M-3: reboot got it. Mussolini's definition is succinct and apt, and probably of more merit for its historical context than a dictionary's definition. If Hitler had simply been a dictator his Nazi vision would have been called a dictatorship; the deliberate combination of corporate control of government with political dominance was its own new brand of totalitarianism, remarkably similar to state-centric communism but with a decidedly bloodier trend toward monied interests (I.G. Farben and their exploitation of Jewish slave labor comes immediately to mind). In that light it might not be wholly out of line to draw comparisons to Bush today; however, overall there isn't a lot of what Hitler pulled present now to make the comparison truly valid. We lack systematized incarceration and slaughter of millions for the "crime" of simply being different, for instance; and while the Bush admin is definitely one of the most opaque in US history, it still lacks all the power-grabishness that the NSDAP had in, say, 1937 or so. They're still a year and more away from being constitutionally shorn of power, of course, and they might try a coup before the clock runs out  but why bother, when they're all quite set for life now with their deeply entrenched privatized profiteering war excursions? My personal term to describe our government today is neo-fascism. It's fascism mixed with religious fundamentalism and a putatively democratic perspective, which makes it particularly insidious. However, a direct comparison to the US now with pre-Nazi Germany (say, 1935 or thereabouts) is probably not appropriate, even if we include religious fanaticism. This is something different; it's still quite new, and it'll probably be decades before we're really able to label or fix just how thoroughly US democracy has been undermined by Bush, Cheney, Rove and their ilk.
|
warren (331)
2 SFW Posts |
208 Space Comments
| Favorites | RSS Feed
Registered 2007-05-03 03:52:53 Comment Karma: 9 Featured Comments: 0 Member of : |
Recent Comments from warren
- Comment on They got alot in common (2007-10-02 21:24:43)
M-3: reboot got it. Mussolini's definition is succinct and apt, and probably of more merit for its historical context than a dictionary's definition. If Hitler had simply been a dictator his Nazi vision would have been called a dictatorship; the deliberate combination of corporate control of government with political dominance was its own new brand of totalitarianism, remarkably similar to state-centric communism but with a decidedly bloodier trend toward monied interests (I.G. Farben and their exploitation of Jewish slave labor comes immediately to mind). In that light it might not be wholly out of line to draw comparisons to Bush today; however, overall there isn't a lot of what Hitler pulled present now to make the comparison truly valid. We lack systematized incarceration and slaughter of millions for the "crime" of simply being different, for instance; and while the Bush admin is definitely one of the most opaque in US history, it still lacks all the power-grabishness that the NSDAP had in, say, 1937 or so. They're still a year and more away from being constitutionally shorn of power, of course, and they might try a coup before the clock runs out  but why bother, when they're all quite set for life now with their deeply entrenched privatized profiteering war excursions? My personal term to describe our government today is neo-fascism. It's fascism mixed with religious fundamentalism and a putatively democratic perspective, which makes it particularly insidious. However, a direct comparison to the US now with pre-Nazi Germany (say, 1935 or thereabouts) is probably not appropriate, even if we include religious fanaticism. This is something different; it's still quite new, and it'll probably be decades before we're really able to label or fix just how thoroughly US democracy has been undermined by Bush, Cheney, Rove and their ilk. - Comment on Avatar's Wind (2007-10-02 20:48:23)
