WE know what WE want today, not what founders intended and wanted.

    Structures of governments have always, and will always change. It's part of life. I can see that, and I think we need to stop relying on a structure from 200 years ago. I'm not talking a complete makeover, just some changes. The reason we have arguments about fed involvement is because our basis of government is not clear on what our feds can and can't do. Our government is now functioning on a piece of paper that has barely evolved. Minus the amendment, our structure still says that every "slave" is counted in population as 3/5. Let's re-write, do we need 200 year old ideas like that still written in.

    The idea we are heading on a communist path is a complete lie and BS. The structure of the government itself, not the involvement of, is a common believe that people have the choice. We are formed on a republic, representation, not a direct democracy, people decide everything. In a sense, you could look at this and say that our government has always been socialist.

    -- Posted by hawk_student on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 1:07 PM
  • If Socialism is the path to Communism, why is it that there are so many counties that have a combination of Free Trade and Socialist programs and manage to flourish?

    -- Posted by stafinois on Sat, Apr 3, 2010, at 7:12 PM
  • And this again shows how this just goes round and round. When I read your way of thinking, it comes across to me as "I'm a selfish jerk that doesn't care about anybody but ME!" Ever heard of being a community and caring for your neighbor?

    Yes, the European countries have a economic downturn. But wait, so do we!!!

    -- Posted by stafinois on Sun, Apr 4, 2010, at 7:09 PM
  • down with dems is a typical rush limbaugh or glenn beck listener. every single thing he is talking about could probably be taken directly from them. you think socialism is horrible.. but socialism brings you your fire departments, police departments,takes care of your roads and highways, and educates your children. ive read some of your other blogs and i can tell your for big business and tax breaks for the rich, illegal wars like iraq and "personal responsibilty".

    down with dems is probably not rich, he or she probably does not even make $30000 a year. socialism would help this person way more than free market capitalism would. free market capitalism is a cancer on society... it does not care who it takes over, the environment that it ruins or the men, women, and children that it can maim or kill. the massey coal mine explosion in west virginia is the perfect example of this. massey ceo don blankenship is on the record saying that, "coal pays the bills" and was willing to sacrifice the miners who died to reap massive profits while running a company that had a horrendous safety record.

    if you dont like the health care bill.. thats fine. but keep dreaming if you think that will ever be repealed. its not what i wanted, i wanted single payer. but hopefully this is a start to that objective. ive been to canada ten times in the last two years and i can tell you one thing, they will tell you their system is not perfect, but none of them would trade their health care system for what we have here.

    i wish all conservatives would just admit why they all hate govt. now since this last election. they cant stand the thought of a black man in the "white house".

    -- Posted by phatboy1976 on Sat, Apr 17, 2010, at 7:34 PM
  • Wait until November.

    -- Posted by guitarman on Sat, Apr 24, 2010, at 6:47 AM
  • Well, it is easy to see that more libs read this than conservatives. Why is it always when a conservative tries to point out that you can't force "compassion" through legislation that they are called selfish and ignorant? Every liberal on this post wants the same eutpoia that we all want, the difference is that conservatives wish it to originate in the heart of man and libs wish it to originate through a left-wing mandate. Keep the government away from me and my money and I will socialize with others who have the same heart and compassion that I have. Interestingly enough, we will not turn on each other, we will thrive. Those forced to "all get along" will turn on each other like hungry sharks in a tank. Just the truth.

    -- Posted by read me on Sat, Jul 31, 2010, at 8:11 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: