Facism: I will go with the Webster's dictionary definitions:
Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralizedautocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
— fas·cist noun or adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·tic adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·ti·cal·ly adverb often capitalized
See Examples of FASCISM
- the rise of Fascism in Europe before World War II
- From the first hours of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, the propagandists on both sides of the conflict portrayed the struggle in stark, Manichaean language. The totalitarian nature of both regimes made this inevitable. On one side stood Hitler, fascism, the myth of German supremacy; on the other side stood Stalin, communism, and the international proletarian revolution. —Anne Applebaum, New York Review of Books, 25 Oct. 2007
- [+]more
Origin of FASCISM
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
First Known Use: 1921
Is this really what President Obama is - Hitler or Mussolini? Don't think so.
Socialism:
so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
Again, it is not what the Obama administration is trying to achieve. Let's just get our facts straight.
Instead, we have corporations and extremely wealthy individuals with a political agenda controlling our government, controlling elected officials (isn't that corruption in its purest form?), controlling our media (Fox and Murdoch?) with claims of patriotism, but when the discourse is just the opposite? Even Henry Ford (racist that he was) understood that he had to pay his employees enough so they could afford to buy his cars.
The hostility we see right now toward government employees is horrific. As a former such employee, I can tell you that government work is not easy, and we were regularly underpaid (as I was not in a unionized position) and we all viewed the wonderful benefits like healthcare and a pension, as a payback for earning less than we would in the private sector.
Thus, although I do not condone illegal activity, I can certainly understand what "Anonymous" has done in hacking the website of the Koch brothers' backed organization that is funding truly anti-American activity, by trying to undermine our discourse.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Population changes and decline - questions?
Interesting article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_census_dying_counties;_ylt=ApsQ8pubgKwOLuyVUtub5CxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNoNGEya3VqBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMjIyL3VzX2NlbnN1c19keWluZ19jb3VudGllcwRjY29kZQN1c25ld3N2aWV3c2hhcmUEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDY2Vuc3VzbmVhci1y
about dying counties across the US.
For years, reading about ghost towns or the legend of Atlantis, or other lost communities and societies, I wonder what happened in a community that causes a die-off or abandonment. But I see it happening around me, vacant homes, closed businesses and, as described in the article, loss of population.
We could ask, have we over-built? Should we have more farms or open space to use for wind and solar? Should we live in smaller homes, closer to the cities, more mass transit, fewer cars? Aren't these some issues we, as a society, should consider? What should the American dream be? Do we really need some McMansion with three cars in the garage (for two people)? Is the time for this over-consumption finally over? Can we truly reconfigure our lifestyles to a more realistic level?
Can we learn from the rise and fall of other imperialist societies? First we would have to admit (like the first step in recovery) that we were, in fact, an imperialist society. And then, as all such societies do, we over-extended financially and in other ways (personnel overseas, trying to rule countries and peoples whose cultures and languages we don't understand and can't communicate with because we don't have the language skills), and that this over-extension is unmanageable and beyond our control.
Then we would have to really look at what to do? Do we shore up dying communities at home and abroad, when we can no longer afford in any way to do so? The answer clearly becomes a no.
And then what? Maybe we finally address the issues I set forth in my prior post. Should we have a blue-ribbon panel that travels the world and studies what works, or does not work, in other countries and can translate to America, to solve some of our entrenched problems?
Over the holiday weekend, we were with friends and discussing the immigration problem here. It is discussed in a small way in the article above - i.e. that without hispanic immigration, some communities are going to die-off, because locals will leave after high-school (if they can graduate). And, no one is staying and having children in those communities.
At this point, I am definitely not a Republican because there is no place for me in that party, no moderates left. Democrats are too disorganized. I am certainly leaning more independent as I become increasingly frustrated with both parties to put rhetoric aside and solve our problems, including immigration, an issue confronting many European countries too.
Why do we allow all of the monies earned here to leave via Western Union and other wire services? Should it stay here?
Why do we allow our jobs to be shipped overseas? Other countries engage in some degree of protectionism to save their manufacturing jobs - what can't we? Is the free market really all that? If we are truly free-market should we also be open borders?
If we are not going to enforce our immigration laws that are on the books, what's the point of having them? Shouldn't we provide the resources to law enforcement to remove undocumented persons? What is this doing to our society, to have so many people (we are now down to 8-10 million) living under the radar in our country?
So many questions, so little time, so few answers. Answers anyone?
Originalists and the Constitution
As an attorney (perhaps the most hated profession, although not the oldest one) , I listen to the Tea Party crowd and Justice Scalia and the belief that somehow, the constitution is set in stone and must be read a certain way.
But the question never gets posed to the same people - what about the Bible?
Do we read the Bible the same way it was read 300 years ago? Or even 50 years ago? Doesn't our interpretation evolve as we evolve?
Wasn't the Bible quoted as evidence against inter-racial marriage, just as today it is quoted to fight gay marriage?
If we took the Bible literally, we would still have animal sacrifice, polygamy, brothers marrying their deceased brother's wives, slavery, women (and children) as chattel, various punishments, and so many more requirements that we no longer follow.
Many years ago, I wrote a paper wherein I described the Declaration of Independence as a biblical document in terms of the book of revelations, i.e. because it describes Britain and King George as the Anti-Christ and in order corresponding terms and descriptions.
No less then, is the Constitution set forth as a moral code, describing how we are to interact and how we are to treat one-another, particularly in our relationship with our government, its relationship with us, and with other governments (states and foreign entities).
I strongly believe, that our founding fathers had no intention of mixing government and religion, because they knew the pitfalls of such an endeavor. One only has to look at Europe and Henry VIII of England and other monarchs before and after him to know how each used the claims of Divine Right to perpetrate horrible acts against their own peoples and peoples of other countries, be it an inquisition (in Spain), or to demand an annulment to marry a mistress, we are all only human, not Divine. Thus, I am always appalled at anyone who claims a Divine right to run for office, or to engage in bad conduct, as if it excuses their behavior and their cloudy (at best) judgment.
If we are truly reading the constitution in its original form, there is no question about the separation between church and state, the limits of the power of the government over its people, and an intended right to privacy and freedom from search and seizure and government intrusion into our lives, be it our doctors offices, our bedrooms, and our choices of who we marry.
I likewise do not understand Libertarians who take the originalist view and cry out over government overreaching, but think it is acceptable for the government to regulate our conversations with our doctors, and who we choose to marry. It is rather hypocritical to me, but no one seems to see it and call out those who espouse these views. Maybe it is time.
Gun Control
In the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting, this topic has been on my mind once again. Something I have thought of for many years, and proposed to Senator Dianne Feinstein about 17 years ago - reasonable, comprehensive, standards for weapons purchases and use. I posed this question after the murders on the Long Island Railroad that launched Rep. Caroline Maloney's career after her husband was killed and son severely injured in that incident.
On this topic, I need to make clear. I am not some left-wing liberal. I have worked in law enforcement and have friends who own guns. I have handled weapons and don't find it odd. I find our obsession with the issue odd, and our refusal to think responsibly about it as odd.
For example, I think we can all agree that a car is an instrumentality of death. But what are we required to do to get our licenses? We take a written test demonstrating we know about safety and the rules of the road. We apply for the driver's license, We take a practical test to get the license, demonstrating we know how to use the car and know safety and the rules of the road. Plus, if you mis-use that vehicle, your license gets removed. Your car can be seized. You get fined and penalized in numerous ways.
What are we required to do to get a gun? Almost nothing. Go through a minimal background check. We do not have to show proficiency. We do not have to demonstrate we know about safety. We do not have to do anything except show the money.
Isn't it just common sense to approach this problem as if it were an automobile? Can't this also be used to assist law enforcement agencies and even the NRA to raise funds? The NRS and local departments can provide the classes and instructions, for a fair price. The local departments can give the written test, for a price. Certified weapons instructors can provide the practical exam, for a price. During this time, numerous people would be observing the participants and if someone is acting inappropriately, or appears mentally unstable, someone will notice, and that person's credentials can be pulled until reviewed by medical professionals. No permit to purchase would be issued until all of these steps are completed.
That is not to say that a mentally unstable person cannot get access to a weapon, but why do we make it so easy?
I recall an interview a few years ago with someone who heads a weapons rights group (not the NRA). The news anchor asked the subject "isn't it true that xxx numbers of children die every year from a gun in the home? I do not recall the number posed, but the subject said, no, it is really closer to 200 children. The interviewer then did not ask the next logical follow-up question "isn't that 200 children too many? Aren't the parents mourning for children that didn't have to die?
So I ask you, how many more people will have to die before we act responsibly? If it was a drunk driver, there would be no question that we would tighten the laws and make the penalties more harsh. But because it is a gun, we stop, afraid of attack by the NRA or other such groups. When does it stop?
Swirling Extremists?
I've been sitting back the last few months watching the world swirling and devolving into insanity. Here are home we continue to demonize each other and have a government so bogged down in rhetoric, it is at a stalemate where none of the nation's very substantial problems can get solved.
The more bizarre the claims made become, the more frightened everyone becomes and nothing gets done. There is no science in any of the claims, or true expert advise and studies, just allegations and claims. Can't we just find some common ground, agree on the issues to get resolved that everyone agrees are the issues, and work toward those common goals? Isn't the point of public service to serve the public and your country, not your party and some corporation?
On the list of major issues:
1. jobs
2. economic growth
3. climate change and world population growth
4. potential water shortages
5. health care
6. senior care of aging population
7. transitioning economy to 2100 so we can gear our education system to those goals
8. the affect of corporate money on elections
9. energy independence
10. our tax structure - meaning where people are paying taxes but corporations are not.
11. Immigration reform - big and difficult issue.
12. How developing economies - specifically China and India - are affecting ours and what do we do about it?
People tell me I should be running for office, but it is too polarizing out there.
I watch what is going on the Middle East and am concerned, feeling as though I live in some Orwellian world where black is white and white is black, or so the government tells us, as they monitor our telephones and internet without warrants. Isn't it all just too big brother? Maybe it is not 1984, but certainly by 2004, we had arrived. We were at war with Afghanistan and then Iraq,but why we were in the wars kept changing. Isn't it all really about the oil?
If we truly believe in spreading democracy, isn't one of the fastest ways is for us to become energy independent, so we are not supporting and propping up petro-dictators?
Weren't we supposed to be the moral leaders of the world and not torture people and show them the way to better living by example, morally, scientifically, personally? Lead by example? What ever happened to that?
I do believe that we have forgotten service to our country and responsibility to others. Perhaps instituting a requirement, as many countries have, that all students, after finishing high school, either serve a term in the military to volunteer for public service for one or two years. Maybe that would hurt colleges in some temporary way, but ultimately, won't it help this country. And we can all agree that we need major help. to find the common ground, get our feet on it, and stop swirling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)