From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

How will Americans know when we have lost our democracy?

Authoritarianism is harder to recognize than it used to be. Most
21st-century autocrats are elected. Rather than violently suppress
opposition like Castro or Pinochet, todayrCOs autocrats convert public institutions into political weapons, using law enforcement, tax and
regulatory agencies to punish opponents and bully the media and civil
society onto the sidelines. We call this competitive authoritarianism rCo
a system in which parties compete in elections but the systematic abuse
of an incumbentrCOs power tilts the playing field against the opposition.
It is how autocrats rule in contemporary Hungary, India, Serbia and
Turkey and how Hugo Ch|ivez ruled in Venezuela.

The descent into competitive authoritarianism doesnrCOt always set off
alarms. Because governments attack their rivals through nominally legal
means like defamation suits, tax audits and politically targeted investigations, citizens are often slow to realize they are succumbing
to authoritarian rule.

How, then, can we tell whether America has crossed the line into authoritarianism? We propose a simple metric: the cost of opposing the government. In democracies, citizens are not punished for peacefully
opposing those in power. They need not worry about publishing critical opinions, supporting opposition candidates or engaging in peaceful
protest because they know they will not suffer retribution from the government. In fact, the idea of legitimate opposition rCo that all
citizens have a right to criticize, organize opposition to and seek to
remove the government through elections rCo is a foundational principle of democracy.

Under authoritarianism, by contrast, opposition comes with a price.

When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the
government because they could credibly face government retribution, they
no longer live in a full democracy.

By that measure, America has crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism. The Trump administrationrCOs weaponization of government agencies and flurry of punitive actions against critics has raised the
cost of opposition for a wide range of Americans.

The Trump administration has taken (or credibly threatened) punitive
action against a strikingly large number of individuals and
organizations that it considers its opponents.

It has, for example, selectively deployed law enforcement agencies
against critics. President Trump directed the Department of Justice to
open investigations into Christopher Krebs (who as the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency publicly contradicted
Mr. TrumprCOs false claims of election fraud in 2020) and Miles Taylor
(who, when he was a Department of Homeland Security official,
anonymously wrote an opinion piece criticizing the president in 2018).
The administration has also opened a criminal investigation into Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who filed a lawsuit against Mr.
Trump in 2022.

The administration has targeted major law firms for retribution. It effectively prohibited the federal government from hiring Perkins Coie;
Paul, Weiss; and other leading law firms it perceived as friendly to the Democratic Party. It also threatened to cancel their clientsrCO government contracts and suspended their employeesrCO security clearances, preventing them from working on many cases related to the government.

Donors to the Democratic Party and other progressive causes also face political retribution. In April, Mr. Trump directed the attorney general
to investigate the fund-raising practices of ActBlue, the Democratic
PartyrCOs main donor platform, in an apparent effort to weaken his rivalsrCO fund-raising infrastructure. Major Democratic donors now fear
retribution in the form of tax and other investigations. Some have hired additional legal counsel to prepare for tax audits, congressional investigations or lawsuits. Others have moved assets abroad.

Like many autocratic governments, the Trump administration has targeted
the media. Mr. Trump has sued ABC News, CBS News, Meta, Simon & Schuster
and The Des Moines Register. The lawsuits appear to have weak legal
bases, but because media outlets like ABC and CBS are owned by
conglomerates with other interests affected by federal government
decisions, a prolonged legal battle against a sitting president could be costly.

At the same time, the administration has politicized the Federal Communications Commission and deployed it against independent media. It
opened an investigation of fund-raising practices by PBS and NPR,
potentially as a prelude to funding cuts. It also reinstated complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC for anti-Trump bias while opting not to
reinstate a complaint against Fox News for promoting lies about the 2020 election.

Remarkably, these attacks against opponents and the media have occurred
with even greater speed and force than equivalent actions taken by
elected autocrats in Hungary, India, Turkey or Venezuela during their
first years in office.

Mr. Trump has also followed other autocrats in assaulting universities.

The Department of Education opened investigations into at least 52 universities for their participation in diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and it has placed some 60 universities under investigation for antisemitism, threatening them with severe penalties. The administration illegally suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in approved funding
to leading schools such as Brown, Columbia, Princeton and the University
of Pennsylvania. It has frozen $2.2 billion in government grants to
Harvard, asked the I.R.S. to revoke the universityrCOs tax-exempt status
and threatened to revoke its eligibility to host foreign students.

Finally, Republican politicians face threats of violence if they oppose
Mr. Trump. Fear of violence from his supporters reportedly dissuaded
some Republican lawmakers from voting for his impeachment and conviction
after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Republican senators were also threatened during confirmation hearings in early 2025. Senator Thom Tillis,
Republican of North Carolina, reported that the F.B.I. warned him of rCLcredible death threatsrCY while he was considering opposing Pete HegsethrCOs nomination as secretary of defense.

For many American citizens and organizations, then, the cost of
opposition has risen markedly. Although these costs are not as high as
in dictatorships like Russia rCo where critics are routinely imprisoned, exiled or killed rCo America has, with stunning speed, descended into a
world in which opponents of the government fear criminal investigations, lawsuits, tax audits and other punitive measures and even Republican politicians are, as one former Trump administration official put it, rCLscaredrCY out of their minds rCLabout death threats.rCY

This is not the first time that critics of the U.S. government have been harassed, threatened or punished: Dissidents were targeted during the
Red Scares of 1919 and rCO20 and the McCarthy era, the F.B.I. harassed
civil rights leaders and left-leaning activists for decades, and the
Nixon administration attempted to use the I.R.S. and other agencies to
attack his rivals. These measures were clearly undemocratic, but they
were more limited in scope than those occurring today. And Mr. NixonrCOs efforts to politicize the government triggered his resignation, in part,
and a set of reforms that helped curtail such abuse after 1974.

