Um, maybe it's because I'm old... what's a brown shirt?

I think it's a reference to the Waffen-SS, not sure about that.

Since we're on the topic, what are the origins of "Moonbat" and "Tin-Foil Hat"?

Tin Foil Hat

Moon Bat

Brown Shirts

Just trying to be helpful here.

The brown shirts were worn by the Nazi party's enforcers. They differ from the Waffen-SS in that they were part of the party, not part of the government, when that made a difference. Not that I can recall what the offical name was.

A tin-foil hat (or at least a tin-foil liner for one's hat) is the classic way of protecting your brain from the orbital mind control lasers.

Well, it might be helpful to the link averse...

Yes, the Brown Shirts were the SA (Sturmabteilung), which can be translated as 'Assault Division', or more colloquially 'Storm Troopers.'

Actually the SA originated in WW1 as the designation for the small, highly-trained units that Germany developed as the solution to trench warfare. If we used today's terms they would be referred to as assault troops, or even a type of Special Forces.

After the war, Roehm's bullyboys hijacked the term.

The SS (Schutzstaffel, or "Protective Corps") were the blackshirts.

Actually, both the SS and the SA were paramilitary organizations.

Most people would have just said "Nazi" and left it at that.

You're scaring me, Casey.

:^)

So, ROSEMARY, if you're so smart, how do you expect me to protect my brain from the rays if I'm not allowed to wear tinfoil on my head at your site?

Good wishes ain't getting it done against the Martians, sister!! No wonder I'm considering joining the Nazi Party.

I haven't been to a party in ages.

You CAN wear your tinfoil hat! Just don't don any brown shirts!

But brown shirts bring out the color in my eyes. Come to think of it, so does shit. I guess I can try other earth tones.

Rosemary, you have demonstrated patience, compassion and wisdom in banning Arne. This is the reason I don't have my own blog. I'd have to ban MYSELF, and that would effectively hinder getting my message across.

Tim, if you ever change your mind my man, let me know. I think you'd run a fun blog.

I thought Arne was the sort of dude you wanted around Rosemary. A pretty trenchant argumentative sort with strong views and a good command of the facts, sources etc... As for calling names, he gives as good as he gets - whoever was impersonating him is scum as far as I'm concerned. Gordon for example was pretty damn abusive and I happen to believe Arnes side of the story re the ISP shenanigans, altering comments at his blog, given the fact that Arne gave him the smackdown on numerous occasions.

I haven't been following the comments 100% recently though, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Whatever floats your boat...

Po Po Arne. I'll miss laughing at her and her weak arguments.

So, Max, start your own blog and have Arne co-host it, if you like him so much. Frankly, I'm surprised that Rose put up with him as long as she did.

But hey, it's her blog. I'm not going pester her in public about her choices.

Ara: I did have to double-check a couple things (like German spelling), but that's what happens when you have more history books than sports mags in the apartment. Heh. One of my favorite works is Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer.

Don't ask me why, but he seems to have been one of the few popular history writers who mentioned that a significant number of the SA leadership were gay. You don't hear mention of that very much. Odd...

Max,

I checked ISP before the ban. The shenanigans were not the reason for the ban. It was the vicious name-calling the real true Arne laid on me and Dean. Calling Dean a brown-shirt wannabe was the last straw. I don't have to put up with that crap.

The kind of people I want around are like you, Max. You, Shep, Mark Adams, Ara and any Dem that truly wants to debate.

The real Arne only wanted to slam me personally. I think you know me well enough to know that I am not quick to ban.

The things the fake Arne said were romper room compared to the real one.

Aw...! Well... I had a quick glance through the last few threads, and I GUESS I see what you mean. When he first appeared he was relatively civil, or not truly nasty at least.

Cheers,

Max M

Ho Ho Ho

I actually deleted the nasty stuff, Max.

What Arne was a girl? Where've I been? w00t atleast she/he/it is gone.

Thanks for still including me Rose, even if I succomb to the occasional low blow (admonishment taken, head hangs low.)

Ara, I read Rise and Fall as a teenager, then took german classes just to better know the animal that was the most dangerous movement ever to be introduced to the world in living memory.

Knowing that the Nazi's could come out of a well educated, industrialized, modernized country as Germany scares me (always) that it could happen here.

Call me alarmist, but I serve a necessary function, for even the most die-hard right wingers among us get extremely upset to learn that that the khaki/tan blouse they wear with such panache, looks kinda brown from across the smoke-filled room.

