THE "Y" ARTICLE
The Pentagon's secret plan to slash its own budget.
As appeared in www.foreignpolicy.com The online site for Foreign Policy Magazine
BY JOHN NORRIS | APRIL 13, 2011
The report places considerable emphasis on the importance of achieving a more sustainable approach to security, energy, agriculture, and the environment. Again, it is important to stress that this narrative was penned by senior military thinkers, not the Sierra Club. The simple fact is that any clear-eyed analysis pretty quickly comes to the same conclusion: The United States has established an incentive system that just doesn't make any sense. It continues to pour tens of billions of dollars into agricultural and oil subsidies every single year even as these subsidies make the gravity of the environmental, health, and land-use problems the country faces in the future ever graver. As the report argues, America cannot truly practice the use of "smart power" until it practices "smart growth" at home. While some may be quick to argue that the Pentagon should not be considering issues like smart growth and investments in America's youth, this goes to another key point from the authors: America won't get its approach to policy right if it leaves foreign policy and domestic policy in tidy little silos that ignore the interconnection between the two.
The paper argues persuasively that the tendency of Americans to broadly label the rest of the world has been hugely counterproductive. The authors point out that the tendency over the last decade by some Americans to view all Muslims as terrorists has made it more difficult to marginalize genuine extremism, while alienating vast swaths of the global Muslim community. In a world where credibility is so central to America's national interest and reach around the globe, the overheated domestic debate about the war on terror has never served it very well.
Lastly, the narrative makes a clarion call for America to look forward, not back, in today's interconnected world:
And yet with globalization, we seem to have developed a strange apprehension about the efficacy of our ability to apply the innovation and hard work necessary to successfully compete in a complex security and economic environment. Further, we have misunderstood interdependence as a weakness rather than recognizing it as a strength. The key to sustaining our competitive edge, at home or on the world stage, is credibility -- and credibility is a difficult capital to foster. It cannot be won through intimidation and threat, it cannot be sustained through protectionism or exclusion. Credibility requires engagement, strength, and reliability -- imaginatively applied through the national tools of development, diplomacy, and defense.
The budget deal over the weekend lopped $8 billion off of funding for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Defense spending was left untouched. Congress doesn't seem to have gotten the wake-up call.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
HAPPY EARTH DAY, EVERYONE. THANKS BP.... One Year later, and the Effects are Still Being Tallied
One year after BP's Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, the number of lawsuits against the oil giant continues to mount.
Ryan Lambert is enraged.
The owner of a charter fishing business, he had always supported the oil industry in his home state of Louisiana.
He previously trusted BP, and the rest of the oil industry, to do the right thing in case an accident happened. But not any more. "I'm seeing people starving to death and BP won't pay them," said Lambert.
His business drop of 94 per cent in the last year has cost him more than $1.1mn, he told Al Jazeera, "They won't pay me, they owe me well over a million dollars just for last year, and all they do is send more papers to fill out."
He continued:
They know what they did is wrong and they still won't pay me. I'm done playing their games. All they are doing is starving people out and trying to get them to take the one-time $25,000 payment and give up their right to sue. I know thousands of people in the fishing industry, and I don't know one person who has been made whole yet.
In the aftermath of BP's disaster that began on April 20 of last year, the oil giant promised those whose livelihoods had been damaged that they would be made "whole" and fully compensated for their losses.
On June 1, 2010, upon the announcement that they were instituting a $20bn compensation fund to do this, BP board chairman Henric Svanberg stated: "[President Obama] is frustrated because he cares about the small people, and we care about the small people. I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don't care, but that is not the case in BP. We care about the small people."
Lambert vehemently disagrees.
"I want the entire country to know, you cannot trust what BP or [what] the oil industry promises you. I'm most definitely taking up litigation against BP," he added.
Lambert is not alone.
The Centre for Biological Diversity (CBD) is a group that uses the law to protect the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive. CBD has an unparallelled record of legal successes, with 93 per cent of their lawsuits having resulted in favourable outcomes. And, now they are suing BP for $19bn.
"We have sued them under the Clean Water Act," Kieran Suckling, the executive director and founder of the CBD told Al Jazeera. "The way the Act works is it levies a fine based on the number of gallons [of oil] spilled and how malicious or criminal BP was acting when the spill occurred. So a big part of the suit is about determining how many barrels were spilled, and BP's level of negligence."
Suckling explained that, depending on BP's level of negligence, the fine they face per barrel of oil released into the Gulf of Mexico, "could range from $1,300 to $4,300 per barrel if they are found criminally negligent."
CBD believes BP released 5.5 million barrels of oil, and is awaiting the official estimate from the federal government, which has not been released yet.
Environmental effects
This March, US interior secretary Kenneth Salazar approved the first deep water drilling exploration plan since BP's disaster, giving Shell Offshore the go-ahead to drill three exploration wells in water 2,950 feet deep, after his department's environmental assessment plan found there was "no possibility of significant environmental effects".
Prior to this, CBD, GRN, the Natural Resources Defence Council, and the Sierra Club filed a formal notice of intent to sue Salazar for ignoring marine-mammal protection laws when approving offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf.
CBD has already filed suit against Salazar for concluding that oil drilling poses no possible risk of significant environmental effects. Furthermore, for failing to assess possible impacts on the Gulf of Mexico's endangered whales and sea turtles, his continued approval of offshore drilling plans in the Gulf without environmental review, and for his withholding emails, phone logs, and meeting notes documenting his interactions with oil-industry lobbyists since he became secretary of the interior.
About the suit CBD is preparing to file against Salazar for ignoring marine mammal protection laws when approving offshore oil and gas activities in the gulf, Suckling is blunt:
In the wake of the beginning of BP's disaster last year, it became apparent the Obama administration has not followed the Endangered Species Act, among other laws, so despite claims they've reformed the agency, they are still not following these Acts or the National Policy Act. So it's business as usual with a little window dressing. They are still not obeying the law.
For the entire story as written by Dahr Jahmall, see Aljazeera In Depth "BP's Criminal Negligence Exposed"
When All Reason Fails to Reach These Guys,...... What's the Solution? They're Not Listening to Our Voices.....
Somebody once told me that violence never solved anything. I'm starting to disagree..
A friend of mine's sister came here from Belgium for a visit with her family and friends. She was born here, but moved many years ago. One of the things that struck me was something she said while we were grazing the issue of politics during the conversation. She said that people in Belgium can't understand why we don't revolt. Her question... "What's it going to take before the people of this country wake up and start a revolution?" It is a question I've been asking myself... a lot lately.
Every day we are being undermined by our own government. Our "Democracy", of which we have been so proud, is an idyllic memory that we just can't seem to let go of. The truth is, it's dead. It was replaced while we were resting on our laurels, with an evil empire of Fascism. It didn't happen overnight, but it happened never the less. Slowly the power of corporations became the voice of our representatives, and the voice of the people was stifled until it was listened to no more.
So what will it take to awaken the sedentary populace? We know they're armed. We know they're out there. What will be the straw that breaks the Camel's back? Where's the dedicated extremists that we used to be in the sixties. Have we all grown too old and too comfortable? They're coming after us in our old age, now. They killed the dream then, and they're trying to kill it now.
......WE HAVE TO STOP THEM!......
Monday, April 18, 2011
15 TAX EVADERS MAKING HUGE PROFITS AT OUR EXPENSE.
IF THIS DOESN'T PISS YOU OFF, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
UNVEILING FRENCH HYPOCRISY......
This article is from Al Jazeer, written by Mohammad Kahn
Forcing women to uncover their faces will not create some form of 'moderate Islam' but it does unveil French bigotry.
Nicolas Sarkozy's government is implementing a ban on wearing the face veil in public [EPA]
In one of my earlier pieces on the Arab revolutions (Tunisia's tide of defiance), I cautioned those brave souls risking life and limb for the cause of freedom in the Arab world to "beware the French" by being vigilant against their "behind the scenes machinations and manoeuvrings".
Remarkably, my fear of French deceit has been realised far quicker than I imagined. After first colonising and then propping up for decades some of the worst despots in North Africa with economic, financial and political support, the French government found itself wrong-footed by the overthrow of Tunisia's long-running autocrat Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
Let us not forget that just days before Ben Ali was deposed in January, French officials - in the form of the now discredited former foreign minister Michele Alliot-Marie - offered the Tunisian regime security assistance in quelling the protests, while the same officials were making merriment in Tunisia on private holidays paid for by Ben Ali's cronies.
To quote again from my previous article: "How often are the French wont to proclaim liberté, égalité, fraternité as their most fundamental values? As far as French policy in North Africa is concerned, we may add another: Fallacy." As recent events have unfolded, however, I admit that I erred by overlooking one more very official French value: Hypocrisy.
In an effort not to be completely left behind by the massive political convulsions currently shaking the Middle East region, French political cunningness has been on ample display recently under the guise of offering French support to downtrodden Arab populations. At the receiving end of French ire have been the forces of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya. The French political and military establishment has been desperately trying to redeem itself from its earlier Tunisian debacle by attempting to take the lead in bombing Gaddafi's forces, albeit under a UN mandate, and thereby advertising its humanity.
However, the irony of the French unleashing their prestigious Rafale fighter jets on Gaddafi's forces, the very same jets that France sought to sell Libya following a $6.5bn arms sale in 2007, is glaring. Back then, Gaddafi was obviously a good guy and selling him sophisticated weapons was nothing but a noble enterprise, especially when so many business opportunities were at stake. Besides, it was not like Gaddafi was going to use the planes against his own people, right?
A faux pas (if indeed that is what it was) by the French interior minister, Claude Guéant, has not helped the French cause: He boldly described his country's military action in Libya as a "crusade," a choice of words that will not be lost on Libyans and Arabs, more widely. The French and other Europeans have carried out many a 'crusade' against the Middle East throughout history, leading to the deaths of millions of people. It is not for nothing that modern Algeria is known as balad el million shaheed in honour of the million or so martyrs who perished at the hands of the French during the war of independence in 1954-1962.
Given France's penchant for selectivity, therefore, was there really any surprise when the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, condemned Europe's participation in bombing Libya as "hypocrisy"? Tusk said such actions gave the impression that Europe only intervened when oil interests were at stake. Perhaps the French establishment would concur.
Where is the liberté at home?
Now you would think that given France's belated rush to save North African, and mostly Muslim, lives, the country was a model of solid social relations and stability at home. Suppose those Libyan civilians fleeing daily barrages from Gaddafi's tanks fled to France, they would enjoy a peaceful future there free from stigmatisation and social isolation, right? Well, no. The men may get by but the women, if they choose to wear the niqab, had better stay in Libya.
As of today, the French state will forbid face coverings in public, a measure which, while couched in generalisations, is aimed specifically at outlawing some 2,000 or so Muslim women from deciding how they dress and conform to their religion.
The government of President Nicholas Sarkozy has pledged the full force of the law to enforce these measures. Furthermore, in a bid to outdo the fascist tendencies in the country, Sarkozy's ruling party, the UMP, has gone to such extremes as to question the role of Islam in republican France. Apparently Islamic values and practices are not compatible with the French way of life.
Beware Libyans, Tunisians, Egyptians and a whole plethora of other political refugees currently battling repression. If you are thinking of escaping to France, know that your "alien" values may not be welcome there.
The startling thing about France's actions is not just the audacity with which these policies are pursued but also the belief that such measures will have no bearing on external relations.
While the two faces of France are now on public display, this hypocrisy barely raises any questions at home.
Sarkozy's arms dealer and business acquaintances will rush to the Middle East, to the Gulf, to North Africa, at the next available opportunity to sign multi-billion euro contracts. Here they will intermingle with Muslims, male and female (yes females also step out of their homes in the Arab world) who, lo and behold, may be veiled.
Why are they veiled? Not because their husbands beat them into covering their heads and faces but because they have chosen to do so. (Is it really so hard to believe that they can decide for themselves?) Now France may well have a problem with such a choice. Then it should make a point by breaking all relations with this region, so that the rest of the world knows what the French feel about the practice of niqab, and, for that matter, halal food and Islamic finance. And, for good measure, perhaps male circumcision too. It is always good to know where people and governments stand on certain issues. Sarkozy and his coterie should have enough courage to declare publicly their animosity towards Islamic practices, if indeed that is what they harbour.
French government policy will not create some form of 'moderate Islam' by forcing women to uncover their faces. If it has achieved anything, it has successfully unveiled French hypocrisy and bigotry towards Muslims. The people of the Middle East are not fooled by France's diversionary tactics in pretending to back human rights in Libya.
Lest anyone ask how Gaddafi's brutality should be dealt with if not militarily, that is not the point of contention. The Gaddafi gang rightly needs to be defeated with broad international, including Arab, military support. Suffice to say that France need not overexert itself in this endeavour given how bankrupt its recent policies have proven. A tiresome, hypocritical, wannabe global power will not redeem itself so easily.
