OK, Frankham, let's talk.

1. "I don't think that communism applies as there was a lack of interest in Soviet style communism."

You don't agree that the entire Soviet system was bent on forcing Communism on the rest of the world? I imagine your view of the 30s, 40s and 50s is radically different from mine. There's a good book you should read: Hitler and Stalin that might clear that up for you.

"Empire however requires the consent of the people." History shows nothing could be further from the truth. I'd refer you to any good history of Rome or the British Empire.

2. "Suppressing women's rights and the defeat of ERA." Bush is responsible for defeating the ERA? Odd, I thought it was the result of the amendment failing to pass in enough states back in the last 70s that did that in.

Slavery? You blame the existance of modern slavery on the current Administration? Do I need to respond?

Guantanamo. Well there you have me. All I can offer is that Marshal Law changes the rights of any individual, particularly those who are not legitimate combatants. I don't recall anyone imposing Marshal Law in the US except in small local emergencies since the Civil War. How do you see this as a more general threat to the US? I'd support you in opposing Marshal Law under most circumstances.

3. "It was 'communisim' in the fifties. Now it's 'terrorism'." See now there's part of the problem with this list. It doesn't clearly distinquish between Fascim and anything else. It's as if I were going on a long journey, and, warning me about tigers, you say that they are big and hairy and have menacing teeth and a vicious snarl. The descriptions vague enough I might die of fright from my first encounter with a camel. Sorry for the aside. Are you saying terrorism is not a threat or that the Truman Administration was Fascist?

4. "Juntas and occupying forces. Military solutions in lieu of diplomacy." The US is ruled by a military junta? We can stop all this election crap now? There's no evidence that the US plans to leave Iraq peacefully? The US has chosen to use military solutions in or disagreements with North Korea, Libya, Syria or even Haiti (where, of all things, the US agreed to the French plan for addressing the crisis)? I don't see this one, sorry. Gross exaggeration at best, malicious misrepresentation at worst.

5. You mean Ken, not Tom Lay, don't you? What about Jeffrey Skilling, and the other 14 officers of Enron who've been or are being prosecuted? It's a wicked case to make because of the byzantine accounting, but don't be surprised if Skilling turns Lay over to the Feds in the next few months. Then there's Bernie Ebbers, John Rigas, and the dozens of officers of companies, mostly males, that are in jail or under indictment. You haven't completely thought this one through, right? I must also point out that Enron and these other companies caught in fraud were mostly exposed in 2001 or 2002. The fraud had been underway for years and years. Which Administration was most responsible for not preventing or catching them at their fraud?

6. Controlled Mass Media. All I can say is that we're all disappointed in some aspect of the media. You're concerned that over the past 15 years much of the media has come under what you consider conservative control. I find much of the media coverage biased to the left. You can come up with stories that you think the media should have covered but didn't, I'm sure. You'd be hard pressed to prove the government was involved; commercial realities are sufficient cause. The American people are getting what they're willing to support and pay for, don't blame anyone else.

7. Obsession with National Security. We have different definitions of obsession. Sit back and watch that film of the towers falling one more time. It's hard to believe that any administration wouldn't make security a major priority after that. Imagine the social, economic and political impact of another bloody attack on a highly visable US target and then try to convince me you wouldn't be damning the Administration for not doing enough. Then, too, the security in question is oriented at protecting the population, not controlling it as descussed in the text of this point.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined. Most of what you describe would be true for the US in any of the last 220 years. We've been Fascists from the beginning? At worst the "excesses" you mention are the actions of the people, not any government. I don't see how the Bush Administration is preventing atheists from being elected President or that it's been active in surpressing any minority.

9. Corporate Power is Protected. Still guilty on all fronts. As I've said, a rule like this isn't really meaningful unless it's useful in distinguishing between behavior that is Fascist and that which clearly isn't. You should have seen the way FDR propted up corporations in the 30s. That when the phrase, "What's good for General Motors..." was coined. Do you believe that the FDR Administration was Fascist? Really? You should because when you include what they did during WWII, they meet a lot more of these criteria than any other US administration.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed. Let's take unions out of it. The real reason "labor power" is less than it was is that the majority of Americans don't have jobs that are affected by traditional labor concerns. "Labor Power" in the sense it was used by social activists from the 1880s on is obsolete. The issue has become jobs and if the news of any value, politicians ignore jobless rates at their peril. Hard to call this current state of affairs active suppression, isn't it?

11. "The majority of the American public has been dumbed down." Dumbed down from what? Dumb because they don't agree with you? Didn't Lincoln say that God must have loved the common people because He made so many of them? We're better educated and better read than any Americans in history. The commercial medium has just grown so large that we're faced with the lowest common denominator on all fronts. And how in the hell is this different from the way it was in the 60s, 70, 80s or 90s except for the growing ubiquitousness commercialims in the media? You hold the Bush Administration countable for quite a lot, don't you? Short of requirement everyone to watch PBS 10 hours a week (not that what they're producing isn't crap now, too) and read avant guard novels, what do you propose the Administration do?

12. "'Has the US's interest in law and order changed that much in the last 30 years?' Yes. A good example of this is what happened in Florida when Jeb sent in his storm troopers to beat the WTO protestors." This didn't happen in Seatle, the most liberal city in the US, as well? You didn't watch the Democratic Mayor Daley order te police to attack during Chicago Democratic convention in 1968 live on TV? You need to read the details of this point. Britt's not talking putting down occasional protests, he's talking systematic and serious abuse of the legal system.

13. "Facism is a wave." Your definition of Fascism and its consequences are radically different from mine. I can only repeat, calling what you describe "Fascism" is calling wolf. No one who really understands how serious this was would do that lightly, IMHO.

14. "Again, it's a facist tendency to use gangsterism in stealing elections. This is being done today in Haiti. In 2000, the RNC recruited people to act as protestors to the recounting of votes in
Florida. These were not the "people" but hired thugs." Some of this is true, some of it false. The international community cutoff aid to Haiti because of obvious fraud in the 2000 election and much of the justification for Aristide's overthrow was that he planned to defraud the next election as well. The US did not intervene to prop his government up because the French were against intervention. Are the French Fascists, too?

BTW, I'm afraid you're a bit misinformed about the facts of the "Republican Riot" during the 2000 election. It was prompted when Republican activists were locked out of the recount about to take place, to be sure, but at the time there was a Democratic activist sitting next to each counter in the room. The Republicans were only protesting the obvious inequity of the situation. They were only "guilty" of bringing in "hired thugs" because the Democrats got there with their "hired thugs" first who you couldn't cowering in the back of the room. From your WTO comment I would have thought you would respect an honest protest. The delay in the recount was nothing more than the result of negotiations over who was going to be allowed to observe the recount and how each observer was going to be allowed to comment on or protest each ballot counted. As far as riots go, this was pretty civilized and certainly had a democratic (small "d") objective in mind: a fair and impartial count of the votes. I doubt you'll agree, but it's the truth.