Press Feed
Pages Menu

Myles T.S. Anevich

America’s path to prosperity lies with Obama

A cursory glance at the media over the last few months presents the view that America’s decline and imminent collapse is solely the fault of the last four men to claim the presidency of the United States – with the yeoman’s share of the blame falling on the latest to hold office. This critique of America’s deterioration is not only unnecessarily reductionist, blaming four men for the collapse of the greatest nation in the western world, but it is also foolhardy and wrong. President Barack Obama and his recent predecessors have not been abject failures but, instead, are scapegoats who are shouldering the blame for a recalcitrant congress. In actual fact, President Obama’s legislative goals have been mostly positive for the nation as a whole.Like a hockey team at the start of training camp, Barack Obama’s biggest failure as the president of the United States was his lack of control over expectations. Immediately after winning the 2008 election – before even his first day in office – Obama was burdened by unfairly high expectations, and a Nobel Peace Prize given based on said beliefs. Essentially, if we are to weigh the Barack Obama as a President against the Barack Obama as president-elect, there is no way he could possibly live up to the expectations, even if he were of divine or extraterrestrial origin.This impossible burden of collective hope notwithstanding, Obama has been a generally good president. Not only did he succeed in passing the first national healthcare bill – something that many of his predecessors had tried and failed to do −  he was also able to preside over accomplishments in the “War on Terror” that George W. Bush couldn’t accomplish in 7 years; that is, the elimination of Osama Bin Laden, and Anwar al-Awlaki mere months later.The fact that… Read More

Re: Shut Down Wikileaks

It is a rare event when I agree with conservatives (both large “C” and small “c”) on issues of national security and government secrecy. However, I can’t help but agree with this article on the issue of WikiLeaks (“Shut Down WikiLeaks”). WikiLeaks might seem on the surface (and profess to be) in the best interest of the citizens of the world, by uncovering secret government documents and ensuring accountability for formerly clandestine government actions and memos, but in actuality WikiLeaks causes more trouble than it is worth. This website does not symbolise freedom of speech and freedom of information, but an undermining of military and national security. By leaking military and diplomatic documents Julian Assange and his sinister cabal are endangering future diplomatic negotiations and the lives of armed servicemen and -women serving overseas in Afghanistan. In summation I am all for freedom of speech but in classic Canadian centrist fashion I believe that there is a limit to it and Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks repeatedly and dangerously cross this line far too often.On another note though I am sure I will disagree with nearly every other article that will be found on this website I am glad the Prince Arthur Herald has been created. For far too long have the more conservative members of our university community been shut out of the published discussion, therefore leaving the key issues that we as university students deal with every day to the more left-leaning McGill Tribune and the pseudo-communist McGill Daily (which I must confess to be an avid reader of). It is only fair for those with a slightly more conservative leaning to be allowed to publish their unique viewpoints without having to acquiesce to a slightly more left-wing audience. I only hope that there will be a steady stream… Read More

Re: “Paul Ryan for President” by William Hisey

Re: “Paul Ryan for President” by William HiseyTo begin, I must confess I know nothing more about Congressman Ryan than what is contained within this article and I’m sure he is a good politician but I do not like this policy that he has articulated to deal with possible congressional insolvency. Call me what you will, but no conservative president during his tenure has ever reduced government expenditure and I doubt Paul Ryan would be able to either. The key to dealing with the growing cost of government is not to cut taxes, cut spending and privatise as much of the United States government as possible in the enactment of some sort of libertarian fantasy, but rather the key here is to maintain spending and marginally raise taxes. What I mean by this is that it would be much more responsible to maintain the size of government while raising the tax rate on top-income earners by 2-3%. This marginal increase in taxation on Americans (roughly 2% of the population) would ensure the continued existence of social programs for generations while at the same time maintaining a responsible fiscal policy. Let me be clear: don’t think of this as a tax hike but the return of noblesse oblige. Let’s all remember that the tax rate is not at an all-time high, but in fact a pittance compared to what it was in the 1950s.I’m not a communist or a socialist, but a realist, and I think a realistic response is required for the future of social programs in America, not conservative dogma.Myles T.S. AnevichU2 Political Science and History, McGill University Read More