Mohammed Khan is a political analyst based in the UAE.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Forcing women to uncover their faces will not create some form of 'moderate Islam' but it does unveil French bigotry.
Nicolas Sarkozy's government is implementing a ban on wearing the face veil in public [EPA]
In one of my earlier pieces on the Arab revolutions (Tunisia's tide of defiance), I cautioned those brave souls risking life and limb for the cause of freedom in the Arab world to "beware the French" by being vigilant against their "behind the scenes machinations and manoeuvrings".
Remarkably, my fear of French deceit has been realised far quicker than I imagined. After first colonising and then propping up for decades some of the worst despots in North Africa with economic, financial and political support, the French government found itself wrong-footed by the overthrow of Tunisia's long-running autocrat Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
Let us not forget that just days before Ben Ali was deposed in January, French officials - in the form of the now discredited former foreign minister Michele Alliot-Marie - offered the Tunisian regime security assistance in quelling the protests, while the same officials were making merriment in Tunisia on private holidays paid for by Ben Ali's cronies.
To quote again from my previous article: "How often are the French wont to proclaim liberté, égalité, fraternité as their most fundamental values? As far as French policy in North Africa is concerned, we may add another: Fallacy." As recent events have unfolded, however, I admit that I erred by overlooking one more very official French value: Hypocrisy.
In an effort not to be completely left behind by the massive political convulsions currently shaking the Middle East region, French political cunningness has been on ample display recently under the guise of offering French support to downtrodden Arab populations. At the receiving end of French ire have been the forces of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya. The French political and military establishment has been desperately trying to redeem itself from its earlier Tunisian debacle by attempting to take the lead in bombing Gaddafi's forces, albeit under a UN mandate, and thereby advertising its humanity.
However, the irony of the French unleashing their prestigious Rafale fighter jets on Gaddafi's forces, the very same jets that France sought to sell Libya following a $6.5bn arms sale in 2007, is glaring. Back then, Gaddafi was obviously a good guy and selling him sophisticated weapons was nothing but a noble enterprise, especially when so many business opportunities were at stake. Besides, it was not like Gaddafi was going to use the planes against his own people, right?
A faux pas (if indeed that is what it was) by the French interior minister, Claude Guéant, has not helped the French cause: He boldly described his country's military action in Libya as a "crusade," a choice of words that will not be lost on Libyans and Arabs, more widely. The French and other Europeans have carried out many a 'crusade' against the Middle East throughout history, leading to the deaths of millions of people. It is not for nothing that modern Algeria is known as balad el million shaheed in honour of the million or so martyrs who perished at the hands of the French during the war of independence in 1954-1962.
Given France's penchant for selectivity, therefore, was there really any surprise when the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, condemned Europe's participation in bombing Libya as "hypocrisy"? Tusk said such actions gave the impression that Europe only intervened when oil interests were at stake. Perhaps the French establishment would concur.
Where is the liberté at home?
Now you would think that given France's belated rush to save North African, and mostly Muslim, lives, the country was a model of solid social relations and stability at home. Suppose those Libyan civilians fleeing daily barrages from Gaddafi's tanks fled to France, they would enjoy a peaceful future there free from stigmatisation and social isolation, right? Well, no. The men may get by but the women, if they choose to wear the niqab, had better stay in Libya.
As of today, the French state will forbid face coverings in public, a measure which, while couched in generalisations, is aimed specifically at outlawing some 2,000 or so Muslim women from deciding how they dress and conform to their religion.
The government of President Nicholas Sarkozy has pledged the full force of the law to enforce these measures. Furthermore, in a bid to outdo the fascist tendencies in the country, Sarkozy's ruling party, the UMP, has gone to such extremes as to question the role of Islam in republican France. Apparently Islamic values and practices are not compatible with the French way of life.
Beware Libyans, Tunisians, Egyptians and a whole plethora of other political refugees currently battling repression. If you are thinking of escaping to France, know that your "alien" values may not be welcome there.
The startling thing about France's actions is not just the audacity with which these policies are pursued but also the belief that such measures will have no bearing on external relations.
While the two faces of France are now on public display, this hypocrisy barely raises any questions at home.
