Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

We need a new thread to talk about the current administration, since none of the other threads are really the right place for it. And so here it is.

Came across an interesting essay this morning (act surprised) called "Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism" by Dr. Lawrence Britt, who examined fascist regimes past and present. A quick Googling reveals that it's been republished all over the place, and though I have no idea who Dr. Lawrence Britt is, apart from a political scientist, it's worth looking at.

Of the 14 Characteristics, the Bush administration exhibits at least eight in full, and is showing increasing inclination toward at least five of the remaining six.

And here's a political cartoon for the day:
Click here.

But don't you feel safer?

_________________

Forgive me for not seeing what may be obvious, but could you please list exactly which 8 points the Bush administration exhibits and which 5 they are "leaning" towards?

P.S. Does Godwin's Law apply to a thread that starts out making comparisons to Hitler?

As I've mentioned before, I believe Godwin's law only applies when comparing another poster to Hitler.

Anyway, I've highlighted the ones below that I see very strong evidence of.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections

The only one I can say I haven't really seen evidence of is #10, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Edit: Reading over the list again, I've decided to highlight #2 as well, especially in light of the recent appointment of Alberto Gonzales.

_________________

Gah. All the sudden everybody's jumping on the Nazi train. I wish I could find an article that I read awhile back; the title was something like "Fascism doesn't always look like Hitler". Fascism (in its modern definition) need not have anything to do with holocausts or anti-Semitism or racism or ethnic cleansing or anything like that, necessarily. I don't argue that Bush is like Hitler. I don't even argue that he's a fascist. I just argue that of the items on this list, written by a political scientist, his administration matches a lot of them.

_________________

After reading a lot of stuff here, Slate, and Metafilter (all of which skew leftward), I've wanted to discuss why I voted again for George W. Bush. I thought about writing a post here, but it was going to be so long that I decided it would be best to write it on my blog, and put a link to it. I only discuss a few topics, but they were some of the topics that had a bigger influence on me.

http://www.jaredandaubrey.net/blog/link.php?which=91

I apologize for self-linking, but I figured this would be the most space-efficient way to say this. If a mod disagrees, I can edit this and put the text of my entry here. Oh, and as a primer, I didn't vote for Bush because I hate gays or because I believe that Saddam planned 9/11. Neither of those descriptions apply to me.

I'm thinking this thread would have been a better place for it, but I don't have a problem with it.

From what I can tell, though, your essay doesn't descibe so much why you voted for Bush, but rather why you didn't see enough of a reason to vote against him.

I'd have liked to see you explain your comments on gay marriage better. You say that you don't believe it should be banned because it's sinful and you don't believe banning it it will make America a utopia, but you do think that banning it will make people's lives better. That would imply that you believe gay marriage is somehow inherently harmful to society, but you don't describe how.

Anyway, that discussion would be better conducted in the Gay Marriage thread, so feel free to direct any clarifications that-a-way.

_________________

You make a good point. President Bush hasn't done a whole lot of things that make me want to stand up and say "I wanna see more of that!" I feel that his compromise on stem cell research was a very good decision, probably one of his better actions as President. But I'm not going to say that I felt he has done a spectacular job as president. In fact, this was the election in which I have felt the most wishy-washy about who to vote for. But as I examined the two leading candidates' postions on the issues most important to me, I didn't think Kerry would do a better job with them.

All in all, I guess I'm just a republican who searched for good reasons to support Kerry, but never could find a clincher that would show me that he would reflect my opinions better than Bush would.

I did not support Bush in either election. However, I did appreciate the tax break he gave me back in 2001 (and Kerry claims he only did it for the rich! Bullcrap!). I also appreciated his handling of Afghanistan, as well as his stance on stem cell research. In fact, had it not been for the whole Iraq fiasco, I would have voted for him this year as well.

_________________

Whoa.. you got a tax break? If I may ask.. what is your income range and how much of a break did you get? I didn't know that rich people posted on message boards (forgive me for assuming you're rich.. I may be wrong).