It's easy to hold the line against fascists from this side of the political divide. Not so easy when you are closer to the deamon. We liberals have to watch our backs from our commie friends, but like Lenin led to Stalin and Mousselini led to Hitler, authoritarianism is the principle enemy of a free people.

I fear "corporatism", what Charles Krauthammer and his friends at the AEI calls our "Commercial Republic," what Il Duce called a better name for his version of fascism, more than communism, because communism never took over a western democracy with such disasterous results as was witnessed in the 1930's and '40's by the National Socialists of Central Europe.

When corporate America aligns seamlessly with our military and security policies, and that vision is announced and encouraged by the self-styled neo-conservatives who now populate so many levels of our government, I hear the the distant ghosts of trains that always run on time, but conceal horrors inside the cars that are hidden from the general population.

In the current climate, an anti-islam version of Kristallnacht would not surprise me, and the sad fact that it would be met with widespread indifference if not support is depressing. There was no great outcry in this country agaist the relocation camps for Japanese-Americans in the '40's, and Guantanimo bay was shrugged off the same way. Abu Ghraib is the result, which is only the tip of the iceberg of our present day Sturmabteilung having been unleashed.

Brownshirts? Inciteful and inflamatory rhetoric to be sure, but they did come at the beginning of the rise of the Nazi's and their excesses were only the tip of the iceberg, as we found out much to our shock and awe later on. Every one of them, however, believed himself to be a patriot, and doing rightous acts in the name of bettering their country. That's what people seem to forget. Nazi's were people too. Not too different from us.

As the historian Hugh Purcell said, 'fascist' has simply become a term of abuse. The internet has simply made that insult into an institution.

Mark,

I like you, low blows notwithstanding, and when you come here you treat me with respect. I appreciate that and even though we disagree on almost everything - I like battling with you.

We all say things that are nasty, I'm usually the first to "drop the gloves" but there is a line that reasonable people don't cross - Arne crossed it. Repeatedly.

Every one of them, however, believed himself to be a patriot, and doing rightous acts in the name of bettering their country. That's what people seem to forget. Nazi's were people too. Not too different from us.

Not according to my family. No, Mark, Saddam's Fedayeen were "like" the Nazis. The only Americans that are "like" them are the KKK and Neo-nazi Skinheads.

The Nazi's invaded, unprovoked, to conquer and cleanse. They were not threatened, attacked or even teased by anyone. Killing Poles, Gypsies and Jews that weren't living in Germany had nothing to do with bettering their country.

The comparison of us to them is sick and so wrong it's disgusting.

Rosemary I am glad you took a stand. I would get so mad when Arne attacked you personally. I have opened my mind so much first with Dean and then you. I'm so sure I sounded like a prude or goody whatever. To be completely honest when you would say things with your candor I worried that you would get hurt especially after that incident when somebody called you a brown shirt and threatend your life so Dean posted that the police were called.

You are so very beautiful and very very intelligent. Do you know that after I got used to your boldness it ended up helping me!?!

Yes it did, you gave me strength because you stand up for yourself and do not take crap. I guess I got a little older and out of touch.

Now, I am going to get tears in my eyes. Where you helped me the most because after all I am in my early 50's, My Grandson and I can talk about anything, ANYTHING. Hearing words with a bit of tender ears (Dean warns us when it's coming ya know, Those of you with tender ears. Because of you these ears Want to Hear. I am able to talk to him so candidly. He will be 16 and when he asked me why girls liked a penis, I felt no reserve, no holding back. I can't explain it and here I wrote a book again. I just never thought of a young man wanted to sincerely know about his penis. The subjects you have brought forth helped me more than I can ever thank you for.

You can tell me to go away now. I will, but I love you beautiful Lady. Hope You a understand what I was trying to say.

Thanks,

I do.

Thank you. :-)

Wait! I raised two boys. I did not mean I did not know a young man wanted to know about his penis. It was the question he asked me sincerely wanting to know why girls like it because he only had that. He said he could tell me why he liked T & A. Man if you have a teen nowadays it's tough due to the openess but I'm all the wiser. (Geez,... I'm dumb, my parents said it was tough to raise teen nowadays).

I hope you hear me honey, thank you for your...Oh just for being you.

