Frenetic ramblings from the start of the "War on Terror" logging my attempts to film outside Finsbury park mosque over 3 years and sitting through all the subsequent court cases. These days I am usually on Post Factual Society on Facebuk. Do visit Youtube.com/malungtvnews
In summation, when everybody's dying, you can fuck up and still get promoted. And anyone of the umpteen generals who have disagreed with the Bush regime's policy are just not good war time generals.
"when everybody's dying," -Clearly, not everyone is dying.
"you can fuck up and still get promoted." - Hmmm... nope. Success gets you promoted.
"And anyone of the umpteen generals who have disagreed" - There are about 7000 retired US generals, a few of whom publicly disagree or are critical. Their disagreement is proof that the US is a democratic republic and that the US military is tolerant of dissent. Paetronius was a critic, Bush put him in charge of Iraq. What more could one want?
"with the Bush regime's" - Administration, not regime. See point above.
"policy are just not good war time generals." - Some aren't. Many high ranking generals are political appointees rather than battle commanders.
"Asshole!" - Obviously, being offended by calm reasoned opinion which which you disagree means the other guy is an anal sphincter. Lovely.
I've not really known what to say about this. I can see, with a lot of horror how it is advantageous to have a "blooded" army, so if you pick on the little guy you can "blood" your army without getting too much blooding back. But once your army is "blooded" you have to try and bring about this concept of "winning" Uncle Jimbo sometimes talks about and that is a whole lot more complicated isn't it?
Blooding is simple (if your enemy is small enough) "winning" isn't.
Actually, Big Dog, I'll take back use of the word "asshole" -- but UJ talked about the difference between war time generals and peace time generals. He specifically discussed how something that might be a career- ending move during peace time is not necessarily so during war time. Therefore you CAN fuck up and get promoted.
"when everybody's dying" Clearly not everyone is dying, but currently close to 3/4s million have died in Iraq and the video was addressing "blooding" and how that requires different kinds of leadership.
I said umpteen retired generals -- not all generals. "What more could one want?" I want us not to be there. People are dying because of falsified evidence that was used to start a war. I believe -- and there is evidence to back me -- that those in power started this war for personal profit.
Dave: This Uncle Jimmy guy makes simple brutal point about blooding an army. Guess that's why he calls it his "simple truths." He makes a better point about how the military is hardly monolithic and you can always find someone who will disagree with current policy. Bush apparently thought Paetronius' criticisms had merit so he put him in charge.
"The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult." - Winston Churchill
Okay, the coalition won the war. Now is the difficult long term part: creating a legitimate government in a nation which had no legitimate institutions of government. Decades of Ba'athist rule and Stalinist economic policy had destroyed them all. Iraq was an ungoverned nation, an anarchic Hobbsian dysfunctional society whose only semblance of order was a brutal tyrant whose rule was fearful, but hardly well organized, efficient or purposeful.
la serena:"UJ talked about the difference between war time generals and peace time generals. He specifically discussed how something that might be a career- ending move during peace time is not necessarily so during war time. Therefore you CAN fuck up and get promoted." - I don't think you understand exactly what he means by that. During peacetime, officers have no opportunity to prove their abilities on the battlefield, so other criteria are used to assess people for promotion. War, on the other hand, tends to promote effective combat officers at the expense of politically adept officers. The point being that citing a former officer is not necessarily as authoritative as one might think about war. 'Fucking up" doesn't come into it.
"I said umpteen retired generals -- not all generals." - Yes, to which I said there were 7000 retired generals, a few of whom are critical of our efforts in Iraq. Paetroneus was a critic, Bush apparently thought his criticism had enough merit to put him in charge. Bush has this tendancy to put people in charge of things and tell them to get the job done without trying to tell professionals how to do their job. If they screw up, he replaces them, he doesn't try to micromanage. That is good executive policy.
"I want us not to be there. People are dying because of falsified evidence that was used to start a war. I believe -- and there is evidence to back me -- that those in power started this war for personal profit." - First of all, evidence was not falsified. Were they wrong about WMDs? Yes, we ALL thought Saddam had chemical weapons ready for use. The lack of chemical attacks on Coalition troops whould be a cause for relief rather than angst at their lack. We are there now, and many of the elected officials who now 'oppose' the war in fact voted for it. War is not a book club, you can't just decide you don't want to belong anymore. The idea that the war was started for profit is bunk. There IS evidence that French, German and Russian opposition to the war was in fact based on their desire for profit.
