Join 3,421 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


facism definined
May 12, 2003 5:36 PM   Subscribe

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism.
posted by thedailygrowl (47 comments total)

 
Wow. Do the following seem uncannily familiar in the USA of today?

"1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

"2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

"3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

"4. Supremacy of the Military- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, ...

"7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. ...

"8. Religion and Government are Intertwined [faith-based government aid anyone??]

"9. Corporate Power is Protected

"11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts"
posted by caraig at 6:21 PM on May 12, 2003


According to Political Science scholars the defining characteristic of Fascism is that the good of the State comes before the good of the individual. The system is more important than the people in the system. Individual rights are secondary to the rights of the State.
posted by stbalbach at 6:28 PM on May 12, 2003


Why skip the rest?

5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
posted by muckster at 6:28 PM on May 12, 2003


This list, though, appears to be a slight modification of an Umberto Eco article from about eight years ago, down to both having fourteen points.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 6:31 PM on May 12, 2003


Three words: Rense dot com.
posted by hama7 at 6:35 PM on May 12, 2003


so...Hannibal was a Fascist?
posted by clavdivs at 6:43 PM on May 12, 2003


Hannibal hated freedom.
posted by drstrangelove at 6:59 PM on May 12, 2003


Anti-fascists, unite! You might like this old discussion, too.
posted by onlyconnect at 7:02 PM on May 12, 2003


8. Mussolini is always right.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:30 PM on May 12, 2003


Here's the original essay. For my part, I find myself completely won over by hama7's compelling refutation.
posted by jjg at 8:28 PM on May 12, 2003


After looking at the root of Rense dot com, I agree , jjg and hama7. "zoinks".
posted by tomplus2 at 8:32 PM on May 12, 2003


What about the economics of fascism? The Spanish, Nazis and Italians were known for their grand social-economic experiments. Things such as government-private partnerships were adopted by other governments, even by the US (think T.V.A. and other New Deal stuff.)

Other very forward-looking things that the fascist states experimented with: the glorification of the housewife (whereas before she was a "nothing" in society), which could today be seen as a primitive "women's rights" movement; environmentalism beyond "conservation", to include the strong advocacy of animal rights and the prohibition of animal testing; taking the already strong (German) pure food & drug laws and making them stronger, along with more accurate weights & measures; major public health advocacy to include physical fitness and anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns.

Most of all, and something not very well known by Americans, was that prior to the rise of the Nazis, Germans had been belittled throughout Europe as a "peasant" people, and this right royally pissed them off. Lots of what could be called the Nazi "German Self-Esteem" propaganda was aimed at convincing Germans they were equal or even better then other Europeans. Something the average German-on-the-street wanted to hear.

But is the above list of additional "Defining Characteristics" of Fascism? Yes and no. Yes, if you want to look at real Fascism as a political-social movement. No, if you just want to call someone "Fascist" as an invective.
posted by kablam at 8:42 PM on May 12, 2003


tomplus2:
I believe jjg was being sarcastic.

If you don't like rense.com (I don't), read jjg's link instead.
posted by spazzm at 8:42 PM on May 12, 2003


I liked it better the first time, when it was called confucianism.

----

In order for this to be an accurite list, you need to remove things that are not present in non-facist states

I'd remove:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
/everywhere

5. Rampant Sexism
/almost everywhere before the 1950s

6. Controlled Mass Media
/this is iffy, almost any 'totalitarian' government, but facism < totalitiarianism
7. obsession with national security /well, there are a lot of places where there is a good reason for this, such as isreal. it might not be fun to be a palistinean there, but i'd hardly call them facist.
8. religion and government are intertwined /everywhere before the enlightenment.
9. corporate power is protected /most western nations.
10. labor power is suppressed /any lasiz-fare capitalist economy
11. disdain for intellectuals and the arts /any democracy.... j/k. it seems like this has been pretty common. i know a lot of people tend to have distain for this kind of thing an individial basis.
13. rampant cronyism and corruption /every 3rd world nation.

