Very Interesting Article - American Fascism

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveS @ Jun 28 2006, 07:42 PM) [snapback]278411[/snapback]</div>

Again, I do not think that I have any less freedoms than I had prior to 9/11. That is my opinion.

OTOH: Yes, sometimes one does have to destroy or restrict in order to save the larger entity.

A lot of that happened during WWII.

Of all of the freedoms that some claim to have lost, the only one that has any credence (to my way of thinking) is the privacy issue. If a court issues a warrant, then you will be watched or your transactions monitored.

I can still worship, write scathing attacks on the government, bear firearms, travel within this country freely, vote, not vote, have right to legal counsel, communicate freely with whomever I wish, own property, the right to sue for damages if wronged.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jun 28 2006, 05:08 PM) [snapback]278314[/snapback]</div>

And I guess we have now entered in to the arena of personal insult, name calling, and jingoism...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 29 2006, 02:07 PM) [snapback]278716[/snapback]</div>

Just on a philisophical level, is it destiny for humans to act like humans and 'not' learn from history or is it possible for us rise above our human nature that we may right the titanic we are on and avoid the inevitable iceberg that looms ahead of us?

This reminds me of the movie "ground hog day" where we as a species gets to try to get it right over and over again. I don't think we're there yet, maybe not even close. I doubt we'll get it right in our grandchildren's lifetimes either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveS @ Jun 29 2006, 09:07 AM) [snapback]278545[/snapback]</div>

I probably should have said website. The article is on several websites. I'm just used to a "shoot the messenger" attitude based on where an article is found instead of what it actually says. But that was addressed above.

My personal feeling is the toilet is already starting to swirl and those with their hand on the handle refuse to recognize the signs. Perhaps because their hands are on the handle and it doesn't present any danger to them directly. After all, the only ones living in a fascist state are the oppressed, the fascists themselves live in a democracy. And by the time some who think "it doesn't apply to me" realize they're in the same bowl as the rest of us...it will be too late.

I think the slow, small steps is the biggest danger of all, because the U.S. does NOT look long term or at the big picture. Instead of a 100 year plan, it's looking to the next election or the end of the fiscal year. That's how our freedoms are eroded over the years. Perhaps we should elect all historians with PhDs for a few terms and see how things go. The lawyers have had their chance.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jun 29 2006, 02:21 PM) [snapback]278720[/snapback]</div>

Unless it's against certain corporations for certain wrongs.

Asbestos comes immediately to mind.

When the list of corporations you can't sue for certain wrongs (or a "cap" on that wrong) starts to grow and grow....that's a slippery slope.

I'd watch the "court issues a warrant" part too. Apparently....that isn't a requirement 100% of the time anymore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jun 29 2006, 12:21 PM) [snapback]278720[/snapback]</div>

The NY Times is being threatened with legal prosecution for writing an article critical of the gov't, and a recent Supreme Court ruling removed protection for whistle-blowers within gov't. No, you are NOT free to write what you wish.

A secret No-Fly list that no one can find out how they got put on or get removed from has impeded several citizens from using domestic airlines. No, you are NOT free to travel within this country freely.

There is substantial and credible evidence of vote tabulation fraud in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the Supreme Court in 2000 overrode Florida voters by preventing a recount. No, your right to a MEANINGFUL Vote is very much questionable.

An estimated 9,000 people, many of them US citizens, are being held in secret prisons and in Guantanamo with no access to counsel. No, you DON'T have a right to legal counsel.

If the gov't discovers you've communicated, however innocuously, with what it has deemed a terrorist organization or anyone associated with a terrorist organization, you're at risk of arrest and incarceration, probably without access to counsel. No, you are NOT free to communicate with whomever you wish.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jun 29 2006, 12:21 PM) [snapback]278720[/snapback]</div>

I usually try to be very careful to NOT insult people (except Squid, who seems to thrive on it), and if you look again at what you think are personal insults, you'll find that I was not calling you names, was not being jingoistic, and was not insulting you personally. What I DID do was cast your question into satiric perspective. That's what lively debate IS: recasting opposing ideas into perspectives that expose their flaws. If you receive such as insulting you should not participate in debate. Ideas get eviscerated, skewered, trashed and shredded in the best debates - not the people who express them. Look again: nothing in what I said attacked you personally.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

I stand by my words; none of the supposed horrors have been visited upon me. That you cannot possibly deny, because I am speaking of my own experience, in my everyday life.

Your personal experience may be different.

I seem to be the only one that has a contrary opinion on what is some novelist's opinion, so I shall not belabor the issue any more.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jun 29 2006, 04:41 PM) [snapback]278863[/snapback]</div>

By ned, you've hit the nail on the head! Until YOU feel YOUR rights have been restricted, NOBODY's rights have been lost. YOU are the standard against which we should gauge our freedom. If YOU feel free, we're ALL free. Only until YOU feel restricted should we begin to feel worried.

The following famous observation is therefore just a bit of pointless whimsy:

"First they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
"Then they came for the orthodox christians, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an orthodox christian.
"When they came for the intellectuals, I didn't speak up because I wasn't an intellectual.
"And when they came for the activists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't an activist.
"By the time they finally came for me, there was no one left to speak up."