"It is a regime, not an administration. See point above and also 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism." - First of all, I don't see how any of these points as written (I will quibble with some of them in the next post) have anything to do with the United States of America, nation which defines 'democratic republic'. No nation on the face of the earth is LESS fascist than the USA. I am sure it is... satisfying... to declare that the Bush administration is National Socialist,, but if one wants to be regarded seriously one doesn't snarkily take personal umbrage over disagreement with policy or election results.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts." - Senator Pat Moynihan
"The dark night of fascism is forever descending upon the United States, yet somehow it always lands in Europe" - Jean Francois Revel
"Did you watch the video?" - of course I did. "You seem to have taken my whole statement out of context -- vitriolic as it may be." - I addressed the points you made as written. Its possible that there is some miscommunication.
I am going to correct a few of the more glaring errors of the "14 Defining Charactoristics of Fascism"
"5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution." - All pre-late 20th century governments were 'almost exclusively male-dominated', likewise all pre-late 20th century governments restricted divorce, abortions and homosexuality. This point is virtually moot. We tend to forget how uncommon divorce, open homosexuality and abortion were prior to 1960 in the west and still are in non-western nations.
"8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions." Actually religious institutions were a rival to state power and were silenced. One of the differences between fascist regimes and run-of-the-mill dictatorships was that they were brutal enough to shut up the clergy.
"9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite." Actually, fascist governments threatened industialists into cooperation and siezed the property of those who failed to comply. It was an easy means to control people. Lacking any respect for law and order, a fascist government had no problem with simply taking from people who didn't obey. The more you had, the more you had to lose, and the more the fascists could squeeze from you, and squeezing a few large businesses is easeir than many small or medium businesses. Industry and business were closely regulated and given assignments. Being a criminal enterprise, fascist governments had no interest in the day to day running of business or industry, they just wanted the fruits.
"10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed." Labor is hardly the only real threat to a fascist government. In the case of Argentina's Peron, it was his primary power base. Other fascist governments tend to suborn the labor power base, glorifying workers and laborers.
"12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations." - It is utter nonsense to accuse fascist regimes of pursuing 'law and order'. Fascists used the police to terrorize and punish, keeping themselves in power thru fear and intimidation. Law - that is a legal code - was ignored when inconvenient, and altered to justify oppression whenever poossible. Fascists strongly resemble organized criminal organizations, police are thugs, not law enforcers.
This article/url strikes me as a shallow understanding fasscism in general, clearly written from a leftwing point of view.
"What makes dictators dictators is not that they don't believe in the power of the majority but that they don't believe in the rights of the individual." - Adriana Cronin
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." - Alexis de Tocqueville.
Thank you Dave. Hello Big Dog. Okey-doke -- Here it is..
RE: “Yes, we ALL thought Saddam had chemical weapons ready for use. The lack of chemical attacks on coalition troops whould (sic) be a cause for relief rather than angst at their lack.”
We were TOLD that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. Yet our own intelligence reported otherwise before the war began – but Cheney ordered his Chief of Staff (Scooter Libby) to expose undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for not creating the intelligence he wanted. (This information came out in Libby’s trial – there was even a note in Cheney’s handwriting ordering Libby to out Plame to the press, per the President's request. I believe outing an undercover CIA operative because she won’t fabricate the existence of chemical weapons and to get even with her husband for writing an editorial is bald-faced treason.)
Exposing Valerie Plame, meant that the undercover “corporation” she --- and many other agents -- worked for was also exposed and had to close. This effectively destroyed our means of gathering intelligence in the Persian Gulf – an area in which we are engaged in a war with one nation and having difficulties with other nations. Is that good executive policy?
Of course I am relieved that the coalition troops have not been exposed to chemical attacks but I would be more relieved if thousands of them hadn’t died ostensibly because of WMDs which never existed. Worse, our leaders were aware that the WMDs didn’t exist. That foreknowledge and willful cover-up – and the billions and billions of dollars certain corporations have netted after being awarded no-bid contracts (such as Halliburton and the mercenary contractor Blackwater) – indicates that this war is about profit. And while it is likely that France, Germany and Russia opposed this war in part because of profit, one of their arguments for their opposition was that there was no evidence of WMDs.
