Good riddance!

Weren't you kicked off of the student government for "malicious violations of viewpoint neutrality" last year? Is that why you're so bitter?

Thank you for thanking us commentors, only to turn around and criticize us. Truly baumgarerian. I hope the BH board is up north now trying to round up as many close minded right wingers to replace you next semester.

This might be the first time I've ever heard someone praise the advising on this campus. My advisor couldn't find their own asshole with two hands and a flashlight.

you're dating LaVonne?

"Nothing flies in the face of prevalent moral relativist thinking more than objective truth and morality"

Baumgardner should be denied his degree based on this statement. He thinks that there are moral "truths"? Uhh sorry dude but that is just wrong.

Is the world flat too Baumgardner?

And its not your articles about race that we don't like it's that you are a fascist racist smug right-wing prick that we hate, you brainwashed dick with ears.

No, the statement means there is moral TRUTH. No 's' at the end. If he has the balls to say that, knowing he's going to offend people like you, even if you disagree you gotta give props.

Mark, I may have disagreed with you at times. Even many times. But you serve as an example of the sifting and winnowing every one of us has to do. Listening only to people who agree with me is just cheapening to me.

"No, the statement means there is moral TRUTH. No 's' at the end. If he has the balls to say that, knowing he's going to offend people like you, even if you disagree you gotta give props."

I would like to hear one of these so-called moral truths and then when I show you that it is not absolute and relative will you admit you are wrong Baumgardner?

the only truth you hae taught me is that conservatives of your ilk are all about sticking to their pre-conceived bcakwater racist middleclass bias even when it flies in the face of all the evidence in the world.

So if that's what you mean by truth, then yes I agree. You are a halfwit.

"I would like to hear one of these so-called moral truths and then when I show you that it is not absolute and relative will you admit you are wrong Baumgardner?"

I'm not Baumgardner, but I'll stick to a few basics. I think it's safe to say we're talking about religious truths here.

John 14:5-7
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

John 17:14-17
I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

Romans 3:21-24
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

***
The point is not that I'm building a pretty little sandcastle for you to destroy with your rhetorical skill. The point is that Mark, and others including myself, accept this moral truth on faith.

Standing up for what you believe in takes courage. Again, I may not agree with Mark Baumgardner on very many political issues, but I respect that he's not afraid to write what he thinks, and I think you should respect that too.

Faith is defined as beleife in that which cannot be proven to be true. You can call these personal (and therfore relative truths) but they are certainly not objective truths like Baumgardner claims.

The Aryan Nation and Al Quaeda aren't afraid to write what they think, should we respect their opinion too?

I am tired of conservatives spouting beliefs that are completely absurd and have no correlation with facts and then telling me I should respect them.

Just because truths are relative doesn't mean that all beleifs are equally valid. This is a common misperception and Baumgardner should have learned that in his time here. If he hasn't he should be denied a diploma in my opinion as it is one of the basic tenets of all modern learning in both the sciences and the humanities.

"Just because truths are relative doesn't mean that all beleifs are equally valid." That's a self-contradicting statement. If all beliefs are not equally valid, that means one belief is true and the other is not, and therefore, truth is NOT relative.

"Faith is defined as beleife in that which cannot be proven to be true. You can call these personal (and therfore relative truths) but they are certainly not objective truths like Baumgardner claims."

But if I have faith that MY truth is THE truth, it's not relative. At least it isn't to me. What if I have faith that my truth is objective? It's a bit of a contradiction in terms, yes, but I accept it on faith.

"The Aryan Nation and Al Quaeda aren't afraid to write what they think, should we respect their opinion too?"

Yep. Free speech means you have to listen to Klan members and flag burning. Otherwise, it's really hypocritical. But there's a redeeming quality with free speech: people get to figure stuff out on their own. Sifting and winnowing and all that.

"I am tired of conservatives spouting beliefs that are completely absurd and have no correlation with facts and then telling me I should respect them."

Respect that they voice their opinions. I never said you had to give credence to what they said just because they had the guts to say it.

"Just because truths are relative doesn't mean that all beleifs are equally valid."

I guess I don't follow. If truth is relative, and the validity of beliefs are based on whatever truth we choose, how is the validity now not relative? Unless we're playing some crappy "If all snootches are bootches, and some bootches are lootches, then are all snootches lootches?" game.

"This is a common misperception and Baumgardner should have learned that in his time here. If he hasn't he should be denied a diploma in my opinion as it is one of the basic tenets of all modern learning in both the sciences and the humanities."

Especially Electrical Engineering. Just because you're jealous of engineering skillz doesn't mean engineers have to jump through your philosophical hoops. Engineers don't make you learn about materials science.

1) I didn't say that we should restrict free speech-that is a conservative position- I said that I don't have to "respect" hate speech or people that make ridiculous claims like Baumgardner. You are welcome to tell me that there is an angry unicorn on the dark side of the moon. That doesn't mean I have to respect that opinion or even listen to it.

2) "But if I have faith that MY truth is THE truth, it's not relative. At least it isn't to me."

You obviously simply don't understand the concept of truth. That is fine, but don't try to argue with me about it. Of course you can believe whatever you want, but when it affects others there is an expectation of provability or evidence. For example, If you want to believe the world will end tomorrow and that is a truth to you based on your faith, I am fine with that. But if you start acting on this belief and it affects the community, then I have a right to question you and ask you to prove your belief. This is the problem most liberals have with the religious fanatics in the Republican party. We believe they can beleive whatever they want, but when their beliefs (like wanting the world to end so Christ will come back and thus not caring about War or the environment) start to affect the rest of us, we have a right to ask them how they are arriving at those conclusions. I am not insinuating that Mark's beliefs are this extreme. It is an example used to prove a point.

3)Electrical Engineering is a respectable degree and I respect Mark's hard work. However, it hardly qualifies him to speak about many of the matters he does. His lack of education in the humanities side of things is evident in the poor reasoning and logic of his articles.

Haha humanities classes. Don't even go there, good luck finding a decent job.

"1) I didn't say that we should restrict free speech-that is a conservative position- I said that I don't have to "respect" hate speech or people that make ridiculous claims like Baumgardner. You are welcome to tell me that there is an angry unicorn on the dark side of the moon. That doesn't mean I have to respect that opinion or even listen to it."

Respect that they voice their opinions. I never said you had to give credence to what they said just because they had the guts to say it.

"2. You obviously simply don't understand the concept of truth. That is fine, but don't try to argue with me about it. Of course you can believe whatever you want, but when it affects others there is an expectation of provability or evidence."

And we've come full circle back to faith. Coombaya.

John 20:27
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

"This is the problem most liberals have with the religious fanatics in the Republican party."

And this is where you and I agree. The separation of church and state is important to me. It's good for the state AND it's good for the church. I'm fine with my personal beliefs, but forcing those on others is pretty dumb.

"His lack of education in the humanities side of things is evident in the poor reasoning and logic of his articles."
Yeah, but it just wouldn't be The Badger Herald without poor reasoning and logic.

Here is the point about realtive truths. That doesn't mean that anything goes. Example. It is true that a dropped object falls. You can say "Well not in space". So my statement was not absolutely true, but relatively true. That doesn't mean that if I release a bowling ball over your foot it won't hurt you.

See what many people miss understand is that truths are not "facts" but predictors. As predictors they are not 100% certain, but this doesn't change that they are still trur in a given place at a given time.

What people like Baumgardner fail to understand is that truths-of the moral kind- are decided on by a community. There is no external ground for them (barring perhaps biological urges of some kind like killing children is wrong). This way of looking at the world and actually understanding how humans act is a little more complicated than believing that a magical being came from the sky and gave us all our laws, but it makes a whole lot more sense.