I quite disagree that Nazis were only human. They were the worst sort of human. Any human being that can kill, maim, humiliate and crush other humans is a socio-path in the first degree. I know that term is no longer used and instead a person with no conscience is now one with a "border-line personality disorder" but I'm old-fashioned and socio-path or psychopath is as good a name as any to call 'em. Unfortunately all societies breed these devils. We've got 'em too. It's how you deal with them that counts.

In Germany they successfully took over the country mostly because the Germans had been brainwashed for the better part of a century that they were the master race and had gotten a raw deal when it came to competing with the British and French in the empire building era of discovery and exploitation of the Americas, Africa and Asia. Their deep-seated huge national inferiority complex developed into the death of probably 50 million if memory serves.

I would spend more time worrying about a Kristallnacht in France rather than in this country judging by the reported level of anti-Semitism now occurring in that country spurred no doubt by the presence of a large number of immigrants from Islamic countries. I have seen very little evidence of widely held anti-Islamic sentiment here in the US or government sanctioned persecution.

Those who claim that this is the case offer little in the way of proof only claiming that it seems that the Islamics among us don't feel that we like them. Huh? I don't like everyone myself. However, it is my own personal business who I like and don't like. As it happens I seldom, in fact never, dislike anyone based on ethnicity, religion, national origin, sex or any other external characteristics and I see little proof or indication that others in our country do either and certainly not in an institutionalized policy. The lefties absolutely hate GWB and are imagining all sorts of national misbehaviour attributed to the implementation of his policies to combat global terrorism. I hate to say it but my brainwashed detector is sounding the alarm like mad when I read such comments as made by Mark Adams, bless his soul. He must never sleep a wink as he ponders the fate of the persecuted Islamics among us.

And oh yes, Rose, I applaud your banning of Arne. I believe that his hi-jacking of most of your posts was a deterrent to more reasoned and
less polarizing commentary here. I mean it was just exhausting trying to figure out all of the loops and angles of his arguments. I was delighted to learn that he had finally stepped over the line once too often, cooking his goose with you.

Well, I tried too Rosemary. Even found myself ignoring the bs insults just to try to get to the argument.

I never think I'm persuading someone like Arne.. there isn't much reasoning with someone who thinks you oughta be locked up because you don't agree with them. I always thought we were putting it out there for others to consider, make up their mind about how the other side makes their case.

"buh-bye* Whew, that was a nice laugh. Thanks, HRH. And I think that a nice navy suits you much better :) Brown shirt-that is such a boring color, too stiff, closed, boring...

P.S. (I know what a real brown shirt is, for the record, just being light).

I look fabulous in navy! Emerald green too!

I look like crap in brown. ;-)

Just remember folks, the Nazi's is a shortened name for the National Socialist Party. The Nazi's were a socialist, left wing, party which believed the government should control every thing just as the communist party did.

To say that one is left wing and the other is right wing is to ignore history.

Now somebody define 'right wing' other than the seating in parlement

Well, "left" and "right" are a bit fluid. At the time--the 1930s--the Nazis were considered right-wing because they had little interest in democracy (they believed it was a doomed institution), they were strongly nationalistic, they were in opposition to Communism, and they were believers in a strong centralized state. All of which made them right-wing for the era, even if many of their actual reforms would be considered left-wing today (expanded national health system, highly socialized and regulated economy with centralized planning, strong separation of Church & State, and so on).

A large amount of Hitler's support early on came from the gay, arts, and academic community, along with most of the liberal Protestant organizations. A large segment of his early followers was gay men who saw themselves in the mode of the ancient Greeks, men-on-men love being the ultimate expression of spirituality and such. But then Hitler wound up butchering most of them because they were politically inexpedient. So was that left-wing, right-wing, or just fucking insane?

Really anyone talking about Nazism as compared to today's politics is playing a fool's game anyway. It's like talking to the hard-right folks I know who believe that the Democratic Party is, in reality, a Communist party. When someone makes such a comparison--and isn't very obviously just being goofy--that you realize you can't talk to them. They turn into bizarre little self-referential scribblers like Dave Neiwert or that guy who writes "dissecting leftism," everything an endless screed on why the other side secretly believes X, Y, and Z.

yeah ya got me Rose; just trying to make nice :-)

Nazi's were people too. Not too different from us.

Well, yes. With the same general percentage of socio- and psychopaths as any population. Who are, in turn, attracted to an organization like the SS or the fedayin. Unlimited power and social rewards for brutality are a strong draw for that ilk. [borderline personality disorder is far more mild and slanted differently -- all these discriptions are efforts toward understanding, not excuses.]

Unfortunately, the structure of some cultures encourages sociopathology in what that culture values. The Nazi culture was like that, as is the extremist Islamic fundamentalist culture. "Strength" as represented by brutality, fixation on a rigid set of Values, only one "right" set of behavaiors, unlimited power to he who is able to beat up the most people, and the like. Reminds me of the culture of the mob...

In a culture like that, those with sociopathic tendencies who might have been able to restrain themselves under different circumstances are encouraged to let fly, creating a larger percentage of brutal nut jobs than in a random population sample. In essence, it becomes an entire culture with a pathology.

So Arney Lungscum is history huh?

Don't let the door hit your ass Arney!

Bye Bye.

Cheers!

In essence, it becomes an entire culture with a pathology. And something to be avoided at all cost. Most of the simple bureaucrats (mailmen, firemen, clerks etc. who were Nazi's because they found it a convenient way to keep or advance their careers, were not sociopaths. At least they did not think of themselves that way. Moreover even non-party members tacitly accepted their rule.

I'm looking at the Rise not the Reign or Fall of the Reich. Until about 1937 or '38 you really couldn't see that Nazi's were nearly as aberrant or dangerous as they turned out to be. I think only Churchill was warning about them at that point. Munich happened only because they still were considered somewhat rational.

Dean is right (you know I hate to say that) in that the Nazi's defied right/left schism as we now think of it, But fascism is truly a "right" phenomenon with government's alignment with industry, emphasis on control, efficiency and growth. Free markets with less freedom. What I refer to is the 10 years before Hitler came to power in Germany, during which Mussolini ran a very efficient fascist state in Italy, or look at Spain under Franco. If longevity is a measure of success, these were very successful regimes who did not need to engage in the murderous purges that Hitler and Stalin indulged, at least not to the same scale.

To me, when the "Commercial Republic" seizes the opportunity to consolodate their corporate empire with a foothold on the middle east, it smells of fascism. The neo-cons of AEI, and PNAC boldly state that this is their agenda, which is met with glowing approval by Cheney, Pearl, Wolfowitz and Feith. Our foreign policy in the middle east could just as well have been written by Exxon and Haliburton these last 3.5 years, just as you could have Lockheed Martin and Raytheon write our far east policy.

Combine this with the errosion of personal liberties, and my fascist meter starts buzzing. When civil rights are ignored and privacy invaded with impunity in the name of Patriotism, it smells of fascism. When we even debate whether we, the USA, the beacon of liberty, should or should not resort to torture, the stink of fascism is getting thick.

Here's the thing. I believe in the home of the brave. I am not frightened by terrorists. Yes they are dangerous and can cause great tragedy, but they cannot change our way of life unless we let our fear of them overwhelm us. We can do it to ourselves, but terror acts in and of themselves cannot transform who and what we were unless we allow it. "Fear itself" is still the only thing we truly have to fear. Fear is a fuel for fascism. And every time we sacrific our liberty for security, we play into fear and the islamofascists hands.

Coming in late here.

I have no objection to banning trolls. It's best for all. Some people are simply destructive.

The left-right terminology is worn out. Fresh from reading, at long last, Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, I now think the best way to look at all political movements is on the individualist-collectivist axis.

Personally, I'm rather conservative (aka classical liberal). I'm big on live and let live. I don't care what you do in your bedroom if you don't make too much noise. (There are limits, of course, child abuse, for example. If only life were simple.)

Favorite state motto: Don't Tread on Me.

Favorite personal motto: Go Fuck Yourself with a Toilet Brush.

Bill

Mark, I'm not following your analysis of Krauthammer's speech at all. How did capitalism become the bad guy?

Even more so, the period of Italy's history before Hitler came to power (what date are you using here? Chancellor?), Franco's Spain, and their "successes"? What successes? Economic? "Efficient" seems pretty vague.

It seems to me that you are attempting to link fascism with capitalism, so your whole argument is suspicious to me (throwing in "Halliburton" begs for the usual emotional response).

Perhaps it would be simpler to ask you, in terms of the speech you reference, which approach is the one you endorse?

Bill, Jerry Pournelle did a thesis over 40 years ago that pretty well establishes that you need at least two axes to determine a particular political POV.

