Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, 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 (Land of the Free), slogans (Axis of Evil), symbols (yellow ribbons), songs (usually sung by Toby Keith), and other paraphernalia (bumperstickers). Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. Putting a flag on your car is literally the least you can do. What exactly does it accomplish? Is a blind show of support really a good idea? Shouldn't we be posting questions on our cars instead?
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. We're already pretty aware of the Abu Grab prison scandal and what's going on down at Guantanamo Bay. We've discussed the Patriot Act. Why are we allowing these things to happen without discussion or complaint? What else do you think is coming? Are there things we don't know about yet?
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. We've declared a War on Terror even though we know it's impossible to defeat all of the terrorists. We're choosing villains like Saddam Hussein even though they may not be a threat. We're ignoring other possible enemies for no apparent reason. Liberals are seen as irrational because they disagree.
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. In the beginning of the war extra funding was given to the military and veteran services. Even with that funding, it still wasn't enough to get armored vehicles for the troops. Domestic issues have been largely ignored, though there are slogans to support them. Funding is lacking for education, health care, and social security. Soldiers like Jessica Lynch are glorified.
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. The government is still male-dominated. Gender-roles are pretty rigid though we tend to pretend they're not. The First Lady has stepped out of the forefront and disappeared behind her husband. Legislation against homosexuals has been threatened, though it hasn't gone through yet. Women's rights are compromised and people who have abortions are vilified.
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. Reports have been shown on National TV that have been written and produced by the government, yet there were no disclaimers on the report. All media outlets are owned by a few companies or individuals which limits content. Superficial stories like the Runaway Bride are shown rather than important world events. Uproars are created over what people think should be censored, especially language expression.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. Constant and vague security alerts promote fear, as does the reminded that Osama bin Laden is still at large. (When we have him, what is the point of being in Afghanistan?) A color-coded security check has been implemented and over-used. Reports abound about the unsafe conditions of trains and chemical plants. TV shows like 24 are shown that revolved around terrorism. Silly security measures are taken at airports, such as a ban on certain objects and not others.
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. The current President makes mention of religion and religious issues more than others. Faith-Based initiatives are put in motion. The President interferes in legislation on the behalf of religious issues. Non-Christians grow weary of persecution and seek to remove religious symbols from government. Social issues and debate hinge on religious doctrine.
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. Environmental protections are lifted in the interest of helping corporations. There are ax-protections for the wealthy. Corporate leaders are prosecuted and sometimes convicted but serve light sentences, certainly not befitting their crime. The President and Vice-President have obvious it's with large corporations and favor them in the bidding process for government jobs.
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. Teacher's unions in some states are non-existent, a Wal-Mart closed its doors because an employee tried to unionize. Working-class people are shown little respect and are often the most burdened with taxes, health care costs, tuition charges, and gas prices.
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. Censorship has arisen in the media. Intelligent people are attacked for disagreeing with the government. In fact, some officials state in no uncertain terms that the arguments of people who disagree aren't valid because, "they just don't like us." Teachers are mistreated, education funding is cut, and arts programs are almost non-existent. The importance of discussion and debate are minimalized.
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. The Department of Homeland Security has almost unlimited power. For the rest, see #3.
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. President Bush has surrounded himself with people who agree. Those that changed their minds between administrations are fired, publicly humiliated, and discredited.
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. We don't know the full extent of this yet, and maybe we never will, but elections in Florida the first time around were obviously fraudulent. Only President Bush knows what happened with Ohio this time. Groups supporting the President put out advertisements shredding competitors, even if what is said is incorrect.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Why do people get jumpy when lines are drawn that the Bush regime has some elements and policies that could be classed as neo-facism? It matters little who the source is, as a definitive definition on what makes facism is unworkable and much of what is pointed out as a Bush regime 'version' of facism is viable commentary on the government.
Anon, there are no facts, much is opinion and spin on incidents that we were not present at. Take your Wal-Mart comment, you believe that denial of the right to form a union is a free-market issue whereas I see it as a disgusting act of personal restriction that belies the crass, greedy money grabbing of major corporations.