The really odd thing is that you would expect the "moral relativists" to be the ones that acted unethically, but actually the more of a liberal humanist a person is in our society the more likely he/she is to act ethically-though I am not by any means arguing that the religious are all immoral. That is, if one has a well developed sense of ethics-cultiated by a liberal (in the non-political sense) education, then one is less likely to engage in socially abhorrent behaviors. The conclusion is that it is easier to give people the tools to make their own ethical decisions than to try to impose these from the outside.

I wanted to add: That the last bit about letting people make their own decisions is what always appealed to me about the conservative philosophy -though I am a liberal. However, this current administration absolutely sickens me. They are not conservatives but closer to fascists. The old school conservative model-the William F. Buckley Jr.s of the movement- I am fine with. I don't agree with every premise,but I can see points there and I don't treat politics like some sort of sporting event where I am rooting for one team or the other. I can see the benefits in certain areas of both philosophies.

I really wish that the moderate conservatives would begin to understand just how fucked up this administration actually is. That it is conservative neither fiscally nor politically and retake control of their party so we could have some normalcy back in the country and world.

Please explain to me what it is that makes this administration close to fascists?

We can notice obvious differences from the German or Italian nationalist traditions, of course -- we have our own nationalist myths. In the near future, America can be expected to embark on a more radical search to define who is and who is not a part of the natural order: exclusion, deportation and eventually extermination might again become the order of things. Fascism can occur precisely at that moment of truth when the course of political history can tend to one direction or another. Nazism never had the support of the majority of Germans; at best about a third fully supported it. About a third of Americans today are certifiably fascist; another 20 percent or so can be swayed around to particular causes with smart propaganda. The basic paradigm remains more or less intact.

Capitalism today is different, so are the means of propaganda, and so are the technological tools of suppression. But that is only a matter of variation, not opposition. With all of Germany's cultural strength, brutality won out; the same analysis can apply to America. Hitler never won clear majorities (his ascent to power was facilitated by the political elites), and yet once he was in power, he crushed all dissent; consider the parallels to the fateful, hair-splitting election of 2000 and its aftermath. Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag fire -- the burning of the German parliament, which was blamed on communist arson -- to totally reshape German institutions and culture; think of 9/11 as a close parallel. Hitler was careful to give the impression of always operating under legal cover; note again the similarity of a pseudo-legal shield for the actions of the American fascists, who stretch the Geneva Conventions by redefining prisoners of war as "unlawful." One can go on and on in this vein.

If we look at historian Stanley Payne's classical general theory of fascism, we are struck by the increasing similarities with the American model:

A. The Fascist Negations
Anti-liberalism.
Anti-communism.
Anti-conservatism.
B. Ideology and Goals
Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state.
Organization of a new kind of regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic structure.
The goal of empire.
Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed.
C. Style and Organization
Emphasis on aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical aspects.
Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style, and the goal of a mass party militia.
Positive evaluation and use of violence.
Extreme stress on the masculine principle.
Exaltation of youth.
Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command.

With American fascism, the first two negations are obvious; the third may seem unlikely. But fascism is not conservatism, and it takes issue with conservatism's anti-revolutionary stance. Conservatism's libertarian strand -- an American staple -- would not agree with fascism's "nationalist authoritarian state." Reaganite anti-government rhetoric might have been a precursor to fascism, but free market and deregulationist ideology cannot be labeled fascist.

Continuing to look at Payne's list, we note that the goal of empire has found open acceptance over the last couple of years. Voluntarism has been elevated to iconic status, as AmeriCorps members are recruited and directed toward homeland-security measures. The mass party militia -- especially large bands of organized, militarized youth -- seems to be missing, but there is certainly no doubt about the glorification of violence. The masculine principle (think Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld, or the president landing Top Gun-style on the deck of an aircraft carrier) has been elevated as the basis of policy-making. Command is authoritarian and personal. It is true that Bush is not as charismatic as Hitler, but one would have to ask if this is not a redundancy in a political model that raises the office of the presidency to an icon of celebrity.

It takes a bit more effort to notice American fascism's emphasis on aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical aspects. As Hebrew University political scientist Zeev Sternhell has described it for Nazi Germany, fascism in the American synthesis is a cultural rebellion, a revolutionary ideology with totalitarianism at its very essence.

In only the last few months, America has advanced tremendously from emerging to realized fascism. Its imperialist and expansionist tendencies need to be couched less and less in idealist terms for mass acceptance. The idea of a cohesive "working class" has been dormant for more than a decade. Oppositional groups are often self-silencing -- the meek Democractic Party is only the most obvious example -- but most of the ruling establishment continues to practice a mild form of liberalism and hopes that if things get too out of hand it can mobilize public opinion against brutal suppression.

George Mosse, author of The Fascist Revolution, describes fascism as viewing itself in a permanent state of war, enlisting the masses as "foot soldiers of a civic religion." As Mosse points out, fascism seeks a higher form of democracy even as it rejects the customary forms of representative government. Government and corporate propaganda is pervasive in America; we need only to delineate its descent from the Nazi form. Mosse rejects the notion that fascism rules through terror; it is built, he says, upon a popular consensus. One must never underestimate the fertile ground American anti-intellectualism provides for more banal forms of propaganda and cultural terrorism. American media, entertainment and virtual technology have pioneered whole new methods of trivialization of "mass death" and elevation of brutality as a "great experience." The current American aesthetic appreciation of technology, and especially the technology of war, is also of a piece with Hitler's passions.

Even the puritanism of American fascism does not necessarily conflict with the Nazi emphasis on style and beauty. Nazism annexed "the pillars of respectability: hard work, self-discipline, and good manners," along with chastity and family values. The US certainly has its analogs to Max Nordau, whose rebellion against decadence in art and literature so inspired the Nazis. (Think of the demonization of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, and the ongoing attacks on alleged artistic degeneracy.) We must be willing to consider expanded definitions of how romanticism has been incorporated by American fascism.

Liberals might complain that in America there hasn't been a declared revolution, a fascist transformation that asserts itself as such. But fascism has simply taken over the liberals' own platform, including its appeal to "tolerance and freedom." As Mosse says, "Tolerance . . . was claimed by fascists in antithesis to their supposedly intolerant enemies, while freedom was placed within the community. To be tolerant meant not tolerating those who opposed fascism: individual liberty was possible only within the collectivity." Fascism is not a deviance from popular cultural trends, but only the taming of them within revived nationalist myths. Mosse holds that fascism didn't diverge from mainstream European culture; it absorbed most of what held great mass appeal. The same principles apply to American fascism.

Perhaps a final means of taking the measure of American fascism is through the writer and intellectual Umberto Eco and his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism," which identifies 14 characteristics of "eternal fascism." Not all of them have to be present for a system to be considered fascist, and some may even be contradictory: Eco is astute enough to suggest a family of resemblance, overlap and kinship, and the analyst's task is to note which particular characteristics apply to a system and understand the reasons for the absence of others, rather than dismiss the fascist categorization if some features from a previous fascist variant do not apply. "There was only one Nazism, and we cannot describe the ultra-Catholic Falangism of Franco as Nazism," Eco says of the differences between fascist movements, adding, "Remove the imperialist dimension from Fascism, and you get Franco or Salazar; remove the colonialist dimension, and you get Balkan Fascism."

All 14 characteristics of Eco's matrix of ur-fascism apply to America to some degree. (1) the cult of tradition; (2) the rejection of modernism; (3) the cult of action for action's sake; (4) the idea that dissent is betrayal; (5) fear of difference, or racism; (6) the appeal to individual or social frustration; (7) obsession with conspiracies, along with xenophobia and nationalism; (8) the message that the enemy is at once too strong and too weak (note the media spin on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein); (9) the idea that pacifism is collusion with the enemy, and that life is a permanent war; (10) scorn for the weak; (11) the cult of heroism; (12) machismo, or transferring the "will to power onto sexual questions"; (13) the belief that individual rights are subordinate to the unity of the state, and that fascism "has to oppose 'rotten' parliamentary governments"; and (14) ur-fascism uses a language of propaganda.

No doubt, fascism is a descriptor too carelessly thrown around. Perhaps a non-controversial statement may be that the fascist tendency always exists, at the very least latent and dormant. But when more and more of the latency becomes actualized, there comes a point when the nature of the problem has to be redefined. We may already have crossed that point. As Eco notes, "Ur-fascism can still return in the most innocent
of guises. Our duty is to unmask it and to point the finger at each of its new forms -- every day, in every part of the

I'm not sure if that was an attempt to answer my question, but since you did'nt answer it i will ask again. Could the poster who claims the Bush administration is close to a fascist government, please explain what it is that makes our current administration close to fascists? I don't want a definition of fascism, i want examples of the Bush administration practicing fascism.

Thanks.

Obviously you didn't read the article. No sense in trying to explain it to you when your mind is already closed to it.

In order to say how Bush's admin is fascist we need to first have a working understanding of what fascism is:

A. The Fascist Negations
Anti-liberalism.
-Check

Anti-communism.
-Check
Anti-conservatism.
-Check. This last one might be a bit harder for you to understand, but two of the principles of conervatism are less government intrusion in personal lives and abroad. The Bush administration through the Patriot act and its invasion of Iraq are negating the traditional conservative principles

B. Ideology and Goals
Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state.
Department of Homeland Security. Recent moves by the Republicans in Congress to remove checks and balances in the nomination of judges.

Organization of a new kind of regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic structure.
The link between the corporattions and he Bush administrationis evident. The people that are in the current administration are closely allied with big business throught the oil companies and energy policy. Enron criminlas meet with the VP. Check presidential order 13303 which hands over Iraqs oil profits to American oil corporations.

The goal of empire.
This should be clear. We are building permanent bases in Irq. Replacing regimes-however cruel they might ahve been-with regimes of our own choosing

Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed.
Americorps volunteers being asked to participate in "homeland security"

C. Style and Organization
Emphasis on aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical aspects.
Check Leo Strauss here. His philosophy which is what led to the ideology of Richard Perle and Wolfowitz is concerned with promoting national myths to make people coalesce around national interests (like war).Go and read Strauss and you will see aht I mean. Not room or time enough here to summarize it.

Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style, and the goal of a mass party militia.

Positive evaluation and use of violence.

The macho, killing if fun attitude of administration officials. Bush's macho GI joe posturing flying onto the aircraft carrier. The idea that violence is a good thing if used in the puruit of a national agenda.

Extreme stress on the masculine principle.
Bush's rhetoric is extremely macho. He refuses to admit having ever made a mistake like a man that won't ask for driving directions. He gets angry when questioned. His is a top down style of governeance. He is not to be questioned and refuses to be to such an extent that he disallows any contact between himself and dissenters, just see any of the people who were removed from Q&A sessions with him because they disagreed with his views.

Exaltation of youth.

Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command.

Bush surely doesn't govern on his intellect. Many people taht voted for him said it was because he "seemed like one of them" rather than that they felt that his was a sharpened intelect that oculd make educated policy decisions.

You asked me to explain and there it is. Feel free to disagree all you want but those are the reasons that people see this administrationas approachin fascism.

Fucking great, Baumgardner gets to have his article up all summer. Well at least I have something to read if I need to good laugh. Have fun in hell Mark.

DON"T HIRE BAUMGARDNER! HE IS A FASCIST RELIGIOUS ZEALOT!

(to any potential employers of Mark googling him this summer)

Well I think Baumgardner would make a great cuddle buddy for Jerry Farwell. Mark can get him coffee and make his copies during the day, and at night they can make sweet sweet love and talk about how nasty gay men are. Oh, you didn't know that the the most violent fag hating neo cons are usually just closet cases who hate themselves?

I am having a "no more Baumgardner" party this weekend. Who is coming?