Archive

Archive for the ‘Conservatives’ Category

Fascim American Style… The Redefine/Refocus!

fascism

This image has little to do with the blog; I just thought I would add it for the “Fascism” in the title! Thanks NY Nerd.

Ever since the election of Barak “Hussein” Obama (extra emphasis on Hussein), the Obama administration has been labeled all sorts of negative descriptors. The word of the that seems to be the prevailing part of the partisan lexicon  is “Fascism or Fascist”, but those words don’t really mean what they think it means.

The time has come to add clarity to the word, the definition, and it applicability to the current president/administration. The unfortunate reality is that there are so many negative words subscribed to his administration that it would be impractical to cover them all here. This blog will cover the one that is the most miss-used one to date “fascist” or “fascism”!

Fascism has been commonly misunderstood to mean that the government doesn’t own the means of production, but the government does control it. This definition only goes to show that someone did not do a very thorough search on the Google machine. National_Fascist_Party_logo

Meriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression [via military means] of [political] opposition”. Fascism is completely foreign to the American governmental structure due to the very nature of it.

One must remember that we have a House of Representatives, a Senate, and a Supreme  Court which makes fascism in America impossible; RIGHT NOW. Fascism needs a dictatorial presence in order to be fulfilled and this is impossible in a democratic republic, such as America! Although it is true that fascist nations control the “means of production” many are oblivious to the fact that true fascism is accompanied with the utilization of military force, mobilization of the public, and political violence to those in opposition.

Fascism was invented and originated in Mussolini’s Italy. Mussolini defined it as the merger of state and corporate power. This is the government that libertarians/Republicons have been attempting to bring into existence for 30 plus years and yet they decry their disgust at the possibility that Obama could be using doing just that.

Fascism is the ultimate goal of the political Right. The political right would rather that practically all sectors of our economy be run by corporate raiders, minus military and defense in a small part. A Libertarian dream would be to have corporations be considered people [America is all but there], but with all of those exceptional bonus corporate powers! They would prefer that government get out-of-the-way of industry which would most certainly result in the oppression of We The People.

The ideology is to allow corporations to control the economy, control how and when they are regulated, control how much to pay workers, under what conditions workers should work in, and control their taxation policies. True fascism would return to the days of Mussolini where instead of elected officials running the House and the Senate we would have appointed corporate CEOs.

Actually, this is not that far removed from the deteriorated stated that our government is currently operating. The only real difference is that our representatives (loosely used) are the thin veneer between corporate interests and  representation. Make no mistake America there is an emerging bastions of fascism in America and it lives in Wall Street, the defense industry, our political system, lobbyists, corporate media and in both the right and left ends of our political spectrum [much more dominant in the Right].

There are traces of fascism everywhere, but it is not about the man “President Obama”; it is about the system. Our newspapers, media, and many other sources of information have been infected with the corporate cancer that greatly resemble fascism. The seeds have been sown and the fruit is looking to become ripe in the garden of government with the personalizing, empowering, and politicization of corporations. Read more…

Advertisements

Discussion with Conservatives: Women in Military Combat!

nean

Patriotism, courage, and even death doesn’t know gender. And with that, 152 female U.S. troops have died along side their fellow male soldiers and counting. Yet their service and sacrifice in that role has not been recognized for what it is; THE ULTIMATE SACRAFICE! Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary of the United States, said it best “men and women have been fighting and dying together and the time has come for our policies to recognize that reality“. This was in reply to the newly adopted and soon to be implemented policy of removing the restriction on women to serve in a combat role in the military.

The new policy of eliminating gender based restrictions on all military assignments could not have come too soon. The US combat exclusionary policy was only in effect in regards to formal recognition; women have been dying along the side of their male counterparts for years. This restriction was a paper tiger of sorts and only served to continue an outdated stereotype of the great and vast divide of male and female capabilities in the art of war.

This policy does not remove any of the stringent physical and mental requirements for combat; it mere allows women a chance to qualify for combat roles. In my estimation, this move not only will allow qualified women to be recognized for their service, but it will also go a long way in leveling the discriminating practices that have put a wedge between men and women in the military.

With the announcement of the change of policy, there has been a rather surprising resistance coming from the right of the political spectrum. This blog is a recount of a conversation with some conservatives on this topic. Based on this conversation, one can only hope that this attitude and stance is the absolute bottom rung of the collective “We” ladder.

This cannot be representative of conservatives as a “whole”, brace yourself for the following (nothing has been edited).

Marc Schenker  (opened this with a post on the subject)

  • Good grief, I hate this RINO more and more. Can he not read what experts like Elaine Donnelly have to say about women on the front lines?!?! What a diversity pimp. McCain Backs Women in Combat — As Long as Standards Stay High » Sen. John McCain supports allowing women in combat, while saying it remains critical for the military to uphold the same high standards particularly the physical ones that have made it the strong..

Paris Brierley1:04 PM

  • Wonder if girls will have to register for selective service now? … lets wait for that train wreck!

John Pavao1:15 PM

  • Senator McCain, we thank you for your service and your sacrifice.  Please retire.

Marc Schenker1:18 PM

  • +Paris Brierley, When girls (18 to 25) are drafted in the worst case scenario, all the feminist groups that hailed letting women into combat are going to be bitching about “The War on Women!” Hahahaha.

Anthony Gaston1:28 PM

  • I am not a fan of Senator McCain (it even hurts to type it), but I think he is taking the correct stance on this issue (I am a issues person, party be damned). I assert that women are fully capable of making a conscious decision to put themselves in harms way. I also assert that women are fully capable of learning logistics of combat, fire a weapon accurately, and performing the duties that your average male can perform.
  • What exactly do you think is wrong with women being allowed to do full combat in the war arena? Men who are (18 to 25) are killing and dying in combat; is it just the idea that it is a woman?
  • You do realize that women have been dying in the combat zone for a long time now and many of them were armed and fired back at the enemy. This change merely recognized this fact. Kudos to McCain for supporting equality on this issue; now he needs to get over the whole “gay” thing. Read more…

Rand Vs Clinton, Weak Sauce!

January 24, 2013 1 comment

Rand Paul lives up to his reputation as an ill-informed and unworthy Senator with his ridiculous statement that the Benghazi event was the “worst tragedy since 911″. I mean really? There have been a myriad of events since 911 that are more tragic, in every way than the Benghazi tragedy, but these are a few; CT shooting, record number of military suicides, Anthrax attacks by mail, Hurricane Katrina and Sally, his election, the BP spill, the list could go on and on. Hyperbolic much Mr. Paul?It is tragically laughable that his political points trumps his moral fiber. The point is, one does not have to overstate an event to give it worth. The Benghazi attack and killing were terrible and a tragedy that I wish could have been prevented, but to over inflate it in order to have your political Kabuki theatrer is sad and very unbecoming of  an elected senator.

benghaziRand Paul opened himself up to a bit of political thrashing with the following “Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi…. I would have relieved you of your post.” Clinton’s  reply was statesman-like and profession, as one would expect of her. The great thing is that Americans are being more informed, insightful  and progressive and this is the reason that Rand Paul will live the political life of Mitt Romney, as in he will never be President. I think that he is missing the fact that the Republican party cut funding for protection of the embassies abroad; another inconvenient truth. Read more…

Political Dinosaur (GOP)!

gop-dinosaur-smWhig Party 2013 is what comes to mind when reflecting on today’s Republicon party. The course of the Republicon party is clear! Their supporters are regressive! Their policies are void of democratic substance and are on the wrong side of progressive history, which has been a mainstay of America’s development since its inception. Their goose seems all but cooked as they continue to mire themselves into adopting policies that are anti-science, anti-freedom, anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-populist, anti-minority, and dare I say anti-American. The direction of the GOP is that of the Whigs or Political Dinosaurs!

The Whig Party of the early 1830s to the mid-1850s was the political party in opposition to the Democratic Party of the Jacksonian era. The reference to the current Republican party becoming the modern version of the Whigs has its merit in terms of a party leading itself out of political viability, but not in mutually reflective policies. The Whig party was, for its time, somewhat progressive in terms of economics and modernization; see HERE for a more detailed history of the Whigs. The Whig analogy is all about self destruction of a party which the Republicons have demonstrated a mastery at, as of late. The beautifully amazing divide between the Republicon party and the nation today is a political reality that the party itself refused to learn from or adapt to; as demonstrated in the 2012 elections.

A perfect example of the complete social blindness of the Republicon party is not only reflected in their members, but also in their party platform. The Republican National Committee published their 60 plus page platform named  “We Believe in America”  which is a great title but lacks the reflective policies of a 2012 America. In the 2012 platform, Republicons utilize the same coded policy verbiage that makes for great ear candy but the reality of what they represent are politically and socially ugly.

The party continues to feed their homophobic members in both policy and language. In their platform they oppose the use of  “social experimentation in the military” which is a sad-veiled reference to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. No gays in the military is their stance. The use of “fixed value for the dollar” is the right-wing moronic idea that America should return to the gold standard; an idea that has also been adopted by the Libertarian party (you know Republicans  that want to smoke dope and get laid). America’s dynamic economy of today cannot be supported by a material that only has the value subscribed to it by the market. The gold standard is unrealistic in today’s economy, but still warrants lip service by the so-called Conservatives  The platform also romanticizes the policy of privatizing Social Security, but uses the phrase “control over their investments” as a way to disguise their true policy. The policies of the Republicon party uses words that sound good, but the actual result of the policies are detrimental to American and 95% of its citizenry. Read more…

Reply to Conservative on Unions, WHAT? Part 3

No Unions, REALLY?!?

No Unions, REALLY?!?

The initial question posted by Warren Drew

Given the fight later today over final passage of a right to work law in Michigan, I figured it might be worthwhile to mention a couple things about right to work.

First, right to work laws do not prohibit unions.  They merely allow workers to decline to join a union.  There are plenty of unions in right to work states.

Second, right to work laws do not appear to reduce wages.  The state with the highest wages for assembly line workers is Alabama, a right to work state.  The metro areas with the highest wages are Tuscaloosa and Spartanburg, both in right to work states.  BLS figures from here:

http://www.ehow.com/info_7802584_average-auto-assembly-line-worker.html#ixzz2Eijftiyi

Right to work laws just keep the unions honest, and make them work for the workers rather than just for the union bosses.  From the standpoint of industry, they just balance out federal laws that are very much prounion.

My reply to Warren Drew

+Warren Dew
Your posting of surface information is not beneficial to those who are not aware of the financial implications of right-to-work-for-less laws (RTWFL).

The first point is partially true; it does not prohibit unions; it ONLY allows workers benefit from the unions activism on their behalf without paying into the very union that created the benefits that they enjoy. You know to loosely use an analogy; it like eating going into McDonalds, eating a Big Mac, and not paying for it. Fair right?

Your second point is also only true on the surface. While what you stated may be correct on the surface when you really look the facts it is deceiving to be kind. The United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics state that Occupational Employment and Wages Estimates shows median hourly wages of all the Right to Work States (RTW) and all the Collective-Bargaining States (CBS) as follows: Read more…

Reply to Conservative on Unions, WHAT? Part 1

December 11, 2012 3 comments
No Unions, REALLY?!?

No Unions, REALLY?!?

The initial question posted by Gregory

 

Question for conservatives:  Why don’t you support worker unions?

A worker union is a free association of individuals with the purpose of increasing their bargaining power against that of their employer.  In capitalism, the owner of a good is free to decide how much to price their own goods.  I am the owner of my labor and therefore I am free to decide how much my labor is worth.  As an American, I have the right to free association.  It is therefore within my rights to meet with fellow employees and decide together how much we should “charge” for our labor.If it is acceptable for industry to join together in order to lobby congress to pass laws that favor them over their employees, then why is it not acceptable for employees to fight back by forming collectives of their own?The point for conservatives is to maximize freedom, is it not?  Isn’t the ability to unionize a type of freedom?You can respond however you want, of course, but using specific instances of a pathological union to make your case is going to be rather unconvincing.   Also, simply applying a label to unionism like “Socialism” is also not going to make your point to anyone except those who already think as you do.I’m looking for a general response as to why unionism is harmful to society.  More specifically, why it would result in more harm to society than if unions were banned.

My reply to Gregory Geller

I commend your post. It was eloquent, concise, and accurate. I assert that conservatives (loosely used term) have been convinced that the interests of the company should be their interests and nothing can be further from the truth. Unions are the only form of democracy in the workplace in almost every instance. The reference to GREED when talking about unions is a ridiculously misplaced descriptor, but one that I will not make the point of this post. Read more…

%d bloggers like this: