“Never take a solemn oath. People think you mean it.”
- George Norman Douglas
Finnish Composer, 1865-1957
“If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”
- Bible, Numbers 30:2
oath
• noun (pl. oaths) 1 a solemn promise, especially one that calls on a deity as a witness.
- Oxford English Dictionary
from the Constitution of the State of Alaska (emphasis added):
"All public officers, before entering upon the duties of their offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as . . . to the best of my ability."
The legislature may prescribe further oaths or affirmations."
I have read the oath of office for the state of Alaska very carefully. Nowhere in those 42 words (presuming one inserts the word Governor in the appropriate space) does it say "unless I decide not to run for a second term which would make me a lame duck governor", or "unless I decide I don't want to do the job anymore", or "except if I receive a 'higher calling' midway into my term of office".
Sarah Palin is a 'lame duck' by choice, not because - as in the case of President G.W. Bush for example - she had served the allowable terms as provided for in the applicable constitution, and therefore had no choice. I respect her decision not to pursue a second term of office, but then to use the resulting status as an excuse to renege on her oath of office is less excusable.
Palin did not swear to fulfill the duties of the office of Governor "unless I decide not to run for a second term" or "unless I become a 'lame duck' governor". She did not swear to fulfill the duties of the office of Governor "unless I decide I don't like the job after awhile". She did not swear the oath of office conditional to other job options, personal preferences and ambitions, or how the media would treat her or her family.
Palin has been very forthcoming about the importance of her religion in her life and in her politics. The Bible is very clear about the seriousness of swearing oaths; there is no ambiguity that an oath requires the swearer to perform what is sworn, as an important part of Christianity. The Palin oath of office was sworn on the traditional Bible, as a symbol of the sincerity and commitment of the oath taker.
And yet, those who support her enthusiastically protest vehemently any criticism of Palin's decision to abdicate the responsibilities of her office. No one is allowed to challenge Palin's motives or the wisdom of her choice, or that this represents a lack of commitment and a breach of promise to the people of Alaska who elected her to serve as Governor.
And yet, how can one not?
K-
ReplyDeleteYou seem unable to formulate coherent arguments. Please, PLEASE, really - work on it. Responding to this sort of inanity is getting tiresome. I genuinely try to respond to as many comments as possible, but I begining to see no point with your comments
First, NO ONE said she couldn't resign. That's called a strawman argument, it presents a fatuous, non-existent position against which you then argue. Clearly she can - it's a prima facia reality, she DID resign.
However, the act of doing so disqualifies her from other public service. For example, let's assume she is elected President, and then let's just for argument's sake, say she's elected to a second term. Once in her second term she say, "Well, now that I'm in my second term, I'm a lame duck, sooo, CYA!" - and quits a year, a day, a month into that term. Do you think she's lived up to her responsibilities?
Good lord, man, address the topics - address the points, rather than this knee-jerk hatred of liberals which seem to incessantly spew from your writing.
Palin was rightfully criticized for essentially abrogating her job since November. Much of the press has speculated that her resignation was mostly about not wanting to take that heat, as well as pay the 'piper' for some failing policies - meaning she's cutting and running. That's the point. She's running from the problems, running from criticism, running from hard work. Yet, you would ask us to accept she's a viable candidate for the Presidency?
Hogwash. It's not that Alaska is all that important, it's that the problems of Alaska are MINISCULE as compared to the problems of the country. If she can't handle Alaska, then she certainly could NEVER, ever handle being President or Vice President, and it speaks volumes about the ineptitude of the Republicans that they nominated her in the first place, and even MORE about the ignorance and intractability of neo-conservatives that they continue to push her and/or defend her.
One last thing, while you can make the statement you aren't a Republican, I want you to answer two questions -
Who did you vote for in the past Senatorial and Presidential elections?
While you can be an independent and vote with a Party, my guess is that you are substantially to the right of the Republicans on virtually all issues - care to disagree? That means you aren't a centrist, a pragmatist, or even what would be traditionally be called unaffiliated or independent. It means you are the extremist voice dragging the Republicans down with you by pushing folks like Bobby Gindal and Sarah Palin, people NOT ready for prime time, on the rest of the country. The issue isn't Alaska, or Palin, it's that you (and your neo-con ilk) actually think these kind of people are a GOOD idea.
I was no fan of Wellstone, never voted for him, but I do believe that death is usally accepted as an excusal under the part of the oath that reads "to the best of my ability". That ability ends when you die.
ReplyDeleteI think you raise a good point in questioning if campaigning for a higher office is consistent with performing one's duties to the best of their ability. (You left out Biden, and of course George W. Bush, who was campaigning while governor of Texas, and a number of others who could and should be included.)
I have had strong feelings about this kind of choice not only by Palin, but by others over the course of my being of voting age. It might surprise you to learn that I was in fact favorably impressed by Tim Pawlenty when he clearly made the decision to fulfill his term of office when his name was being promoted for McCain's vice presidential candidate. I do think that people in government should wait until they are out of their elected office before running for a different office; naturally, that doesn't apply when running for re-election taking one away from duties.
So, here is my thinking about people who leave before their term is up. While it is an imperfect way of fulfilling their oath, to strive for a higher office that is inclusive of your state, that serves your own state while adding others, is still consistent with what was sworn. If you fail to gain that higher office, you still should serve out the term you swore you would perform.
Palin is not running for a higher office at this time; it was not one of the reasons given for her resignation. Even if she does subsequently choose to run for higher office, probably the Presidency, she could easily first finish out the term of governor, which runs to 2010, not 2012.
The state of Alaska has a large geographic area, but a very small population. That is significant not so much to performing the job of governor of Alaska, but it is more significant in experience as a lesser credential for national office when compared to someone who has served a larger, more complex constituency. I don't see that as having any applicability to criticism of Palin's resignation. It is the job she signed on to do, large OR small.
It is not the 'end of the world', but it is about a conflict of significance. Palin did not give important, valid reasons for her resignation. Like death, or becoming president, Sec State, etc. Palin is resigning simply to become a private citizen, after asking a lot of people to support her to be governor in exchange for a commitment to those people.
K-rod asks "Where does it say an Alaskan Governor cannot resign?". The oath - and the rest of the Alaska Constitution - doesn't say "can OR can't resign" specifically anywhere. It is covered under those words in the oath "faithfully discharge my duties to the best of my ability".
K-rod, you often use phrases like 'knee-jerk', 'end of the world', and others that suggest to me when I read them a persistent tone of beligerance. Beyond that I have the strong impression that you take what other people say that disagree with you as being equally belligerant towards you in turn. I can only speak for myself, but I don't intend that kind of belligerance when I write.
Because of preparing dogs for other owners for four days of dog shows, two days of field trials, and helping novice friends whelp a bitch having her first litter, AND writing for Penigma and now another blog, temporarily I haven't had time to comment over on SitD. I still feel strong friendship and support for Mitch, and have missed the interaction with many of the others who regularly comment, including YOU, regardless of agreement OR disagreement. I welcome different views because it helps me crystalize my thinking, and because sometimes it even causes me to change my mind.
That was my reason for making such a point of welcoming your comments here. It is not only possible to disagree without active hostility, it is distinctly pleasurable.
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteMaking comments like "sorry this is over your head" isn't exactly looking like you are looking to avoid a fight.
As well, to date, not one thing you've said has been either complex or over anyone's head on this site, certainly not mine. You are making simplistic arguments and pounding away at nonsense points ("Why do Liberals HATE HATE HATE Palin, they ALL WANTED HER GONE...), same old words, same old notes... it gets old, and you need to move past them to be taken seriously, seriously.