Anyway, I don't think I've even gotten special tax privelages.. I'm proud to pay taxes!! If I made over $200K, then I'd rather pay more than less. I make much, much less than that, and I am really doing okay in general. If I made $500K extra dollars, I wouldn't mind giving another say $300K to the government.. that's still an extra $200K of my very own!

_________________
Hot!

I also got a tax break.. And I am nowhere near close to being rich. Granted, it wasn't a huge one, but I did manage to get about $500.00 (almost all federal, Ernie Fletcher has Kentucky really messed up) more back this past year than the one before it.


I don't agree with you. I don't like paying taxes as it is. I do, because I have to. The money I make should be mine. Looking at my pay stub, I see a city occupational tax (which, interestingly enough, is kinda illegal by state law), state tax, social security, fed tax, yadda, yadda, yadda. I end up paying about 25% of what I make in taxes of some sort, although I do get some of that back in March, still. I hate spending 2 hours out of an 8 hour shift working for the man.

I thought it was hillarious how Kerry was whining about "Tax Breaks for the rich" when his wife more than qualified for those breaks.. I just can't trust anyone who whines about getting a tax break.

That's why I voted libertarian. I don't think I should have to pay for much more than essential government, which is A LOT smaller than democrats and republicans seem to think it is. That's another issue altogether, however.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Everybody got a tax cut, not just the rich people. Rich people got a bigger tax cut that us poor people, but their tax rates are much higher than ours anyways.

From FactCheck.org:

$500 is nice, but that really doesn't pay for much of anything.. I mean, it won't even pay for a month's rent in NYC. If I got an extra $500, I would be happy, but I definitely wouldn't make a big deal of it, or even call it "tax relief".

I get frustrated with the whole frame of taxes being a "burden" that from which American citizens require "relief". Do you enjoy living safety? Having police? Paved roads? Stop signs? Public education? Firemen? Healthcare? Numerous other programs? Or perhaps you are a fan of a very strong army with all the latest weapons and technology? Where do you think the money for all of that comes from? It comes from all of us.

And I think that people with more money should pay for more of that. Why should the richest be allowed to keep more of their money while the working class people are forced to provide for them? By that chart racerx posted, it appears that the poorest Americans will get about (say 1% * $50,000 =) $500 extra tax returns, and that's assuming they make $50K, which isn't necessarily so likely.

Whereas the richest 1% will make around %7 * (let's waay underestimate and say just $2mil) = $140,000 tax cut. Let's compare. $500 for poor people. $140,000 for rich people (but probably a whole lot more). Looks like Bush is REALLY looking out for everyone's best interest.

_________________
Hot!

Here's another similar chart from the same place, but instead of using Middle 20% etc... it uses thousands of dollars as reported to the IRS. It should help make it easier to calculate how much income brackets are actually paying in taxes.



I think your conservative $50,000 for the poorest Americans is quite generous. I think anything between $40000 to $80000 puts you smack dab in the middle of the middle class. The poorest americans make quite a bit less than that.

And by these numbers, lets say you make 2 million. Before the cuts, you paid $602,000 in taxes. Now you pay around $514,000. So that's around $88,000 less. So now those people have had a tax cut that is larger than most of the middle class's salarly. Now maybe you think that that is too big of a cut for the rich. But they are still paying over $500k just in taxes. That means they pay 100 times as much in taxes as a person who only makes $50,000 dollars. Are these rich people getting 100 times as much government services? They are paying more money for services that they receive in equal proportion to everyone else.

Do I think that everyone should pay the same amount in taxes? Like a flat tax? No I don't. I think this unfairness in the tax code is just a fact of life, and necessary for our government to keep functioning. But if they try to even it out a little bit, I think that's just fine.

I appreciate you picking up the slack on my calculations.. your statement sounds a lot tighter since you put in actual amounts and not just guesswork (like I did). So the rich are paying over $500K in taxes. That means that they are still walking home at the end of the year with over $1,400,000 post-tax. Middle class people can somehow survive off of just $80,000 or less, pre-tax.

