Thursday, November 25, 2004

Exit Polls are not the same as Exit Polls?

Republican logic. You've gotta love it.

Example:

Given an election, imagine that the exit poll results disagree with the official counts. What is the reason for this discrepancy?

Well, if the election happens in the United States, the exit polls are obviously flawed. But if the election happens in the Ukraine, the official counts are obviously wrong.

There are two possible reasons for this. 1) Ukrainian exit polls are somehow vastly superior to American exit polls.

Or, 2) THE REPUBLICANS ARE CHEATING AND THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IT.

Source:
Zogby Vs. Mitofsky (Keith Olbermann)

NEW YORK - It was a spectacular irony - a Republican senator using the word “fraud” about the presidential election. More spectacular still, he was visiting his condemnation of apparent election manipulation on the incumbent party. And beyond all that, he and others based their conclusions largely on the incredible disparity between the last exit polls and the vote count itself. Of course, Indiana’s Richard Lugar was talking about the presidential election in the Ukraine.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Complete exit poll data compiled - comparison to official counts shows large swing towards Bush

I just saw this linked on a discussion board:
Complete US Exit Poll Data Confirms Net Suspicions
Full 51 State Early Exit Poll Data Released For The First Time
In the data...we can see that 42 of the 51 states in the union swung towards George Bush while only nine swung towards Kerry.

There has to date been no official explanation for the discrepancy.

Ordinarily in the absence of an obvious mistabulation error, roughly the same number of states should have swung towards each candidate.
That last point bears restating: When exit polls are taken, it is expected that there will be some margin of error, but the error normally does not favor one candidate or the other. It would be as likely for the final count in any state to swing in Kerry's favor as to swing in Bush's favor. What the graphed data shows is that the final counts in the vast majority of states swung towards Bush. Continuing:
Moreover many of the states that swung against Democratic Party hopeful John Kerry swung to an extent that is well beyond the margin of error in exit polls. Exit polls by their nature - they ask voters how they actually voted rather than about their intentions - are typically considered highly accurate.
In fact, as is mentioned in the article, exit polls are accurate enough that some countries use them to guard against vote fraud.

Frankly, I'm convinced. The election was stolen. The odds of such a marked shift between the poll results and the official counts is virtually nil. Or, at least it's small enough so that no self-respecting Ukrainian would accept the results of this election.

Falwell Makes Ass of Self...Again

I saw this linked on Eschaton and couldn't resist mentioning it here because it relates to a previous post of mine: "Falwell Makes Ass of Self":
Falwell called NOW "the National Order of Witches"
Reverend Jerry Falwell, national chairman of the Faith and Values Coalition and Moral Majority founder, labeled the National Organization for Women (NOW) the "National Order of Witches," said he was going to invite People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to Christian men's gatherings called "Wild Game Night" so that they "can sit there and suffer," and called Americans United for Separation of Church and State "an anti-Christ" group.
Gee, what a nice guy. :-)

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Falling dollar, rising euro--A plan to screw Europe?

More on the trade deficit/declining dollar mess. There was an article on Counterpunch (authored by Mike Whitney) in which it was suggested that a falling dollar may be part of the plan. Going to an original source:
Europe and Japan failed yesterday to persuade the United States to address the decline in the dollar, despite talks at a fractious meeting of the Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations. [snip] The U.S. insisted the dollar's decline was not on the agenda at the meeting, while European politicians have been anxious for action to stem the rise in the euro that threatens to bring their economy to a halt.
Ah-ha! Yes--screw all those pesky European countries that refuse to support our invasion of Iraq, and who insist on having all those dumb commie social programs. A diabolical plan. Going back to the Whitney/Counterpunch article:
In other words, dollar devaluation was all part of the Bush Administration's plan. It's one element in a broader strategy to pulverize the EU and force them make changes in their social structure. In fact, the neocons see the EU as their ideological adversary; a veritable spawn of the socialistic menace. A falling dollar is a calculated body-blow to corporate America's biggest rival; that's not an advantage they're likely to give up easily.

Pay off those credit cards NOW!

The following article was linked on Eschaton and I thought it bore repeating here. I'll focus on some stuff that Atrios didn't quote, though. The person making the predictions is Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley.
Economic 'Armageddon' predicted
In a nutshell, Roach's argument is that America's record trade deficit means the dollar will keep falling. To keep foreigners buying T-bills and prevent a resulting rise in inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan will be forced to raise interest rates further and faster than he wants.