"...doing so disqualifies her from other public service."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure who told you that; you should have challenged it since many have resigned from office and went on to serve in an even higher office.
No one TOLD me anything - it's an opinion. Resigning in the manner, at the time, and for the reasons she provided, in my opinion manifestly disqualifies her - she abandoned her job when her job needed her. Frankly, she simply formalized what has been the status of her performance since November 2008.
My parents live in LA, I can tell you that his constituents (Jindal's) don't share your enthusiasm.
As to your last point, on what issue do you think you are to the 'left' of Jefferson or Adams on (outside of slavery)?
You did not answer the question about who you voted for, however, your support for Jindal speaks for itself. Regardless, I'd like to hear about which issue you consider yourself my peer politically (i.e. a classic liberal).
BTW - I strongly agree with DG - K-Rod, I'm making a distinct attempt to NOT try to be uncivil, but you try my patience with nonsense like "liberals act like it's the end of the world."
ReplyDeleteYou made such a claim, we CLEARLY showed you that was neither our point or intent, and you ignored it, moving to your next like of falacious argument.
Palin ducked out of her job at a time when her popularity was falling, problems rising, and pressure mounting. That's not a qualification set I support. If you like her, fine, but it's hard to defend her as a classical liberal or liberterian. She's got no qualms whatsoever about secret prisons, torture, FISA violations, DOJ abuse or Gitmo, so she belies your own claims of allegiances.
The point is that she is an indictment not just of herself, but of those who promoted her - and more importantly those who continue to. Quitting your office 3.5 years ahead of Presidential election, 1.5 years ahead of your end of term is unprescedented as far as I can tell. It was daffy, it was ill justified, and your constant change of subject doesn't make it less correct. This isn't about whether she CAN resign, whether others have in very slightly related circumstances, that's simplistic commentary at best, it's like equating Pearl Harbor with Lexington and Concord. Yes, both battles were during wartime, yes people died, but the similarities stop there, and doubtless you know it. Consequently, your obfuscation (purposeful confusion of the issues) isn't meritable.
K-Rod,
ReplyDeletePlease take the time to read. I told you it was my opinion she's unqualified - if you wan't to be pedantic, ok, how's this, she's unfit.
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteThe point, as you well know, was about Palin's support of those things, and your supposedly being a 'classic liberal' or civil liberterian (sorry but it certainly seems only words coming from you).
Again, you've attempted to switch it to some sort of attack on Obama. Would it be possible for you to answer for the claims you make about yourself without this ceaseless obfuscation, please?
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteThe point, as you well know, was about Palin's support of those things, and your supposedly being a 'classic liberal' or civil liberterian (sorry but it certainly seems only words coming from you).
Again, you've attempted to switch it to some sort of attack on Obama. Would it be possible for you to answer for the claims you make about yourself without this ceaseless obfuscation, please?
K-rod wrote:"I support every citizen's right to be a candidate for public office!"
ReplyDeleteI agree with you - again! - on that point K-rod. Where we might disagree is on two items.
1)I don't see the criticism of Palin's resignation, for the reasons she gave, as partisan in origin. In support of that, I commended Pawlenty, a Republican and conservative, for refusing to bail on his position, preferring to serve out his term. While I do not find myself in agreement with Palin on many policy issues, I don't automatically ever disagree with her solely for partisan reasons. An example - I am in complete agreement with her that the media treated her children horribly, AND DIFFERNTLY than they treated other candidates children; a statement I had made before her resignation. I do NOT agree that it is a valid reason for her resignation; it's politics, and she knew that when she ran for office.
I think forming positions purely on the basis of partisanship diminishes the value of any discussion, and trivializes the substance of one's position.
2) It is a privilege, and honor, and a very serious duty to serve in elected office, and the seriousness of that obligation increases with the authority inherent in that office.
No one gets elected by spending their own money, by only their own efforts, time, and passion. The commitment of many other people is critical. AND, regardless of a minority % of support of the resulting vote OR a majority % of the vote received, when one first enters an election, knowing that winning requires the words contained in the oath / affirmation of office, I believe that the candidates have a unique responsibility to that office. There are many jobs and professions that have unique qualities or responsibilities that do not occur in other jobs. The professions - doctor, lawyer, dentist, veterinarian, professor, banker, and so on.
When I wrote the oath of office, I had thought seriously about how I felt about other elected officials who quit, not just Palin. And I considered what criticisms appeared, on examination, to be legitimate and substantive, and which were specious and trivial, about Palin's resignation. Then I researched the actual wording, to verify what I thought.
So far K-rod, you have NOT disagreed with my position on the commitment and requirements inherent in Palin swearing the Oath of Office.
K-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"Do you notice how differently Palin is treated compared to Biden?
Can you say potatoe? Bias, what bias?"
Sometimes, yes, I would agree with you on that point. I'm not a fan of Biden, I think he was a poor choice for V.P. too.
I'd further assert that both Palin and Hillary Clinton were treated differently than the male candidates on occasion, and not usually for the better.
You STILL have not adressed my point about the commitment inherent in swearing the oath of office, and you STILL have not provided a clarification or definition of your use of the phrase Liberal Fascism.
I've tried, respectfully and thoughtfully, to address your points. Please do the same?
K-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"
"So far K-rod, you have NOT disagreed with my position on the commitment and requirements inherent in Palin swearing the Oath of Office."
I am glad you agree with me, DG."
On a few things K-rod we agree with each other; I disagree with you far more than we agree.
What you won't address is significant, and shows the falacies of your arguments and the weakness of your position.
I'm still waiting for you to address the subject of Liberal Fascism, and for you to elaborate on the obligations of swearing an oath of office.
I'd dearly love to know your thoughts on my Consensus on the Census Con as well. Perhaps that is too much to hope for in one day...
K-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"DG, this would be a good start to learn about [words that are banned by siteowner].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism "
I'm not asking you to teach me about words K-rod. I am capable of that kind of self-instruction. I've been reading above a 3rd year College level since at least 6th grade, based on test results. I can happily dissect meaning on the basis of etymology, philology, connotation, denotation, and shadings analyzed in an 'explication de texte' format. I have a large vocabulary, in more than one language, including an understanding of both modern and medieval usage. I've added to that vocabulary today with exploring in greater depth the political concept of Poujadism, for example - more obscure than Fascism.
You continue to rely on the words of others, instead of expressing your own thoughts directly. Perhaps you are hiding behind them?
Don't you KNOW what you mean by Liberal Fascism?
K-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"Palin meeting the requirements of the oath, not so much. Palin did not succeed in what I think is the commitment of the oath."
Palin will not succeed in much of anything in Alaskan politics from this point forward, because she has withdrawn, without clear or adequate explanation or reason, from the business of government when she was in some ways, in one of the best possible positions to effect progress in key business that she herself had actively promoted.
In breaking her oath, she also broke faith. Yet, you K-rod appear to be defending her resignation, unless I have completely misunderstood your comments.
Both failures - breaking faith, and abandoning her championed projects and the business of governing may not legally debar her from further elective office, but I think it makes a good argument for her not being either nominated or elected when she WON'T (not CAN'T) finish a job.
She has fractured the state GOP in Alaska, and the national GOP as well, with engendering extremes of love and hate for her politics within her party. It won't require rocket scientists to figure out the advantages of divide and conquer.
That doesn't deserve defending; yet you do it.
(Pen - there are problems with your email; I've been trying to reach you.)
Obama firing CEOs, Liberal Fascism?
ReplyDeleteHardly fascism - control of the economy is certainly NOT limited to what fascists did - Nixon used price controls, so did Stalin, so have OTHER Presidents (including LINCOLN in the past). Your definition is at best, highly exagerative, and specifically looking to aggrandize the problem into something it isn't.
As far as firing CEO's goes, K, they came on hands and knees, with hands out, to the public, for cash. Removing ineffective leadership to help 'protect' the public interest hardly seems like a steep price. They have the right of course to say 'no' and not take the money.
Government control of private inductry or business, Liberal Fascism?
Wage and price controls, Liberal Fascism?
Banning the use of certain words or certain books, Liberal Fascism?
Frankly, that kind of conduct is FAR more the province of Republicans, or perhaps you have heard of banning Catcher in the Rye, Catch-22, Grapes of Wrath or other Pulitzer prize winning books? For that matter, perhaps you've heard of banning The Pentagon Papers, calling it's author a traitor as Alexander Solhzinitzen did - that renowned 'anti-statist' (LOL).
The point is, K, your specific use of the word is ludicrous - it is NOT accurate, it is highly pejorative, and if you have no further justification, I strongly suggest AND request that you move off of it. Your usage is incorrect on its face.
DG, sorry, I'm WAy behind, I have like 60 e-mails to read from all of the comments.
ReplyDeleteI was the first on here to post that I believe that Ms. Palin is unqualified for further public service. I don't and did not mean any legal disqualification. I can see no legal disqualification for public service in either Alaska's laws or in Federal laws. I mean that she has no moral qualification, because in my opinion, (an opinion shared by DG and Penigma) she broke her promise to the people of the State of Alaska. (i.e. the people who elected her to the office in the first place)
ReplyDeleteWe don't draft government officials. They aren't forced to run for office. They do so knowing that the office requires work, commitment, energy, living in a glass bowl, etc. Those who choose to run for public office do so willingly, usually at great cost to themselves, their families and their other professional endeavors (at least temporarily). Sarah Palin knew, or should have known, all those things. Yet, she allowed herself to be nominated as the Republican candidate for Governor of Alaska, and she won the election. She accepted the office, and she took the oath of office, and she held the office for some 2 1/2 years.
She was then nominated as the vice-presidential candidate for John McCain. Again, this wasn't done in a vacuum. Sarah Palin knew she was being vetted as a candidate for his running-mate. I'm absolutely certain someone told her in advance she would be picked. While I think the choice to pick her was an extremely poor choice, that's not germane to this topic. She then accepted the position, and the even bigger fish-bowl that came with it.
I do agree that the press has gone to extremes that are very, very inappropriate as far as her children are concerned. Unfortunately, they have a right to be crass and tactless, even though Sarah Palin was the governor and vice presidential candidate, not her children. However, again: Sarah Palin knew that the press were/are vultures, and she knowingly chose to expose her family to this onslaught. The other choice she had? Don't run.
Instead, she ran for vice president, and she and McCain lost the presidential election. She could have easily dropped out of sight. However, instead, she appeared on talk shows, she hit the lecture circuit some, and in general, kept her name in front of the press and in front of the public eye, inviting further scrutiny.
You see, I believe that when one is a public official, all of your official acts, and many of your private ones, are open to public scrutiny. This is especially true if there is even a hint of impropriety, and there were sufficient hints of impropriety to launch several investigations. (I note that none has found any grounds to proceed, and Sarah Palin is NOT under indictment or federal scrutiny) But, being Sarah Palin doesn't get her a free pass from scrutiny.
Sarah Palin, instead, for very baffling reasons, chose to resign as governor. She didn't do so because of health. She didn't do so to spare the state a scandal. She didn't do so because she was elected to a higher office. She did so because she "didn't want to do the job any more". That is a valid, legal reason, but its morally pathetic coming from someone who claims to be part of a morally superior party, (or a party which often claims moral superiority). That is the reason I believe that Sarah Palin is unworthy of any further public office, including dog-catcher.
K-Rod said:
ReplyDelete"Obama firing CEOs, Liberal Fascism?
Hardly fascism - control of the economy is certainly NOT limited to what fascists did"
Correction, Penigma, control of private business. Your changing it to "economy" is quite telling."
K - seriously? Are you simply incapable of associating one idea with another?
First, I used the terminology of 'control of the economy' as an over-arching description of your general thrust of examples - if you can't follow that, tough. I certainly didn't 'spin' anything, and I sure as hell didn't change the subject - as you've done time and again.
Second - controling private industry is ABSOLUTELY something which has occured at other times in our country's history, perhaps you've not heard of the actions taken to favor one railroad over another, or to FORCE businesses out of business in favor of rail right of ways in the 1880's-1900's?
Third, actually MANY countries have nationalized industries at various times, replacing CEO's - some of the communists, some of the socialists, some of the right-wing dictatorships. Go look up Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Argentina (as memory serves) if you don't agree - or for that matter, look at what the OPEC nations do routinely (like Saudi Arabia) with their own internal oil leadership. Your complaints are myopic in the extreme.
Your knowledge of US history is startlingly sparse, or so it would seem, if you think that actions by the US government favoring one business, forcing other business out, ect.. is limited to the past 60 years - and before you get your knickers in a bunch, the POINT is that control takes MORE forms than just getting rid of a CEO - past that you blithely ignored the fact that those CEO's are fully able to stay if they don't take the money AND you didn't even weigh the fact that when you declare bankruptcy, it has been STANDARD PRACTICE by bankruptcy courts to oust the leadership of failed businesses - that's not fascism, it's called good judgment.
As far as banning words (I've never BANNED any book), you KNEW, and KNOW full well that I find your use of that term highly objectionable - it got you banned before so it's not as if you had to ask - your question was simply an inane shadowboxer. This is a private site, given that I've told you to desist, asked you to desist, requested you desist, about a dozen times now, I'm not sure why you felt the need to ask again.
Frankly K- I'm tired of the nonsense. Move on. You've shown yourself to be a one-note, whiney, myopic charlie who can't associate one idea at a big-picture level to the next. It's a waste of words and breath to try to help you see (or so it seems).
We weren't talking about Obama when we talked about Palin's irresponsible conduct. I DID talk about my disssapointment with Obama in one thread, and you'd have been fine to talk about that - without the idiotic fascism thread - but it took you 10 comments (or more) to even admit to the fact that you don't approve - my response to that adimission is "finally!" and "there you Go!" - you've shown yourself to be capable of expressing independent thought, rather than just more right-wing blither blather/regurgitation.
If you want engagement, engage the subject. If all you can do is spew the same old crap - without justification, don't be surprised if we stop desiring to have to smell it.
K-Rod wrote:
ReplyDelete""In breaking her oath"
How? Specifically without your biased spin of emotions."
In reverse order - I believe I have written rationally, not emotionally, so I take issue with your characterization.
The Constitution of the State of Alaska, is very clear and very specific about the description of the duties, including the duration of their term, and the oath of office. What is required to do the job is spelled out.
I refer you to the Bible quote which said it so eloquently: "he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."
All, NOT SOME. After neglecting the business of the State of Alaska for the duration of the campaign for Vice President, NOW Palin is quitting.
Quitting is NOT "faithfully discharging duties to the best of one's abilities". It is bugging out when the going gets tough, following a period of neglect, which is adding injury to insult. Had Palin chosen to stay, she might at least have made up for some of that neglect by working even harder. Instead, leaving so much undone is a breach of oath, a failure to keep faith with doing the job she campaigned to do, and swore to do.
I will have to delay answering other posts until later, as I have a mundane appointment that takes me away from the computer. I don't know Pen's schedule, but that may mean a delay in comments appearing. Apologies in advance if there is any inconvenience.
Nothing has been banned; there is a bar,a standard for posting that is well set IMHO, for contribution. I intend to do my best to uphold Penigma's requirements, as a subordinate here; it is HIS blog, not mine.
K-rod, I did just add a brief dedication to you on "They're Only Words", my first contribution here, because you were instrumental in my approaching Pen about writing here. Enjoy.
K- you didn't explain crap about the term, you said -
ReplyDeleteHere's my definition -
Penigma - Please define vanilla ice cream -
Cold stuff isn't that vanilla ice cream?
Stuff which you lick - isn't that vanilla ice cream..
etc.
No, that's not a definition - and K-Rod, you were banned 6 months ago for using Liberal Fascist, you've been schooled in the meaning of fascism now by me (and I think others?) - yet you ask "What's not ok" - I've told you a dozen times now? Told you before, asked you to stop, told you to stop, and YET, you ask again..
The point K-Rod, is you are driving the discussion off into drivel. You don't know the words, you don't care about the offense, you base your use on a book/term coming from a highly partisan author, and ask if it's okay to call us things like say "Femi-Nazi" or "Tree Hugger" - the terms are pejoratives, and basely wrong. I've objected, told you why enumerable times now (it seems) and asked you to stop.. it's simple math K-Rod - that means stop.
BTW, if you insist on signing your comments with things like "in your heart you know I'm right" I'm going to insist on signing mine - Commentary dumbed down to the level neo-cons MIGHT understand are available on request. Do you get that it's offensive? Would you be able to hold a job approaching people with these kinds of comments? You know you wouldn't.
Maybe that should be my tag - If you couldn't say it at work, don't say it here.
BTW - K, I'm commenting here. Your other comment is not the thread I have now chosen FOR you, as you seem to need to post 400 times.
ReplyDeletePast that, if you want a definition of Fascism - which if I recall I gave you in the past - here's several.
FROM WEBSTERS:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are using properly "Liberal Fascism" a term ONLY defined by the invention of it by a right-wing author. As such, I find your claim to be nonsensical. It's like saying, my friend invented a term - hippogirafficus - I think it means a hippo that looks like a giraffe (although your definition was LESS than that).
The point is, there IS no recognized term "liberal fascism" by Websters - it's a contrivance, and if you bothered to read the NYT review, a pissingly poorly contrived one, one which ignored VAST other history - and simply seemed to be a politically motivated revisionistic attempt to reframe the truth. I don't have any patience for that kind of BS - so move on.
Apology? Hardly - for what exactly? That said, you can certainly apologize if you're big enough to do so (which I've done in the past for your "lost" posts) for using such inflamatory rhetoric as feigning acceptance of an unoffered apology which you were not owed. Yet, I doubt it will be forthcoming.
Barak Obama resigned his seat in the US Senate upon being elected as President of the US. He didn't resign prior to the election. If he had not won the election, I presume he would still be a US Senator from the State of Illinois. The situation is not the same.
ReplyDeleteI can't truly comment on Ms. Palin's competency to be governor. According to media reports (which I always view skeptically), she accomplished very little in her short term of actual governance. However, I can state that she will accomplish little if anything for the State of Alaska once she has resigned.
Now, I don't live in Alaska, but it might surprise you to know that I do not ever vote strictly party lines. I vote for the person I believe to be most qualified for the postiion. At this point, based on her record as I understand it in Alaska, I probably would not vote for her for governor. I can't comment on whether I would have voted for her in the first place, because I don't know who else was running.
My point is, Sarah Palin didn't resign because she was elected to a different office, or a higher office. She resigned because (we think) she got tired of being governor. While I tend to think "good riddance", I still think the decision to resign rather that finish her term honorably was detrimental to her honor, the dignity of the office, and makes her, in my opinion, unfit for future public office.
"Liberal Fascism", BTW, is not a recognized term in the political science vocabulary. Both "liberal" and "fascism" have meanings, but stringing two words together doesn't automatically give them meaning any more than "christian atheism" would have any meaning. Liberal Fascism the title of a book by a syndicated conservative columnist named Jonah Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg's writes extensively about political subjects, but that doesn't mean he has any training in political theory, nor does it make him a political scientist. He has a right to make an argument about a political subject, of course, but that doesn't make him correct.
K-Rod, there is also no basis for your use of the term "liberal fascism" to describe either President Obama, Mr. Obama economic theories, or any other currently discussed topic. IF the term "liberal fascism" were actually a term, it certainly wouldn't apply to Obama. While many of his policies are allegedly liberal, in reality, Obama is continuing many of the policies of the old administration, (to the disappointment of many who voted for him). Hardly the work of a liberal.
What does banning books have to do with this? DG brought religion into this in a tangential way when she pointed out the public importance that Sarah Palin places upon her religious beliefs. I laud Ms. Palin for placing an importance on her religious beliefs. However, DG is also correct that when read literally, (as most fundamentalists are wont to do), she must fulfil her oath, and continue as governor. To do otherwise without an exceptionally good reason is a violation of both her civic and religious duty.
et te absolvo
Sarah Palin first got into statewide politics in Alaska by bringing corruption charges against the sitting governor (who was a republican and one of the good ole boys club) that was a large part of the reason McCain chose her, she was popular in Alaska, and a lot of the good ole boys from other states (esp northeastern republicans) hated her. From reading a newspaper from Alaska (no idea if it leaned left or right) it seems she was fairly good at her job until she started running for VP. So far the 15 ethics violations that were heard in court were all tossed out for lack of evidence. One of them, the firing of the head of the state police, the senate ruled she may have acted improperly but it did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense or gross violation. Basically her and guy fought over several things, one was personal, so it looked bad when she fired him. I don't think she should have quit but in one interview she said her family has spent $500,000 defending the ethics complaints and Alaska has spent at least 3 times that investigating them. As governor she cannot sue for libel but a private citizen can. Like I said I don't think she should have quit but with constant ethics investigations and having to defend herself before the senate and in court then maybe she thought Alaska was better served by having someone else as governor.
ReplyDeleteK-Rod,
ReplyDeleteGet it through your head, I find ONE particular term you've used offensive because it IS offensive and IS self-contradicting. I've told you about it in the past, and put up with your horsecrap about it for the past two days.
HOWEVER, in the interest of putting a yammering snipe to pasture, feel free to write what you like. I think I have a FULL understanding of free speech protections - namely, that you AREN'T guaranteed to be able to say whatever you like on a private web-site - and that free speech concerns about the government, not private entities - as such, your bloviation about book banning/word banning is simply more wasted words.
Yet - what does bother me K is this, you KNOW most of that I'd bet - but pretend not to. Why?
Here's my guess, you don't WANT to engage in any actual discussion, so you keep regurgitating nonsense - arguments you know are wrong, full of holes, etc..
For example:
Sarah Palin was elected legally and appropriately by her state. Whether she was competent is moot, her constituents elected her. Whether other people wanted her out, is also moot. She had a responsibility to her constitutents which she abandoned. Whereas, Obama was elected by a VAST MAJORITY of his constituents to take that higher office - preumably nearly all of those who voted for him for Senate also voted for him for President with FULL knowledge it meant he'd leave his Senate seat.