The administrationrCOs authoritarian offensive has had a clear impact. It
has changed how Americans behave, forcing them to think twice about
engaging in what should be constitutionally protected opposition. Consequently, many of the politicians and societal organizations that
should serve as watchdogs and checks on the executive are silencing
themselves or retreating to the sidelines.

For example, fear of retribution has had a chilling effect on donations
to Democrats and progressive civic organizations, forcing several of
them to scale back operations and lay off employees. In the wake of Mr. TrumprCOs attacks on leading law firms, opponents of the administration
are struggling to find legal representation, as deep-pocketed and
reputable firms that once readily engaged in legal battles with the
government are lying low to avoid his wrath. Columbia University ceded
to the administrationrCOs extortionary demands for greater restrictions on student expression.

There are troubling signs of media self-censorship.

And crucially, Republican lawmakers have abdicated their role as checks
on executive power. As Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, put
it, rCLWe are all afraid. ItrCOs quite a statement. But we are in a time and
a place where I certainly have not been here before. And IrCOll tell you, IrCOm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because
retaliation is real. And thatrCOs not right.rCY

Americans are living under a new regime. The question now is whether we
will allow it to take root.

So far, American societyrCOs response to this authoritarian offensive has
been underwhelming rCo alarmingly so.

Civil society leaders seek to protect their organizations from
government attacks: Chief executives need to protect shareholders and
future business opportunities, media owners must avoid costly defamation
suits and adverse regulatory rulings, and university presidents seek to
avoid devastating funding cuts. For any individual leader, then, the
price of defiance can often appear unbearably steep.

Strategies of self-preservation have led too many civil society leaders
to retreat into silence or acquiesce to authoritarian bullying. Small
acts of acquiescence, framed as necessary defensive measures, feel like
the only reasonable course. But this is the fatal logic of appeasement:
the belief that quietly yielding in small, seemingly temporary ways will mitigate long-term harm.

Appeasement, as Churchill warned, is like feeding a crocodile and hoping
to be the last one eaten.

The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the descent
into authoritarianism is reversible. Pro-democracy forces have
successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.

AmericarCOs courts remain independent and will almost certainly block some
of the administrationrCOs most abusive measures. But judges rCo themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and even arrest rCo
cannot save democracy on their own. Broader societal opposition is
essential.

American civil society has the financial and organizational muscle to
resist Mr. TrumprCOs authoritarian offensive.

The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the descent
into authoritarianism is reversible. Pro-democracy forces have
successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.

AmericarCOs courts remain independent and will almost certainly block some
of the administrationrCOs most abusive measures. But judges rCo themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and even arrest rCo
cannot save democracy on their own. Broader societal opposition is
essential.

American civil society has the financial and organizational muscle to
resist Mr. TrumprCOs authoritarian offensive.

But civil society must act collectively. Chief executives, law firms, universities, media outlets and Democratic politicians, as well as more traditional Republicans, have a common interest in preserving our constitutional democracy. When organizations work together and commit to
a collective defense of democratic principles, they share the costs of defiance. The government cannot attack everyone all at once.

So far, the most energetic opposition has come not from civic leaders
but from everyday citizens, showing up at congressional town hall
meetings or participating in Hands Off rallies across the country. Our
leaders must follow their example.

There are signs of an awakening. Harvard has refused to acquiesce to administration demands that would undermine academic freedom, Microsoft dropped a law firm that settled with the administration and hired one
that defied it, and a new law firm based in Washington, D.C., announced
plans to represent those wrongfully targeted by the government. When the
most influential members of civil society fight back, it provides
political cover for others. It also galvanizes ordinary citizens to join
the fight.

AmericarCOs slide into authoritarianism is reversible. But no one has ever defeated autocracy from the sidelines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-democracy.html

Slightly shortened. Read the original, if you must.
--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

Pelle Svansl||s <pelle@svans.los> writes:

How will Americans know when we have lost our democracy?

Authoritarianism is harder to recognize than it used to be. Most
21st-century autocrats are elected. Rather than violently
suppress
opposition like Castro or Pinochet, todayrCOs autocrats convert
public
institutions into political weapons, using law enforcement, tax
and
regulatory agencies to punish opponents and bully the media and
civil
society onto the sidelines. We call this competitive
authoritarianism
rCo a system in which parties compete in elections but the
systematic
abuse of an incumbentrCOs power tilts the playing field against
the
opposition. It is how autocrats rule in contemporary Hungary,
India,
Serbia and Turkey and how Hugo Ch|ivez ruled in Venezuela.

The descent into competitive authoritarianism doesnrCOt always set
off
alarms. Because governments attack their rivals through
nominally
legal means like defamation suits, tax audits and politically
targeted
investigations, citizens are often slow to realize they are
succumbing
to authoritarian rule.

