The New American Fascism

Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Before the Warren court, the fascists were largely in control of this country. Although American fascism was not and never has been defined in our country’s guiding documents, it was practiced and institutionalized in Jim Crow policies and laws like poll taxes. All designed to keep the ruling elite in power and to suppress, through oppression, the lesser masses. Every time the idea that freedom, fairness, and the rule of law applied equally to all was brought to bear, those in power were able to dismissed it.

But for most of the last 50 years, we have been embarked on a movement away from fascism; a great correction to better align the practice of our society to the ideals of the guiding documents. The fascists have never gone away, they have just been on the losing side for most of the last 50 years. Quite frankly, they are tired of it and think they have gathered enough power to move the country back their way. They are not about ‘running the country’ they are about ‘making a point’.

They have partially succeeded.

1. We have a sitting president who has openly endorsed amending the constitution, not to expand or guarantee rights, but to specifically deny rights to an entire class of Americans.

2. We have no shortage of elected officials thinking the same way.

3. There is a bill in the house and senate that would make it a crime to feed the hungry if they happened to be undocumented (It will never pass, because then the companies that employ these people will have to pay them enough for them to buy their own food, instead of getting it for free from soup kitchens).

4. The 1st, 4th, 5th & 9th amendments are under full assault, while the 2nd is sacrosanct.

5. No matter what the ideology, a government’s prime purpose is to protect citizens, property and infrastructure. All of that is now secondary to making ideological points.

6. Our President has the power to wiretap dangerous terrorists within the laws meant to provide checks and balances to protect our civil liberties. He has chosen quite deliberately to do so outside the law. Not because he could not accomplish his goals within the law, but to make a point and change the rules giving him more power.

7. The fascist base is not composed of great thinkers. They have been bought off with pandering rhetoric on God, Guns & Gays and bellicose nationalism. Meanwhile the power-fascists have been raping the base (and everyone else not in their club) with irresponsible fiscal policy.

8. Many business people do not like the idea of legal mandates covering responsibility to workers, the environment, fair competition, and corporate citizenship, They like the idea of corporate welfare. They are only too happy to see the power-fascists (who will give them what they want) running the show. What the power-fascists do on the social/civil liberties front is of no concern to the business people who help put and keep them in office.

How serious must the damage get before this new American Fascism runs its course? Soldiers will die, Miners will die, the glaciers will melt, the oceans will warm and produce more frequent and powerful hurricanes, the hungry will get hungrier, the humanitarians that fed them will be in jail, we will be isolated, the world will hate us, our economy will collapse under the weight of national and personal debt. We will all be very depressed about it all but won’t be able to get or afford the health care to get better.

The 50 years from 1950 to 2000 were incredible. We improved education, we improved access to health care, we lifted millions out of poverty, we made the environment cleaner, we made industry safer, we made transportation safer, we made products safer, we improved housing standards at every socio-economic level, we expanded rights to millions, we won the cold war without firing a nuke, we went to the moon, we lowered crime, we improved life expectancy, we addressed past injustices, we embraced fairness, we raised awareness of and fostered tolerance of those not like ourselves. We invested in our children, in science, in the arts. We set out to do the world some good – The Marshall Plan, the Peace Corp. We did all of this accumulating a debt of just under $6 trillion. That’s a high price to be sure, but it is nothing compared to the $3 trillion added to the debt in the last 5 years while attempting to undo the accomplishments of the last 50.

The fascists will tell you that our government’s forays into the problems of society and the world at large was wrong-headed, costly and that we are far worse off for having done it. But we did it even as we advanced the world’s most envied economy and freedoms in ways that could not even be contemplated in the first half of the 20th century. We did none of it by being conservative. I don’t see anyone pining for the good old days of Jim Crow, robber barons, world wars, depressions, air unfit to breathe, and cars unsafe at any speed. Leave the new American Fascists in power, and that is where we are headed.

