Fascism in the U.S. Courts!
Just noticed this today:
See here for more details. Proof positive, it seems to me. Of everything.
UPDATE: After I linked to the Wikipedia entry, someone deleted the section I was linking to; fortunately, commenter Anderson posted a link to the old version of the entry, and I've revised this post to link to that. That sort of thing is one of the problems with linking to Wikipedia, though it's not that serious a problem when it comes to topics such as this.
But that bundle of rods with the axe was already used in ancient Rome and Napoleon's France. Acutally, every European/French passeport still has that thing on the front cover, I really don't think that this is a sign of fascism.
And conspiracy theories prove themselves.
:-)
Thanks, now I see.
I still think that it is quite a long shot.
...on the other hand, that's exactly what those Illuminati want me to think.
...aaaahhhh...
It as a government that fascism is loathsome. Holding that people and industry, localities, cities and states all exist to serve that government; that is odious and the antithesis of our American liberties.
[It serves as a warning why former government bureaucrats may not be good, or even acceptable, as elected officials; and why even good elected people often 'drift' toward bad policies.]
As an ancient symbol of authority, I don't see why we ought to allow a 20th century invention to completely co-opt it. JMO
I'd never seen the mace of the House of Representatives before. That's cool. Looks like it would be good for bopping unruly Congressmen on the head. (Not with the end with the eagle, of course.)
Illuminati!! They are everywhere...aaaahhh....
Yeah, the section EV linked to is kaput -- just deleted by someone who found it "unencyclopedic."
Here's the page with the section EV linked.
You can also go to the discussion page and tell the editor he's a nitwit.
Already once in my career, I had to oppose a pro se vexatious litigant who claimed a judgment against him was invalid because he was a "citizen of the Ohio free republic" and not a U.S. citizen, therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. Another argument frequently made by those types of guys is that court judgments are invalid when the flag flying in the courtroom has a gold fringe on it. You've just added a THIRD potential argument into these guys' quivers -- that the courts have betrayed their constitutional oath by being fascist, and the seal of the court's adminstrative office proves that it is fascist. :)
You look at the Mace of the House of Representatives and think that it's inappropriately named - maces are supposed to have spikes, so they can do both bludgeoning and piercing damage. Clearly what the House has is some sort of war hammer.
Either way, it looks like it would be very effective at dealing with filibusters.
Look! Ponies!
Thanks for planting those unbidden pictures of Nancy Pelosi in a Xena outfit swinging that mace...scepter... +4 warhammer... whatever...into my poor innocent head . ;-)
I thought clerics were allowed to use maces because they don't pierce or otherwise shed blood . . .
My law school also has a fasces in its seal, though they made it look a little less threatening by removing the head of the axe. The center rod/axe, by the way, represents imperium, that is, the state's absolute power over life and death. I suppose the fasces could be argued to have neutral symbolic connotations of the rule of law enduring over the ages, without regard to ideology. Really though, even before Mussolini revived it for his own propaganda, it was probably inappropriate iconography in any modern liberal state where individual rights can constrain the acts of the government.
Want to think that one over again now that you've had your coffee? :) The Swastika (Godwin?) was also an ancient symbol of something much more warm and fuzzy than Nazism, but I doubt you'd argue we shouldn't let some johnny-come-lately political movement co-opt it.
Of course, applying the only standard that truly matters -- public name recognition -- I'll go ahead and say the fasce is no big deal. You'd probably have to start using it in your wannabe-presidential seal before anyone would notice or talk about it...
Darn, you're right. I was mixing up maces and morningstars. And it was indeed a rule of the medieval Christian church that members of the clergy could only use blunt weapons which would not "shed blood". (Of course, bashing someone's skull in is likely to produce some external bleeding, but let that pass.) Just one of many historical examples of the triumph of legalistic hair-splitting over the spirit of the law!
I'm pretty sure D&D doesn't have a general ban on clerics using edged or piercing weapons. Clerics start out with proficiency in all simple weapons, which includes daggers, spears, and crossbows.
surrender_monkey -
Tou're welcome. :D
***
Well, we didn't let those nasties co-opt the eagle, did we? And an eagle IS on the presidential seal. ;)
http://www.usmbooks.com/nazi_eagle_swastika.html
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.