The result: U.S. consumers, who are in debt up to their eyeballs, will get pounded.
Of course no body wants to believe it when Chicken Little says the sky is falling, but Roach backs up his claim. The article continues:
Roach marshalled alarming facts to support his argument.

To finance its current account deficit with the rest of the world, he said, America has to import $2.6 billion in cash. Every working day.

That is an amazing 80 percent of the entire world's net savings.

Sustainable? Hardly.

Meanwhile, he notes that household debt is at record levels.

Twenty years ago the total debt of U.S. households was equal to half the size of the economy.

Today the figure is 85 percent.

Nearly half of new mortgage borrowing is at flexible interest rates, leaving borrowers much more vulnerable to rate hikes.

Americans are already spending a record share of disposable income paying their interest bills. And interest rates haven't even risen much yet.

You don't have to ask a Wall Street economist to know this, of course. Watch people wielding their credit cards this Christmas.

Roach's analysis isn't entirely new. But recent events give it extra force.

The dollar is hitting fresh lows against currencies from the yen to the euro.

Its parachute failed to open over the weekend, when a meeting of the world's top finance ministers produced no promise of concerted intervention.

It has farther to fall, especially against Asian currencies, analysts agree.

The Fed chairman was drawn to warn on the dollar, and interest rates, on Friday.

Roach could not be reached for comment yesterday. A source who heard the presentation concluded that a ``spectacular wave of bankruptcies'' is possible.

Smart people downtown agree with much of the analysis. It is undeniable that America is living in a ``debt bubble'' of record proportions.
Personally, I'd love to blow a couple thousand bucks on a new computer system right now. But maybe I'll put that off for the time being.

[update] The article does mention a possible alternative--if the rate of inflation were allowed to rise, that would reduce our debt in real terms. There's a side effect of this that the article doesn't mention, though: any money we had saved would be devalued as well. So my question is, would my 401k plan be devalued too? Or would this result in such a market boom that my 401k would grow faster than the rate of inflation whittled it away? Of course, I'd be a fool to count on something like that happening.

Looking at the 14th Amendment

Somewhere in my readings yesterday, I came across a posting where someone had talked about this very interesting clause in the 14th Amendment:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
[Later amendments extended this to women and persons older than 18.]

What this is saying is that when a particular state screws up an election in a way that results in eligible voters having their right to vote denied or "in any way abridged", there is a penalty. The penalty is for that state to lose part of its Congressional delegation, in proportion to how many people were affected. There's no mention of how long the penalty should remain in effect, or how exactly it should be prosecuted, but I think it's high time that this clause start being used. There is altogether too much hanky panky going on in elections these days: from computerized balloting systems that fail to count the votes accurately, to partisan electoral officials illegally disposing of ballots, to political party operatives distributing deceptive leaflets to scare people away from the polls. A line needs to be drawn, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to draw that line in the position of, "Run a mean, nasty, dirty, expensive campaign if you really must, but don't tamper with the votes, and don't mess with the voters."

Friday, November 19, 2004

America and Fascism: The Pretty Version

A while back, I posted Dr. Lawrence Britt's "The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism."

Now, some industrious people at the Project for the OLD American Century have taken this list and laid it out all nicely, including pictures and examples from current events in the United States. Very well done!

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Addendum to yesterday's Wal-Mart post

Yesterday I talked about healthcare and Wal-Mart in this post:
If I own a business and I have some additional work that needs to be done, why can't I just hire someone to do it? Why should I have to worry about health care for this person? Why should that even be my concern? I just need somebody to do the work! If I'm a small business, especially, I risk bankrupting myself by trying to do the "right thing" (especially if I have to compete with a big fish like Wal-Mart).
Well, I found some new data on DailyKos pertaining to that. Apparently, businesses are able to take advantage of a tax deduction when they sponsor a health insurance plan for their employees. I'm not sure how much of a deduction, but such a deduction would help offset some of the cost, at least.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration wants to do away with this deduction. As it says,
45 million Americans don't have health care today. How many more wouldn't have it if the administration takes away the only economic incentive that companies have to provide it?
Obviously this would hurt a lot of people, but it would provide some additional incentive to do something about the American healthcare mess, too.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Pop Quiz

Okay, who said the following:
The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life...
Sound familiar?

The answer.

Could Wal-Mart be pushing the U.S. towards universal healthcare?

