Letters to the Editor
Jeffrey P. Harrison
Published Letters: 354 Editor's Choice: 39
-
Interesting...
[Read the article: "We're all fascists now"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think that the fundamental problem here is the use of old (in the sense that the terms have been around for a while) and emotionally charged labels that have squidgy meanings. I mean this from two points of view. View #1 is: What was the philosophy anyway? Most people have an impression of what the philosophies of various movements (Nazism, Marxism, Stalinism, etc, etc) are but they rarely get it right because their impressions come from what leaders who are trying to implement the philosophy actually do which frequently is at variance with the actual philosophy itself. This brings me to the second view which is: What is actually done in the name of (fill in the blank) philosophy? For those who don't know the philosophy, the actual policies form a substitute.
Personally, I care not for what is essentially an etymological argument that depends on an assumed meaning for terms which have many different meanings for many different people. Thus I prefer to go to first principles for discussions because of the emotional and historical baggage associated with many of the commonly used terms for political philosophies. The real first principle here is: What is the role of government in a society? A subtext question is: Where is the line drawn between public and private life?
In this country today we are, indeed, all fascists. There are no philosophical differences between what is commonly called the left and right wing, only differences in implementation. The underlying philosophy of both the left and the right is that the proper role of government is to shape, guide, and mold society. The only political party to offer a different philosophy is the libertarian party who believe that the proper role of government is to create a level playing field so that society can simply get on with whatever it wants to be. I'd like to point out that if you wanted to put our founding fathers in a modern political party, they'd all be libertarians because they definitely didn't believe in government driving society. They believed quite the opposite.
I use the term liberal as a label for those who feel that the government should be guiding society. Under that rubric, both the left and right wings are a load of stinking liberals and thus are both fascists if you wish to label the left fascistic.
I also think we should start using the old Venetian custom upon the election of a new Doge. The Venetians would hoist the new Doge in the air on a seat mounted on a pole and would carry him through town whilst he cast golden ducats to the crowds. The Republicans could cast their ducats to crowds of lobbyists and heads of corporations. The Democrats could cast their ducats to crowds of lobbyists and leaders of organizations seeking entitlement programs.
-
Hmmmm
[Read the article: The Kucinich court decision and "judicial activism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with your basic point. The role of the judiciary is to review a complaint, apply the applicable law, and render a decision about the complaint. I further agree that until you've read the complaint and the applicable law, you've got nothing to talk about. Where I disagree is in your apparent belief that only "the conservatives" have done this and/or that there is no basis for complaints about judicial activism in the sense of having judges effectively creating law or treating law/constitutional clauses like rubber bands that can be stretched via torturous logic to support any number of desired outcomes. The fact that in this case the fascist noise machine is off on one of its clueless tirades doesn't negate the reality of this abuse by members of the judiciary on both sides of the aisle.
-
Amen Brother
[Read the article: America needs realists, not William Kristol]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is it that America has bipolar disorder? Why is everything black or white, good or bad, liberal or neo-con (that was a test. Neo-Cons are just limp wristed liberals with an authoritarian streak and not actually conservatives at all)? One frequently hears about "presenting both sides of an argument" but what if there are more than two? The answer, of course, is that the MSM will force fit all the sides into two sides and then generally ignore the other sides that don't really fit into the two sides that have been selected.
It does wonders for simplifying discourse but horrible things to an accurate understanding of the cause and effects of various world events. As any doctor can tell you, a poor diagnosis generally leads to a poor prescription for health.
-
Actually
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]there's no resisting about it. DVF was telling you that the US is more interested in trivialities - HRCs fashions or her likeability, John Edward's haircuts, Mitt Romney's hairdo, yada, yada, yada - than in substance. And, as long as the press continues to ignore sunbstance in favor of fluff, we will continue to wind up with bozos like The Current Occupant.
-
Actually a better question
[Read the article: Staph infections: The right call]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]would be: why the apparent high incidence in men? SA has nothing to do with sex (either the act or the gender). I would hazard a guess that there's a lot more skin to skin contact between men and women than there is between men and men.