----

that leaves:
2. disdain for the recognition of human rights
3. identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause 4. supremacy of the military
12. obsession with crime and punishment police are given almost limitless power ... The people often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism.
14. Fraudulent Elections.
posted by delmoi at 9:02 PM on May 12, 2003


kablam:
I do not doubt that fascism had some positive sides, but:
a) Defining fascism deals more with the qualities that sets fascism apart from other political systems, and things like public health campaigns are well-known under non-fascistic regimes.
b) I'm not sure a campaign for keeping women at home equates "women's rights".
posted by spazzm at 9:04 PM on May 12, 2003


As for the original link being from Rense.com, if an argument is presented to an audience, and the presenter is wearing a tinfoil hat and shouting conspiracy theories about UFO abductions, then that argument is going to tend to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Hama7's "refutation", as it were, isn't so terribly unfair.

True, the fact that the article appears on a site run by a loon does NOT necessarily demonstrate anything negative about its substance... but it would make me, as a poster, wonder about my philosophical allies.
posted by John Smallberries at 9:51 PM on May 12, 2003


So? What's your point?
posted by HTuttle at 10:02 PM on May 12, 2003




2. disdain for the recognition of human rights
3. identification of enemies/scapegoats
as a unifying cause
4. supremacy of the military
12. obsession with crime and punishment police are given almost limitless power ... The people often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism.

14. Fraudulent Elections

posted by trondant at 10:21 PM on May 12, 2003


I remember writing a paper in high school claiming that America was facist during WWII. My AP history teacher gave me a re-write. My jewish engish teacher gave me the best grade in the class. He knew what was up.
posted by woil at 10:50 PM on May 12, 2003


The original comes from Free Inquiry Magazine. I couldnt
find the original or else I would have posted it. I have problems with Rense also but many (not all) of his news links are from credible sources the source is always listed at the top of the article it provides an easy filter.
posted by thedailygrowl at 10:59 PM on May 12, 2003


Once again we've managed to confuse the issue by arguing about sources. Does anybody, in fact, question that these are elements of fascism? Some of them are debatable, but this is hardly an opinion piece.
posted by Hildago at 11:36 PM on May 12, 2003


The argument should be judged by it premises -- not the site on which it is found. Either it stands on its own logical legs or it falls. Attacking the host site is a red herring.
posted by RavinDave at 11:59 PM on May 12, 2003


Yes, Hildago, as a matter of fact I do.

This is why I don't like discussing politics on Metafilter anymore. As a list that would help one identify a nascent fascist state, this sucks. It's ahistorical in more than a few key respects, and reads tellingly as if the author totted up some trends he dislikes in modern America and then cobbled them into a list of characteristics of fascism. Some of the list points are more or less right, but others are bizarre inversions of the truth, several others are simply irrelevant, and most important of all, key aspects of fascism as historically practiced are flat-out missing from the list.

Just for starters, 9 Characteristics of Fascism, Characteristics and Appeal of Fascism, and Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy all at least appear to draw on the historical record in their analyses, and succeed in identifying the elements of racism, leader-worship, and totalitarian statism as essential in most true fascist states. For my money, the first thing I'd look for in such a list is anything about a leader who rises from humble (perhaps exaggerated) origins, assumes a persona strongly identified with the state, creates a party apparatus signal in its devotion to his personal glorification, brooks no dissent in public or private life, and utilizes sub rosa official organizations as enforcers of national unity. This profiles Il Duce, Der Fuehrer, and to a lesser extent the petit-fascist governments of Franco, Metaxas (Greece), Tojo, and in watered-down form the ur-fascist movements running places like prewar Ireland and then vying for power in England and America, and later frequently exhibited in caudillo governance in South America. No, we can't rely on fascism always revolving around a cult of personality, nor is a cult of personality associated exclusively with fascism, but the two are so intimately linked that a list which omits the very idea is absurd on its face and not to be trusted as a representation with any grounding in the historical record.

Let's take these one by one.

1. Nationalism is by no means found only in fascism, and the line between patriotism and nationalism is often highly personal. The nationalism found in fascist regimes was not merely love of country, but an enforced ideology used to mask and suppress other public expression. Flags were indeed everywhere, especially in the Speer/Riefenstahl image-obsessed Germany, but often this was a bespoke party flag or modified national flag and the display nearly guaranteed not to be spontaneous in all respects.