Scotty & Me

You’ve had those dreams. The kind of nightmare where you are trying to run, but cant move. Trying to scream out but can only mouth the words and no sound comes out. No matter what you do or say, you are powerless to influence anything and all you can do is watch events unfold. The other day, I had such a dream, sort of. I was alone in the Whitehouse press room. It was just me and W-House press secretary Scott McClellan.

Oh boy! This is a great dream. I get to ask all of the questions! Scotty cannot escape my best journalistic probing. (Well in the dream, of course, I am a respected journalist). But, dreams never end like they start. It went something like this…

ME: On the Subject of Valerie Plame (PlameGate), who Leaked her identity?
SCOTTY: Puh-leaze, I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation.

ME: Is this not a breach of national security?
SCOTTY: She was no longer a field operative and was not going to be in the future so there was no harm to our national security.

ME: But she was still covered by the statute. Doesn’t revealing her identity put the people she dealt with at risk, as well as put at risk our ability to conduct national security and diplomatic business with people in similar sensitive posts? Isn’t that why this information remains classified even after the end of a posting or program?
SCOTTY: As I have said over and over, no comment on an ongoing investigation.

ME: Has there been an assessment of the actual or potential damage to National Security as a result of leaking Plame’s identity?
SCOTTY: What damage? if you mean the distraction it has caused for senior administration officials who would be better at protecting Americans from terrorists if they did not have to deal with this trumped issue, then it is grave, very grave indeed.

ME: Well, didn’t they bring this distraction onto themselves by breaking the law for a petty vendetta?
SCOTTY: No comment on an ongoing investigation.


ME: On the Subject the electronic surveillance conducted without the over sight of the FISA court (FISAGate) who leaked the existence of the program?
SCOTTY: We don’t know. The NY Times irresponsibly betrayed America and emboldened the terrorists by making it public. We will get to the bottom of this egregious breach and punish the leaker. Our very lives depend on it.

ME: Given that the NY Times knew about the program for over a year and sat on it at the Administration’s request, wouldn’t national Security have been better served by either bringing the program into alignment with FISA or getting a specific authorization from congress to conduct the surveillance?
SCOTTY: Look, the President is trying to protect you from the terrorists. The press and the leaker don’t care about your safety.

ME: So you are saying that we are safer with illegally conducted surveillance as opposed to the same surveillance done within the law? With all due respect, would there not have been a leak or story if FISA had been respected?
SCOTTY: We respect all laws, unlike the person who leaked this program and the NY times who irresponsibly published it. Congress authorized this program as part of the resolution to use all force necessary. It’s black letter law.

ME: Most members of congress (including many Republicans), and most legal scholars disagree that the resolution for war authorized such surveillance outside the FISA statue. Your attorney General’s stated legal position is tortuous if not absurd. Isn’t this about an imperial presidency rather than national security?
SCOTTY: Congress gave us all of the necessary authorization. If congress or the courts now say otherwise, then we did not even need their authority for this President to protect the American People from the terrorists.

ME: Could you answer, just once, a legitimate question with a thoughtful, meaningful response rather than a talking point or non sequitur?
SCOTTY: This administration is responsive. To the threat of terrorism and to the American people who want to be protected from the terrorists. Why do you love terrorists and hate freedom?

Then the dream took an odd turn, as dreams are wont to do. I found myself in a courtroom, telling it to the judge.

“ …and then, you honor, after Scotty’s, er, Press Secretary McClellan’s last response, I started to feel nauseous. My lunch from the Whitehouse cafeteria started to come back on me. The next thing I knew I regurgitated my lunch of a Freedom Dip hoagie with Freedom Fries (with Hunts, not Heinz ketchup), and Ice Cream with Red, White and Blue Freedom Sprinkles.


I couldn’t help it, I projectile vomited all over him. He looked so stunned, standing there wearing all that Freedom in Red, White and Blue. (And a few other not so glorious colors) I remember thinking that Freedom never looked so good, but it smelled awful.”

The Earth as Pocket Change

Most people think the solar system looks like this, All the planets visible and neatly lined up in a row.



Well, that picture is good at showing the relative size of the planets, but it hardly describe the solar system very well. Distances are vast compared to the size of the objects in the solar system. Most people do not perceive just how big those heavenly bodies are relative to one another and how far apart they are. But we can create a ‘virtual’ scale model of the solar system to help us understand the scale of things.

Lets start by pretending the Earth is sphere with a diameter the same as a nickel.



The moon’s relative size is represented by the dot. With an Earth the size of a nickel, the Sun would be a sphere 8 feet in diameter. Imagine the size difference between a circle that is as big as a nickel and a circle as tall as the average room in your house. That is how much bigger the Sun is than the Earth.

So how far apart would the nickel sized earth and room sized sun be? 859 Feet! Imagine looking down on a vast blacktop parking lot. In the center is a bright, 8 foot circle. Somewhere, 859 ft from the 8 foot circle lies a shiny nickel. Would you even notice it?

Keeping that scale lets look at the rest of the Solar system:


Mercury 0.3 inches – The size of a push-pin, 333 ft from the Sun.
Venus 0.83 Inches – A nickel, Earth and Venus are about the same size, 621 ft from the Sun.
Earth 0.87 Inches – Your average 5 cent piece, 859 Ft
Moon 0.21 Inches – Roughly a quarter the diameter of the Earth, 2 Ft away from the Earth.
Mars 0.47 Inches – Just under one half inch, 1,309 Ft from the Sun.
Jupiter 9.6 Inches – A Basketball, 4,422 Ft (0.83 miles) from the Sun.
Saturn 8 Inches – A bowling Ball, 8,201 Ft (1.55 Miles) from the Sun.
Uranus 3.2 Inches – A little bigger than a baseball, 16,497 Ft (3.12 miles) from the Sun.
Neptune 3.1 Inches - A little bigger than a baseball, 25,863 (4.9 Miles) from the Sun.
Pluto 0.15 inches – the ‘zero’ on your keyboard, 33,985 (6.4 Miles) from the Sun.


So to make a scale model of the solar system with the Earth the diameter of a nickel, you would need a circle 13 miles across. The biggest thing in it is the 8ft Sun at the center. The next biggest thing in it is a 9 inch basketball and is more than three quarters of a mile from the center.

I aint' afraid of no stinkin' diversity program

I’m a middle aged white man working in a large corporation with a diversity program. Does that make me an endangered species? Should I be resentful? After all isn’t my future limited by that set of circumstances? Many of my white, middle aged, male coworkers think so.

But I am not resentful because whatever “limits” may be placed on my future because of some diversity initiative, I still figure I’ve got it pretty good. The easiest path to take in this life is the one of the American white male, and it’s only yours by birth (not counting Michael Jackson.) So it seems like sour grapes to complain about attempts to improve the paths that others are on.

The kind of preeminence enjoyed by white men for the first 200 years of this nation has certainly eroded. After all, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the self evident truth that “All men are created equal”, most people of the day understood that to mean white, able-bodied, Christian men of means, not their lessers; women, people of non-European descent, people of color, slaves and the indentured, the disabled, Native Americans, and the ordinary guy with no education or property. By some accounts this preeminence has not merely eroded but is in full retreat, leaving white men at an actual disadvantage. Bullshit Lets put this another way. About 37% of adults in the U.S. are white men. A typical diversity program may target 50% of new hires or leadership positions to be women or minorities. Looks like a pretty good deal to me. 37% of the population get 50% of the jobs. Oh for the good old days when we got 90% of the jobs.

Everyone who loses a job or promotion to someone else thinks they were the better choice. Except that now white men can join ethnic minorities, women, gays, and the disabled and blame discrimination (at least the ‘reverse’ kind) for their plight. Yes, discrimination still exists, and reverse discrimination is an occasional reality. But if any white man feels that the deck has been stacked against them they need to re-examine the deck. We’re still holding most of the cards. And just in case I ever feel really threatened by reverse discrimination, I can always try playing the gay card.