Sarkozy's arms dealer and business acquaintances will rush to the Middle East, to the Gulf, to North Africa, at the next available opportunity to sign multi-billion euro contracts. Here they will intermingle with Muslims, male and female (yes females also step out of their homes in the Arab world) who, lo and behold, may be veiled.
Why are they veiled? Not because their husbands beat them into covering their heads and faces but because they have chosen to do so. (Is it really so hard to believe that they can decide for themselves?) Now France may well have a problem with such a choice. Then it should make a point by breaking all relations with this region, so that the rest of the world knows what the French feel about the practice of niqab, and, for that matter, halal food and Islamic finance. And, for good measure, perhaps male circumcision too. It is always good to know where people and governments stand on certain issues. Sarkozy and his coterie should have enough courage to declare publicly their animosity towards Islamic practices, if indeed that is what they harbour.
French government policy will not create some form of 'moderate Islam' by forcing women to uncover their faces. If it has achieved anything, it has successfully unveiled French hypocrisy and bigotry towards Muslims. The people of the Middle East are not fooled by France's diversionary tactics in pretending to back human rights in Libya.
Lest anyone ask how Gaddafi's brutality should be dealt with if not militarily, that is not the point of contention. The Gaddafi gang rightly needs to be defeated with broad international, including Arab, military support. Suffice to say that France need not overexert itself in this endeavour given how bankrupt its recent policies have proven. A tiresome, hypocritical, wannabe global power will not redeem itself so easily.
Mohammed Khan is a political analyst based in the UAE.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
OOH..... SCARY! SO WHAT,... EXACTLY SEEMS TO BE THE THREAT HERE????
Is it the fact that these eyes are just too provocative to be ignored, or is it just more, than any red blooded Christian can bear? Or, are we such pigs that we feel we have some unwritten right to oogle all women face to face? As a species, we probably ought to get over that. 
France has just enacted a law forbidding the wearing of the Niqab and Burka with full veil. The fine for wearing this garb in public is 150 euros ($216). France has a Muslim minority of five million strong, but it is believed that fewer than 2000 actually wear the full veil.
The timing is all the more sensitive after France's ruling political party, President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP, called a debate on the place of Islam in France, a move that some say risked stigmatising a portion of the population. (Do you think?)
Rachid Nekkaz, the man who called for the Notre Dame prayer, said in a webcast that he was putting a property worth around two million euros up for sale to help fund his campaign.
"I am calling on all free women who so wish, to wear the veil in the street and engage in civil disobedience," he said.
French police arrested 59 people on Saturday who turned up for a banned protest over the veil ban, one of them on arrival in France from Britain, according to a police spokesman.
Okay, as someone who really didn't understand the significance of the wearing of the veil, I looked at this as one extremely repressive act of the Muslim world. I saw it as an act of oppression towards women that was unfathomable in the modern world. My friends saw it as "Brain Washing" and an oppression that set us at odds with a world that had no place in the 21st century.
But, then,.... I talked to someone who actually lived in that world for almost 20 years. She was a close friend from Berkeley High School. She was married to a Saudi Arabian man, and lived in Saudi Arabia for almost 20 years. She told me that wearing a full veil was "one of the most liberating experiences of her life". She divorced her husband, but remains friends with him to this day.
Cultural differences had their effects on her marriage, but wearing the full veil wasn't one of them. She described it as an experience of "freedom". Freedom from every "Joe Dokes" making a pass at her, and hitting on her just because she was a good looking woman. She said when she was out in public and wearing the Niqab, she was treated respectfully way beyond anything she had experienced before. In her words,.. ..."It was liberating"!
So,... my question to all of you out there is,.... what is the problem with someone wanting to wear a veil? What threat does it pose to you and me? Does it really change who we are, and how we relate to each other? It was enlightening for my friend, but she found herself adapting into a different culture. So,... why do we find this such an offense? My guess is that it's social conditioning... Nothing more. It's a changing world out there, and we need to get a grip, and learn to accept the feelings of others as being as valid as our own. Learn.....
France has just enacted a law forbidding the wearing of the Niqab and Burka with full veil. The fine for wearing this garb in public is 150 euros ($216). France has a Muslim minority of five million strong, but it is believed that fewer than 2000 actually wear the full veil.
The timing is all the more sensitive after France's ruling political party, President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP, called a debate on the place of Islam in France, a move that some say risked stigmatising a portion of the population. (Do you think?)