Who needs that much money? What are the rich people going to do with all that money that's so important? It would be one thing if they were investing it in jobs and stimulating the economy, but most just sit on it or put it into random fancy doo-dads [[my opinion]].

I can understand hard-working Americans getting upset with taxes when a difference in tax percentages can mean the difference between doing laundry and eating out vs hand-washing all your clothes and cooking all your food, but when you are making over $200K/year, you're not going to suffer AT ALL, even if you get taxed 50% of your income.

And in terms of 100x gov't services.. there does seem to be a larger police force and better public schools in richer towns.. and I don't have facts but I feel they get other special benefits--

_________________
Hot!

Remember the U.S. intelligence community? Say your last goodbyes, it's going out the window. President Bush has ordered Porter Goss to purge the CIA of officers "disloyal" to the President, as well as "liberal Democrats."



That's right. If you work at the CIA right now and have the courage to say "things are going poorly in Iraq, Mr. President", you can kiss your job goodbye. Bush only wants people who will tell him what he wants to hear, and twist the truth until it turns blue and makes the disaster that is the War on Iraq look like an Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn.

38 of our soldiers have died in Fallujah in the past 6 days. We're only half way through the month and as many of our soldiers have already died in Iraq as in any of the past six months. We're right on track for this to be the bloodiest month of the entire war, even though major combat operations "ended" more than 18 months ago. The marines themselves don't believe taking Fallujah will reduce the violence in Iraq. The military is calling up arthritic soldiers who fulfilled their obligation to the United States more than a decade ago, telling them that their time in the Marine Corps doesn't count as military service.

There is nothing wrong with the light bulb.

_________________

The year I got that tax break, I made about $22,000. The tax break was about $300, but that was $300 I could use at the time. This year, I will only be making about $19,000 (mostly because of an unpaid internship I took as part of my pastoral care training--that was at the Jefferson Barracks VAMC). I'm pretty much living proof that clergy pretty much don't make big bucks.

The false assumption built into Kerry's argument was that Bush TARGETED rich people for a tax break. This was simply not true. The rich already pay a hugely disproportionate amount of our nation's taxes, so it stands to reason that, if there is any tax break at all, they stand to benefit the most.

About the CIA: What was it you said about Fascism, IJ? It's starting to sound more credible than ever, all of a sudden.

_________________

And it gets better. More about our new friend (or should I say Big Brother?) Alberto Gonzales from the Editor & Publisher:



Make sure the public knows as little as possible about their President and what he's up to? Check.

_________________

And to think, most of the GOP's commercials are about KERRY being the irresponsible one.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

Aw, crap! Here we go again:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041120/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran

_________________

I know I'm joining this a bit late, but you know I rarely come around the forums (most of the threads I do participate in, I do because I'm still subscribed to them). I take issue with this part of the blog:



The problem is that the general public isn't necessarily the most important thing here. Yes, there is the adage that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. However the needs of the few here are much, much stronger than any "needs" of the many (I'd argue that there aren't any applicable needs here in the first place). Let me put it to you this way. The general public would be better off if we didn't bother with things like giving food and shelter to the poor -- the impoverished certainly aren't representative of the "general public", and programs designed to help them take resources away from that general public. Yet we look out for them because we recognize that their need for food and shelter outweighs our need for the resources we expend in giving it to them.

That food and shelter are necessary to survive and marriage to someone you love is not necessary to survive is irrelevant. I think everybody has a right to them. Moreover, I fail to see how denying marriage to homosexuals strengthens "traditional marriage" in any way, so I again think we're ignoring the needs of the few in favor of the non-existent needs of the many. Doesn't sound very fair to me.

* * * * *

I don't think we're gonna go invading Iran (if we do, the public will likely gather into a freaking huge mob, kill a bunch of Secret Service agents, and lynch Bush), but I do think it is staggeringly tactless for the government to go "OMG Iran is making teh WMDs!!!11one" right after the election -- or at all, really, but especially after the election.

Then again, that they mention it at all worries me. I'm beginning to think I'm living in the wrong country.

- Kef

considering the American public just elected a president who started one war under false pretenses, I'm not about to put too much faith in that.

of course, if there just happens to be an attack on the US by Iran next year (not that that would ever happen), then there's all the justification they need to go to war again.

I don't think Iran's likely to start a war with us. Heck, we just kicked the everloving snot out of one of their historic rivals (Iraq). If they were trying to produce weapons at all, it would mainly be because they are worried that other nations (including the US) are likely to attack them.

The point is that we falsely accused Iraq, started a war without adequate provocation, overthrew their government, and tried to impose our own government and culture on them. And now we are making essentially the same accusation against Iran. And keep in mind, Iran was part of W's "axis of evil." Their next on the list of countries Bush wants destroyed. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but now all I'm left with is doubt and no benefit to it.

_________________

I don't think many people support the war anymore. The public seems pretty disillusioned about that by now. Starting a second war while people are still dying from "cleaning up" after the first is just madness. I don't think anybody would support that.

- Kef

About that fascist thing. The political scientist is using opinion on Bush's part, left-wing opinion mind you. So atleast 51% of country doesn't buy that.

I can't vote yet. But I would have voted for Bush hands down. He's better then the intern-chasing, triangulating Clinton, and would have been better than the hippie tree-hugging nutjob Al Gore. He has turned out to be a great president, and I look forward to four more years.

As for 2008, I hope America doesn't pick that socialist Hillary the Beast. There can be much speculation as to whom would be the best Republican, and hopefully conservative, candidate, but we can really start talking too seriously until late 2007.

Hmm, let's dissect this one.

• Accuse academic, who doesn't even mention Bush or the GOP, of being leftist and therefore not worthy of consideration
• Inexplicably bring up Clinton and Gore, who have had next to nothing to do with American politics for the past 4 years
• Randomly insult Clinton, Gore, and Clinton, just for good measure, even though nobody else had so much as mentioned them previously
• Drastically misjudge the success of Bush's first term
• Post with signature which suggests that at least some teens are environment-abhorring, war-loving neocons who have an entirely reactionary, wrong-headed conception of progressive politics.

Well, at least nobody will accuse you of being atypical amongst wingers.

_________________

The question isn't whether he would make a better president than Clinton or Gore. The question is whether he would make a better president than Kerry. Kerry strikes me as a thoughtful, intelligent man. A bit too leftist on some issues...

Environmentalism - what's wrong with wanting a clean environment? If you want to live in a world where the atmosphere is a toxic fume, the water poisonous, and the land choked by litter and garbage, well, I can't say much to that. I believe that as sensible people we need to protect our environment. Does that make me a tree-hugger? No, just a thoughtful, intelligent person who cares about this creation we live in.

War - and what's wrong with hating war? And this is coming from a typically conservative veteran of the US Air Force from the period of the First Gulf War. As St. Augustine said, it is the sad duty of righteous men that they must sometimes fight wars for just causes. Afghanistan was a just war. They were aiding and abetting the people who attacked us. The First Gulf War was just. They had attacked one of our allies.

The current Gulf War is not just. We pulverized their nation, destroyed their infrastructure and economy, and overthrew their government. Why? Because we thought they MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction. Did they? No. Our grounds for invasion in this scenario were entirely unfounded.

I am normally conservative on most issues. Fiscally, I think government is too irresponsible to handle all of life's problems. I also happen to be strongly pro-life. I just don't believe that attacking a foreign nation without provocation fits very well in my pro-life convictions.

On the plus side, it looks as though the situation with Iran has worked itself out. They've agreed to stop producing high-grade uranium.

_________________

Here's something that's starting to concern me: all of the people working for Bush are all of a sudden resigning. I wonder if this is a sign.

_________________

Media spin seems to be saying that it's natural for cabinet switchups during second terms. Is this true? It struck me as quite odd as well.. although I actually thought Condi was going to retire, so it's funny to me that she ended up with an even bigger position.

_________________
Hot!