Yet, even that is a specious line of argument because there is a LONG standing tradition of people resigning IF they are elected to higher office, not simply because they desire it.
Regardless, Palin didn't quit simply for seeking higher office, she quit because in part; to avoid the problems, the spotlight of criticism, the harsh realities of the national stage. She ceaselessly used her kids as props, but complained when they were used against her. She showed no character, no compunction, and no class. She was tired of the legal costs (understandable), but she was clearly ALSO tired of the complaints about her absentee performance.
The point with YOU, however, is that you nearly continually move the argument from discussing responses to your nonsense BACK to the same nonsense. You ignore the responses, etc.. I won't egage you if you can't reply civily or on point. The point of this kind of this is discourse, interchange, dialogue. That doesn't happen when one side simply spouts the same thing time and time again.
You've presented arguments I have NO doubt you know are facetious. Such an approach is extraordinarily disrespectful toward the people here. You present responses like "Maybe she's not really qualified.." and "Obama quit..." yet I suspect you know full well such responses are worthless.
The point of all of it is K-Rod, I don't believe it's worth spending any more time on you. Use Liberal Fascist if it makes you feel better, even though it's a lie. I will not continue to feed your desparate need for attention on this kind of idiocy.
K-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"DG, are you allowed to comment on any of the words on the banned list?"
I began writing for Penigma a month ago tomorrow. In the discussion leading up to presenting my first piece, no topics and no words were banned. I was treated as a grown up with the discretion and judgement to conduct myself appropriately. The only discussion that addressed limitations was about the possible response of the blog hosting entity, not Pen, regarding a planned article on an archeology find, a 'venus', for which I intended to include photos. (I'm still planning to get around to that article...it's on the back burner.)
Pen was very supportive of the idea that I would not always be in perfect agreement with his views, that I would certainly be more conservative on some issues, and more liberal than his views on others. It was something we discussed for clarity.
NO RESTRICTIONS, limitations or conformity requirement was placed on my views of any kind. He has been very encouraging to me to find my own topics, my own voice and opinions independently of his.
For those who don't know - I approached Pen, not the other way around, and offered help with both administrative demands as well as providing blog content. I was delighted to be given a chance, without any prior performance to judge my potential contribution, other than some blog comments.
I appreciate the opportunity to write provided by this blog. Since writing here, I've had the opportunity to write on another blog as well, one with an even larger readership, but where I make a much smaller contribution. I don't know if that opportunity would have been available without the small body of writing here first, as an example, so I am additionally grateful.
I have asked Pen for any criticism he might have after this first month, which I expect to receive privately. But if anyone else has observations, criticism, comment, I would welcome that here.
Dog Gone, as I've said in the past, I enjoy your writing. It is clear that you are educated, articulate, and that you meticulously research your posts.
ReplyDeleteK-Rod, although the question was not asked of me, I am not aware of any "banned words list" of any sort. The blog host here, Penigma, asked you that you not use a phrase which is offensive and which is nonsense.
The term "liberal" as used in political science studies refers to a political philosophy that favors progressive reform. The term "conservative" generally refers to a political philosophy which prefers the status quo and/or prefers a return to an earlier state. I'm lecturing you on this in an attempt to educate you on some of the reasons why the use of liberal fascism is incorrect as a political term: a nonentity so to speak.
Fascism is a political belief that is authoritarian, with little or no interest in individual rights. Fascism advocates a single party system, and one of its express principles is that fascism is opposed to liberalism. (Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics McMillian Press, 2000) Since fascism is intrinsically opposed to liberalism, the term liberal fascism is an oxymoron. Its use here, now that I have explained why its a nonsense term, is pejorative and is patently insulting to anyone who tends to have a liberal point of view.
Despite that fact, I'm not aware that there is a list of banned words. I've been commenting on Penigma's blog since he started writing it, and recently he gave me some authorship privileges. I am honored and humbled. The entire essence of civil discourse is free communication, and banning words doesn't make any sense. However, free speech, even at a governmental level (which this is not) is not an absolute. For instance, one may not incite a riot. One may not threaten certain acts of violence, etc. Penigma is within his rights to ask that you refrain from using words that are offensive especially when it has been demonstrated to you over and over again that the use of those words is incorrect usage.
K-Rod said:
ReplyDelete..."favors progressive reform."
"progressive" "reform" eh TOE.
The road to hell is paved with those "good" intentions from the progressive reformists and the Liberal Fascists.
K-Rod, you might as well come up with another term. The words "liberal" and "fascist" cancel each other out, and therefore, your statement is full of air.
K-Rod said:
The term "conservative" generally refers to a political philosophy which prefers..." ideas and policies that have been proven to make America prosper. (Emphasis added for clarity)
Which ideas and policies would those be? A policy which allows the financial system to inflate housing prices, to invent mortgages and other investment packages that could have destroyed our economy? As it is, those policies have done serious damage that could take years to undo. Or perhaps you're talking about a war which we shouldn't have started, which has cost thousands of American lives, and which has not by any means made America safer. Or perhaps you're talking about the policies which have undercut America's position with our allies to the point where American's diplomacy hasn't nearly the effect it once had. I'd like to know which policies you're talking about there.
K-Rod said:
"authoritarian, with little or no interest in individual rights."
Hmmmm here is a start.
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72..." - Barack Obama (Emphasis supplied again)
The very fact that you used the ellipsis tells me that you have taken this statement out of context. Please provide an exact reference so I can check this quote and read it in context.
K-Rod said:
"a single party system"
The Obama Oligarchy / Democrats control the White House, House of Rep, and Senate. All that is left is to get those darn constitutionalists off the Supreme Court.
The United States doesn't have a single party system, and you're quite aware of it. The remainder of the paragraph doesn't bear a reply.
K-Rod said:
Another tactic of Liberal Fascists is to control language, discussion, debate... in order to stifle or cut off any opposing views. (Spelling in original corrected here)
K-Rod, I'm not interested in cutting off debate, although its rapidly becoming wearisome when you either can't or won't grasp some elementary political science principles that I have clearly explained. I understand you have an opposing view, and you have an absolute right to that view. However, the point that you either don't understand or are deliberately ignoring is that there are no liberal fascists. The phrase is a "term of art" invented by Jonah Goldberg. (Who wrote a book by the same title) Mr. Goldberg's book has been reviewed by a number of respected political scientists, (of both liberal, conservative and very moderate views) and all have found his book, and the theories espoused therein, to be complete hogwash. I don't know whether you've actually read the book, or whether you are simply repeating the term without any real understanding. However, from my perspective, continued use of the term Liberal Fascists to describe ANYONE is akin to using other hateful words which are generally not allowed in any polite conversation.. (i.e. sexual, racial, ethnic or other slurs). I think this is the point Penigma was trying to make. I hope you continue to discuss matters here, and will use this as education.
K-Rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"a single party system"
The Obama Oligarchy / Democrats control the White House, House of Rep, and Senate. All that is left is to get those darn constitutionalists off the Supreme Court."
Do you view the dominance of Republicans / Conservatives in all three branches of government previously then as equally Fascist, by that definition? Because if you do, then it means that any time there is a majority elected democratically by the electorate, they have instituted Fascism. I don't think that is correct, and I doubt you do either.
"Another tactict of Liberal Fascists is to control language, discussion, debate... in order to stifle or cut off any opposing views."