Guat Bay could easily be called a gulag because it is! By any dictionary definition.
Bravo I say!
Perhaps if ALL people who belonged to unions were good employees with integrity, I would agree with you on the union thing. I have a friend whose husband is a union worker. He is a very hard worker and he's worth every penny of what he's being paid.
However, I have people I'm ashamed to say are relatives who did as little as possible at work, because they belonged to a union and knew how to hang really close to the line where they could not be fired. They abused the system for at least a decade, retired with fat pensions, all the while complaining that their annual raises were too small.
Hmmm. I think GREED is a bigger problem in our society. On both the corporate end and the individual level. If only we could get back to a place where people had pride in themselves, and not just their money.
how did we get side tracked onto unions? this post was about creeping fascism. A number of us have been talking about this for months.
It is hard to look at the record of this administration and argue that it doesn't have elements of an anti democratic philosophy. From Abu Gahrib to Gitmo to coopting religious organizations to attempting to stack the board at the non partisan CPB.
People who compare Bush to Hitler or Mussolini are dead wrong however. Fujimore or Pinochet would be better examples.
This is a list of items that constitute facism as reported from Dr. Britt, from what I gather, and not an explanation by pc.
Thank you for reprintng this article here.
Creeping facism sounds like a death metal album.
First, I deleted several comments, and I will tell you why. This is my site. I will decide what is up to my level of discourse. If I post something you disagree with, feel free to comment, but I will not tolerate being chastized because you do not agree with what I feel is important to post.
Second, the post is titled, "Characteristics of Fascim" not "Facts of Fascism". Dr. Britt is in italics, my comments are not. If you want to comment on one of those, feel free. If not, move on to another post, but again, do not presume to tell me what my level of discourse is and how I should be commenting. I am a write, this is my site, and I will do as I please. No discussion.
Finally, I really am interested in what people think about these. If you want to explain why you disagree, please do so, but don't simply dismiss Dr. Britt's arguments because you disagree. Tell me why you disagree. Tell me how we're not becoming Fascist. Discussion is the key. No one is going to agree with you if you just say, "You're wrong." My response: "I may be wrong, but you're an asshole." (Sorry, kids) This is a place of learning. I will not tolerate here what I will not tolerate in my classroom.
Daniel,
People ge jumpy because they cannot handle information hat questions their beliefs, usually that happens when the people they disagree with are right. A lot of President Bush's policies could be considered neo-fascist, and I think that is the idea Dr. Britt is drawing from. I have listed some reasons why I agree with him, in the interest of opening up discussion.
Anon,
It's true, not all people who belong to unions are good employees. That is a problem that needs to be addressed when people are being hired, and there needs to be some adjustment in union contracts, but that doesn't mena we should eliminate unions. I'm a teacher and an excellent employee. In PA, a union state, I was paid a livable wage, had excellent health benefits, berievement leave, and incredible professional development opportunities. In Florida, my pay is a joke, the benefits are attrocious, if my sister dies I'll have to take sick days, and the professional development, while offered, is sub-par. Unions are important when professions or employees aren't respected.
GWB,
Hitler seems to be our country's go-to guy when it comes to fascism, but there have been hundreds of fascist regimes, and Hitler only ranks in the middle when looking at attrocities committed.
PC, I am sorry that you saw fit to delete my comments, but I felt that I was well within the restrictions of good taste. I did not mean to offend, but I clearly did. It does, however, strike me as ironic, since my dismissal was simply a compliment to what is usually on this website. I did not use crass or foul language, I did not belittle anybody--in fact, I simply pointed out exactly what you have always said: Questioning what you read and what you hear is an important part of any democracy.
And as for moving on if I don't agree, it seems that HOW one posts is just as imporant as WHAT one posts.
In the end, however, I apparently did offend and for that, I am sorry. That was not my intent.
Mr. Hoffman-Gill--Good comments on the post. I have to say that I personally agree with the money-grabbing thesis, but I simply could not agree with that being a signal of fascism.
Oh, and it is a good lesson in the first amendment that we discuss so often. By deleting my post, PC, exercised her PRIVATE right to restrict my freedom of speech. Who would complain that my rights were violated? They were not. The same goes for private companies who place restrictions on what employees can or cannot do (at will). German courts struck down a Wal-Mart restriction on inter-Wal-Mart dating since it violated their Grundgesetz...but it does not violate the U.S. Constitution
Ok, I am going to sheepishly retreat from this post, lick my wounds, get over the fact that I was (indirectly) called an asshole by a school teacher who wants open discourse, and live to post another day.
Just to give Dr. Britt his full due, here is the complete text, along with his notes and sources. This way, we can all check for ourselves. As for me, I would retract my statement, as I have now been able to hit the library and check his sources. We can also see here the exact regimes he is referencing (Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Chile) and that provides us a better ability as readers to critically analyse the information we are being given. And I may get removed for this comment, but you can see the problem with cutting and pasting is that you don't always get all the information. For example, his name is spelled "Laurence" so when putting in "Lawrence Britt" you don't get the relevant hits. More to the point, doing a search for him on LexisNexis Academic, Left Index, BiblioLine, or any of the resources I used yesterday back at my grad school library does not bring up any Dr. Britt. Nowhere does he show up as having a Ph.D. other publications, or a job as a teacher. Now, I could not care less if somebody has a degree--that does not make their writing better or worse. It does, however, get to the point that I made in my delted post--simply picking something up on the web and putting it up on the site without any due dilligence, seems counterprodctive to the goal we all seem to be working towards here. "Dr." Britt is a novelist who has done his homework and written an interesting piece.
The more information we have, and the more we question what is out there, the better off we will be.
PC, please don't dump this post, because I mean it absolutely in a positive way. I love the discourse here and I would hate to get the boot just because I did my homework.
So, here it is from the Spring 2003 issue of Free Inquiry, Mr. Britt's article.
-------------------------------
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Note
1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
References
Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Britt’s novel, June, 2004, depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists.
Hi Everyone. Sorry I'm late to the party.
Well this is very interesting. I've been too busy with my own blogs to really dig in this time. But now that I've had the opportunity to look over all of this, I am fascinated by it.
I will agree that the Bush administration may have the beginnings of facism, though we aren't there yet. This is something that I've been discussing with friends and on blogs for many months, even years (now that I think about it).
The only thing that I disagree with, Polanco, is your comment on #5. I think the First Lady should take a back seat. She is not an elected official. And when we have our first female President, I would hope that the First Gentleman would sit down and shut up, too.
But as for a return of sexism, I think it is highly interesting that there is an increasing trend for married women to give up their maiden names once more. So, I do believe that there are indicators.
Incidentally, Polanco, where have you been? I haven't seen much of you out there.
Another topic for another blog, Saurkraut - but I wanted to say that I am one married woman who was happy to take my husband's last name. I think it promotes unity in the family as well as some other things. My identity is not tied to my FATHER's name, it's attached to me, no matter what I call myself.
Anonymous,
I think it promotes unity in the family
Yes, but in whose family? Why not create unity by having him take yours?
And, as you pointed out, your identity is not attached to your father's name. Isn't it sad that it isn't your parents' names? And your father's name was also shared by many others in your family.
Why is it important that the female gives up her name? Unless, of course, the female is inferior and her name insignificant.
Anon,
I copied and pasted because it was something I wanted to comment on and I thought other people may be interested in. Thank you for doing more research and posting it. As I have said before, research and discussion are always welcome. I would have deleted only part of your post, but that's not possible. I, too, apologize for offending, but I get a little bit cranky when criticized - something I need to work on. Thanks for sticking around, and my asshole comment was meant for Underground, and it seems he was aware of that. I have had other issues with him lately and I made things a little personal.
Saur,
My husband's band has their first major gig next Saturday - I'll give you time and place through email if you're interested. As designated Band Wife, that has kept me a little busy lately.