colin: Heh. I'm the art director where I work; it's part of my job to stay on top of graphical trends, including cartoons. That makes me insanely lucky,* since I'd be watching at least some of them anyway. ;) And it seems to me that paying attention to what your kids watch is, in fact, part of taking care of them. Why people care might have to do with the way culture is shaped, at least in part, by popular entertainment; and a lot of that entertainment begins now with kids too young to read or write yet. It matters, at least to some. Doesn't mean you have to watch it or like it, but it also means that others who do care about toons might not be quite as juvenile, out of touch or contemptible as you seem to believe. In any event, Avatar is considerably less inane than most of the spew produced by Nick. koopa: The nadir for T&J came in the 70s, when they were recast as friends. Barf. Thank non-god for Ren and Stimpy's reformulation of that goofy approach. Kerry: Agree 100% on DBZ. The first time I saw promos for it a decade or so ago (this was when the first version was running on CN), it was advertised as "the best action animé ever". Um. Whut? I still find that claim utterly baffling next to, oh I don't know, Samurai Champloo or GITS: Standalone Complex maybe. (Of course, back then neither existed, so maybe DBZ really was the best action animé at that time. It beat the steaming crap out of Speed Racer or Voltron, to be sure; and was a lot less of a soap opera than Robotech/Macross.) == * Both adjectives apply quite well to me. - Comment on See Through Dress (2007-10-02 20:29:29)
See-through thighs as well. - Comment on Avatar's Wind (2007-10-02 15:36:07)
Howie: While I'll agree that Pokémon is dreck, you haven't described anything to be found in Avatar. Might help to actually watch the show a while before you trash it. Kerry: The other distinguishing characteristic of 60s-era Tom and Jerry is the absolutely, unforgivably bad sound effects. "Drug-tripping boiyoiyoing #s 3 through 27" are a H-B SFX series that, gratefully, were probably permanently erased after their tragic overuse in T&J. Oh, and of course the originals from the 40s were much, much more violent. And therefore much more funny. - Comment on Avatar's Wind (2007-10-02 11:43:33)
Avatar is a screaming hell of a lot better than (for instance) Scooby-Doo. I would much rather have a kid watch a series that discusses things like honor, friendship and loyalty than something featuring a poorly-drawn Great Dane and his stoner wackjob owner, their "meddlesome friends" and adventures in one-dimensional foolishness. There's style to Avatar, and it's leached from the animé influx; that's a good thing. Until the mid 1990s, most American cartoons were pure shit, graphically, thematically and dramatically. We're seeing a turnaround and shows such as Avatar or some of CN's lineup are leading the way. That said, yeah, I'm not certain it's jut air that Aang is bending here, if you know what I mean. - Comment on Laughing Dog (2007-10-02 11:35:18)
Jesus Christ, that is one creepy-lookin' fuckin' dog. Hey. Little girl. Run. - Comment on They got alot in common (2007-10-01 13:32:20)
Whoah, bigtime Godwin on that comparison; and worse, it's not even accurate. Much as I hate BushCheneyRummyCo, there simply is no evidence whatsoever to support the insane suggestion that they "Attack[ed] the World Trade Center". - Comment on Schneider Beer Advertisement (2007-09-27 11:35:09)
That's pretty damn clever. - Comment on Harry Potter and the dick in a box (2007-09-25 15:22:52)
Ah yes. The adventures of a teenaged boy and his magic wand continue. - Comment on Penguin Warning (2007-09-22 00:36:24)
Ah. So that's what the squealing sound was when I hit the starter. - Comment on Sumo Splits (2007-09-21 16:14:54)
They can't. This is a picture of the Boneless Sumo Ranch. - Comment on Focus (2007-09-21 14:28:41)
@reboot: Yeah, Brin's arguments were what I was thinking of, but I didn't think to add a link to them. - Comment on Watermelon Donkey (2007-09-21 11:55:29)
He: "Hey! Nice melons!" She: "Thanks! Great ass!" - Comment on Awesome Duck Hair (2007-09-21 11:54:40)
A ducka-ducka burnin' love. - Comment on Focus (2007-09-21 11:52:16)
The Rebels really had it wrong, you know. While the Empire was superficially totalitarian, it was actually a surprisingly direct governance system -- one that would very likely have slid into representative government in just a few generations -- and overall provided a clearly superb technology and peacekeeping structure. It had far more in common with Rome than most people seem to recognize. The Rebels, on the other hand, dealt with Received Truth rather than empirical process for discovery; had inferior technology and were probably considerably more prone to diseases (most of the time they lived in vine-encrusted ancient monoliths, mud huts, etc.) and didn't even believe in democratic principles; their ruling caste were not conventional beings but were instead "divinely" (or midi-chlorianically) ordained entities whose value lay not in individually-achieved merit, but accident of birth. Luke killed thousands and thousands to help his girlfriend-sister get her fuckin' Prom Queen crown back. How very noble. Besides, the Empire had much cooler ships.