My 30th High School Reunion

I went to my high school reunion. It was the first one I had been to and it was the 30th. I was just a face in the crowd at the large suburban high school I attended, Kecoughtan H.S. (pronounced “KICK-uh-tan”, really!) in Hampton, VA. We moved to Hampton the summer before 10th grade and moved away soon after I graduated in 1975. I had never been back. So, my connections were temporal and fell away as the years passed.



So why did I attend this reunion? Because of reality shows. High School reunions are the ultimate personal reality show (so much so an actual reality show was based on the premise). Where else can you throw 300 middle-aged people into a situation where the last effective dynamic was as 18 year olds, and be a participant?

At any such event the topics of discussion are biographical: College, careers, migrations, marriage, family, kids. And nostalgic: misdeeds, pranks, angst, and glories of our adolescence. But what everybody is thinking about is hair, weight, success, and how they look compared to others. Of course I was focused on another issue, not entertained by the vast majority: Who might be gay?. I had a mental list of those I thought might be or those that I hoped would be, but none seemed to be. (It’s a military town in Virginia, the very model of conservative). When the subject came up, I explained my life-long unmarried status honestly. In high school I knew I was gay, but certainly was not out. I think a few had suspected back then and none seem too surprised about it now. A few went so far as to ask if I had a partner. (the answer is no)

But I do have a few observations:

The “A” list is till the “A” list. While subject to the indignities of middle age like everyone else, there was still a measure of confidence and ease in those that were on top and had stayed there.
Geeks rule. The math and science geeks, not the jocks and prom queens run the world.
It’s impossible to picture exactly how someone might look at 48 when you last saw them at 18, but once you do see them, their 30-years-older look makes perfect sense.
A few men and women look stunningly better at 48 than at 18.
1975 was a really, really bad hair year for men, and one or two had yet to get over it by 2005.
Somewhere in the intervening 30 years, stoners, clowns, nerds, jocks, and cheerleaders, became spouses, parents, grandparents, lawyers, business people, engineers, writers, airline pilots, shopkeepers, and college professors. Boys into men, Girls into women. But I am still trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up. Maybe I’ll have that figured out by the 50th reunion in 2025.

Pictures from the Reunion

Erring on the Side of Life

We have a moral obligation to let go of the ones hopelessly lost to this world. To keep their bodies alive through heroic or artificial measures does nothing for them in this life and most certainly delays their entry into the next life.

The problem comes in defining who is hopeless and what measures meet the definition of heroic and artificial. This problem played out on the public stage in the Terry Schaivo case.

I am satisfied that Mrs. Schaivo’s brain injury rendered her hopelessly lost to this world, and that a feeding tube surgically implanted in her abdomen meets the definition of artificial life support. But I understand that others might see it differently and there is certainly room to be on the fence in this case.

So, why not err on the side of life? Should her tube have been removed? That question is worthy of debate. Now that Terry has passed it is of course academic. But even while she was still alive the question was academic because we have no say in this matter. We have laws that value life, and recognize that personal, private and limited end of life decisions must be made from time to time. In this case, these carefully crafted laws were followed with scrupulous adherence to their intent of establishing the prognosis of the patient, honoring the wishes of the patient, and honoring the wishes of the family. 27 court decisions at the state and federal level have said so.

Erring on the side of life is prudent when there is uncertainty as to the integrity of the process or the merits of the situation. But neither case existed here. All those legislators, governors and the president knew that or should have known that before they acted so improperly and trampled the constitution they are sworn to protect. A law can be wrong, or have unintended consequences that need to be addressed. That’s handled by passing new legitimate laws that apply to everyone, not private bills that take court established rights away from specific individuals after the fact.

But was G.W. Bush erring on the side of life? He had 152 chances to do so while governor of Texas. That is the number put to death during his 6 years as governor. In all that time he commuted only one death sentence, that of serial Killer Henry Lee Lucas. He allowed to die several people who had troubling due process issues or where there was evidence of innocence. He let die a woman who committed a murder in drug-induced state as a young woman but had dedicated her life to Christ throughout her years in prison writing books, counseling others. His excuse for not considering any of these issues was he was bound to follow the law. But the law in Texas permitted him to intervene. He could have intervened, but chose not to intervene except in the case of Henry Lee Lucas.

The law was right then, but not now? Is he bound by the laws of Texas (which allows for the state to withdraw life support against the wishes of the family making Texas law even more anti-life than Florida law) but not the Laws of Florida? Or just bound by the laws he agrees with?

There is a saying that we are a nation of laws not men. That means that those in authority are bound by the law and checks and balances of our system. They are not free to ignore the law to have their way. They are not free to usurp the separation of powers to have their way. To do so turns elected constitutional officers into dictators.

There is plenty of room to argue this unfortunate case on the merits and from a position of belief. Perhaps the law will even be changed. But the events as they have unfolded, unconstitutional legislative interference in a private matter properly adjudicated within the law is beyond outrageous.

So G.W. Bush and his brother Jeb are disengenuous when they claim they were erring on the side of life. They were trying to score points by erring on the side of their political base. I think it backfired.

My Horrible, Miraculous Year

It’s a New Year. All things are possible once again. I will lose weight, find a lover, clean the garage, make out my will, get the 300 sq ft of holes in my roof from Hurricane Charley fixed, travel, win the lottery, blah, blah, blah...

Heavy Sigh...

The stuff you plan happens or it doesn’t. It’s the stuff you don’t plan that is more interesting. This time last year I did not imagine being slammed by 3 out of 4 hurricanes and having 3 rooms of my house destroyed. I did not envision winning a signed Picasso print in a charity raffle or winning a cruise in a church raffle. I did not imagine that 10 years after leaving a job, I would find my self back in that company, in the same department, working for the same person. I did not expect to see my brother-in-law’s cousin on the cover of The Advocate, or to see a good friend profiled in another issue. I did not expect to have 4 letters to the editor published in the Orlando Sentinel. I did not expect to see good friends cope with cancer or good folks to pass away. I did not expect the president to be re-elected, or 150,000 to die in the boxing day tsunamis. And lastly, I did not expect the break-up of Jenn & Brad or me having anything to do with it. Yes, 2004 was my Annus Horribilis and my Annus Mirabilis. What will 2005 have in store?

Bathtub in the Road

No, I am not making this up. In traffic reports one recent morning there was word of a rush hour delay because a bathtub was in the road. I've been thinking about it all day. What does it mean to be blocked on your way by a bathtub in the road? It's a powerful metaphor for something. I just don't know what.

This slice of real life comes on the morning after a dream I had. I was digging up a broken sprinkler valve in the front yard. Because the water had been flowing freely it had carved an underground chamber. I was peering into the hole trying to decide how big it was when I saw a light. I looked deeper and saw that the hole expanded into a large cave with smooth concrete floor that ran from my yard to somewhere under the street. Then I saw a man, kind of Mexican looking. I yelled (or tied to yell in that dream-paralyzed state) at him to get out of there and he ran off deeper into the cave. I suddenly knew how they were getting access to my house! Then I woke up.
Perhaps the Mexican living under my street had something to do with the bathtub in the road.

It’s the ideology, Stupid.

It’s the ideology, Stupid. The Republicans have one. The Democrats don’t.

I know what the Republican Ideology is: Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, Fiscal Discipline, Lower Taxes, limited-entitlements, Lower Taxes, Personal Freedom, Lower Taxes, Military Might, Lower Taxes, Higher Security, Lower Taxes, Domination over Consensus in International affairs, Lower Taxes, Good Business Climate, Lower Taxes, Pro Gun, Lower Taxes, Pro Life, Lower Taxes, Anti-Gay, Lower Taxes, Moral Values, Conservative Good, Liberal bad, and Lower Taxes.

Now in practice, the Republicans have completely abandoned any semblance of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. They have embraced costly entitlements, and would sacrifice more personal freedom in the name of security and ‘moral values’ than anything since Jim Crow and Grandfather clauses. So it’s not that they strictly follow the ideology, it’s that they have one.

I can take a stab at the Democrat’s apparent Ideology. Lets see – how about “We’re sort of the same as the Republicans just not as extreme or mean spirited and we most definitely are not Liberal.” Yeah, that’s how to build a base, and formulate a message.

Given that we were not running for anything, but against Bush, without articulating a clear new direction is it any wonder more than half of American voters decided to stay the course? If we had to lose, we should have lost on what we stand for, because we are never going to win by pointing out how far to the right the republicans are and then saying were not that far right.

We need to stop defining ourselves in terms of the Republican’s Ideology, and define ourselves by what we really stand for. We need to reclaim the term ‘liberal’ from the ash heap of political pejoratives and restore is as a proud tradition. A tradition that stands for:
Stewardship of our environment and resources.
Helping those in need of basic human services.
Defending basic human rights.
Preserving rights for the minority.
Expanding rights for the oppressed and disenfranchised.
Investing in sound science for the betterment of all.
Leading the world, not bullying it.
Making America a better place to live and prosper.

Moral Values?

In the Election post mortem, many stated that their biggest reason for voting for George W. Bush was moral values. Moral values? That is just code for outlawing abortion and seeking legal ways to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens.
What we need is moral courage. Courage to recognize that safe, legal but rarely chosen abortion is the only acceptable balance between the tragic loss of the unborn and the horrific specter of state control over reproductive and health choices. Courage to understand that there are no second class citizens of this country and to stand against any law, policy, or group that says otherwise. Courage to hold dear the separation of Church & State so that we may worship without fear and suffer civil consequences only when we break man's law and not someone's
idea of God's law. Courage to disagree without hate. Courage to act
on principal with understanding rather than on fear with ignorance.
I wonder if anyone claiming to have voted on 'moral values' ever stood
up for anyone other than themselves and those just like them?

Fear

“…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Those reassuring words from FDR were to calm a nation in the throes of an economic depression so deep and so severe that we have no modern day comparison. As much as anything, FDR wanted the optimism and resourcefulness of the people to lift the country out of the mess it was in.

How times have changed. Now our government sponsors fear as a tool to get what it wants over the better judgment of the people. To be sure, there is plenty to be afraid of. But is nursing that fear to support a war or as a pretext to limit our civil liberties really good leadership?

Our most immediate enemy before and after September 11 was terrorism. Secondary to that were the rouge states that could wreck havoc in their corner of the world, and cause all manner of misery, but not likely to cause us much misery directly. Dealing with rogue states requires diplomacy and international consensus. Dealing with terrorism requires resolve, cunning, imagination and an honest look at the root causes. But the current administration has chosen fear. Be so afraid of terrorists, that we disrupt our lives and liberties, be so afraid of rogue states that we start wars.

And while we’ve got the fear thing going, let’s use fear as an instrument of policy advocacy:
Be AFRAID – Allowing gays to marry will destroy your family.
Be AFRAID – Cleaner air and water will cost you your job.
Be AFRAID – Stem cell research will promote abortions.

Please catagorize your fear according to the helpful scale below:



Now the only thing we have to fear, is the use of fear.

Girlie men

Heavy sigh...  Could there be a less offensive mock pejorative that someone actually took offense to then “Girlie Men”?.    

The Quantum Physics of Fat

Obesity is at an epidemic level and there seems to be no end to the blame.  Is it the food industry pushing lucrative but unhealthy choices?  Is it the entertainment industry that has provided too many sedentary choices?  Is it our service based economy that requires physical labor from so few?  Is it pie?  And dare I ask: does the fault lie within us?

No, it’s none of those things.  After slap-dash research I have stumbled upon the source of the obesity epidemic. It’s Physics.   Did you know that we are accelerating?  Our planet, sun, solar system and galaxy are moving away from everything else in the universe at an ever faster rate.  Did you know that acceleration increases mass?  The more an object accelerates the more massive the object becomes.  So even though you have parked your massive butt in a chair and it seems to be doing no accelerating at all, it never-the-less gets more massive.  Your mass is increasing because everything in the Universe (including your butt and the chair it’s parked in) is flying apart at an ever increasing rate of speed.  So it’s not your fault.  It’s a fundamental law of physics.  Have some more pie.