I understand what you mean by the First Lady taking a back seat. I really needed a better way to describe it. She's been almost invisible, and in her position, she really should chose a cause and use her power to help it. The name thing is a great indicator. I took my husband's, but it was something I thought about for a while. My dad had only girls, and my husband and I discussed him taking my name.
PC, never a problem. I probably went a little over the line, too, but I just like to be sure when we are discussing something, we get the full context. I think commenting on it was a good idea, and clearly it generated a lot of discussion--some good, some bad, but all worthwhile.
As I posted with the Patriot Act discussion, what is important is that, when we argue, we deal with all the facts we can muster, and then begin to argue. Like you always say, questioning is the key!
Good luck to your husband and his band! I am learning guitar right now, and it is hard, but since my favorite music is crappy 80's hair metal (Def Leppard, Poison, etc) I am having a great time!
Saur and PC--My fiancee is not taking my last name. She is in a family with only girls, and she really likes her last name. I have no problem with it. I agree that it is everybody's choice to take what last name they feel comfortable with. If people call her Mrs. MyLastName, she will not be upset, but she wants to keep her name also because of that is the name in which she is making her way in the this world.
Oh, and I think that L. Bush's issue is libraries and reading. She has done a lot internationally with Sesame Street and stuff and she has raised lots of money for libraries.
Polanco,
YAY! You and I may know many of the same people. I have very musical friends in the area. PLEASE let me know about his gig. We'll go!
I understand taking your husband's name, by the way. I would be doing just as great a wrong to say that a woman shouldn't take her husband's name as it would be to insist that she should.
However, I think that couples need to openly discuss all name options and the man should in no way discourage the woman from keeping her own name.
Good for you, Mr. Anonymous! You are viewing the name game with judicious balance.
One of my girl friends had a beautiful last name, and literally married a John Smith. He took her last name, and counted himself lucky.
The Fisrt Lady hasn't done nearly enough with libraries or reading. Ask a librarian or reading teacher. I wonder if it's because it would draw attenion to the state our education system is really in.
You know, Polanco, that would make a very interesting blog. "What Would Your Pet Cause be if You Were First Lady or First Gentleman?"
And what can your pet cause be? What's socially acceptable? What if a First Gentleman wants his pet cause to be a charity that is attempting to legalize prostitution, for instance? Many presidents and their entourages get all starry eyed when it comes to celebs. So perhaps a First Spouse could sponsor a charity for Retirement Homes for Aging Rockstars!
I'll have to think about what MY pet charity would be...
OK, I've been thinking about the pet projects that *I* would do if I were First Lady or First Gentleman:
1. lobbying to increase the ease of adoption, and decrease the costs (both nationally and internationally)
2. lobbying to get money away from Africa and spent on our own homeless here
3. lobbying to stop illegal immigration. I would love to rant about the money-hungry businesses that are trampling all over the American worker
How's that for a start, Laura Bush? OK, so your husband wouldn't be thrilled with any of it (except, perhaps #1), but you would earn the respect of many Americans as being a unique individual with her own value.
1. Education
2. Eduation
3. Literacy
Bush's Invitation-Only Speech Riles Crowd in Montgomery
Opponents of President, Social Security Plan Block Traffic
By Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005; A08
President Bush visited Montgomery Blair High School yesterday for a town hall-style meeting to discuss his plan to partially privatize Social Security -- an appearance that drew about 400 protesters outside the Silver Spring school.
The loudest voices came from some Montgomery County residents and Blair students who questioned why they were not allowed inside. They were kept far from the president, but their shouts and beating drums could be heard by some of the 500 invitees waiting to pass through security.
Although Montgomery police officers tried to confine them to one area, many of the demonstrators broke away and briefly disrupted traffic on University Boulevard. "I feel like he's kind of trespassing," said Katie Frank, 16, who will be a Blair senior next school year. "He should know we don't support him."
Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said blocks of tickets were distributed to several nonprofit organizations, including Young America's Foundation, which selected the individuals who received them. The event was organized by the National Retirement Planning Coalition, a financial industry and advocacy group. Comedian and author Ben Stein, a Blair alumnus, is the group's honorary chairman.
