Here are Chip Berlett's 1992 characteristics of historical fascism (as seen in Spain, Germany, Italy and Japan):
*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).
*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.
*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
I appreciate your factual tone about what is so often an emotional issue; however, I have some issues with the relationship of the facts:
My fundamental contention is that Saudia Arabia was in no danger of invasion. An immanent danger of such an invasion, and the more emotional issue of the supposed slaughter of Kuwaiti infants in hospital incubators, were the public pretexts for the "liberation" of Kuwait. Both of those pretexts were false, and your factual observation does not in any way support a contrary argument, because at the time the U.S., Saudi Arbaia and Iraq were already at war -- a war initiated by the U.S.
I presume that you were aware of this fact. I contend that your statement, upon this presumption, is disingenuous and deceptive.
You apparently are not aware that the sat photos showing preparations for an invasion of Saudi Arabia in 1991 were a fabrication. Check it out. Hint: Get transcripts from Senate hearings interviewing defense chiefs in 1992-1994.
It's also worth observing that Kuwait (historically a part of Iraq, unlike the Kurdish north), was engaged in plundering the Iraqi oil fields by extensive slant-drilling at the time. (As it is again today.) It's not like the invasion of Kuwait was an unjustified act of aggression. More like an opportunistic abuse of circumstances which went horribly awry.
Historically, the percieved (and, usually, actual) injustices created by the ability of the victor to impose intolerable conditions on the vanquished has in fact lead to future wars. The Versailles treaty after WW1 is a leading example, but there is an abundance of others to support the argument that war does in fact beget war.
Oh come one, the US has attacked and/or invaded more non-aggressing nations in the last 30 years than I can count on one hand.
As a peacenik (which to me means someone who advocated peace where it is the most responsible option and thinks that peace usually is the most responsible option), I have to take exception to your sig: The overwhelming majority of us (peaceniks), *do* ask Saddam Hussein to abdicate power in Iraq.
I would also ask George Bush to abdicate power in the U.S., since he can't keep his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but neither is going to happen, realistically.
Ask the victims of allied atrocities (Dresden, Nagasaki, the Germans who were starved en mass in allied camps after the fall of Berlin) how they feel about it.
I think that the solution to a problem is not creating more and bigger problems that mask the original problem, but to find and strike at the root causes.
I'm not saying war is never a valid option. Defending against an attack is not only justified, but morally and practically required, and such a defense may well be an act of war, but your "some circumstances" argument falls flat on two grounds:
1) It's not a good analogy to any current situation.
and
2) It depends on a whiggish history of WW2, as written by the victors, ignoring a whole boatload of politically incorrect and inconvenient truth on the topic.
Still, your (weak) conclusion is justifiable on other grounds. I'm just complaining about your justification, and the implicit conclusion from that weak statement of other, stronger, statements which do not follow -- whether or not you intended to imply those further conclusions consciously.
While one could argue that lasers do not qualify as being restricted to defensive use, ABM proliferation seems to me to be VERY desirable. I'd like to see every country in the world deploy effective ABM technology. It would make launching ICBMs redundant.
Just because it's a weapon, you can't infer that it is a threat to the innocent.
You can bet big (and win) that DPRK doesn't have any substantial countermeasures yet.
In general the "rogue" states (using the Bush definition here, not a semantically correct one) will have a hard enough time just getting a warhead delivered with useful reliability under receptive conditions -- ABM countermeasures will be out of the question for several more years; long enough to make laser ABM deployment worth the price to play.
One of those reasons is that U-238 is largely uncontrolled (and uncontrollable, inherently, given its abundance in the crust), and U-238 can be converted to Pu-239 by neutron bombardment. I can do it in my basement with nothing but a pressure cooker and some D2 gas cylinders from the local welding supply. It's not very fast, but it's one heck of a lot cheaper to separate Pu chemically than it is to enrich LEU by physical methods.
Your points are salient, and a constructive contribution to the discussion. This is sadly unusual.
Your sig OTOH is a puzzle wrapped in an enigma.
I would resolve its paradox by observing that Iraq hasn't really been at peace since 1991: The US and UK have been bombing and blockading with only brief intermissions for 12 years. 12 years of war is what killed those 2 millions, not peace.