How, then, can we tell whether America has crossed the line into authoritarianism? We propose a simple metric: the cost of
opposing the
government. In democracies, citizens are not punished for
peacefully
opposing those in power. They need not worry about publishing
critical
opinions, supporting opposition candidates or engaging in
peaceful
protest because they know they will not suffer retribution from
the
government. In fact, the idea of legitimate opposition rCo that
all
citizens have a right to criticize, organize opposition to and
seek to
remove the government through elections rCo is a foundational
principle
of democracy.

Under authoritarianism, by contrast, opposition comes with a
price.

When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the
government because they could credibly face government
retribution,
they no longer live in a full democracy.

By that measure, America has crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism. The Trump administrationrCOs weaponization of
government agencies and flurry of punitive actions against
critics has
raised the cost of opposition for a wide range of Americans.

The Trump administration has taken (or credibly threatened)
punitive
action against a strikingly large number of individuals and
organizations that it considers its opponents.

It has, for example, selectively deployed law enforcement
agencies
against critics. President Trump directed the Department of
Justice to
open investigations into Christopher Krebs (who as the head of
the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency publicly
contradicted
Mr. TrumprCOs false claims of election fraud in 2020) and Miles
Taylor
(who, when he was a Department of Homeland Security official,
anonymously wrote an opinion piece criticizing the president in
2018). The administration has also opened a criminal
investigation
into Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who filed
a
lawsuit against Mr. Trump in 2022.

The administration has targeted major law firms for
retribution. It
effectively prohibited the federal government from hiring
Perkins
Coie; Paul, Weiss; and other leading law firms it perceived as
friendly to the Democratic Party. It also threatened to cancel
their
clientsrCO government contracts and suspended their employeesrCO
security
clearances, preventing them from working on many cases related
to the
government.

Donors to the Democratic Party and other progressive causes also
face
political retribution. In April, Mr. Trump directed the attorney
general to investigate the fund-raising practices of ActBlue,
the
Democratic PartyrCOs main donor platform, in an apparent effort to
weaken his rivalsrCO fund-raising infrastructure. Major Democratic
donors now fear retribution in the form of tax and other
investigations. Some have hired additional legal counsel to
prepare
for tax audits, congressional investigations or lawsuits. Others
have
moved assets abroad.

Like many autocratic governments, the Trump administration has
targeted the media. Mr. Trump has sued ABC News, CBS News, Meta,
Simon
& Schuster and The Des Moines Register. The lawsuits appear to
have
weak legal bases, but because media outlets like ABC and CBS are
owned
by conglomerates with other interests affected by federal
government
decisions, a prolonged legal battle against a sitting president
could
be costly.

At the same time, the administration has politicized the Federal Communications Commission and deployed it against independent
media. It opened an investigation of fund-raising practices by
PBS and
NPR, potentially as a prelude to funding cuts. It also
reinstated
complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC for anti-Trump bias while
opting
not to reinstate a complaint against Fox News for promoting lies
about
the 2020 election.

Remarkably, these attacks against opponents and the media have
occurred with even greater speed and force than equivalent
actions
taken by elected autocrats in Hungary, India, Turkey or
Venezuela
during their first years in office.

Mr. Trump has also followed other autocrats in assaulting
universities.

The Department of Education opened investigations into at least
52
universities for their participation in diversity, equity and
inclusion programs, and it has placed some 60 universities under investigation for antisemitism, threatening them with severe
penalties. The administration illegally suspended hundreds of
millions
of dollars in approved funding to leading schools such as Brown,
Columbia, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania. It has
frozen
$2.2 billion in government grants to Harvard, asked the
I.R.S. to
revoke the universityrCOs tax-exempt status and threatened to
revoke its
eligibility to host foreign students.

Finally, Republican politicians face threats of violence if they
oppose Mr. Trump. Fear of violence from his supporters
reportedly
dissuaded some Republican lawmakers from voting for his
impeachment
and conviction after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Republican
senators
were also threatened during confirmation hearings in early
2025. Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina,
reported that
the F.B.I. warned him of rCLcredible death threatsrCY while he was considering opposing Pete HegsethrCOs nomination as secretary of
defense.

For many American citizens and organizations, then, the cost of
opposition has risen markedly. Although these costs are not as
high as
in dictatorships like Russia rCo where critics are routinely
imprisoned,
exiled or killed rCo America has, with stunning speed, descended
into a
world in which opponents of the government fear criminal
investigations, lawsuits, tax audits and other punitive measures
and
even Republican politicians are, as one former Trump
administration
official put it, rCLscaredrCY out of their minds rCLabout death
threats.rCY

This is not the first time that critics of the U.S. government
have
been harassed, threatened or punished: Dissidents were targeted
during
the Red Scares of 1919 and rCO20 and the McCarthy era, the
F.B.I. harassed civil rights leaders and left-leaning activists
for
decades, and the Nixon administration attempted to use the
I.R.S. and
other agencies to attack his rivals. These measures were clearly undemocratic, but they were more limited in scope than those
occurring
today. And Mr. NixonrCOs efforts to politicize the government
triggered
his resignation, in part, and a set of reforms that helped
curtail
such abuse after 1974.

The administrationrCOs authoritarian offensive has had a clear
impact. It has changed how Americans behave, forcing them to
think
twice about engaging in what should be constitutionally
protected
opposition. Consequently, many of the politicians and societal
organizations that should serve as watchdogs and checks on the
executive are silencing themselves or retreating to the
sidelines.