In reality, probably not. But it's interesting to note what happens when a giant player like Wal-Mart enters the picture:
Wal-Mart foes detail costs to community; Public subsidizes workers, study says
[Rep. George] Miller [D-Martinez] released a 22-page report by the Democratic staff of his House committee detailing how nonunionized Wal-Mart, the largest employer in both the United States and Mexico, allegedly imposes financial burdens on local governments. A certain percentage of its workers must turn to subsidized medical care, free school lunches, housing subsidies and other taxpayer-supported welfare services, Miller said.
The irony of this is galling--Wal-Mart is so influential that it's self-centered policies can actually end up bolstering the need for the "welfare state." The problem, of course, is that here in wonderful America, thanks to the tireless efforts of conservatives, the welfare state really, really sucks.

Look at the question this way: Why should employers be expected to cover the costs of medical care for their employees in the first place? It's ridiculous, if you think about it: If I own a business and I have some additional work that needs to be done, why can't I just hire someone to do it? Why should I have to worry about health care for this person? Why should that even be my concern? I just need somebody to do the work! If I'm a small business, especially, I risk bankrupting myself by trying to do the "right thing" (especially if I have to compete with a big fish like Wal-Mart).

The only reason it's like this is because there has never been adequate support in this country to enact a system that actually makes sense. In America, the ultimate motivation for doing anything is for private investors to make money off of it. If there's no money to be made, then it doesn't get done (witness the national shortage of tetanus vaccine), and any effort to get the government to solve a problem is inevitably decried, because having the government solve something would actually prevent potential investors from making their oh-so-holy profit. This is precisely what a sensible healthcare system would do: the current state of extreme profiteering would evaporate. Consequently, a universal healthcare system was never implemented here. The current stupid system evolved to fill in the void, and filled it in so pervasively that a small move towards a more sensible arrangement, such as what Wal-Mart is doing, actually hurts people. This puts socially conscious and progressive people in the position of having to stick up for the wholly inadequate status quo! We end up having do defend a system that plainly sucks.

It's ironic that the business sector continues to oppose enacting universal healthcare in the United States, in spite of the fact that it would actually be good for business. Especially small business:
O Canada; Oy Vey United States
National health insurance allows Canadians greater freedom and latitude to plan their lives. No one in Canada takes a job or remains in a job because of its health benefits. Canadians do not strike over lack of health coverage.
And I hasten to add here that no one who owns a small business worries about being expected to provide healthcare for his or her employees. This could be a tremendous boon to entrepeneurs--which may be a reason why big American corporate interests are against it. Big American corporations never show an interest in leveling the playing field. Continuing:
By not tying health insurance to the job, Canadian businesses have become more competitive. In the U.S., automakers spend about $1,200 per car on health insurance. In Canada, the cost is about $120 per car. In November 2002, officials from Ford, GM and DaimlerChrysler wrote Canadian policymakers urging them to maintain and strengthen their national health system. "The public health system significantly reduces total labor costs...compared to the cost of equivalent private health insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers."
So big corporations benefit in Canada, too.
Needless to say, the car companies did not send a similar letter to American policy makers.
Why, exactly? Unfortunately, the article doesn't go into that subject, but my theory is that "Big Healthcare" in America controls so much money that investors worry that tampering with it will trash the economy. (That, and the concept of not wanting to level the playing field, which I mentioned above.) It's a plausible theory, I suppose, but it doesn't help the folks who work at Wal-Mart, who end up depending on inadequate American social programs.

How Fundamentalists Think

Here's a fascinating blog about the workings of the fundamentalist mind, written by a woman who used to be a Christian Fundamentalist: ExFundie

For example:
The source of everything is their belief that they have discovered The Truth. Not “a” truth, but THE Truth. This is the important, crucial fact from which everything else flows inexorably. They are convinced they have discovered (or rather, had revealed to them*) The Truth about the universe: why it exists, how it functions, what its fate will be. And most important for them, included in The Truth is everything important about human beings: how they came to be, how they should behave, and how they can shape their ultimate fate....

...Certain things follow logically from believing you know The Truth. If you know the basic Truth about things...you are not merely uninclined to entertain other truths, it is simply not logical to entertain other truths. Whatever is not The Truth is either a lie or, if you are being kind, a mistake or delusion. There is no room for “differing points of view.”...Those are either wrong, or delusional. Or…

Or – the third option. Because fundamentalists also tie The Truth to morality.
Here's the link to that particular post.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Riverbend

I don't feel much like blogging today, but I did find something worth linking at least:

Baghdad Burning

A sample:
One of Those Weeks...
These last few days have been explosive- literally.

The sounds seem to be coming from everywhere. I've gotten tired of running upstairs and out on to the roof to find out where it's coming from. It feels like the first days of the war sometimes- planes, explosions, bullets, smoke... roads cut off.

We haven't attempted to leave the house but an uncle who was supposed to visit called to say he wouldn't be able to come because so many roads were blocked. Many people were told not to go to work and students stopped going to college yesterday. It's one of those weeks. Some areas in Baghdad seem to be cut off by armed gangs. [more....]
I think I'll add this one to the sidebar.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

What an incredible website:

Sorry Everybody

Monday, November 08, 2004

Howard Dean: Back in Action

Yeah!
Dean calls for return to 'core values'
Speaking at Dartmouth today:
"There will not be retreat on behalf of the Democratic Party," Dean said, exhorting the audience to make the United States the strongest nation in the world in moral values and moral leadership.

Dean emphasized the importance of the Democratic Party's commitment to its core values and principles, saying that the nation did not need "two Republican parties." He was emphatic about not sacrificing Democratic values for public appeal.

"We are in the middle -- we can't do this anymore. We have come too far," he said.

He called Kerry's loss an opportunity to fix the Democratic Party properly, by rebuilding and restructuring but not losing sight of its principles.

"We are so desperate to win that sometimes we forget what we're supposed to stand for," Dean said.

Dean, who heads the grassroots political organization Democracy in America, referred to the strong base of over 50 million Kerry supporters the Democratic Party needs to organize. He mentioned that it was a party mistake and a mark of its timidity to focus on key swing states rather than running a strong "50-state campaign" in the recent election.

Dean emphasized the importance of appealing to Southern evangelical Christians, who he said hold more common values with Democrats than Republicans. Echoing rhetoric from his Dartmouth appearance last week, Dean said Republicans focus on "guns, God, gays and abortion," issues that divide and frighten the American people rather than unite them.
Yup! Yup! What did I say? What did I say? Did I say Bush was not interested in really uniting America? Yes, I did!
Democrats and evangelical Christians are both concerned about economic stability, jobs and job opportunities and education, Dean said, adding that Americans need to stop dividing themselves through religion.

Dean argued that President Bush's 51 percent of the vote was not a mandate and that the nation was not as divided as the blue and red map might indicate. According to Dean, one of the Democrats' main concerns should be uniting the nation as a moral America that will regain its respect and leadership in the international community.

The former governor appeared optimistic and enthusiastic about Democratic chances for 2008, saying that there was plenty to do between now and the next presidential election.
Especially since the nation is going to be so totally screwed up in '08 that a potted plant could beat the...er...potted plant.

Friday, November 05, 2004

Beware Bush's call for "Unity"

As soon as Kerry conceded the election, the Bush Team started right in with it's latest political ploy. In fact, Kerry appears to have handed it to them on a platter: this idea of "uniting" America.

Of course, I would love to see a "united" America, as opposed to the way things are now. But I think it's pretty obvious that this theme of wanting to unite the nation and heal its wounds is a political ploy: what is really meant is, "we want unity in America, but it's only going to happen on our terms." What's more, the beauty of it is that, like so many Republican lies, the Bush Team comes out ahead no matter what the Democrats do.

Here's a possible way it could play out. After Rehnquist resigns, Bush comes up with some obscure person to be the new Chief Justice. Just about any federal judge will probably do the trick, since the vast majority of the people out there pay little attention to federal judges. The GOP and their media allies will paint the nominee as a moderate, and will applaud the nomination as evidence of Bush's sincerity. But in reality, the nominee will most likely be some rightwing asshat--perhaps not a rightwing extremist, since that would be too difficult to cover up, but definitely someone much more conservative than he's made out to be. The Democrats will have two options at that point. 1) Go along with the nomination. In this case, America loses, although the Democrats manage to save face with the Right. 2) Oppose the nomination. In this case, the GOP can jeer and crow about how the Democrats are unwilling to go along with Bush's wonderful plan for national unity. Either way, the Left's political position is even more completely trashed than it is now.

It doesn't need to be a judgeship--just about any noticable, newsworthy domestic issue will do. And, as much as I hate this, I've really got to hand it to the Bush strategists--they really know what the fuck they are doing. Why can't the Democrats get their shit together this well? I realize, of course, that part of what enables the Bush Team to use this sort of strategy is that they already have a big political advantage. But that big political advantage didn't just appear overnight. This sort of political cleverness has been a big factor in how the Bush Team got where it is today.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

SETI and the Evolution of Intelligence (or, Doom and Gloom of the Day)

Anyone familiar with SETI? That is, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence? The goal of the program is to detect radio signals from intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe. But no signals have ever been found. This is odd, considering our assumption that the universe was teeming with life, and therefore must be teeming with intelligent species, many of which would have discovered radio at some point. But there's been nothing.

This suggests two or three possibilities--the less interesting ones are that our instruments aren't powerful enough, or that the radio signals are too weak or distorted by distance to be detected. Or some other dull, technical reason. The more interesting (and scary) possibility is that maybe intelligent races aren't common at all. This leads to the question, "Why?"

My own theory is that "intelligence" is an evolutionary advantage, but only up to a point. Natural selection ends up selecting for ever-increasing intelligence, until a point is reached when one species is intelligent enough to think it can bend the ecosystem to its own will. But it really can't--inevitably, this supposedly intellgent species will use everything up in a vast population explosion. Intelligence, to the degree possessed by humanity, just may be an evolutionary dead end. Races that possess it are capable of ruining their planets more quickly than evolutionary processes can evolve a race intelligent enough to not ruin the world. This, of course, is where the human race now stands--we are on the verge of ruining the world, and the next evolutionary step is no where in sight. In fact, the problem really is that evolution only reponds after a disaster--the organisms that were lucky enough to survive, for whatever reason, become the new species, and whatever characteristics allowed them to survive become the new, defining characteristics of the new species.

It would be really interesting to see how this turns out--after the big die-off, will the human race that's left over be substantially smarter than it is now? Or substantially stupider? Will the quality of our intelligence have changed in some fundamental way? Will the new race be much more geared towards selfish individualism (albeit on a smaller scale, since all the large scale stuff will no longer be possible), or will we be an even more socially conscious species than we are now? Will humans evolve into a species with hivelike social rigidity?

My money is on the latter, since I have a difficult time seeing any big evolutionary advantage to individualism--termites and ants do remarkably well. However, given a large cataclysm, all bets are pretty much off.

Further comments on the election and what went wrong

I notice someone commented on my previous post--everyone should read this comment as it sums up pretty well what Democrats, liberals and progressives are up against. Recalling over the past four years, a lot of us have made the assumption that since the 2000 election was so screwed up, that all it would take was a legitimate election, especially after four years of Bush idiocy, and people would naturally vote him out of office.

I realize that there is a lot of seniment that the vote counts in Ohio and Florida were tampered with, and I find these very plausible. In fact, I agree with them completely. Black box voting needs to be illegal. Ballots need to be treated as if they were $100 bills--the level of accountability in ballot handling in this country is a joke.

But the other key point in this election is that, even discounting any possible fraud, there are a lot of people out there who genuinely believe that Bush is the better choice, and we have totally failed to reach these people. Yes, part of the problem may have been the choice of nominee. But the main thing is that the message is not getting out. We know we are right, but the right wing also knows that they are right. This is a war of ideas, and so far, we are losing.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

All is lost

Kerry has conceded. And the votes aren't even counted yet.

Well, I guess all I can say is that I hope the country makes it through the next four years. Shit--I hope I make it through the next four years.

The only upshot to this that I can see is that liberals can in no way be held responsible for what happens now. Rehnquist will resign soon--the right will have their reactionary Supreme Court. They'll have all three branches of government, and control of the media as well.

It's my belief that any possibility of Americans solving this problem for ourselves has now passed. We had our chance.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

75% turnout in WI? Plus, payback in Milwaukee?

Heard on Wisconsin Public Radio on the way home from work that the voter turnout in this state is expected to be seventy-five percent. That's the highest ever, if it turns out to be true.