Debate here K-rod has been lively, and you have been invited to participate. You have participated - and I for one, am glad you have. There has been a difference of opinion over one term, Liberal Fascism, which you were requested to not use because it gave offense. No one is stopping you from describing what you consider to be characteristics that could be grouped under the umbrella term of Liberal Fascism, like single parties, or a discussion of what is or is not fair game. There is not stifling of IDEAS.
That does NOT constitute stifling debate, controling language and discussion, or cutting off opposing views.
It is analogous to requesting someone not use the word "nigger", while still allowing full discussion on aspects of race, using less offensive terms like african-american, black, etc.
K,
ReplyDeleteTotalitarian and fascism aren't the same - Communists do/did EXACTLY the same thing you're describing, except that Obama ISN'T going outside the law to do so.
Whereas Bush did. By your standards (and mine), then I am going to offer up the term:
Republican Communists - During the Bush years Bush violated the Constitution time and again, inserting apparatchik into the DOJ, EPA, CIA, National Science Foundations and a host of other supposedly non-partisan agencies.
His followers, such as people like yourself, willingly followed, like little lemmings, supporting each and every violation of rights. He favored, using the Government, one businesss over another, funneling money thru no-bid contracts - to the tune of 500Billion dollars JUST in Iraq, to companies friendly to him and his family and friends. He ALSO engaged in a war in part to get the US Military out of Iraq - using the Government and industry, against the national interest, to help stabilize the totalitarian regime of the Family Saud.
During that time the Republicans and Conservatives gladly strumpetted around with things like - "Well, we just have to TRUST Bush, after all, he has more information than YOU do." In short, it was accept the PARTY line - don't think, accept what you're told.
All of it reminiscent of Orwell's "1984."
Consequently, if Conservatism stood against that kind of group think, this kind of disolution of rights, this kind of symbiosis having the Government effectively control industry and loot the treesury, then I think there is NO question that the term:
Conservative Communists
Is MORE than fair.
In your mind you know I'm right.
I continue to be profoundly disappointed in the Obama administration that King George (Bush) probably won't be prosecuted in the US for war crimes, and neither will Clown Prince Chaney, Chief Buffoon Rumsfeld, or any of the other long list of criminals. I can only hope that some day the International Criminal Court will indict them and they will then be stupid enough to travel to some country that will arrest them, extradite them to The Hague, so they can stand trial for their crimes.
ReplyDeleteToE,
ReplyDeleteThe Communist Conservatives on the Supreme Court will block any such attempt.
Obama is a lap-dog on the issue, but he couldn't win if he tried.
There are not only two parties more effectively involved in government in the United States, there are multiple if less influential additional parties. Personally, I think we would all benefit from more than just two competitive parties; it works well elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteAll of them are allowed to do their best, within the same restrictions and limitations, to persuade the electorate to see their point of view. In a genuinely fascist (small f) politics, there IS only one party, and that is backed up by the government with coercive violence. We do not have that here; so your term Fascist is inappropriate on those grounds to Liberals, Democrats, and Independents.
Liberals / Democrats having a majority in the House, the Senate, and having a Democratic President/VP is far from the United States being a single party country. Liberals do not control the judiciary, certainly not the balance in the Supreme Court, nor are they likely to for some time. Again, that factually contradicts your use of the term Fascist. A majority governing IS the essence of our system, as formulated by the founding fathers you (and I) admire.
You mention the current actions of Obama in terms of business and industry. Those businesses and industries ran into trouble all on their 'own nelly'. THEY approached the government for assistance; the government did not impose it on them. As to CEOs being fired? Fine with me; I thought all along that the government was failing to represent we the taxpaying public in protecting our investment in those businesses. And that is what it was, a TEMPORARY investment. When the government became a partial OWNER of the company, at their request, we gained the right to some control of how that company was managed.
ReplyDeleteWould you like to know the two things that I feel have denied adequate control to stockholders, both private and the government? That many of these companies NO LONGER allow stockholders to vote in or out bad executives and board members is a huge issue. I have a very personal knowledge of how interlocking directorates work, and of how the boards of directors, and highest level executives got their positions. It isn't the way it should be; the accountability has been disbanded.
My ability to research? Comes in part from researching info for executives and directors. My father sat on a number of boards as a director; I grew up privy to the behind the scenes fighting and machiavellian tactics. I would strongly suggest that a better focus for what is wrong with these companies, past, present and going forwards is their lack of accountability to the real owners of the companies - the stockholders.
I would further suggest that you take a long look, go back as far as the 60's and 70's forward to date, and examine the rates of executive compensation, as a percentage of gross and net income, and as a percentage of annual budget. Executive compensation has NEVER existed at the levels that it did in the last ten to fifteen years. It dates back consistently with discontinuing the right of the owners of stock, both common and preferred, to select or remove executives and board members. It is NOT government that is the danger.
Unfortunately, it also doesn't look like government is going to be the solution it COULD be either. Had government regulated strictly to PREVENT FRAUD, as in the fraud perpetrated by the credit rating agencies in the derivatives market and in mortgage securitization, we wouldn't have the current problems.
K-rod wrote:
"Wage and price controls, Liberal Fascism?
Banning the use of certain words or certain books, Liberal Fascism?"
What wage or price controls do we have now, K-rod? Even when gasoline last year was at an extreme new high, there was no rationing imposed, nor has there been any discussion of it - despite dem's control of the House, and a simple majority in the Senate. Even were there to be some limited, time-proscribed restrictions, that is still NOT the same as Fascism. And exactly WHAT books are banned, and by whom?
Objecting to language, or criticizing ideas, or opposing concepts is NOT BANNING them. It is an essential difference. A critical difference.
ToE and DG -
ReplyDeleteK-Rod is simply persisting in obfuscation to avoid direct discussion of more important matters. He obviously is quite aware he doesn't live in a totalitarian state, nor is he about to. He may THINK that it's a possibility, but it's his own head chiefly, that and the head of ONE radically, virulently offensive faux 'political scientist.' Such an opinion is counter-balanced by THOUSANDS of ACTUAL political scientists and theories saying such a position is utterly wrong, horridly researched and supported, and entirely oxymoronic (at best).
Arguing with him on this point serves no purpose other that to play into such silly obfuscation.
I think a more effective tactic will be to simply imitate the conduct, after all it IS the sincerest form of flattery - to help him understand the foolishness of this "Oliver Stone" level revisionism.
Please help me convert our little Conservative Communist to a new path.
I've considered starting a thread on here called Introduction to Political Theory. I've taught the class many times over the years, and I've always enjoyed it. Yet, I suspect there are readers of this blog that aren't interested in a true discussion of political theory. Hence I think it would be a waste of time. I'll be happy to discuss any particular political theory one is interested in, (no matter how much I may disagree with it), but I won't discuss any further non-entities such as K-Rod seems interested in doing.
ReplyDeleteK,
ReplyDeleteFirst, Bush was obviously, but then again, he exemplified MANY traits of fascism.
First, he pursued squelchng out the other party, through hiring pracitces, K-Street tactics, etc.. Karl Rove even spoke and wrote about such efforts as seeking total Republican dominance for decades through destabilizing (and dirty) tactics.
Second, he was hyper-militaristic.
Third, he usurped liberties at every turn, not the least of which were due process and violations of prohibitions against suspending Habeaus Corpus.
As such, those complaints seem to me to be FAR more accurate - however, no one claimed ALL conservatives were fascists, yet you have made it a nom de plom for Liberals in your daily lexicon. They aren't the same calibre - not even close. Many conservatives objected to Bush's conduct - as many Liberals object to PC'ism. Yet, Liberalism hardly equates to suspension of liberty or pursuit of the effective emasculation of the other party through illegal means.
You really REALLY need to become more literate about what Fascism means if you insist on using it. Otherwise, you merely look foolish for doing so.
"...so your term Fascist..."
ReplyDeleteMy term? When?
K-Rod, you are the only person here using it, and the only person I've seen routinely use it on SiTD. It IS your term since it comes from an unqualified single source and YOU chose to adopt it, including doing so without knowing the meaning or conotations it carries, but rather, simply accepting a much more broad and frankly therefore completely baseless usage. Thus, in contrast to those who have some grasp of the meaning who DON'T use it, it is YOUR term - you accepted a highly dubious term as convention for you.
BTW K-Rod, that crack about "those who can't, teach" is pretty insulting.
ReplyDeleteI suggest you apologize.
ToE is both an attorney defending indigent clients and a Priest - he's extraordinarly well eductaed, competent and functions both as a adjunct professor and professor on Poly Sci and Constitutional Law - I'd really think you've made an ass of yourself by making that comment if you had any idea how stupid such a comment was.
Now that you do, I suggest you consider the apology you owe him as he both DOES and teaches.
K_Rod
ReplyDeleteOnce again you're topic jumping.
Let me help you out -
Travelgate, an UNPROVEN allegation of wrong-doing completely exhonorated by Kenneth Starr's investigation.
DOJ - Monica Goodling - a gross violation of policy, including self-admission by Ms. Goodling to a felony (though, as she was given immunity, she was not prosecuted).
Once again, not the same - but you can keep trying.
In reply to your other 'response' - which I've put in quotes because it hardly qualifies as meeting the standard.
ReplyDeleteYour term, yes, you picked up something stupid from a blithering little political hack, and keep using it despite having been educated by those who know far better than you that it's nothing short of a lie. So, if you chose to keep lying, so be it, but it's YOUR lie.
As regards pointing out the conduct of *K-Rod's LIE*, that's illogical. If it is a lie, there is no conduct to associate.
Finally, an apology with IF in it isn't one. Your comments were base, insulting, and mean - I am all for jokes, but you look like an idiot.
With respect to your laughing at either ToE or I, we've been put down I'm sure by better people far more effectively than you seem to have the faintest clue of how to affect - so I'll write off your petulant conduct to the province of a fool.
However, since you insist on being a fool, do not expect further reply.
I will warn you though that if your insults stray much further into the land of grossly inappropriate conduct, I, as always reserve the sole and exclusive right to delete insults. I believe you've established beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no interest in discussion - so there is NO POINT which will be being deleted if I chose to take such action, it will merely be removing offensive 'graffiti' which is all your commentary can be likened to at this point - you are our personal uncultured, uneducated 'thug' - and little more.
K-rod says:
ReplyDelete"I am not sure the constitution grants the power to the federal government to control private business and set wage/executive compensation... fire CEOs...
Did the stockholders make those desicions or was it the Obama Oligarchy?"
Can you demonstrate that the constitution forbids the actions taken by the federal government? We have the supreme court to enforce the constitution; at least, to police violations of it. I am sure that if there were share holders who felt they could prevail by doing so, those actions would have been brought to the attention of the SCOTUS.
As he is an attorney and I am not, I will defer to ToE for the correct term; but it is my understanding that there is a way for an issue to be brought directly to the SCOTUS that bypasses the usual path through the lower courts.
I would have to go back to double-check the specifics, because I DO try to be thorough, but it seems to me that Justice Ginzburg issued an injunction of the federal government regarding GM recently, and then rescinded the injunction a day or two later, after having researched an action/position taken by the federal government. It had something to do with Fiat.
I would point to that as an example
that the executive branch of government is checked and balanced with the judicial, and that the actions have been examined in the context of the constitution.
I give you my promise that later today I will address your other points, including if Bush and the GOP side of politics ever had the term fascist applied to them. I'm going to be researching both small f and cap f usage.
I will address your issue with defining debate and language before that in a separate comment.
Please, in the interim address my question - what restrictions have we had under the Obama administration that constitute price control or ration anything.
Well, this only took me a moment. I wish it had taken longer, because I don't don't don't like the way fascism is being used; and I want to make it clear that by establishing that it HAS been used this way does not mean that I agree with it. I DO NOT!
ReplyDeleteI can produce more references towards the word fascism ever being applied to conservatives, the GOP, but I sincerely hope this is accepted as 'point made' and that I don't have to, please!
I provide the entire first page of a VERY casual search, because I want it to be clear the large number of sources; note the total found at the top: 3,180,000
Results are included for bush fascist. Show just the results for Bush faschist.
ALL RESULTS1-10 of 3,180,000 results·Advanced
George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism - Project for the OLD ... ... 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. Bush ...
oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm · Cached pageBush Fascist IndexBush Watch: keeping an eye on the native Texas rascal
bushwatch.com/fascism.htm · Cached pageLyons, Is the Bush Administration Fascist?Is the Bush Administration Fascist? Matthew N. Lyons. THE IDEA THAT the Bush administration is imposing fascism on the United States has become increasingly commonplace in leftist ...
www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue42/Lyons42.htm · Cached pageGeorge Bush: 'Worse than Fascist Dictators' - The New EditorAbout Us Commentary Paul Geary Hubris, Inc. (May 17, 2005) The 'Liar' Argument (February 10, 2005) The Quiet Spectacle (February 3, 2005) Author Archive
www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/6412-George-Bush-Worse-than-Fascist-Dictators.html · Cached pageIs George Bush a fascist? NOTE: You've come to an old part of SW Online. We're still moving this and other older stories into our new format. In the meanwhile, click here to go to the current home page.
www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/471/471_09_Fascism.shtml · Cached pageBBC: Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In AmericaBBC: Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America New investigation sheds light on clique of powerbrokers, including Prescott Bush, who sought to ...
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/240707fascistcoup.htm · Cached pageDesigns - Anti-Bush - Fascist Bush7 Anti-Bush Designs ... Bush Fascist Anti-Bush T-shirts - Anti-Bush Buttons - Anti-Bush Stickers
toppun.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=13 · Cached pageMSNBC's Keith Olbermann Spanks Bush for FISA; Concludes Bush Is a ... George W. Bush et al.," by Elizabeth de la Vega, an indictment, a presentation to a ... MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Spanks Bush for FISA; Concludes Bush Is a Fascist - Gee, Ya Think?
www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31044 · Cached pageNaomi Wolf: America's Fascist Coup Owes to Bush's Nazi Grandfather Naomi Wolf: America's Fascist Coup Owes to Bush's Nazi Grandfather Author of "10 steps" speaks publicly for the first time about legacy of modern-day tyranny
infowars.com/articles/bush/fascist_coup_owes_to_bush_nazi_grandfather_wolf.htm · Cached pageonegoodmove: Bush ... Naomi Wolfe's latest book is The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot Oh and John, she answered the question, try them in a court of law.
onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/bush_fascist.html · Cached page
Results are included for bush fascist.
I will comment only briefly on DG's statements:
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court of the US has original jurisdiction (meaning cases are filed directly with the SCOTUS, bypassing the lower courts) only in cases involving lawsuits between states and in cases involving foreign ambassadors. The former is actually more common than you might think. The latter is extremely rare. All other issues are brought to the Supreme Court on an appellate pleading, usually via writ of certiorari to the lower court.
In the case that DG is referencing, the US Bankruptcy Judge in the Chrysler case had approved the application of Chrysler and Fiat for a sale/merger/partnership. Some stockholders objected. He overruled the objection. They then appealed to the US Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Ginsburg, acting as the circuit justice for that area, issued a temporary stay until she could research the issue. The next day, she lifted the stay after finding that there was no grounds for the appeal.
I will have to comment on other developments on this blog at a later time.
ToE writes:"The Supreme Court of the US has original jurisdiction (meaning cases are filed directly with the SCOTUS, bypassing the lower courts) only in cases involving lawsuits between states and in cases involving foreign ambassadors. The former is actually more common than you might think. The latter is extremely rare. All other issues are brought to the Supreme Court on an appellate pleading, usually via writ of certiorari to the lower court."
ReplyDeleteThank you ToE, for writing so well, and so promptly. And particularly for correcting my factual errors about the instance of the stay in the GM case.
Because: 1) I'm tired of scrolling down through sooooo many comments on this topic; and because, 2) the comments are really off the original topic significantly; and 3) because it merits a separate discussion.... I'm preparing a NEW posting on the topic of Fascism. It will be up shortly (I'm a quick study on occasion), and I anticipate another lively discussion. Naturally, I have my own particular aspect of the discussion to promote which generalizes to other topics here.
So, hang on to your collective hats...and ENJOY. Just be aware that I will swat anyone behaving badly with my metaphorical rolled up newspaper! (And NO, I do not ever actually hit dogs, with rolled up newspapers or anything else, when training or re-training.
I'm writing this in part to demonstrate that we can address head on a topic fraught with strong feeling and conflict, and DO IT WELL.(Damn it!) If I can successfully stand my ground rehabbing vicious pit bulls, I figure I can hold my own with a blog, LOL! I am determined to do so with good grace. and god willing, a modicum of humor and even fun.
So, 'gentle readers', (to borrow a term of endearment from Miss Manners, the ettiquette columnist), be put on notice that there is a larger point to be achieved with the new topic than a simple discussion of Fascism - and respond accordingly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/10/politics/main5149480.shtml
ReplyDeleteI wonder if we can consider abandoning your job to 'cash in' living up to your oath?
K-Rod? Any thoughts?
DG - btw, I look forward to your post.
ReplyDeleteOne comment I'll make, there are some definitions of fascism which include it's predatory effect upon the middle class and it's propensity to rely upon persecuting one race, ethnicity to distract the populace from that wafare upon the middle-class. I certainly think that was prevelant in Nazi Germany, where oppression of Jews and Communists was expanded to include labor unions, labor activits, etc.. and the tools used to suppress Jews were then used to suppress middle-class dissent whenever it arose.
Pen wrote:"DG - btw, I look forward to your post."
ReplyDeleteAnd believe me, I don't intend to disappoint. That said, at the same time your comment showed up on my email, I also have a request to help with whelping a friend's litter where there may be a problem. This is an area of my expertise that I particularly enjoy, and it is a rare-breed litter that has potential international implications due to a very limited gene pool (so I'm doubly interested). Puppies are a notoriously hurry-up-and-wait proposition. During the "waits", I will be working on "Fascism", during the 'hurry' parts, well, that will slightly delay the end result.
Let me just add that while I have found some interesting research, I am considering leading off with a quotation from Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Criticsim" from 1709 -"The Bookful Blockhead, ignorantly read,
With Loads of Learned Lumber in his Head,
With his own Tongue still edifies his Ears,
And always List'ning to Himself appears. (snip)Nay, fly to Altars; there they'll talk you dead;
For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread." I'm feeling more fool than angel at the moment.
K-Rod:
ReplyDelete"Penigma, I won't comment anymore if you are going to continue with the namecalling and petty insults."
OMG- talk about hypocrisy.
Let's first underscore that I consider being called a Liberal Fascist an insult - told you as much time and again, and asked you to cease.. time and again.. wow.
After that, you've called nearly every Democrate I know of
liars, stupid, corrupt and worse...
THEN you insult TOE and laugh about it..
Then, when DG says dial it down, I apologize to you, without needing to throw an IF in to make it disengenious.
NOW, you have an issue?
Wow... I mean really. wow.
If you are going to ban yourself and stifle free speech, or there are words you want to ban, please let me know which ones - and I'll try to stay away from them, which of course is more than you are willing to do.
wow.
LOL - ok K-Rod, I won't insult you any more, I will insult ideas which are poorly supported, I will require you to substantiate your positions and stay on topic - I will expect nothing less from you.
Agreed?
It's a large task, to be sure DG, but you're probably best equipped of us all to do it well.
ReplyDeleteI have a dog training question - I have a poodle who barks and barks and barks when strangers call or when my wife arrives home. I don't mind a few barks, but he probably goes on for 2-3 minutes. My boykin spaniel doesn't help, he doesn't bark as much, but he also just keeps going.
Any thoughts/suggestions/tips?
K-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"Penigma, I won't comment anymore if you are going to continue with the namecalling and petty insults."
A fair request, and one that I hope will cut both ways.
K-rod, you have been offered an apology, and I have defended your dissent here as a minority opinion.
I think you are being treated fairly given that there was offense taken on both sides of the argument. While the choice to comment or not comment is entirely yours, and yours alone, I hope you take the apology and defense of your dissent into consideration when deciding.
I am putting other topics on the back burner to deal with the topic of fascism head on, in no small part to address things that you have brought up in an appropriate manner. In view of that, I don't think you have a valid justification for claiming ill treatment here; that is receiving consideration for your thoughts and views to the best of my ability.
The decision is yours; but I would hate to see you miss out on further comment when you have already contributed so much to the topic. This one isn't ONLY for you, but it IS for you.
72 comments!!!
ReplyDeleteNice.
I am heading up north for the weekend, as usual, to enjoy summer... boating... seadooing...
Y'all have a great weekend.
Good luck with them 'lil doggies, Dog Gone.
Penigma wrote:
ReplyDelete"I have a dog training question - I have a poodle who barks and barks and barks when strangers call or when my wife arrives home. I don't mind a few barks, but he probably goes on for 2-3 minutes. My boykin spaniel doesn't help, he doesn't bark as much, but he also just keeps going.
Any thoughts/suggestions/tips?"
This is one of the most common problems, along with jumping on people when first encountered; they tend to be related situations (regular responses to the same kind of stimulus in a situation.
It is not a difficult thing to make a pretty dramatic improvement to the barking problem. Easier, in comparison, than the greyhound bitch I'm trying to train to eliminate, on command, while on leash; something I require of all dogs that I train, even in puppy classes. Unfortunately, she appears to have been abused in the course of her training, so she shakes in terror when on-leash, although she is very responsive to obedience commands off-leash. Her working out in a new home is conditional on solving this problem. My patience is getting a workout, LOL.
I would prefer to address the training issues away from the blog site; possibly by phone or email. But right now, the puppies in question are in distress, and the bitch is heading into a C-section. Unfortunately, it looks as if the owners were not following my advice, in when it was necessary to do a section instead of relying on unassisted whelping, and I am afraid we are going to either lose the entire litter, or the puppies are going to be alive but ... badly impaired.
NOT the outcome I have been hoping for (and I've been up the past two nights 'on call' without sleep) so I am going to probably be away from the computer for a few hours. Given this unhappy situation with the litter, let me underscore that I hope NOT to come back to unpleasantness on Penigma.