Rachid Nekkaz, the man who called for the Notre Dame prayer, said in a webcast that he was putting a property worth around two million euros up for sale to help fund his campaign.
"I am calling on all free women who so wish, to wear the veil in the street and engage in civil disobedience," he said.
French police arrested 59 people on Saturday who turned up for a banned protest over the veil ban, one of them on arrival in France from Britain, according to a police spokesman.
Okay, as someone who really didn't understand the significance of the wearing of the veil, I looked at this as one extremely repressive act of the Muslim world. I saw it as an act of oppression towards women that was unfathomable in the modern world. My friends saw it as "Brain Washing" and an oppression that set us at odds with a world that had no place in the 21st century.
But, then,.... I talked to someone who actually lived in that world for almost 20 years. She was a close friend from Berkeley High School. She was married to a Saudi Arabian man, and lived in Saudi Arabia for almost 20 years. She told me that wearing a full veil was "one of the most liberating experiences of her life". She divorced her husband, but remains friends with him to this day.
Cultural differences had their effects on her marriage, but wearing the full veil wasn't one of them. She described it as an experience of "freedom". Freedom from every "Joe Dokes" making a pass at her, and hitting on her just because she was a good looking woman. She said when she was out in public and wearing the Niqab, she was treated respectfully way beyond anything she had experienced before. In her words,.. ..."It was liberating"!
So,... my question to all of you out there is,.... what is the problem with someone wanting to wear a veil? What threat does it pose to you and me? Does it really change who we are, and how we relate to each other? It was enlightening for my friend, but she found herself adapting into a different culture. So,... why do we find this such an offense? My guess is that it's social conditioning... Nothing more. It's a changing world out there, and we need to get a grip, and learn to accept the feelings of others as being as valid as our own. Learn.....
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
WHEN DEMOCRACY ROLLS OVER..... IS THIS OUR FUTURE? WE DO MEET THE CRITERIA.
This was emailed to me by a friend from high school. Although this friend is a Conservative,... the fact that he sent this, I think, shows just how unsatisfied he is with the way this country is heading. Finally, he and I agree on something. Now if we could just agree on a solution.... Even though this was written during the reign of "The Decider", George W. Bush, it is a very graphic detail as to where we are headed. It rings more true every day. Read it well, and look around you.
Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.
(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." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
(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. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
(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.
(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 is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
(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.
Copyright © 2003 Free Inquiry magazine
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.
This article was based upon the article "The Hallmarks of Fascist Regime" by Skip Stone, at www.hippy.com/php/article-226.html.
The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
by Lawrence Britt
Spring 2003
Free Inquiry magazine
Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.
The 14 characteristics are:
(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." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
(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. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
(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.
(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 is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
(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.
Copyright © 2003 Free Inquiry magazine
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.
This article was based upon the article "The Hallmarks of Fascist Regime" by Skip Stone, at www.hippy.com/php/article-226.html.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
NOW HERE'S A GREAT IDEA....... TO BAD IT MAKES WAY TOO MUCH SENSE.
I received this e-mail from the office of Senator Barbara Boxer:
Good one Senator Boxer. I don't think it will be received very well, however. Just a guess on my part, but I'm betting that would bring the House Republicans down to the level of their constituency. It sort puts unemployment on a level they don't seem to understand...... Brings it too close to home.
So,... do you think the Speaker is overcompensating for something with that gavel?
April 02, 2011( To read the full text of the S.388, go to....... http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/033011.cfm )
Dear Friend:
Today I joined with 15 of my Senate colleagues to send a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) urging him to immediately take up and pass S. 388, my “No Budget, No Pay” bill. This legislation would prevent Members of Congress and the President of the United States from being paid during a shutdown of the federal government.
In our letter, we point out that Speaker Boehner has repeatedly refused to take up the bill, which was approved by the Senate unanimously a month ago. We wrote, “It is essential that we work together to avoid a government shutdown, but if we cannot do our jobs and keep the government functioning, we should not get paid.”
To read the text of our letter and more about the “No Budget, No Pay” bill, please click here.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Good one Senator Boxer. I don't think it will be received very well, however. Just a guess on my part, but I'm betting that would bring the House Republicans down to the level of their constituency. It sort puts unemployment on a level they don't seem to understand...... Brings it too close to home.
So,... do you think the Speaker is overcompensating for something with that gavel?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)