Interestingly enough, one of the two he chose is parallel to yours; it could defined as "faith in state solutions," ranging from anarchism to Al Gore's wet dream of the government solving all of life's problems for you. For a reasonable fee, naturally. :)

His other axis could be defined "the belief that all problems are solvable," or "rationality".

While Pournelle himself will be the first to say that those two axes aren't necessarily the best, they do manage to map every known ideology to a unique place, and clarify the difference between fascism and communism. In short, while both are very far along the "belief in state solutions" axis, they are opposite the other way. Communism is highly rationalistic, while fascism is nihlistic and irrational.

Dave, Capitalism per se is not necessarily evil, it is the government's complete subservience to it, and the corruption that results or is even suspected which undermines our faith in otherwise necessary and propery functions of out institutions. The mixing of militarism with capitalistic goals also stikes me as just plain greedy. Moreover, I don't believe that it is a proper function of government to secure new markets for corporate america especially through force. It is quite enough to keep the current markets open and fair. New "customers," much like the brave souls who tunneled under the Berlin wall, will come to us of their own accord if we keep building sucessful enterprises. Nations will join voluntarily. Doing so at gunpoint will not work.

Preserving the security of existing markets for our corporations and other capital ventures, and protecting individuals and minorities who cannot compete with the corporate entities, is more than enough for the state to handle. Granted, the line sometimes gets blurred between securing existing perogatives and gaining new ones through force, but this administration clearly crossed it, and that was one more step, to me, toward fascism. Actually, Casey's term is probably more accurate, "nihism", a favorite philosophy of Neitze, creater of Hitler's "ubermench.".

In simpler, pragmatic terms, I don't have a problem with re-flagging Kuwaiti tankers or repelling the invading Iraq army, but to occupy Iraq would be akin to occupying Kuwait in 1991 -- wholly beyond our mandate. You see, I don't believe that a sucessful communistic movement could ever take hold here any more than I believe that the terrorist could transform us into a islamic state, but I do believe that we could slip into fascism without even noticing, gradually, day by day, as we give up liberty for security and the advancement of the commercial empire.

Evidently fascism is too strong a term for anyone to deal with "rationally" (except for Casey who I thinks knows where I'm coming from since we had this discussion before.

I don't believe that the state has any business in erroding civil liberties, and any conflicting interest the state has in security concerns should be subject to the strictest scrutiny. Indeed the government's function, in my view, should have its emphasis on preserving individual and minority liberties. If you want a free society, the the price is that police powers must be used under completely controlled conditions.

The cops complain that their hands are tied -- that is the point, we are free because we do tie the government's hands. Human nature being what it is, abu Ghaib is the norm if not for strict control over use of force. How easy was it for what looked like nice normal American kids to turn into monsters who treated fellow human beings like animals. Without strict controls, and accountability, we turn into torturers and think nothing of it.

Majorities and Corporations should be able to handle themselves. It is the individual that needs protection. Majorities have the benefit of the ballot box, and corporations which survive the marketplace are strong indeed. Couple the majority and strong corporations and you have a truly supreme entity. They don't need government help. Change the government emphasis from protecting us from these powerful forces, but rather have the government align directly with them, and you have the definition of the perfect political storm which becomes irresistable. Touting the success of such an alliance and riding its wave will drown out the voices of those it exploits.

That is the recipe for my definition of modern fascism. When it smells like that I will not remain silent. It is a corrupt and corruptable phenomenon and those on the right who give it aid and comfort don't even see the danger, as long as it only affects the other guy.

HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!! AND HAIL TO THE KING!!!!

I'm glad you banned that Communist scum. I was working out a lengthy reply to his smear of me, but you saved me the time.

Bill Dooley:

Excellent! I, too, am an individualist above all else.

Casey Tompkins:

Thank you! I'm so glad to see you discussing the Pournelle Axes. That is my favorite of all the spectra I have seen on the Web and I use it all the time. Here it is. As you point out, Communism and Nazism are both totalitarian, but Communism tries to rationalize all of human existence while Nazism rejects reason altogether in favor of nihilistic racism, hatred of Jews, homosexuals, all "deviant" minorities. Conservatives are skeptical of reason, preferring to rely on experience, tradition, and/or religious faith, but don't totally reject it, nor do they advocate total state control. Many conservatives are very close to libertarians.

