<HTML>In a message dated 5/16/2003 10:23:40 PM Mountain Standard Time, BrownBingb@aol.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">It is not so important that the potential disaster we now face is not technically, exactly fascism. It is close enough. "Fascism" only has the emotional impact it does today with historical hindsight. To have called the Nazis "fascist" in 1930 would not have warned people of its real danger. Similarly, today, to refer to Bush's trend by the techincally correct new name that it requires will not necessarily warn people sufficiently of the danger it entails, exactly because the heinousness that new term references will not be fully comprehended except in hindsight. "Fascism" and "Nazism" are terms that may stir people to action against the direction of the Bush government.  "Bushism" or "neoconservativism" will not likely do so. The thing is to stir people to action to change the world, not give them the technically correct term to interpret it.</BLOCKQUOTE> What a load of cynical, pretentious, anti-democratic, dangerous bullshit.  stannard Your revolution makes me wonder Where could we go If we could drop the empty pursuit of props and the ego --Sarah Jones, "Your Revolution"</HTML>