Confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism

Today in Salt Lake City, Utah, Donald Rumsfeld attacked critics of the President and his war on terror and his handling of the war in Iraq. What follows are some of his comments (and mine).

"With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" Rumsfeld asked the American Legion U.S. military veterans group.

Uhm. I’m going to go with: NO. I don’t think any rational person thinks we can appease the terrorists since what they want is for America and Israel to cease to exist and won’t settle for anything less. There isn’t a Democrat or Liberal who wishes we could just talk to Bin Laden and sort out all our feelings. No, we want him dead or captured and Al-Qaeda destroyed. That’s why we are against the war in Iraq, because you, Mr. Rumsfeld, took our eyes off the prize.

"It was a time [WWII] when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies, when those who warned about a coming crisis -- the rise of fascism and Nazism -- they were ridiculed or ignored.”

Ignored like the outgoing Clinton administration was when it warned you of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and you dismissed them and told them they were too obsessed with terrorists. While I’m on the subject, I would like an apology for when your party accused Clinton of “Wagging the dog” when he bombed Al-Qaeda camps.

"Indeed, in the decades before World War Two, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem”

So you’ve decided to make the fascist threat our problem by holding prisoners without trial, spying on American citizens without a warrant, and demanding blind faith as a show of patriotism.

"I recount that history because, once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,"

So vote Democrat in 2006 to put an end to fascism in America. I make fun of his comments because they deserve it. Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush and their dwindling supporters insist on … I don’t know what to call it. It’s not a perversion of our message. It has nothing to do what we as liberals and democrats actually believe. They just made up something to argue against and pretended we said it. Who is more against fascism than us?

In case you don't know what fascism is: Fascism as defined by Dictionary.com - 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.

That about says it all.
-j.r.

Just a quick thought

Real Time with Bill Maher is back on the air. I’m very happy about this. I love the Daily Show and The Colbert Report, but when you throw in Real Time it’s a great time to own a television. On the season premiere they had my favorite person on: Christopher Hitchens. You may know him if you’ve watched Bill Maher from the beginning (Comedy Central and ABC’s Politically Incorrect) as the man who repeatedly called Clinton a rapist. Well, he still blames Clinton for what’s wrong with the world and he brought up something that I had just recently discussed with a friend of mine. He mentioned that Clinton never did anything without first consulting an opinion poll. Conservatives consider this a great evil, though no politician ever does anything without consulting a poll (if they want to win). The problem was Clinton tried to be a moderate and made decisions that the majority of people supported (and consequently got a lot done). What an evil man. Here he is the President of the United States, elected by the whole country to represent the whole country, and he’s trying to make decisions that all of them can get behind. What an Ass!
At least the conservatives are consistent, and I love consistency. Conservatives support the president and think he is a great man. He sticks by his decisions even though 60% of the country do not agree with him. What a leader. Since he was elected in 2004 with 51% of the popular vote that means that even people who voted for him do not agree with him. This means that he’s not even representing the people who voted for him. This begs the question: whom does this President represent?

Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research was the cover story on the most recent Time magazine though, there were more articles on the war between Lebanon and Israel. As I was thinking about those who are against embryonic stem cell research I first admired their consistency. They believe life begins at conception and so it logically follows that they would be against using fertilized embryos in this way. The question I asked myself was, “why don’t they protest other attacks on life?” As I mentioned the other articles in Time magazine dealt primarily with war, why isn’t the pro-life movement anti-war? Why doesn’t the pro-life movement march against the death penalty? Why weren’t they the first to bring up issues of genocide and ethnic cleansing in places such as Rwanda and Serbia? Why didn’t they march on Washington with pictures of children missing arms and legs because we were too slow to act to prevent warlords from exterminating whole tribes? If life is so precious, why don’t they fight for decent health care or fight against poverty, two leading killers of people around the world?

If they’re serious about ending abortion why don’t they attack the reasons most women get them? Why don’t they fight for a living wage? Why don’t they work for better access to birth control for women? Once again, Health care. Having a baby isn’t cheap. Why don’t they fight for better day care? Better maternity leave? Currently, a company is only legally required to keep your position open, they don’t have to pay you when you’re not working. What woman can make the decision to stop working for 2-3 months without pay, while racking up medical expenses? What about stiffer penalties for men who sleep with women and then leave when the stick turns pink?

Of course, looking for consistency and logic among fanatics is not a good way to spend your time. And even if they were consistent, I’d still think they were wrong. Stem cell research has great potential. Those who claim it is mostly hype are mostly those trying to get us not to do it. 20 years ago the word “cancer” was synonymous with “death”. Now it’s “what type do you have?” The chances of survival are different for different types and what area of the body it attacks. In another 20 years, cancer of any sort may not mean anything more than an overnight stay at the hospital. People live with HIV now. The fight against these diseases isn’t over, but we’re winning more battles. Medical advances take a long time, due to (necessary) restrictions against tests on humans. So why would we saddle ourselves with even more limitations. Every year that we withhold federal funding of embryonic stem cell research adds another year to the DECADE it will take before the experimental drug can reach the clinical trial phase. Let’s stop letting fanatics decide scientific and public policy. Let’s stop letting fanatics elect our leaders. We're a majority on this issue, and we should make our voices heard.