The dark soul of modern American-style fascism, more commonly known in it's latest orwellian denotation- 'compassionate conservatism', exposes itself occasionally and unintentionally (albeit subconciously) to the light. . .
Consider the recent comments of conservative darling Bob Bennett about blacks and crime, on his right-wing radio talk show. Regarding the implications of a controversial new book 'Freakonomics', which concerns statistics, economic data and their manipulation to enhance most any end or argument apparently (something the right-wing in America has gotten very good at doing), he let slip the stuff of what serious, right thinking, good ol' boy republicans no doubt talk about among themselves all the time. That is: How to ignore, marginalize, persecute or 'eliminate' blacks, browns, gays, emancipated women or any other group not acceptable or inconvenient to their authoritarian, christian fundamentalist, corporate-owned catachism. All of these groups are more and more undermined and attacked by the rightwing through legislation, the courts or even on the streets by the least among them. The fervent success of the right-wing in this area has only gotten more strident, blatant and painfully effective as their grip on power has increased.
Bennett's quick, in same sentence retraction of the notion of aborting all blacks to reduce crime (no doubt ONLY based in a guilt ridden catholicism), was eerily like the myriad discussions among the Nazis over the course of their stay in power of the 'final solution' and its political and moral implications. The very fact that the discussions occurred at all was indicative that the Holocaust that followed was inevitable, especially when the Nazis' power to do so was unassailable. Carl Jung would agree surely. This obsession and developed hatred of all that is communal, non-christian and non-white middle, upper class by the new reich of the new right-wing in America can only follow a similar slide into the dark abyss where fascist thought and action has historically flowed. . .
Their god is not who they believe he is!
BLOG ON
Friday, September 30, 2005
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
What's Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?
--Edited from an article by Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute.
(suggested by Julie Johnson)
It seems there's no escaping America's culture wars for the Supreme Court: On Tuesday, Oct. 14, the Court announced that it would hear Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a case on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow arose out of a California parent's attempt to get the phrase "under God" stripped from the Pledge, on the grounds that it represents an establishment of religion.
The Newdow case is a Republican campaign strategist's dream. It gives G.O.P. candidates a grand old opportunity to position themselves as defenders of tradition against militant atheists and liberal judges. But any conservatives so inclined should think about what they're defending.
Very little, as it turns out. From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as "Jesus the Socialist." Bellamy was devoted to the ideas of his more-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, author of the 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward. Looking Backward describes the future United States as a regimented worker's paradise where everyone has equal incomes, and men are drafted into the country's "industrial army" at the age of 21, serving in the jobs assigned them by the state. Bellamy's novel was extremely popular, selling more copies than other any 19th century American novel except Uncle Tom's Cabin. Bellamy's book inspired a movement of "Nationalist Clubs," whose members campaigned for a government takeover of the economy. A few years before he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy became a founding member of Boston's first Nationalist Club.
After leaving the pulpit, Francis Bellamy decided to advance his authoritarian ideas through the public schools. Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth's Companion, a popular children's magazine. With the aid of the National Education Association, Bellamy and the editors of Youth's Companion got the Pledge adopted as part of the National Public School Celebration on Columbus Day 1892.
Bellamy's recommended ritual for honoring the flag had students all but goosestepping their way through the Pledge: "At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the Flag the military salute--right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it... At the words, 'to my Flag,' the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side." After the rise of Nazism, this form of salute was thought to be in poor taste, to say the least, and replaced with today's hand-on-heart gesture.
Hands on their hearts, more than 100 Republican members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge shortly after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Newdow in June 2002. It was an effective photo-op, allowing the G.O.P. to cast itself as the defender of tradition. But not every tradition deserves defending. Though no one can be legally compelled to salute the flag, encouraging the ritual smacks of promoting a quasi-religious genuflection to the state. That's not surprising, given that the Pledge was designed by an avowed socialist to encourage greater regimentation of society.
Regardless of the legal merits of Newdow's case -- which rests on a rather ambitious interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment clause -- it's ironic to see conservatives rally to such a questionable custom. Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without "under God"?