Mark Adams:

Nietzsche's "Ubermensch" (Higher Man [or Woman], Overman, or Superman) has nothing to do with Hitler's bastardized "Aryan race". Nietzsche warned against nihilism (which he saw as the tragedy of modern man, the "death of God"), against "this mendacious race-swindle", and against anti-Semitism (which he loathed). He was above all else an individualist, while the Nazis were the most complete collectivists, worshipping "the Volk". The "Ubermensch" was to be the superior individual (_not_ "race"!), who was to create new values out of the ashes of the Christian values, which themselves had been an inversion of the values of the ancient world. In other words, he wanted a new Renaissance, not a new Reich.

The Nazis twisted his philosophy out of all recognition, just as they corrupted everything else they touched.

The Nazis persecuted homosexuals! And so do "Comrade" Arne's "Palestinian" pals.

Oh, ok. Good. Then we're all comfortable Mark. The Constitution of the United States affords the protection against offenses you suggest might trouble you.

Because the government in this nation is subservient to the governed Mark. Clearly. Unlike any other nation on the planet.

Steve nice to read ya again! Excellent synopsis.

Dave, that is supposed to be the theory. The constitution in and of itself isn't enough, it is respect for it that counts. And not just my (or a liberal) interpretation of it.

(I think I blew Ara Rubyan's mind once when I actually defended arch-conservative Scalia and Solicitor General Olsen in his arguments in favor of Cheney's energy task force secrecy. The closed door policy was anathema to all I believe in how government should operate, to be transparent and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety; however my respect for the constitutional institutions, and their separation, left me no choice but to sleep with the enemy that time.)

We've been slipping lately in the area of privacy and human rights/civil liberties, so I whine. Whining is part of what makes representative governments self-correcting. When my ilk goes to far, we certainly expect (but not necessarily welcome) ranting from the conservatives.

I really ought to read more Pournell, I read all the SciFi he wrote with Larry Niven, but Casey has only recently turned me on to his personal prophet's phylosophical renditions. Good stuff. :-)

Mark

I found your comments extremely interesting and informative. I must confess, I'm impressed at your explanation of your own political philosophy. And not so ready to just call you a lefty whatever now. But one thing that has occurred to me in reaction to learning more about your fear of the slippery slope to American fascism is the similarity it bears to the somewhat irrational fear of some in the religious right who fear that traditional marriage is threatened by legal same sex marriage.

Both notions have some basis in truth in the minds of those who tend to over-react to perceived threats to whatever is held dear. I think that those of us who occupy the more center of the spectrum just think you all worry too much. I think that radical changes are never gradual. Our culture is dynamic and from generation to generation, the youngest among us, as the mature into the adult stage of life, will alter our course ever so slightly but usually not in any truly detrimental way. The constant free discussion whether in our media or in social groups or political organizations draws attention to any excesses creeping around at the fringe of society and these radical ideas seem to quietly die out for want of new blood for the cause.

Of course the battles do rage such as the continued debates and discussion over pro-life/pro-choice, gay/lesbian rights, welfare, illegal discrimination, etc, etc but we do tend over time to reach some measure of consensus. The government of the United States will never evolve into some fascist business controlled oliagarchy. Our version of capitalism is a blend of protections for both labor and business. I think the biggest danger we face is a deteriorating public education system which if isn't fixed soon will maybe be a true threat to our eventual demise as a strong people.

Mark:

Thank you!

Also, thank you, Jane M., for your kind words for me in that earlier thread.

I'd better mention that I hate brown suits. I like navy blue suits instead.

No, I'm really with you Mark. We need to be watchful about liberties, for the reasons you've clearly articulated. Consent of the governed and balance of power are tools to administer it. So is the Second Amendment, but that is another story.

When we start rounding up Arab-Americans and placing them in detention camps as in WWII, and depriving them of their property without due process of law, you and I may find ourselves shoulder to shoulder.

I was taking issue with the idea of a government-sponsored (what did Jane call it? fascist business controlled oligarchy. good expression). The relationship between industry and government is sometimes friendly, more oft adversarial (and this isn't altogether a bad thing, but I like liberty better) than say, the same relationship as it is conducted in Japan.

Brown-shirt.

Sheez, Arne, are you obsessed with yourself or what? What a looooong self-absorbed post chuck full of petty whining and petulant defensiveness. Let's face it you got banned because you are a bore...and you are a condescending, patronizing, pompous know-it-all and we don't like you. Na Na Na Na