Mr. wstander, by the time YOU personally feel the cold ruthless claw of tyranny clamped on your shoulder, it'll be far, far too late for all of us.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Well, this one deteriorated quickly. I had actually thought about putting my conservative-tinged glasses aside and examining a few of these that I think have a potential to become a problem for America, but the hyperbole has already taken over. So I'll offer my critique of why I should have seen it coming, and shouldn't have even given thought to the idea of doing some research and really thinking about some of these points.

The article attempts to present a list of attributes that fascist societies have in common, but I suspect it was formulated with a precept in mind. The author does make a fair disclaimer that many historians would disagree with him at the top, so he appears fair. But then, at the bottom, he reveals his intent:

His sarcasm makes me wonder if he started with a list of things in the recent news, and then said "Hey, these 7 fascist societies also had these things!" I'll bet the dictators also breathed air and drank milk as babies.

But, the article is well-written, even if flawed, and the author obviously wants to provoke thought and discussion. Fair enough; a little sarcasm is good for the soul.

I actually think that is a good topic to bring up, and JamesS is to be commended for the effort. But his introduction also belies what appears to me to be a bias he first denies, but then proves exists in the very next sentence. He provides 8 examples of "mindless right wing idiocy", then a single general example from the left, and then he reiterates some and adds a few for another 8 "right wing idiocy" examples.

"Resolved: The right wing are idiots. Now let's all be nice and discuss my issue my way."

Which is a little like saying I get to hit you once, and you can't hit back until I hit you a second time.

So I'll pass on this thread.

BTW - Dr. Fusco ... we disagree on most things, but I appreciate your fairness. I had high hopes for the thread even with your warning about how it would turn out, hoping that your example would inspire others.

 

I've related this story before.

A legislator in California tried to introduce a bill that would deny teachers the right to vote on any initiative that had anything to do with education. He justfied this by saying that teachers would be biased. The bill was defeated.

I'm appalled that anyone would even entertain such an idea.

Are we a truly, bonafide Fascist state yet? No. Are we on the way? Maybe. There have been some laws passed, acts perpetrated and ideas expressed that meet one or more of the criteria. Could we head in that direction? Yes.

My feelings are the same as I expressed about Global Warming. Better to err on the safe side. Be aware and guard against meeting any of those 14 points, rather than bury your head in the sand, sing La la la la la la and hope it all goes away. Because if you just ignore things and hope for the best...you may not like what you end up with when you finally open your eyes and look around and it may be too late to do anything. Just because it isn't happening to you personally is not guarantee it won't eventually. (America is: I may not agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it. When we stop defending other's rights, we lose our own.)

As stated above, this is a very slow, insidious process. One that may take decades. Let us not be over achievers and excelerate the process to a few years through inaction or apathy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveS @ Jun 30 2006, 04:01 PM) [snapback]279366[/snapback]</div>

Sorry about mangling your name. I realize you may not notice the insults hurled at conservatives in general because they appear reasonable to you ... and that's the root of bias. It isn't the overt bias we recognize immediately that we have to fight back, its the ones we don't realize we even have.

Here are some common examples of the left's statements that are in the category of "mindless leftwing idiocy" from my perspective:

"Bush lied and thousands died"
"Christians are poor, uneducated and easily led"
"Conservative Christians want to establish a theocracy"
"Christians are against cancer prevention"

... and there are several more that appear in the posts here. The list in the article actually makes one of these points, in a way, but I fully expect that of anyone associated with the Humanist societies (they are almost all very hostile to any religious expression, sometimes dogmatically so).

Most of the time, the slogans are over-simplifications of positions held for other reasons (for instance, the "cancer prevention" thread is really about whether or not the state should be able to force parents to innoculate their children against sexually transmitted diseases).

My hesitancy in responding to the original points is that I know, based on the opinions already expressed, that we cannot find any common ground as a starting point. Because all 14 points will be defended, and some are so out of synch with reality as I see it that someone holding forth on that point will not listen to my reasons for disagreement, or be able to recognize when they are wrong on an issue.

As an example, item number 4 lists "military spending" as a hallmark of a fascist society, and by that measure, America would be less fascist today than in the 1960's (at least from the 1940's to the 1990's, where our military spending as a percentage of GDP was above 5%, sometimes up around 8 or 9%, yet over the last few years has hovered around 3 - 4%). We may be seeing an uptick with the war on terror, so we will get back to the norm of 5 - 6%. This slight trend is in no way indicative of the militarism of the 41 countries that spend more than we do on the military, as they spend up to 35% of their GDP on the military (e.g., North Korea).

But I'll bet no one will even be able to agree on that point.

Since the positions are so polarized, and I seriously doubt anyone will give room on any of the points, it doesn't make any sense to discuss the 2 points where I think there can be some room for discussion.

Is America headed for fascism? No, I don't think so. We are not even seeing an erosion of traditional rights, but rather a racheting back of recent rights, and non-existant rights that people only THINK we have (such as privacy in financial transactions).

 

What I see after reading all the responses is "Creeping Paranoia"