-Never expect the religious right to be rational!
BLOG ON. . .
(suggested by Julie Johnson)
It seems there's no escaping America's culture wars for the Supreme Court: On Tuesday, Oct. 14, the Court announced that it would hear Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a case on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow arose out of a California parent's attempt to get the phrase "under God" stripped from the Pledge, on the grounds that it represents an establishment of religion.
The Newdow case is a Republican campaign strategist's dream. It gives G.O.P. candidates a grand old opportunity to position themselves as defenders of tradition against militant atheists and liberal judges. But any conservatives so inclined should think about what they're defending.
Very little, as it turns out. From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as "Jesus the Socialist." Bellamy was devoted to the ideas of his more-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, author of the 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward. Looking Backward describes the future United States as a regimented worker's paradise where everyone has equal incomes, and men are drafted into the country's "industrial army" at the age of 21, serving in the jobs assigned them by the state. Bellamy's novel was extremely popular, selling more copies than other any 19th century American novel except Uncle Tom's Cabin. Bellamy's book inspired a movement of "Nationalist Clubs," whose members campaigned for a government takeover of the economy. A few years before he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy became a founding member of Boston's first Nationalist Club.
After leaving the pulpit, Francis Bellamy decided to advance his authoritarian ideas through the public schools. Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth's Companion, a popular children's magazine. With the aid of the National Education Association, Bellamy and the editors of Youth's Companion got the Pledge adopted as part of the National Public School Celebration on Columbus Day 1892.
Bellamy's recommended ritual for honoring the flag had students all but goosestepping their way through the Pledge: "At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the Flag the military salute--right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it... At the words, 'to my Flag,' the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side." After the rise of Nazism, this form of salute was thought to be in poor taste, to say the least, and replaced with today's hand-on-heart gesture.
Hands on their hearts, more than 100 Republican members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge shortly after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Newdow in June 2002. It was an effective photo-op, allowing the G.O.P. to cast itself as the defender of tradition. But not every tradition deserves defending. Though no one can be legally compelled to salute the flag, encouraging the ritual smacks of promoting a quasi-religious genuflection to the state. That's not surprising, given that the Pledge was designed by an avowed socialist to encourage greater regimentation of society.
Regardless of the legal merits of Newdow's case -- which rests on a rather ambitious interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment clause -- it's ironic to see conservatives rally to such a questionable custom. Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without "under God"?
-Never expect the religious right to be rational!
BLOG ON. . .
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Revolution No. 9
1- 1841 soldiers dead in Iraq as of 8/12/05.
2- $300 Billion spent on Iraq war as of 8/12/05.
3- 0 is the number of wmds found in Iraq.
4- $240 Billion is the yearly surplus Clinton left Bush.
5- $350 Billiion is the current yearly deficit under Bush.
6- 1 in 5 is the number of American children in poverty (up 15% since Bush took office).
7- 5 Million is the number of people who have lost health insurance since Bush took office.
8- 0 is the number of mistakes of any kind admitted by the Bush administration.
9- 4 is the multiple by which N. Korea has increased its nuclear weapons since Bush took office.
--and then there is the handling of the Katrina catastrophe (no numbers yet available). . .
REVOLUTION ANYONE?
Blog On
2- $300 Billion spent on Iraq war as of 8/12/05.
3- 0 is the number of wmds found in Iraq.
4- $240 Billion is the yearly surplus Clinton left Bush.
5- $350 Billiion is the current yearly deficit under Bush.
6- 1 in 5 is the number of American children in poverty (up 15% since Bush took office).
7- 5 Million is the number of people who have lost health insurance since Bush took office.
8- 0 is the number of mistakes of any kind admitted by the Bush administration.
9- 4 is the multiple by which N. Korea has increased its nuclear weapons since Bush took office.
--and then there is the handling of the Katrina catastrophe (no numbers yet available). . .
REVOLUTION ANYONE?
Blog On
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)