“First of all, I don’t see how any of these points as written (…) have anything to do with the United States of America, nation which defines democratic republic.”
The entire reason I brought up the 14 points of fascism is because I believe it is our duty to preserve and protect our democratic republic. But just because it was created to be a democratic republic, doesn’t mean that someone can’t come along and pervert it for their own gain. We are discussing a President who was awarded the Presidency without winning the popular vote two times. I understand that the electoral college is part of the Constitution and that it has happened before. What disturbs me is that in Bush’s case, there were many irregularities regarding vote counting and recently in Monica Goodwyn’s testimony before the Senate and in some of the missing emails that were accidentally sent to the wrong address, there is evidence of caging – willfully removing voter’s from the rolls who were likely not to vote Republican and did not respond to Republican mailings. Many of these people did not receive their mail because they were fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think that’s a pretty nasty way to treat your military. (Greg Palast of the BBC found and exposed the emails.) Bush has displayed examples of all 14 points of fascism in his presidency and I am afraid that we need to protect ourselves and our constitution from him.
Your “discrepencies” seem weak to me. Just because sexism was once the norm, doesn’t make it right -- nor sexism moot -- to roll back hard-earned rights. Under this administration women’s right-to-privacy in healthcare has been continually assaulted and our overall earning compared to men has decreased. When Bush assumed the presidency, women were earning 78 cents on the dollar in comparison to men –that figure has decreased to 73 cents on the dollar. Let me explain the significance very concretely for you. What that means is that in this modern era, the average American female’s earning power has decreased under this administration. That the wage gap between males and females has increased by five cents. So if the average female is earning $30K each year, the average male is earning $38,100. And if the average female was earning an additional nickel for every dollar, that would come out to an additional $1500 for our average female earning $30K. That’s like two and a half additional weeks of pay!
I found your statements about the 8th characteristic of fascism to be rather muddled. Using religion to keep the people in line is an oft-used technique in oppression. (For example, Franco used it in Spain and the colonizers used it with the Native Americans.) I think you are thinking of some examples of communism when you refer to the silencing of religion. Marx believed religion was the opium of the people and many communist states (obviously) adopted that position. Cuba is one example. You are correct that communist nations historically have often been totalitarian states, and fascist states are generally totalitarian – but they aren’t necessarily interchangeable. You seem to have your political terms and economic systems confused. Capitalism, communism and socialism are economic systems. Monarcy, democracy, theocracy and autocracy are examples of political systems. Therefore, you can (at least theoretically) have a socialist democracy, just as you can have capitalist autocracy. Generally however, fascism refers to capitalist nations, and most of your arguments against the 14 points of fascism seem to be referring to communist totalitarianism. For example, Pinochet in Chile protected corporate power – because he wanted the fruits of business. And Peron’s power base was in the labor unions, but that doesn’t make that characteristic completely incorrect – many fascist leaders have suppressed the labor movement (such as Franco).
No one accused fascist regimes of pursuing “Law and order” – quite the opposite. An obsession with crime and punishment means that law and order have been undermined. We currently live in an America where citizens homes are searched without a warrant and without their knowledge and phones are tapped without a warrant. Our Fourth Amendment right states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
When our rule of law – the Constitution – is undermined in a zeal to uncover “evil-doers” in our own nation, than we are looking at a government obsessed with crime and punishment. That is just one example of dozens and dozens.
And finally: “…but if one wants to be regarded seriously one doesn't snarkily take personal umbrage over disagreement with policy or election results…”
That is possibly some the most entitled bunch of malarkey I have ever heard. It is our protected right to disagree with policy – see the First Amendment.
It is important to try to remember that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The media has used dissident retirees to create the impression that there is more resistance to the administration's startegies that there is.
About promotions, the criteria officers are judged on is much different and leads them to be risk averse. A single blemish could end a career as there is tremendous competition for the slots at teh top.
During war, the simple test is "can you get the mission done?" That tends to favor the bold rather than the safe.
12 comments:
In summation, when everybody's dying, you can fuck up and still get promoted. And anyone of the umpteen generals who have disagreed with the Bush regime's policy are just not good war time generals.