2. Human/Civil Rights are typically in short supply in fascist regimes, but the list here is calculated to generate a frisson in yon liberal redoubt. In truth, under fascism individual human rights per se do not exist, and only derive from the power or purpose of the state; those who do not fit the needs of the state have no rights. I'll give him a pass here, since we should always be on the alert, but again he's playing domestic politics and not building a lesson plan.

3. Some paranoid regimes become fascist; other fascist regimes become paranoid. But sometimes a country does have real enemies, and to suggest as here that simply because we are united against terrorism we have been given a scapegoat is insulting rhetoric trampling on the memories of those who have died in terrorist attacks at home and abroad. +1 Troll.

4. Supremacy of the Military has certain accuracies as many fascist regimes have incorporated military control or have sprung from military coups. But in truth the military in a fascist state is often treated as an instrument and politicized through purges and other means. This is one reason the 1938-1944 plot against Hitler came out of the professional military.

5. Sexism is a questionable choice, as most societies in the fascist period were quite sexist by modern standards, making comparisons difficult. Certainly the sexism of fascism was simply one more ideological plank in the system of totalitarian control.

6. Controlled Mass Media could certainly fit, although it's far from an exclusive characteristic of fascism. But here as in other points Britt waters down the definition of "control" to a point where it's near useless, although certainly well within the Chomskyite interpretation of US consent-manufacturing.

7. Fear and security go hand in hand, but sometimes one is justified in one's fears and security precautions. Using this as a metric is not necessarily useful, and could easily have snagged Franklin Roosevelt's America.

8. Religion did play a key role in many fascist movements, but as with the military it was not necessarily appreciated and was more a matter of theater. The goal here was to subvert religion and force it into the corporate state structure so that it would not be a countervailing force.

9. Corporate Power was sometimes protected, but this is perhaps the most egregiously misleading of Britt's points. The corporate state did not give corporate capitalism unchecked, unregulated power; in fact the corporate state was anti-capitalist, sought to eliminate markets and replace them with command economies, and selected winning business based on political considerations. True unchecked capitalism would more closely resemble anarchism than fascism, which is surely the ultimate in statism, and thus anathema to the classical liberal and libertarian view. The paper record of fascism as regards state economic control is so well known that Britt reveals here either appalling ignorance or cagey misdirection.

10. Labor suppression really was part and parcel of the corporate state, which is in opposition to trade-unionism and anarcho-syndicalism/libertarian socialism much more than it is to the modern liberal labor-friendly welfare state. The goal wasn't securing the rights of corporations to profit and abuse, but rather of preventing labor from playing an unsupervised role in politics.

11. Disdain for the arts and intellectualism is, again, something which has surely existed throughout time independent of fascism. Britt does get it right by noting that the marginalization was about whether these would serve the national interest, and just barely outlines the extent to which academic institutions, like others, were co-opted into the totalitarian society. In this point, though, he manages to raise the bar to where if honestly applied it fails to support his tactical thesis.

12. Crime and punishment go hand in hand with fascism, but largely because the state needs a security apparatus and building a separate tracked party-loyal system is a lengthy and error-prone process. The scare quotes around traitors tend to reveal Britt's hand here. The key failing of fascist states is a breakdown of the rule of law, and eventual abuse of the law for political purposes. Law'n'order platforms by themselves are not intrinsically fascist, even if they should be viewed skeptically for other reasons.

13. Cronyism and corruption are important aspects of the corporate state, another key failing of fascism as a system. This is one Britt got right. It's not clear that he understands the linkage and inherent contradiction here with his own point 9 (as well as some others), and in fact the organization of the piece suggests he isn't prepared to address this particular question.

14. Fraudulent elections are, again, orthogonal aspects that tend to crop up in many kinds of political dystopias. They're less of a leading indicator than Britt's emphasis (placing it last) would suggest. Again, his own wording betrays his agenda, however worthy, and undermines the validity of his argument.

The whole of the article is less a proper analytic reading of the history of fascism and present trends in America than it is an exercise in guilt by association, familiar to liberals as the argument that Hitler supported gun control! and to Jeff Foxworthy fans as You might be a redneck fascist if ..., mixed with a tinge of Slippery Slope. The basic requirements for a fascist regime are not met in the United States today by any stretch of the imagination, and the implication Britt seeks that by adding up similarities we become that which we despise is grandstanding and itself a kind of False Dilemma.