It seems obvious to me that the 747s would just be kept flying in a coverage zone. They are there for altitude, not intercept. Since you can't use a space-based laser by treaty, it's the best, cheapest way to get wide coverage.
As regards speed, the laser travels at c, which is plenty fast.
Oh come on, who would fall for such a trick? It would take a nation of idiots and couch-potatos with the moral competence and group-think qualities of a pirhana to be duped by such facile propaganda.
It's very likely that nobody who isn't a cultic sycophant of the Church of Joel will spend much time in his blocks world, since his forums really suck. They are very badly designed and lack basic features that are universally recognized as desirable, such as threading. Heck, there hasn't been a Usenet news reader since 1987 that could hold it's head up without implementing nested threads.
The parent is completely and utterly wrong. Linksys wouldn't need to spend a dime on Linux support or writing drivers, just release their specs, and they'll get the code and the support for free.
While the Linux market may be small, we've got 160 laptops to fit with 11g, and I can guarantee you that we won't buy the device that only works with Windows. The 8 or 10 laps running Linux just cost Linksys 100% of this little market slice.
"Psychosis" as you use the term is really a social category used to excercise power over others. While Klebold and Harris were certainly neurotic in the classical sense, they were not clinically psychotic. What they lacked was a reasonable value system, and an engaging community, not sanity. What they abounded in was testosterone and (justifiable) self-pity. It's a nasty combination.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are Chip Berlett's 1992 characteristics of
historical fascism (as seen in Spain, Germany,
Italy and Japan):
*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).
*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.
*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
I appreciate your factual tone about what is so often
an emotional issue; however, I have some issues with
the relationship of the facts:
My fundamental contention is that Saudia Arabia was
in no danger of invasion. An immanent danger of
such an invasion, and the more emotional issue of
the supposed slaughter of Kuwaiti infants in
hospital incubators, were the public pretexts for
the "liberation" of Kuwait. Both of those pretexts
were false, and your factual observation does not
in any way support a contrary argument, because
at the time the U.S., Saudi Arbaia and Iraq were
already at war -- a war initiated by the U.S.
I presume that you were aware of this fact. I
contend that your statement, upon this presumption,
is disingenuous and deceptive.
You apparently are not aware that the sat photos
showing preparations for an invasion of Saudi Arabia
in 1991 were a fabrication. Check it out. Hint:
Get transcripts from Senate hearings interviewing
defense chiefs in 1992-1994.
It's also worth observing that Kuwait (historically
a part of Iraq, unlike the Kurdish north), was
engaged in plundering the Iraqi oil fields by
extensive slant-drilling at the time. (As it is
again today.) It's not like the invasion of Kuwait
was an unjustified act of aggression. More like an
opportunistic abuse of circumstances which went
horribly awry.
Historically, the percieved (and, usually, actual)
injustices created by the ability of the victor
to impose intolerable conditions on the vanquished
has in fact lead to future wars. The Versailles
treaty after WW1 is a leading example, but there
is an abundance of others to support the argument
that war does in fact beget war.
Oh come one, the US has attacked and/or invaded
more non-aggressing nations in the last 30 years
than I can count on one hand.
As a peacenik (which to me means someone who
advocated peace where it is the most responsible
option and thinks that peace usually is the
most responsible option), I have to take exception
to your sig: The overwhelming majority of us
(peaceniks), *do* ask Saddam Hussein to abdicate
power in Iraq.
I would also ask George Bush to abdicate power in
the U.S., since he can't keep his oath to protect
and defend the Constitution, but neither is going
to happen, realistically.
Ask the victims of allied atrocities (Dresden,
Nagasaki, the Germans who were starved en mass
in allied camps after the fall of Berlin) how
they feel about it.
I think that the solution to a problem is not
creating more and bigger problems that mask the
original problem, but to find and strike at the
root causes.
I'm not saying war is never a valid option.
Defending against an attack is not only justified,
but morally and practically required, and such a
defense may well be an act of war, but your
"some circumstances" argument falls flat on two
grounds:
1) It's not a good analogy to any current situation.
and
2) It depends on a whiggish history of WW2, as
written by the victors, ignoring a whole boatload
of politically incorrect and inconvenient truth
on the topic.
Still, your (weak) conclusion is justifiable on
other grounds. I'm just complaining about your
justification, and the implicit conclusion from
that weak statement of other, stronger, statements
which do not follow -- whether or not you intended
to imply those further conclusions consciously.
While one could argue that lasers do not qualify
as being restricted to defensive use, ABM proliferation
seems to me to be VERY desirable. I'd like to
see every country in the world deploy effective
ABM technology. It would make launching ICBMs
redundant.
Just because it's a weapon, you can't infer that
it is a threat to the innocent.
Nooooooo.... not Hooters! Oh, the humanity!
> aerosol
You can bet big (and win) that DPRK doesn't have
any substantial countermeasures yet.
In general the "rogue" states (using the Bush
definition here, not a semantically correct one)
will have a hard enough time just getting a
warhead delivered with useful reliability under
receptive conditions -- ABM countermeasures will
be out of the question for several more years;
long enough to make laser ABM deployment worth
the price to play.
One of those reasons is that U-238 is largely
uncontrolled (and uncontrollable, inherently,
given its abundance in the crust), and U-238
can be converted to Pu-239 by neutron bombardment.
I can do it in my basement with nothing but a
pressure cooker and some D2 gas cylinders from
the local welding supply. It's not very fast,
but it's one heck of a lot cheaper to separate
Pu chemically than it is to enrich LEU by
physical methods.
Ah, a question, sorry:
What MDN website is that?
Your points are salient, and a constructive
contribution to the discussion. This is sadly
unusual.
Your sig OTOH is a puzzle wrapped in an enigma.
I would resolve its paradox by observing that
Iraq hasn't really been at peace since 1991:
The US and UK have been bombing and blockading
with only brief intermissions for 12 years.
12 years of war is what killed those 2 millions,
not peace.
It seems obvious to me that the 747s would just be
kept flying in a coverage zone. They are there for
altitude, not intercept. Since you can't use a
space-based laser by treaty, it's the best, cheapest
way to get wide coverage.
As regards speed, the laser travels at c, which
is plenty fast.
Oh come on, who would fall for such a trick?
It would take a nation of idiots and couch-potatos
with the moral competence and group-think qualities
of a pirhana to be duped by such facile propaganda.
Several million tons of tissue paper.
Exactly *how* are you "legally required" to have
an SSN? I know several people who don't have one.
My daughter doesn't have one.
Don't give them your SSN. If they refuse to function
without one, give them a random fake.
When I was at the U of Mn, my ID read 000-00-0000.
With bittorrent or swarmcast, you don't have to send it 500 times.
If you *really* want to speed things up, send
pre-emptive ACKs before you get the data, right
about when they would be expected.
What, you lost a packet? Go back and fetch it
later using the application-layer protocol.
Voila, hyper-http.
Like the urine test, it's great for filtering out
completely unsuitable employer candidates.
It's very likely that nobody who isn't a cultic
sycophant of the Church of Joel will spend much
time in his blocks world, since his forums really
suck. They are very badly designed and lack
basic features that are universally recognized
as desirable, such as threading. Heck, there
hasn't been a Usenet news reader since 1987 that
could hold it's head up without implementing
nested threads.
You just committed a logical fallacy. Hint: It came
where you used the word "obviously".
The Observer edited the content to conform to their
British editorial standards.
"Anti-American" is a slur. There are plenty of
conservatives who oppose wars of aggression too.
The parent is completely and utterly wrong.
Linksys wouldn't need to spend a dime on
Linux support or writing drivers, just release
their specs, and they'll get the code and the
support for free.
While the Linux market may be small, we've got
160 laptops to fit with 11g, and I can guarantee
you that we won't buy the device that only works
with Windows. The 8 or 10 laps running Linux
just cost Linksys 100% of this little market slice.
"Psychosis" as you use the term is really a social
category used to excercise power over others.
While Klebold and Harris were certainly neurotic in
the classical sense, they were not clinically psychotic.
What they lacked was a reasonable value system,
and an engaging community, not sanity.
What they abounded in was testosterone and
(justifiable) self-pity. It's a nasty combination.