Asshole!
"when everybody's dying," -Clearly, not everyone is dying.
"you can fuck up and still get promoted." - Hmmm... nope. Success gets you promoted.
"And anyone of the umpteen generals who have disagreed" - There are about 7000 retired US generals, a few of whom publicly disagree or are critical. Their disagreement is proof that the US is a democratic republic and that the US military is tolerant of dissent. Paetronius was a critic, Bush put him in charge of Iraq. What more could one want?
"with the Bush regime's" - Administration, not regime. See point above.
"policy are just not good war time generals." - Some aren't. Many high ranking generals are political appointees rather than battle commanders.
"Asshole!" - Obviously, being offended by calm reasoned opinion which which you disagree means the other guy is an anal sphincter. Lovely.
I've not really known what to say about this. I can see, with a lot of horror how it is advantageous to have a "blooded" army, so if you pick on the little guy you can "blood" your army without getting too much blooding back. But once your army is "blooded" you have to try and bring about this concept of "winning" Uncle Jimbo sometimes talks about and that is a whole lot more complicated isn't it?
Blooding is simple (if your enemy is small enough) "winning" isn't.
Thank you for clarifying that Dave.
Actually, Big Dog, I'll take back use of the word "asshole" -- but UJ talked about the difference between war time generals and peace time generals. He specifically discussed how something that might be a career- ending move during peace time is not necessarily so during war time. Therefore you CAN fuck up and get promoted.
"when everybody's dying"
Clearly not everyone is dying, but currently close to 3/4s million have died in Iraq and the video was addressing "blooding" and how that requires different kinds of leadership.
I said umpteen retired generals -- not all generals. "What more could one want?" I want us not to be there. People are dying because of falsified evidence that was used to start a war. I believe -- and there is evidence to back me -- that those in power started this war for personal profit.
It is a regime, not an administration. See point above and also 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism.
Did you watch the video? You seem to have taken my whole statement out of context -- vitriolic as it may be.
Dave: This Uncle Jimmy guy makes simple brutal point about blooding an army. Guess that's why he calls it his "simple truths." He makes a better point about how the military is hardly monolithic and you can always find someone who will disagree with current policy. Bush apparently thought Paetronius' criticisms had merit so he put him in charge.
"The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult." - Winston Churchill
Okay, the coalition won the war. Now is the difficult long term part: creating a legitimate government in a nation which had no legitimate institutions of government. Decades of Ba'athist rule and Stalinist economic policy had destroyed them all. Iraq was an ungoverned nation, an anarchic Hobbsian dysfunctional society whose only semblance of order was a brutal tyrant whose rule was fearful, but hardly well organized, efficient or purposeful.
la serena:"UJ talked about the difference between war time generals and peace time generals. He specifically discussed how something that might be a career- ending move during peace time is not necessarily so during war time. Therefore you CAN fuck up and get promoted." - I don't think you understand exactly what he means by that. During peacetime, officers have no opportunity to prove their abilities on the battlefield, so other criteria are used to assess people for promotion. War, on the other hand, tends to promote effective combat officers at the expense of politically adept officers. The point being that citing a former officer is not necessarily as authoritative as one might think about war. 'Fucking up" doesn't come into it.
"I said umpteen retired generals -- not all generals." - Yes, to which I said there were 7000 retired generals, a few of whom are critical of our efforts in Iraq. Paetroneus was a critic, Bush apparently thought his criticism had enough merit to put him in charge. Bush has this tendancy to put people in charge of things and tell them to get the job done without trying to tell professionals how to do their job. If they screw up, he replaces them, he doesn't try to micromanage. That is good executive policy.
"I want us not to be there. People are dying because of falsified evidence that was used to start a war. I believe -- and there is evidence to back me -- that those in power started this war for personal profit." - First of all, evidence was not falsified. Were they wrong about WMDs? Yes, we ALL thought Saddam had chemical weapons ready for use. The lack of chemical attacks on Coalition troops whould be a cause for relief rather than angst at their lack. We are there now, and many of the elected officials who now 'oppose' the war in fact voted for it. War is not a book club, you can't just decide you don't want to belong anymore. The idea that the war was started for profit is bunk. There IS evidence that French, German and Russian opposition to the war was in fact based on their desire for profit.
"It is a regime, not an administration. See point above and also 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism." - First of all, I don't see how any of these points as written (I will quibble with some of them in the next post) have anything to do with the United States of America, nation which defines 'democratic republic'. No nation on the face of the earth is LESS fascist than the USA. I am sure it is... satisfying... to declare that the Bush administration is National Socialist,, but if one wants to be regarded seriously one doesn't snarkily take personal umbrage over disagreement with policy or election results.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts." - Senator Pat Moynihan
"The dark night of fascism is forever descending upon the United States, yet somehow it always lands in Europe" - Jean Francois Revel
"Did you watch the video?" - of course I did. "You seem to have taken my whole statement out of context -- vitriolic as it may be." - I addressed the points you made as written. Its possible that there is some miscommunication.
I am going to correct a few of the more glaring errors of the "14 Defining Charactoristics of Fascism"
"5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution." - All pre-late 20th century governments were 'almost exclusively male-dominated', likewise all pre-late 20th century governments restricted divorce, abortions and homosexuality. This point is virtually moot. We tend to forget how uncommon divorce, open homosexuality and abortion were prior to 1960 in the west and still are in non-western nations.
"8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions." Actually religious institutions were a rival to state power and were silenced. One of the differences between fascist regimes and run-of-the-mill dictatorships was that they were brutal enough to shut up the clergy.
"9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite." Actually, fascist governments threatened industialists into cooperation and siezed the property of those who failed to comply. It was an easy means to control people. Lacking any respect for law and order, a fascist government had no problem with simply taking from people who didn't obey. The more you had, the more you had to lose, and the more the fascists could squeeze from you, and squeezing a few large businesses is easeir than many small or medium businesses. Industry and business were closely regulated and given assignments. Being a criminal enterprise, fascist governments had no interest in the day to day running of business or industry, they just wanted the fruits.
"10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed." Labor is hardly the only real threat to a fascist government. In the case of Argentina's Peron, it was his primary power base. Other fascist governments tend to suborn the labor power base, glorifying workers and laborers.
"12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations." - It is utter nonsense to accuse fascist regimes of pursuing 'law and order'. Fascists used the police to terrorize and punish, keeping themselves in power thru fear and intimidation. Law - that is a legal code - was ignored when inconvenient, and altered to justify oppression whenever poossible. Fascists strongly resemble organized criminal organizations, police are thugs, not law enforcers.
This article/url strikes me as a shallow understanding fasscism in general, clearly written from a leftwing point of view.
"What makes dictators dictators is not that they don't believe in the power of the majority but that they don't believe in the rights of the individual." - Adriana Cronin
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." - Alexis de Tocqueville.
Sorry Dave.
Big Dog. I was out of town. I don't want to be rude, so I will post my response to your MASSIVE missive in the comments of your blog.
Argue here, argue there, La Sierna- meet BigDog.
Alas, I have been meaning to delete my old, unused blog.
Thank you Dave. Hello Big Dog. Okey-doke -- Here it is..
RE: “Yes, we ALL thought Saddam had chemical weapons ready for use. The lack of chemical attacks on coalition troops whould (sic) be a cause for relief rather than angst at their lack.”
We were TOLD that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. Yet our own intelligence reported otherwise before the war began – but Cheney ordered his Chief of Staff (Scooter Libby) to expose undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for not creating the intelligence he wanted. (This information came out in Libby’s trial – there was even a note in Cheney’s handwriting ordering Libby to out Plame to the press, per the President's request. I believe outing an undercover CIA operative because she won’t fabricate the existence of chemical weapons and to get even with her husband for writing an editorial is bald-faced treason.)
Exposing Valerie Plame, meant that the undercover “corporation” she --- and many other agents -- worked for was also exposed and had to close. This effectively destroyed our means of gathering intelligence in the Persian Gulf – an area in which we are engaged in a war with one nation and having difficulties with other nations. Is that good executive policy?
Of course I am relieved that the coalition troops have not been exposed to chemical attacks but I would be more relieved if thousands of them hadn’t died ostensibly because of WMDs which never existed. Worse, our leaders were aware that the WMDs didn’t exist. That foreknowledge and willful cover-up – and the billions and billions of dollars certain corporations have netted after being awarded no-bid contracts (such as Halliburton and the mercenary contractor Blackwater) – indicates that this war is about profit. And while it is likely that France, Germany and Russia opposed this war in part because of profit, one of their arguments for their opposition was that there was no evidence of WMDs.
“First of all, I don’t see how any of these points as written (…) have anything to do with the United States of America, nation which defines democratic republic.”
The entire reason I brought up the 14 points of fascism is because I believe it is our duty to preserve and protect our democratic republic. But just because it was created to be a democratic republic, doesn’t mean that someone can’t come along and pervert it for their own gain. We are discussing a President who was awarded the Presidency without winning the popular vote two times. I understand that the electoral college is part of the Constitution and that it has happened before. What disturbs me is that in Bush’s case, there were many irregularities regarding vote counting and recently in Monica Goodwyn’s testimony before the Senate and in some of the missing emails that were accidentally sent to the wrong address, there is evidence of caging – willfully removing voter’s from the rolls who were likely not to vote Republican and did not respond to Republican mailings. Many of these people did not receive their mail because they were fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think that’s a pretty nasty way to treat your military. (Greg Palast of the BBC found and exposed the emails.) Bush has displayed examples of all 14 points of fascism in his presidency and I am afraid that we need to protect ourselves and our constitution from him.
Your “discrepencies” seem weak to me. Just because sexism was once the norm, doesn’t make it right -- nor sexism moot -- to roll back hard-earned rights. Under this administration women’s right-to-privacy in healthcare has been continually assaulted and our overall earning compared to men has decreased. When Bush assumed the presidency, women were earning 78 cents on the dollar in comparison to men –that figure has decreased to 73 cents on the dollar. Let me explain the significance very concretely for you. What that means is that in this modern era, the average American female’s earning power has decreased under this administration. That the wage gap between males and females has increased by five cents. So if the average female is earning $30K each year, the average male is earning $38,100. And if the average female was earning an additional nickel for every dollar, that would come out to an additional $1500 for our average female earning $30K. That’s like two and a half additional weeks of pay!
I found your statements about the 8th characteristic of fascism to be rather muddled. Using religion to keep the people in line is an oft-used technique in oppression. (For example, Franco used it in Spain and the colonizers used it with the Native Americans.) I think you are thinking of some examples of communism when you refer to the silencing of religion. Marx believed religion was the opium of the people and many communist states (obviously) adopted that position. Cuba is one example. You are correct that communist nations historically have often been totalitarian states, and fascist states are generally totalitarian – but they aren’t necessarily interchangeable. You seem to have your political terms and economic systems confused. Capitalism, communism and socialism are economic systems. Monarcy, democracy, theocracy and autocracy are examples of political systems. Therefore, you can (at least theoretically) have a socialist democracy, just as you can have capitalist autocracy. Generally however, fascism refers to capitalist nations, and most of your arguments against the 14 points of fascism seem to be referring to communist totalitarianism. For example, Pinochet in Chile protected corporate power – because he wanted the fruits of business. And Peron’s power base was in the labor unions, but that doesn’t make that characteristic completely incorrect – many fascist leaders have suppressed the labor movement (such as Franco).
No one accused fascist regimes of pursuing “Law and order” – quite the opposite. An obsession with crime and punishment means that law and order have been undermined. We currently live in an America where citizens homes are searched without a warrant and without their knowledge and phones are tapped without a warrant. Our Fourth Amendment right states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
When our rule of law – the Constitution – is undermined in a zeal to uncover “evil-doers” in our own nation, than we are looking at a government obsessed with crime and punishment. That is just one example of dozens and dozens.
And finally:
“…but if one wants to be regarded seriously one doesn't snarkily take personal umbrage over disagreement with policy or election results…”
That is possibly some the most entitled bunch of malarkey I have ever heard. It is our protected right to disagree with policy – see the First Amendment.
It is important to try to remember that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Lively conversation going on here.
I think BigDog has my point pretty well-covered.
The media has used dissident retirees to create the impression that there is more resistance to the administration's startegies that there is.
About promotions, the criteria officers are judged on is much different and leads them to be risk averse. A single blemish could end a career as there is tremendous competition for the slots at teh top.
During war, the simple test is "can you get the mission done?" That tends to favor the bold rather than the safe.
Cordially,
Uncle J
Post a Comment