In the end there are two arguments to be made in a piece of this sort. The first is the argument that you have legitimately and soberly sussed the defining characteristics of fascism. I don't believe he did so as outlined above. The second is whether insinuation alone is enough to make the case that America is sliding into fascism as defined in the piece. I don't believe this article succeeds on that score either. Scoring on a 1-7 scale I don't think I'd put any of the characteristics higher than a 3. There's an argument to be made, certainly, that the arrest of one person in a free society is far more earthshaking than the arrest of thousands in one that is not free. By that measure, perhaps, he's just ringing an alarm bell. I wish he'd returned to the point honestly and noted that the associations in almost all instances are weak and the side-by-side comparison is laughably unbalanced. But then I tired of this sort of hyperbolic liberal argument years ago, as has Todd Gitlin. What's wrong with making the honest case that one man's arrest is troubling, without playing it up into democratic doomsday?

I will give Britt this. He didn't feel the need to invoke the Nazi genocide as a means of pre-emptively ensuring that nobody would argue the other side; and unlike many, he understands that fascism occurs in various forms and has a real history with specific instances. That is to say, there is more to Fascism than The Axis. And certainly it isn't to say that studying this era doesn't have lessons for our time, or that authors cannot choose their own framing of a subject. I think Britt does his own arguments a disservice, though, by framing them the way he did, as a true, objective distillation of common elements found in fascist regimes. That, it isn't, and it's less useful for that very reason.
posted by dhartung at 12:17 AM on May 13, 2003


Interesting list... but apartheid South Africa had these characteristics (I believe), yet is not normally classified as fascist.
Another defining characteristic is totalitarianism - South Africa under apartheid was authoritarian, rather than totalitarian.
But not all totalitarian states are fascist - the USSR was totalitarian, but obviously not fascist.
posted by plep at 1:17 AM on May 13, 2003


Wow.

Great post dhartung. As usual, I might add. Thank you.

Good point plep.
posted by hama7 at 2:34 AM on May 13, 2003


Oh come on you people. The USA isn't fascist! Father Bush would never let that happen! He loves us!

If anyone had bothered to read the aforementioned Umberto Eco article linked above, then hama7 and dhartung's points would be recognizably irrelevant:

In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

History doesn't repeat itself - Bush isn't a fascist like Hitler was or like Mussolini was; he's doing his own version, suited to the context of 21st-century America. Fascism isn't a math equation: it's a broad category people use to define a heterogenous group of historical events which bear some similarity to each other. Under dhartung's reasoning, Stalin wasn't communist, since he paid only lip service to Marx's ideas, and Bush isn't conservative, for the same reason.
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:19 AM on May 13, 2003


But not all totalitarian states are fascist - the USSR was totalitarian, but obviously not fascist

You would have trouble distinguishing stalinism from the particluar brand of fascism as practised by hilter merely via the analysis of their modus operandi without reference to the usual tags applied to both regimes. The major point of difference being the command economics as applied by stalin and the quasi-keynesian approach as adopted by the nazis.
posted by johnnyboy at 4:33 AM on May 13, 2003


Wow.

Great post dhartung. As usual, I might add. Thank you.

Good point plep.


I have to say, hama7's pompoms really go well with his outfit. It's a good look for him.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:38 AM on May 13, 2003


Stalin wasn't communist, since he paid only lip service to Marx's ideas, and Bush isn't conservative, for the same reason.

And Blair is anything but Labour. I don't see any problems with the above statements. I'm not concluding thereby that they are/were fascists, but I don't think there's anything wrong with recognising that all three are/were almost certainly power-hungry individuals who subverted the lofty principles of an ideological organisation (in this case political parties) in order to further the aims of themselves, and small cliques of their associates. This is the nature of the use of power throughout human history. If you want an example outside politics, look at Tomás de Torquemada. The ideas are usually just an excuse for seat-grabbing.
posted by walrus at 4:39 AM on May 13, 2003


dhartung, thanks for the laughs:

1. The nationalism found in fascist regimes was not merely love of country, but an enforced ideology used to mask and suppress other public expression.

Freedom fires and liberty toast come to mind. What was it that France did again - disagree with the American appraisal of Saddam's WMDs capabilities? Fancy that!


2. "those who do not fit the needs of the state have no rights. "

Guantanamo and the exemption of foreign combatants from the Geneva convention is an argument already used by the Nazis in World War II when dealing with partisans (i.e. those Frenchies that fought to free their country). Granted, the nazis used the excuse to shoot them on sight. But the principle is the same: "I'll do whatever I want, law or no law"

3. But sometimes a country does have real enemies, and to suggest as here that simply because we are united against terrorism we have been given a scapegoat is insulting rhetoric trampling on the memories of those who have died in terrorist attacks at home and abroad. +1 Troll.

Actually, trolling is convincing 51% of Americans believe that Saddam was involved in 9-11.

4. "But in truth the military in a fascist state is often treated as an instrument and politicized through purges and other means. "

That would be the case of every institution under a fascist regime. Downplaying the tremendous military thrust of fascism is forgetting that people like Franco, Pinochet and the Argentineans were soldiers before they became fascist dictators.

etc.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism
as it is a merge of state and corporate power" - Benito Mussolini
posted by magullo at 5:26 AM on May 13, 2003


I can't read the Rense article thanks to it being blocked by my facist employer ^_^ However, the points mentioned seem to share a lot with Reich's work "Mass Psychology of Facism" which I read too long ago. I urge those interested in this piece to follow up with that work.
posted by infowar at 5:30 AM on May 13, 2003


Fascism is bad.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:54 AM on May 13, 2003


But sometimes a country does have real enemies, and to suggest as here that simply because we are united against terrorism we have been given a scapegoat is insulting rhetoric trampling on the memories of those who have died in terrorist attacks at home and abroad.

WTF? So what? The deciding factor shouldn't be whether or not it's insulting to this group of people for whom you claim to speak (many of whom seem to disagree with you), but whether or not the evidence supports the claim. That's a good old Appeal to Pity logical fallacy you got there, yessir.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:01 AM on May 13, 2003


Magullo:
people like Franco, Pinochet and the Argentineans were soldiers before they became fascist dictators.
Well, Dubya wasn't a soldier, so I guess we don't have anything to worry about. ;)
posted by notsnot at 6:04 AM on May 13, 2003


notsnot - Give credit where credit is due: like many young men of his generation, Dubya did indeed protect his Texas homeland against them nasty Viet Cong bombers by flying fighter jets in the state's national guard.

(for a while anyway)
posted by magullo at 6:30 AM on May 13, 2003


dhartung...thanks for the flash of intelligent thought amidst the usual idiotic left wing chest thumping...
posted by cyclopz at 6:34 AM on May 13, 2003


I'm with stupid.
posted by websavvy at 6:39 AM on May 13, 2003


I would not go so far to say that America is facist but there are some disturbing trends out there. Reading the local newspaper editorial page I see the following claims made on a regular basis:

Loving America mean supporting the president. Those who don't support the president in regards the the Iraq war should leave the country.

Reading this on a regular basis just makes me feel like I've stepped into some kind of a Bizarro world. What ever happened to the concept of the president as the ultimate servant of the people? (A point that reminds me that our first president was not so politely told to not sit in on sessions of congress.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:56 AM on May 13, 2003


Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski!
posted by bwg at 7:05 AM on May 13, 2003


Journalist and lefty blogger Dave Neiwert has been exploring the possibility that America is seeing a rise of a sort of pre- or proto-fascism.

If you visit his weblog Orcinus, you can find links to his research and thoughts in the sidebar, under the heading "Rush, Newspeak, and Fascism". He specifically refers to and elaborates from the Umberto Eco essay that this list was based upon.

I found his work thought-provoking and worth the read, but I'm way over on the left, politically. Your mileage may vary, of course.
posted by eyebeam at 8:18 AM on May 13, 2003


I don't understand the party-line responses to dhartung. Yes, he's obviously less worried about fascism in the US than many here, but that doesn't make him hama7. He says: "There's an argument to be made, certainly, that the arrest of one person in a free society is far more earthshaking than the arrest of thousands in one that is not free. By that measure, perhaps, he's just ringing an alarm bell." As long as you're willing to go that far, you're not (in my book) a mindless cheerleader for Fortress America. He makes good points, and we should all welcome intelligent criticism of screeds we happen to approve of. It helps us think and argue better. If that's what we want.

I notice that nobody is discussing what comes after the list of definitions, which is probably due to the framing of the post. Less is often more, but not in this case. If I had posted this, I would have said something like "You may or may not agree with this list of definitions, but be sure to read the troubling reminiscences of 'good Germans' who wound up going along with the Nazis. Food for thought." I didn't read the link or thread till today because I thought it would be yet another food fight about whether America's going to hell in a handbasked, and I was right—but the part of the link after the definitions is worth wading through all this crap. I urge everyone to do so if you haven't. You don't have to relate it to today's US; you don't have to make political hay out of it in any fashion. Just read it and reflect on human nature and how life can get entangled in politics whether you want it to or not.
posted by languagehat at 8:43 AM on May 13, 2003


"we should all welcome intelligent criticism of screeds we happen to approve of"

One again, Freedom Fries and Liberty Toast come to mind as primer examples of just that.
posted by magullo at 9:25 AM on May 13, 2003


it provides an easy filter

FacistFilter

There. I feel much better.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:24 AM on May 13, 2003


Here be some other interesting descriptions cum warnings about fascism, including some additional takes on the relationship between corporate interests and fascism.

The whole of the article is less a proper analytic reading of the history of fascism and present trends in America than it is an exercise in guilt by association, familiar to liberals as the argument that Hitler supported gun control! and to Jeff Foxworthy fans as You might be a redneck fascist if ..., mixed with a tinge of Slippery Slope. The basic requirements for a fascist regime are not met in the United States today by any stretch of the imagination, and the implication Britt seeks that by adding up similarities we become that which we despise is grandstanding and itself a kind of False Dilemma.
posted by dhartung at 12:17 AM PST on May 13


~chuckle~

Well, as languagehat points out, one welcomes well-reasoned points as always, but one also questions these continual hypocritical tirades against supposed agenda pushing. Decrying such while ourselves batting around terms like "fascism" for our own purposes (you know...to preempt anyone arguing the other side and all) with far less support than Britt's article. Guilt by association, grandstanding, false dilemma, and all that. I mean, that's the kind of agenda-propping hyperbole we'd expect from some kind of goddammed ideologue....right? I mean, heaven forbid that we should justifiably turn our gaze inward to our own country, that supposed beacon of liberty, in these matters. Better that we just see the fascism in others, eh?

Islamism is certainly distinguished from communism in its receptivity to the long Arab and Islamic mercantile tradition, yet since it still tends to require a hierarchical form of government with a dollop of nationalism, fascism is probably the most familiar and appropriate Western term. Thus I like Hitchens's term Islamofascism, because it requires the institution of theocratic law throughout the state, and total devotion to that system of law.
posted by dhartung at 6:17 PM PST on February 26


Hmmmm..."hierachical form of government with a dollop of nationalism." In the light of whoever "totted" and "cobbled up" that short list, we'd do well to read Britt's warning once more, with particular attention to points 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:05 PM on May 13, 2003


And here's foldy, ever the master baiter. What, am I your arch-enemy or something now?
posted by dhartung at 6:17 PM on May 13, 2003


Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
She didnt' care if the whole world looked.
Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
She was a sister who really cooked.

Isadora was the first bra burner
And you're glad she showed up (oh yeah!)
And when the country was falling apart
Betsy Ross got it all sewed up.

And then there's Maude.
And then there's Maude.
And then there's Maude.
And then there's

That old compromisin', enterprisin', anything but tranquilizing,
Right on Maude.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:51 AM on May 14, 2003


but that doesn't make him hama7

I could only hope to be as thoughtful, outspoken and well-informed as dhartung in my daydreams.

Thanks again, Mr. H.
posted by hama7 at 5:39 AM on May 15, 2003


« Older The Smoking Gun TV show...  |  Hold the beauty of life in the... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments