Responses to Daimnation

All claims to land that are based in religious doctrine -- whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu -- are equally invalid because none can stand in the public square.
The Anglicans who see a Biblical basis for Christian Palestinians' controlling the Holy Land are no crazier than the Baptists who see a Biblical basis for Jewish Israelis' controlling it. And the old Crusaders who thought Christians should control it were about as mad as those two groups.

A religion-based argument will never make much sense to someone from a completely different faith tradition, or of no religion at all. A Hindu will never be able to convince a Muslim that the now-demolished mosque at Ayhodhya was built on Lord Ram's birthplace.
No time or attention should be given to people who blather on about how such and such holy text proves that a select group deserves something other than common respect.

Israel is now part of the status quo. Probably its creation was necessary as a refuge for Jews who were unsafe even in the most "civilized" nation (Germany) and who could not find refuge from persecution even in the nation supposedly asking for "your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
While I would be surprised if the Holocaust is ever forgotten enough to allow government-sanctioned persection of Jews, at least now all Jews can be safe from such a possibility.

If Zionism ignores these practical considerations and bases itself entirely on religion... well, then I'm anti-Zionist too. Not anti-Jewish, not anti-Israel-as-Jewish-refuge, but I have doubts about why the refuge had to be in the Holy Land -- the safest place for Jews was to be surrounded by Muslims?
Wouldn't Colorado have been a better choice? The U.S. certainly owed Holocaust survivors something for refusing to accept most refugees; a nice squarish state would have been appropriate. Or New Jersey, which is closest in size to Israel. Or New Mexico, which has similar climate and terrain.

Apologies if this is blasphemous. Anyone raised outside the Three Major Western Religions probably will never understand what the big deal about the Holy Land is.
Shortage of water (which is going to cause real trouble eventually), not much arable land, earthquakes -- except for all the "Abraham wuz here" signs, who in her right mind would want it?

---

American Heritage on fascist: One who advocates fascism. Fascism: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

While Bush was sort of elected and is not a dictator, he does seem to be centralizing federal authority to the executive branch. Cheney ignores Congressional requests, Bush sees no need for Congress to decide if we go to war or not.

Economic controls are actually becoming looser.
Social ones appear to be getting tighter under AG Ashcroft, with the exception of guns. Though terrorists probably are still in the U.S., Ashcroft is busy arresting prostitutes, bong-sellers and copyright violators.

Bush's opposition is not terrorized, but his Administration has an instinct toward censorship. Ex: Ari Fleischer's saying "[H]as the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is," in reference to Bill Maher's agreeing with a statement by conservative Dinesh D'Souza that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards, contrary to Bush's assertion.

Belligerent-- check. The "humble" rhetoric has been replaced by the National Security Strategy.
Nationalist-- he clearly believes "that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals" (more dictionary).
I don't consider Bush a racist, although how he can think racial diversity is important in the federal judiciary but not in the schools is beyond me.

So, Bush as fascist.
Compared to historical fascists, no.
By the definition, somewhat.
In the Left's eyes, certainly.

---

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough - more than enough - of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on - not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace."
-- John F. Kennedy

---

I'm not familiar with Hagman's TV work, but I recommend "Fail-Safe," a 1964 film in which Hagman acted.

I wouldn't get overly excited about Bush's Yale degree or Harvard MBA. Those Ivys are so easily impressed by the well connected.

Texas schools, on the other hand, demand more. Bush was accepted to neither St. John's (best private school in Houston) nor UT Law, probably because he was an underachiever in his youth and because he doesn't have a legal mind.
He does seem to be a business school type though: strong ability to memorize names and numbers and to pull together a team with talents that he lacks. Law school rewards "grinds." Business school rewards interpersonal skills.