Duffy said he did not know if any of those invited were county residents. "Once we give the tickets to the organizations, the White House doesn't ask for residency information," he said.
Bush said the Montgomery meeting and similar events across the country are important opportunities for him to explain his plan, which would give workers a chance to divert some payroll taxes to private investment accounts.
Bush said the system should be improved for younger workers, giving them "the ability, if they so choose, to take some of their money -- after all, it's your money in the payroll taxes -- and set it aside in what we call a voluntary personal savings account. . . . I like the idea of giving somebody a chance to build a nest egg that the government can't spend."
U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a possible candidate for Senate next year, joined County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) and state Sen. Ida G. Rubin (D-Montgomery) at a news conference outside the school to speak out against Bush's Social Security plan. Duncan is expected to run for governor.
Van Hollen said Bush should return to the school in the fall to talk to Blair students. "The president has very carefully scripted these meetings," he said after the news conference.
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo and Iraq, Afghanistan: UN source
GENEVA (AFP) - Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.
The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.
The US mission to the UN institutions in Geneva was unavailable for comment on the report late Friday..
"They are no longer trying to duck this, and have respected their obligation to inform the UN," the Committee member told AFP, adding that the US described the incidents as "isolated acts" carried out by low-ranking members of the military who were being punished.
"They will have to explain themselves" to the committee, the member said. "Nothing should be kept in the dark."
UN sources said it was the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.
The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.
Signatories of the convention are expected to submit to scrutiny of their implementation of the 1984 convention and to provide information to the Committee.
The document from Washington will not be formally made public until the hearings.
"They haven't avoided anything in their answers, whether concerning prisoners in Iraq, in Afghanistan or Guantanamo, and other accusations of mistreatment and of torture," the Committee member said.
"They said it was a question of isolated cases, that there was nothing systematic and that the guilty were in the process of being punished."
The US report said that those involved were low-ranking members of the military and that their acts were not approved by their superiors, the member added.
The US has faced criticism from UN human rights experts and international groups for mistreatment of detainees -- some of whom died in custody -- in Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly during last year's prisoner abuse scandal surrounding the Abu Ghraib facility there.
Scores of US military personnel have been investigated, and several tried and convicted, for abuse of people detained during the US-led campaign against Islamic terrorist groups.
At the Guantanamo Bay naval base, a US toehold in Cuba where around 520 suspects of some 40 nationalities are held, allegations of torture have combined with other claims of human rights breaches.
The US has faced widespread criticism for keeping the Guantanamo detainees in a "legal black hole," notably for its refusal to grant them prisoner of war status and allegedly sluggish moves to charge or try them.
Washington's report to the Committee reaffirms the US position that the Guantanamo detainees are classed as "enemy combatants," and therefore do not benefit from the POW status set out in the Geneva Conventions, the Committee member said.
Four UN human rights experts on Thursday slammed the United States for stalling on a request to allow visits to terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, and said they planned to carry out an indirect probe of conditions there.
So where's the news? The AFP has unnamed sources? US officials unavailable for comment?
I've just wandered into your blog a couple of days ago. You have subjects that interest me, but I must say, this particular post is a little unnerving. Especially when you delete comments you don't like. Wow! A little heavy handed. But hey, this is your "blog-country;" you can rule it however. But if you're interested in a little constructive criticism from a little "hobbit" like me, you are illustrating the actions and attitudes you are condemning.
In most other ways, though, your blog is quite invigorating!
Frodo - Just read this. You're right, in some ways, I was being fascist by deleting some comments. Since you didn't see them, you don't really know what was in them. I censor my blog the same way I censor my students, there is to be no name-calling or remarks about one's mother. Personal attacks are not permitted. General childishness is not allowed. I delete only comments that are rude and malicious to others. I never delete anything because I don't like someone's opinion, as evidenced by the many comments present that I wholeheartedly disagree with but leave up anyway.
Post a Comment