Also there was a report of some tires slashed on a bunch of Republican "Get Out the Vote" cars in Milwaukee--I'm a little fuzzy on the details since I was trying to listen and drive at the same time, but the tires were slashed on quite a lot of cars, maybe 100. Now, a few days ago, there were reports of flyers being circulated in Milwaukee containing the following text:
Milwaukee Black Voters League

Some warnings for election time
  • If you've already voted in any election this year you can't vote in the Presidential election
  • If you've ever been found guilty of anything, even a traffic violation you can't vote in the Presidential election
  • If anybody in your family has ever been found guilty of anything you can't vote in the Presidential election
  • The time to register for voting has expired. If you haven't registered you can't anymore.
  • If you violate any of these laws you can get ten years in prison and your children will get taken away from you.
So, in light of that flyer being passed around, in which every single assertion is not only false, but the very existence of it is a blatant insult, I have to admit I'm not surprised that a bunch of Republicans got their tires slashed. Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No.

VOTE TODAY!

If you're an American citizen, that is, and you haven't voted already. This is IT!

Monday, November 01, 2004

10 things you have to believe to vote for Bush

Ghod I hate this stupid Blogger interface. I hit the "preview" link, to preview what I write. Then I hit the "back" button to continue editing, because in 99.9999% of cases on the World Wide Web, you get to where you were before by hitting the fucking "back" button, and Blogger wipes out everything I just wrote. Damnit!

Okay, I will try this again:

I've seen most (if not all) of the following on various internet forums before, but now, the day before the Big Election, is an excellent time to review.
10 things you have to believe to vote for Bush:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.

A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's cocaine conviction is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Hmmm! That seems to be a bit more than 10 things....perhaps, the person who compiled the list had difficulty choosing the ten best examples of Republican hypocrisy, given how many there are to choose from. :-)


America and Fascism

There's been a lot of flinging around of the word "fascist" in recent years. Liberals like to compare Bush to Hitler, and eventually conservatives caught on to this idea and started calling various liberal ideas "fascist". I can't provide examples from the conservative side, because they are all so ridiculous, and indicate such a lack of understanding of fascism, that I seem to have repressed them all from my memory.

But as for the leftist comparison, someone has actually studied several fascist regimes, and come up with a group of commonalities. When compared to the current state of affairs in the United States, the similarity is pretty striking.
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt

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."

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 the 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.
According to neologic, this text appeared in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Spring 2003 issue.

A couple of items on the list deserve comment. Item 5, "Rampant Sexism", for example, might be disputed. However, how many female Presidents has the United States had? And how many has Pakistan had? There are many countries which have had female heads of state, and many which actually guarantee a certain proportion of their legislative seats to women. I'm not saying that reserving a number of seats for women is necessarily the way to go, but I think it's pretty fair to say that the American record of women in leadership roles is not nearly as good as it could be. Particularly when considering the role of large corporations in the American power structure--what percentage of corporate CEO's are women? And, when considering the issue of the power of women in America, although I think that the feminist movement has made some tremendous strides, I can't help thinking about a photo I saw a while back, of a group of middle-aged, balding, overweight white guys all standing around looking pleased with themselves while they signed a "partial-birth" abortion bill into law--a bill that would make abortions much harder to obtain. Middle-aged, balding, overweight white guys, controlling the wombs of American women--that's really the way it goes in this country.

Item 11, "Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts"--this one is interesting in light of the statement, "Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked." I'm thinking speech codes at Universities here. This appears to be an item which goes both ways--many right-wing groups complain loudly of infringement of their freedom of speech on college campuses. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can make a convicing case that liberal expression is not under attack either: witness the ploy over the past 15 years or so to drive the media to the right by constantly repeating the "liberal media" whine. Witness also the attacks on the National Endowment for the Arts, which has long been a pet issue for the GOP. Support of the arts has been painted as something undesirable--at best, a waste of tax dollars going towards endeavors that should "pay for themselves." This is merely code for, "the only arts worth doing are the arts that investors can profit from," and for "money is the standard by which all things should be measured." Which, in fact, ties in heavily with Item 9 on the list.

So, although a couple of those items might be disputed, the disputes really don't hold up. So the list is actually a pretty good description of the state of the U.S.

The obvious question here is, what can be done about it? I don't think that simply getting rid of Bush is going to be good enough. A lot of those items describe trends that have been afoot for a long time--the disdain for intellectualism has been around for much longer than I have been alive, for example. Item 10 claims that the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government. I certainly agree that organized labor can be a threat, but is it the only threat? Because we're in trouble, if it is. The only way Germany managed to get itself out of the clutches of the Nazis was to have a bunch of other countries practically grind it into dust. Naturally, I have a big problem with seeing that happen to the U.S.