What a night...

Just got home, and have to head out again to pick the teens up from bowling... but DAMN...

Got out of the casino on time, but needed to stop for gas and smokes. Gassed up, no problem, then pulled out of the pump area to the store front to get the smokes. It was snowing and damn cold, so I left the car running, popped out and ran into the store. Guess what I discovered when I got back out?

The doors had auto-locked.

Yep... an hour later and $40 poorer (locksmiths aren't cheap anymore), I had to rush home to get these kids. And YES, I do feel damn stupid.

Wanted to touch on one more quick fascist point (I'm on my son's laptop... sneaking some time while my machine is down)...

Fascism is a means which allows almost total control of a national government to be built around one man. History shows us that this doesn't mean ultimate authority always lies with that man... but the system of government puts that man at the forefront of everything. "By design" as it were.

This is NOT the case with Soviet-style communism (which Ryan keeps using as an example). In the Soviet system, ultimate power is shared by three distinct bodies... no matter how large or small the governing body is. A collective could consist of nothing more than a father, mother and adult son... and if one is the executive, another the vice executive and the third the "Party" representative, then the formula is satisfied. No ties, and everyone shares and equal vote. Nationally, this was represented (in theory, anyway) by the Presidium (home of the Secretary General of the Communist Party and chief executive of the USSR), the Supreme Soviet (the highest level gathering of elected officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), and the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union... which actually maintained a veto power over the Supreme Soviet AND/OR the Presidium (making that body an active "third hand" in Soviet government, had they ever actually executed a veto).

Stalin (and most of all the rest of the Premiers that followed) circumvented this by employing supreme levels of cronyism and a cult of personality that is almost unrivalled since the time of the Roman Emperors. His use of these tools cost the USSR more than we can ever fully count in the years that follow... and though Hitler also had his cults and cronies, he didn't need to purge his government and army of "unwanted" personnel nearly as often as Stalin did, did he?

Hitler put himself into the position to be the ultimate authority in Germany... for life, and by popular design. THAT is fascism. Stalin did not have this luxury, at all... and it nearly cost the USSR the entire effort to win WWII (or even survive it). THAT is totalitarian success in a communist state.

If, as I suspect some may, people want to use the seemingly universal example of totalitarian leadership in communist counties... I can only hold up one contrary example: modern China.

Since the mid-90s, China has really done without the signature "Chairman" role that Mao and the rest have filled since 1948, but they are still "commies" through and through. Where is the "Stalin" in that example? He isn't there.