Home | February 19, 2006 - February 25, 2006 »

Week of February 5, 2006 - February 11, 2006

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism


Randi Rhodes posted the item below in her blog - I think this raises some very important questions.  It seems we are currently at least brushing the edges of every point made ...


This is a summary of the more detailed orignal article "Fascism Anyone?" first published in Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry

 
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes.
Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
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.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
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.
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.
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.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
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.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Is America actually in a State of War?


The Op/Ed by James Carroll, published yesterday in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/ 2006/01/30/is_america_actually_in_a_state_of_war/ aptly asks a very real and important question.

The President and his supporters maintain he is a "Wartime President," and this distinction gives him unlimited executive power as our Commander in Chief.

However, The President announced almost two years ago that combat operations in Iraq were over.  He announced this under a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished."  So we are not at war with Iraq.

Similarly, we are not at war with al Queda.  Our military is not pursuing al Queda through militaristic means, and most of our forces were diverted from Afganistan to be deployed to Iraq.

Given the above, there is now no enemy -- except for the idea or tactic called "terrorism."  It is impossible to be "at War" with a tactic or idea.  Merely struggling to squash an idea spreads it.
So, are we in a state of war?  I think we can safely say we are not, and since we are not, the President's claims to extraordinary powers are even less credible and more wonton.

Nothing to See Here, Just Move Along.....


Why am I not surprised?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011706Y.shtml

Truthout.org has publised Jason Leopold's report that the NSA was directed by Vice President Chaney to spy on some American Citizens during the summer of 2001.

Where is the bottom of this pit?

A Scandal on "Both" Parties?


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/0080 46.php

Kevin Drum at Political Animal posted the blog entry above - which really intrigued me.

He linked to http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/01/a_good_story_on.html by Brad Delong - a story dissecting the Republicans' and Media's claims that the Abramoff Scandal is "bi-partisan." 

Having paid attention to this story for a long time now - going back to the Gingrich inception fo the "K Street Project" - I just amazes me that it is so simple and clear.  TPM, inter allia (I lernt a new one this week), have pointed the same facts out countless times. 

I need to prepare a graph showing the data and go post it in the comments section of every GOP, "News" reported, and Fox personality I can find.

American Government 101


The commentary flying around about Presidential Signing Statements has gotten me thinking recently about the form of government set forth in our Constitution.


Painting with a very broad brush, our Federal Government is divided into three branches, each with a specific area of responsibilty, and each with checks on the power of the other two branches.


  1. Executive:  its responsibility is to enforce the law.  The President has veto power, and the power to appoint Jurists.  The "mundane" workings of the burocracy also tend to balance the power of the other branches as well.
  2. Legislative:  its responsibilty is to write the laws.  Congress can override a veto, and creates the courts and determines thier jurisdiction.  It also determines funding for all branches, and oversees the operations.
  3. Judicial:  its responsibility is to interpret the laws.  The courts can decalre a law unconstitutional and determine how a law is to be enforced.
The issue is not as simple as it seems, but "Signing Statements" are supposedly an attempt to sway the Judicial branch when it considers the intent of a law.  Sort of a pre-argument.


Such Statements, however, are a usurpation of the Judicial responsibility.  The President's stated understanding, unlike Congress' stated intent, is immaterial to the interpretation of a law.


Worse, our current President has amassed a history of using bureaucratic tactics to interpret laws (by re-defining terminology, among other means) and writing or disregarding laws by executive order.  His use of Signing Statements seems to be an extension of these practices.


I think this is classic malfeasance. 

GOP's plan


DeLay and Doolittle

Need we say more? 

Thank God for Small Favors


Tom Daschle describes in his WaPo column today the negotiations which occurred immediately after 9/11 to authorize the President to use force in responding to the attacks.

Looking at the specific language Mr. Daschle recounts I am floored by the realizaton that if the Senate had a Republican Mojority Leader at that time the Senate version would have truely granted unlimited authority to the President.  The House would surely have gone along.

But for the actions of Senator Jeffords the previous spring, Mr. Bush might have become our Oligarch.

Thank God for small favors.

Essential Liberty


The Bush family history shows unwavering support for corporatism.

The litany is familiar - from support of Hitler, to support of Saddam Hussein - all in support of "business."  Nothing is out of bounds if it generates a profit.

What can the administration be doing that is outside the jurisdiction of the FISA Court, probably at least loosely tied to the War on Terror, and favors Big Business?  The realm of answers is relatively small, and most of the answers are ugly.

Retribution


The recent discussions which grew out of the then pending execution of "Tookie" Williams brought back to mind several thought and discussions from years past.

Some of what our Founding Fathers were working to prevent when they authored and adopted The Constitution was the depravity of the penal system they knew.  The overarching goal was set as "Justice" - and was specifically steered away from "punishment."  The idea was reformation over retribution.

Setting such a goal is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.

Our modern legal system has overturned the original goals.  When did that happen?

Revising History for Real


The lie, of course, is founded in the stories we tell our children.  The story is the the Pilgrims left Europe to escape religious persecution and landed in the new world.  This is where the revisionists stop, as if everyone came here for the same reason.  It's a fine story (for children).

The reality is that the first few colonies - St. Augustine, Jamestown - were founded for purely economic reasons.  Rumor had it that gold was abundant and just laying about waiting for someone to pick it up.  The Virginia and Massachussets Bay Colonies, and others, were founded to reap raw materials from the new world.  Georgia was founded as a penal colony - a place to send criminals because prisons were overfull.

During the sesquicentury of our Colonial Period people came to the New World as indentured servants, as slaves, as part of military units, to seek thier fortune, and to excape political and religious persecution.  Extraction of raw materials was replaed with agriculture and production of finished goods.  Religious freedom was only one motivator of many.

The American Revolution happened because of politico-econmic reasons - No Taxation Without Representation!

By the time the Constitutional Congress convened such a variety existed, and the Age of Enlightenment was old enough, that the delegates knew they could not establish one religion as a state religion.  They therefore voted to add language to the Constitution to prevent government intrusion into the realm of religion.

I take seriously my duties as a parent, and teach my children what is right.  I am a Christian, but I see others around me who are Muslim, Jew, and other versions of Christian.  I do not want the state to dictate to me or my children religious beliefs.

Today's revisionists seek to imprint their brand of Christianity and I don't like it.

The Lines ARE Drawn


Being illegal, bribery is usually oral (or implied) -- but it must contain the essential elements of an enforcable contract:  an agreement, express or implied, between two (or more) parties, where something of value is exchanged.   "Tit for Tat"  "Quid pro Quo"

The agreement by both parties must be in place before the "value" is exchanged.  The example cited in BBroD's post is the best form of political contribution as free speech:

"From time to time, as the occasion arises, I make contributions to the campaigns of those who seem to have followed my instructions"


To me, this shows the prior agreement does not exist.  The same example shows, rather than being a "classic Quid pro Quo," that performance is not required on either side.  The donaton might not occur if the representative acts as desired, and might occur even if the representative acts differently.


The other question raised, wondering whether the amount of the donation is the main concern, is mostly a chimera. 

I agree that donations are "political speech."  Specifically, the donation says "I support ...." - whether person, action or etc.

That generality would make a $10 donation the same as a $1,000,000 donation - and I agree with this too, but only on the most general level. 

We all know there is a real world difference between the two donation levels, and that difference is the extent to which the one level grabs (demands) the recipient's attention. 

I liken this effect to the "volume" dial on a stereo.  The $10 donation is background noise, too small to deserve attention.  A donation passes the threshold of "Too High" when it disturbs the neighbors, causing the neighbors to call for help.  Disturbing a single neighbor may not be cause for punitive action -- but drowning out all other sounds on an entire block certainly is.

PACs exist to conglomerate the background noise into an audible signal.  And we have Campaign Finance laws in place to keep the volume overall at moderate levels. 

But, even the highest donations can be a shout and not a bribe.
Home | February 19, 2006 - February 25, 2006 »

JaDe

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address