For example, fear of retribution has had a chilling effect on
donations to Democrats and progressive civic organizations,
forcing
several of them to scale back operations and lay off
employees. In the
wake of Mr. TrumprCOs attacks on leading law firms, opponents of
the
administration are struggling to find legal representation, as
deep-pocketed and reputable firms that once readily engaged in
legal
battles with the government are lying low to avoid his
wrath. Columbia
University ceded to the administrationrCOs extortionary demands
for
greater restrictions on student expression.

There are troubling signs of media self-censorship.

And crucially, Republican lawmakers have abdicated their role as
checks on executive power. As Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican
of
Alaska, put it, rCLWe are all afraid. ItrCOs quite a statement. But
we are
in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here
before. And
IrCOll tell you, IrCOm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my
voice, because retaliation is real. And thatrCOs not right.rCY

Americans are living under a new regime. The question now is
whether
we will allow it to take root.

So far, American societyrCOs response to this authoritarian
offensive
has been underwhelming rCo alarmingly so.

Civil society leaders seek to protect their organizations from
government attacks: Chief executives need to protect
shareholders and
future business opportunities, media owners must avoid costly
defamation suits and adverse regulatory rulings, and university
presidents seek to avoid devastating funding cuts. For any
individual
leader, then, the price of defiance can often appear unbearably
steep.

Strategies of self-preservation have led too many civil society
leaders to retreat into silence or acquiesce to authoritarian
bullying. Small acts of acquiescence, framed as necessary
defensive
measures, feel like the only reasonable course. But this is the
fatal
logic of appeasement: the belief that quietly yielding in small,
seemingly temporary ways will mitigate long-term harm.

Appeasement, as Churchill warned, is like feeding a crocodile
and
hoping to be the last one eaten.

The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the
descent
into authoritarianism is reversible. Pro-democracy forces have
successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in
Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.

AmericarCOs courts remain independent and will almost certainly
block
some of the administrationrCOs most abusive measures. But judges rCo themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and
even
arrest rCo cannot save democracy on their own. Broader societal
opposition is essential.

American civil society has the financial and organizational
muscle to
resist Mr. TrumprCOs authoritarian offensive.

The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the
descent
into authoritarianism is reversible. Pro-democracy forces have
successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in
Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.

AmericarCOs courts remain independent and will almost certainly
block
some of the administrationrCOs most abusive measures. But judges rCo themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and
even
arrest rCo cannot save democracy on their own. Broader societal
opposition is essential.

American civil society has the financial and organizational
muscle to
resist Mr. TrumprCOs authoritarian offensive.

But civil society must act collectively. Chief executives, law
firms,
universities, media outlets and Democratic politicians, as well
as
more traditional Republicans, have a common interest in
preserving our
constitutional democracy. When organizations work together and
commit
to a collective defense of democratic principles, they share the
costs
of defiance. The government cannot attack everyone all at once.

So far, the most energetic opposition has come not from civic
leaders
but from everyday citizens, showing up at congressional town
hall
meetings or participating in Hands Off rallies across the
country. Our
leaders must follow their example.

There are signs of an awakening. Harvard has refused to
acquiesce to
administration demands that would undermine academic freedom,
Microsoft dropped a law firm that settled with the
administration and
hired one that defied it, and a new law firm based in
Washington,
D.C., announced plans to represent those wrongfully targeted by
the
government. When the most influential members of civil society
fight
back, it provides political cover for others. It also galvanizes
ordinary citizens to join the fight.

AmericarCOs slide into authoritarianism is reversible. But no one
has
ever defeated autocracy from the sidelines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-democracy.html

Slightly shortened. Read the original, if you must.

On the bright side, Trump is also very old, probably too old to
bring about his full authoritarian vision. And, he's really been
slipping badly of late, both physically and cognitively. My
question is whether Republicans can maintain their pace of change
without Trump? Or is he holding it all together? I think the
latter.

My impression is that J.D. Vance isn't all that compelling to
MAGA. His authenticity was fatally tarnished, I think, during the
campaign. And he'd likely have to spend the rest of the term
fighting internal power struggles. I could see a Republican "civil
war" between more conventional Republicans and the newer
spend-thrift fascist types. What Republican voice could unify the
party AND successfully realize Trump's authoritarian vision?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

------=_Part_0_222620344.1756197165737
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

Pelle Svansl=C3=B6s <pelle@svans.los> writes:> How will Americans know wh=

en we have lost our democracy?>> Authoritarianism is harder to recognize th=
an it used to be. Most> 21st-century autocrats are elected. Rather than vio= lently > suppress> opposition like Castro or Pinochet, today=E2=80=99s auto= crats convert > public> institutions into political weapons, using law enfo= rcement, tax > and> regulatory agencies to punish opponents and bully the m= edia and > civil> society onto the sidelines. We call this competitive > au= thoritarianism> =E2=80=94 a system in which parties compete in elections bu=
t the > systematic> abuse of an incumbent=E2=80=99s power tilts the playing=
field against > the> opposition. It is how autocrats rule in contemporary = Hungary, > India,> Serbia and Turkey and how Hugo Ch=C3=A1vez ruled in Vene= zuela.>> The descent into competitive authoritarianism doesn=E2=80=99t alwa=
ys set > off> alarms. Because governments attack their rivals through > nom= inally> legal means like defamation suits, tax audits and politically > tar= geted> investigations, citizens are often slow to realize they are > succum= bing> to authoritarian rule.>> How, then, can we tell whether America has c= rossed the line into> authoritarianism? We propose a simple metric: the cos=
t of > opposing the> government. In democracies, citizens are not punished = for > peacefully> opposing those in power. They need not worry about publis= hing > critical> opinions, supporting opposition candidates or engaging in =

peaceful> protest because they know they will not suffer retribution from=

government. In fact, the idea of legitimate opposition =E2=80=94 th=

at > all> citizens have a right to criticize, organize opposition to and > = seek to> remove the government through elections =E2=80=94 is a foundationa=
l > principle> of democracy.>> Under authoritarianism, by contrast, opposit= ion comes with a > price.>> When citizens must think twice about criticizin=
g or opposing the> government because they could credibly face government >=
retribution,> they no longer live in a full democracy.>> By that measure, = America has crossed the line into competitive> authoritarianism. The Trump = administration=E2=80=99s weaponization of> government agencies and flurry o=
f punitive actions against > critics has> raised the cost of opposition for=
a wide range of Americans.>> The Trump administration has taken (or credib=
ly threatened) > punitive> action against a strikingly large number of indi= viduals and> organizations that it considers its opponents.>> It has, for e= xample, selectively deployed law enforcement > agencies> against critics. P= resident Trump directed the Department of > Justice to> open investigations=
into Christopher Krebs (who as the head of > the> Cybersecurity and Infras= tructure Security Agency publicly > contradicted> Mr. Trump=E2=80=99s false=
claims of election fraud in 2020) and Miles > Taylor> (who, when he was a = Department of Homeland Security official,> anonymously wrote an opinion pie=
ce criticizing the president in> 2018). The administration has also opened =
a criminal > investigation> into Letitia James, the attorney general of New=
York, who filed > a> lawsuit against Mr. Trump in 2022.>> The administrati=
on has targeted major law firms for > retribution. It> effectively prohibit=
ed the federal government from hiring > Perkins> Coie; Paul, Weiss; and oth=
er leading law firms it perceived as> friendly to the Democratic Party. It = also threatened to cancel > their> clients=E2=80=99 government contracts an=
d suspended their employees=E2=80=99 > security> clearances, preventing the=
m from working on many cases related > to the> government.>> Donors to the = Democratic Party and other progressive causes also > face> political retrib= ution. In April, Mr. Trump directed the attorney> general to investigate th=
e fund-raising practices of ActBlue, > the> Democratic Party=E2=80=99s main=
donor platform, in an apparent effort to> weaken his rivals=E2=80=99 fund-= raising infrastructure. Major Democratic> donors now fear retribution in th=
e form of tax and other> investigations. Some have hired additional legal c= ounsel to > prepare> for tax audits, congressional investigations or lawsui= ts. Others > have> moved assets abroad.>> Like many autocratic governments,=
the Trump administration has> targeted the media. Mr. Trump has sued ABC N= ews, CBS News, Meta, > Simon> & Schuster and The Des Moines Register. The l= awsuits appear to > have> weak legal bases, but because media outlets like = ABC and CBS are > owned> by conglomerates with other interests affected by = federal > government> decisions, a prolonged legal battle against a sitting=
president > could> be costly.>> At the same time, the administration has p= oliticized the Federal> Communications Commission and deployed it against i= ndependent> media. It opened an investigation of fund-raising practices by =

PBS and> NPR, potentially as a prelude to funding cuts. It also > reinsta=

complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC for anti-Trump bias while > opting=

not to reinstate a complaint against Fox News for promoting lies > about>=

the 2020 election.>> Remarkably, these attacks against opponents and the m= edia have> occurred with even greater speed and force than equivalent > act= ions> taken by elected autocrats in Hungary, India, Turkey or > Venezuela> = during their first years in office.>> Mr. Trump has also followed other aut= ocrats in assaulting > universities.>> The Department of Education opened i= nvestigations into at least > 52> universities for their participation in d= iversity, equity and> inclusion programs, and it has placed some 60 univers= ities under> investigation for antisemitism, threatening them with severe> = penalties. The administration illegally suspended hundreds of > millions> o=
f dollars in approved funding to leading schools such as Brown,> Columbia, = Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania. It has > frozen> $2.2 billion=
in government grants to Harvard, asked the > I.R.S. to> revoke the univers= ity=E2=80=99s tax-exempt status and threatened to > revoke its> eligibility=
to host foreign students.>> Finally, Republican politicians face threats o=
f violence if they> oppose Mr. Trump. Fear of violence from his supporters =

reportedly> dissuaded some Republican lawmakers from voting for his > imp=

eachment> and conviction after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Republican > senat=

were also threatened during confirmation hearings in early> 2025. Sena=

tor Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, > reported that> the F.B.I. = warned him of =E2=80=9Ccredible death threats=E2=80=9D while he was> consid= ering opposing Pete Hegseth=E2=80=99s nomination as secretary of> defense.>=

For many American citizens and organizations, then, the cost of> oppositi=

on has risen markedly. Although these costs are not as > high as> in dictat= orships like Russia =E2=80=94 where critics are routinely > imprisoned,> ex= iled or killed =E2=80=94 America has, with stunning speed, descended > into=

world in which opponents of the government fear criminal> investigation=

s, lawsuits, tax audits and other punitive measures > and> even Republican = politicians are, as one former Trump > administration> official put it, =E2= =80=9Cscared=E2=80=9D out of their minds =E2=80=9Cabout death > threats.=E2= =80=9D>> This is not the first time that critics of the U.S. government > h=

been harassed, threatened or punished: Dissidents were targeted > duri=

the Red Scares of 1919 and =E2=80=9920 and the McCarthy era, the> F.B.I=

. harassed civil rights leaders and left-leaning activists > for> decades, = and the Nixon administration attempted to use the > I.R.S. and> other agenc= ies to attack his rivals. These measures were clearly> undemocratic, but th=
ey were more limited in scope than those > occurring> today. And Mr. Nixon= =E2=80=99s efforts to politicize the government > triggered> his resignatio=
n, in part, and a set of reforms that helped > curtail> such abuse after 19= 74.>> The administration=E2=80=99s authoritarian offensive has had a clear>=
impact. It has changed how Americans behave, forcing them to > think> twic=
e about engaging in what should be constitutionally > protected> opposition=
. Consequently, many of the politicians and societal> organizations that sh= ould serve as watchdogs and checks on the> executive are silencing themselv=
es or retreating to the > sidelines.>> For example, fear of retribution has=
had a chilling effect on> donations to Democrats and progressive civic org= anizations, > forcing> several of them to scale back operations and lay off=

employees. In the> wake of Mr. Trump=E2=80=99s attacks on leading law fi=

rms, opponents of > the> administration are struggling to find legal repres= entation, as> deep-pocketed and reputable firms that once readily engaged i=
n > legal> battles with the government are lying low to avoid his > wrath. = Columbia> University ceded to the administration=E2=80=99s extortionary dem= ands > for> greater restrictions on student expression.>> There are troubli=
ng signs of media self-censorship.>> And crucially, Republican lawmakers ha=
ve abdicated their role as> checks on executive power. As Senator Lisa Murk= owski, Republican > of> Alaska, put it, =E2=80=9CWe are all afraid. It=E2= =80=99s quite a statement. But > we are> in a time and a place where I cert= ainly have not been here > before. And> I=E2=80=99ll tell you, I=E2=80=99m = oftentimes very anxious myself about using my> voice, because retaliation i=
s real. And that=E2=80=99s not right.=E2=80=9D>> Americans are living under=
a new regime. The question now is > whether> we will allow it to take root= .>> So far, American society=E2=80=99s response to this authoritarian > off= ensive> has been underwhelming =E2=80=94 alarmingly so.>> Civil society lea= ders seek to protect their organizations from> government attacks: Chief ex= ecutives need to protect > shareholders and> future business opportunities,=
media owners must avoid costly> defamation suits and adverse regulatory ru= lings, and university> presidents seek to avoid devastating funding cuts. F=
or any > individual> leader, then, the price of defiance can often appear u= nbearably > steep.>> Strategies of self-preservation have led too many civi=
l society> leaders to retreat into silence or acquiesce to authoritarian> b= ullying. Small acts of acquiescence, framed as necessary > defensive> measu= res, feel like the only reasonable course. But this is the > fatal> logic o=
f appeasement: the belief that quietly yielding in small,> seemingly tempor= ary ways will mitigate long-term harm.>> Appeasement, as Churchill warned, =
is like feeding a crocodile > and> hoping to be the last one eaten.>> The c= osts of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the > descent> into a= uthoritarianism is reversible. Pro-democracy forces have> successfully resi= sted or reversed backsliding in recent years in> Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, = South Korea and elsewhere.>> America=E2=80=99s courts remain independent an=
d will almost certainly > block> some of the administration=E2=80=99s most = abusive measures. But judges =E2=80=94> themselves targets of violent threa= ts, government harassment and > even> arrest =E2=80=94 cannot save democrac=
y on their own. Broader societal> opposition is essential.>> American civil=
society has the financial and organizational > muscle to> resist Mr. Trump= =E2=80=99s authoritarian offensive.>> The costs of opposition are surmounta= ble. And importantly, the > descent> into authoritarianism is reversible. P= ro-democracy forces have> successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in = recent years in> Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.>> Ame= rica=E2=80=99s courts remain independent and will almost certainly > block>=
some of the administration=E2=80=99s most abusive measures. But judges =E2= =80=94> themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and > = even> arrest =E2=80=94 cannot save democracy on their own. Broader societal=

opposition is essential.>> American civil society has the financial and o=

rganizational > muscle to> resist Mr. Trump=E2=80=99s authoritarian offensi= ve.>> But civil society must act collectively. Chief executives, law > firm=

universities, media outlets and Democratic politicians, as well > as> m=

ore traditional Republicans, have a common interest in > preserving our> co= nstitutional democracy. When organizations work together and > commit> to a=
collective defense of democratic principles, they share the > costs> of de= fiance. The government cannot attack everyone all at once.>> So far, the mo=
st energetic opposition has come not from civic > leaders> but from everyda=
y citizens, showing up at congressional town > hall> meetings or participat= ing in Hands Off rallies across the > country. Our> leaders must follow the=
ir example.>> There are signs of an awakening. Harvard has refused to > acq= uiesce to> administration demands that would undermine academic freedom,> M= icrosoft dropped a law firm that settled with the > administration and> hir=
ed one that defied it, and a new law firm based in > Washington,> D.C., ann= ounced plans to represent those wrongfully targeted by > the> government. W= hen the most influential members of civil society > fight> back, it provide=
s political cover for others. It also galvanizes> ordinary citizens to join=
the fight.>> America=E2=80=99s slide into authoritarianism is reversible. = But no one > has> ever defeated autocracy from the sidelines.>> https://www= .nytimes.com/2025/05/08/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-democracy.html>> Sli= ghtly shortened. Read the original, if you must.On the bright side, Trump i=
s also very old, probably too old to bring about his full authoritarian vis= ion. And, he's really been slipping badly of late, both physically and cog= nitively. My question is whether Republicans can maintain their pace of ch= ange without Trump? Or is he holding it all together? I think the latter.=
My impression is that J.D. Vance isn't all that compelling to MAGA. His au= thenticity was fatally tarnished, I think, during the campaign. And he'd l= ikely have to spend the rest of the term fighting internal power struggles.=
I could see a Republican "civil war" between more conventional Republicans=
and the newer spend-thrift fascist types. What Republican voice could uni=
fy the party AND successfully realize Trump's authoritarian vision?



What's so wrong with fascism if people are happier with government doing st= uff which makes people happy?


--=20




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html ------=_Part_0_222620344.1756197165737--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:

What's so wrong with fascism if people are happier with
government doing stuff which makes people happy?

That's a big IF!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

------=_Part_0_188960821.1756203499413
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:>>> What's so wrong with fascism if people are happier with > government doing stuff which makes people happy?That's a big IF!

Don't you find Jewish hypocrisy in this article hilarious? Or you don't call out Jewish hypocrisy, like you, a hypocrite buster, would normally do to others?
--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html ------=_Part_0_188960821.1756203499413--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

On 8/26/25 1:32 AM, *skriptis wrote:

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

Pelle Svansl||s <pelle@svans.los> writes:> How will Americans know when we have lost our democracy?>> Authoritarianism is harder to recognize than it used to be. Most> 21st-century autocrats are elected. Rather than violently > suppress> opposition like Castro or Pinochet, todayrCOs autocrats convert > public> institutions into political weapons, using law enforcement, tax > and> regulatory agencies to punish opponents and bully the media and > civil> society onto the sidelines. We call this competitive > authoritarianism> rCo a system in which parties compete in elections but the > systematic> abuse of an incumbentrCOs power tilts the playing field against > the> opposition. It is how autocrats rule in contemporary Hungary, > India,> Serbia and Turkey and how Hugo Ch|ivez ruled in Venezuela.>> The descent into competitive authoritarianism doesnrCOt always set > off> alarms. Because governments attack their rivals through > nominally> legal means like defamation suits, tax audits and politically > targeted> investigations, citizens are often slow to realize they are > succumbing> to authoritarian rule.>> How, then, can we tell whether America has crossed the line into> authoritarianism? We propose a simple metric: the cost of > opposing the> government. In democracies, citizens are not punished for > peacefully> opposing those in power. They need not worry about publishing > critical> opinions, supporting opposition candidates or engaging in > peaceful> protest because they know they will not suffer retribution from > the> government. In fact, the idea of legitimate opposition rCo that > all> citizens have a right to criticize, organize opposition to and > seek to> remove the government through elections rCo is a foundational > principle> of democracy.>> Under authoritarianism, by contrast, opposition comes with a > price.>> When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the> government because they could credibly face government > retribution,> they no longer live in a full democracy.>> By that measure, America has crossed the line into competitive> authoritarianism. The Trump administrationrCOs weaponization of> government agencies and flurry of punitive actions against > critics has> raised the cost of opposition for a wide range of Americans.>> The Trump administration has taken (or credibly threatened) > punitive> action against a strikingly large number of individuals and> organizations that it considers its opponents.>> It has, for example, selectively deployed law enforcement > agencies> against critics. President Trump directed the Department of > Justice to> open investigations into Christopher Krebs (who as the head of > the> Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency publicly > contradicted> Mr. TrumprCOs false claims of election fraud in 2020) and Miles > Taylor> (who, when he was a Department of Homeland Security official,> anonymously wrote an opinion piece criticizing the president in> 2018). The administration has also opened a criminal > investigation> into Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who filed > a> lawsuit against Mr. Trump in 2022.>> The administration has targeted major law firms for > retribution. It> effectively prohibited the federal government from hiring > Perkins> Coie; Paul, Weiss; and other leading law firms it perceived as> friendly to the Democratic Party. It also threatened to cancel > their> clientsrCO government contracts and suspended their employeesrCO > security> clearances, preventing them from working on many cases related > to the> government.>> Donors to the Democratic Party and other progressive causes also > face> political retribution. In April, Mr. Trump directed the attorney> general to investigate the fund-raising practices of ActBlue, > the> Democratic PartyrCOs main donor platform, in an apparent effort to> weaken his rivalsrCO fund-raising infrastructure. Major Democratic> donors now fear retribution in the form of tax and other> investigations. Some have hired additional legal counsel to > prepare> for tax audits, congressional investigations or lawsuits. Others > have> moved assets abroad.>> Like many autocratic governments, the Trump administration has> targeted the media. Mr. Trump has sued ABC News, CBS News, Meta, > Simon> & Schuster and The Des Moines Register. The lawsuits appear to > have> weak legal bases, but because media outlets like ABC and CBS are > owned> by conglomerates with other interests affected by federal > government> decisions, a prolonged legal battle against a sitting president > could> be costly.>> At the same time, the administration has politicized the Federal> Communications Commission and deployed it against independent> media. It opened an investigation of fund-raising practices by > PBS and> NPR, potentially as a prelude to funding cuts. It also > reinstated> complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC for anti-Trump bias while > opting> not to reinstate a complaint against Fox News for promoting lies > about> the 2020 election.>> Remarkably, these attacks against opponents and the media have> occurred with even greater speed and force than equivalent > actions> taken by elected autocrats in Hungary, India, Turkey or > Venezuela> during their first years in office.>> Mr. Trump has also followed other autocrats in assaulting > universities.>> The Department of Education opened investigations into at least > 52> universities for their participation in diversity, equity and> inclusion programs, and it has placed some 60 universities under> investigation for antisemitism, threatening them with severe> penalties. The administration illegally suspended hundreds of > millions> of dollars in approved funding to leading schools such as Brown,> Columbia, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania. It has > frozen> $2.2 billion in government grants to Harvard, asked the > I.R.S. to> revoke the universityrCOs tax-exempt status and threatened to > revoke its> eligibility to host foreign students.>> Finally, Republican politicians face threats of violence if they> oppose Mr. Trump. Fear of violence from his supporters > reportedly> dissuaded some Republican lawmakers from voting for his > impeachment> and conviction after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Republican > senators> were also threatened during confirmation hearings in early> 2025. Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, > reported that> the F.B.I. warned him of rCLcredible death threatsrCY while he was> considering opposing Pete HegsethrCOs nomination as secretary of> defense.>> For many American citizens and organizations, then, the cost of> opposition has risen markedly. Although these costs are not as > high as> in dictatorships like Russia rCo where critics are routinely > imprisoned,> exiled or killed rCo America has, with stunning speed, descended > into a> world in which opponents of the government fear criminal> investigations, lawsuits, tax audits and other punitive measures > and> even Republican politicians are, as one former Trump > administration> official put it, rCLscaredrCY out of their minds rCLabout death > threats.rCY>> This is not the first time that critics of the U.S. government > have> been harassed, threatened or punished: Dissidents were targeted > during> the Red Scares of 1919 and rCO20 and the McCarthy era, the> F.B.I. harassed civil rights leaders and left-leaning activists > for> decades, and the Nixon administration attempted to use the > I.R.S. and> other agencies to attack his rivals. These measures were clearly> undemocratic, but they were more limited in scope than those > occurring> today. And Mr. NixonrCOs efforts to politicize the government > triggered> his resignation, in part, and a set of reforms that helped > curtail> such abuse after 1974.>> The administrationrCOs authoritarian offensive has had a clear> impact. It has changed how Americans behave, forcing them to > think> twice about engaging in what should be constitutionally > protected> opposition. Consequently, many of the politicians and societal> organizations that should serve as watchdogs and checks on the> executive are silencing themselves or retreating to the > sidelines.>> For example, fear of retribution has had a chilling effect on> donations to Democrats and progressive civic organizations, > forcing> several of them to scale back operations and lay off > employees. In the> wake of Mr. TrumprCOs attacks on leading law firms, opponents of > the> administration are struggling to find legal representation, as> deep-pocketed and reputable firms that once readily engaged in > legal> battles with the government are lying low to avoid his > wrath. Columbia> University ceded to the administrationrCOs extortionary demands > for> greater restrictions on student expression.>> There are troubling signs of media self-censorship.>> And crucially, Republican lawmakers have abdicated their role as> checks on executive power. As Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican > of> Alaska, put it, rCLWe are all afraid. ItrCOs quite a statement. But > we are> in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here > before. And> IrCOll tell you, IrCOm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my> voice, because retaliation is real. And thatrCOs not right.rCY>> Americans are living under a new regime. The question now is > whether> we will allow it to take root.>> So far, American societyrCOs response to this authoritarian > offensive> has been underwhelming rCo alarmingly so.>> Civil society leaders seek to protect their organizations from> government attacks: Chief executives need to protect > shareholders and> future business opportunities, media owners must avoid costly> defamation suits and adverse regulatory rulings, and university> presidents seek to avoid devastating funding cuts. For any > individual> leader, then, the price of defiance can often appear unbearably > steep.>> Strategies of self-preservation have led too many civil society> leaders to retreat into silence or acquiesce to authoritarian> bullying. Small acts of acquiescence, framed as necessary > defensive> measures, feel like the only reasonable course. But this is the > fatal> logic of appeasement: the belief that quietly yielding in small,> seemingly temporary ways will mitigate long-term harm.>> Appeasement, as Churchill warned, is like feeding a crocodile > and> hoping to be the last one eaten.>> The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the > descent> into authoritarianism is reversible. Pro-democracy forces have> successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in> Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.>> AmericarCOs courts remain independent and will almost certainly > block> some of the administrationrCOs most abusive measures. But judges rCo> themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and > even> arrest rCo cannot save democracy on their own. Broader societal> opposition is essential.>> American civil society has the financial and organizational > muscle to> resist Mr. TrumprCOs authoritarian offensive.>> The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the > descent> into authoritarianism is reversible. Pro-democracy forces have> successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in> Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.>> AmericarCOs courts remain independent and will almost certainly > block> some of the administrationrCOs most abusive measures. But judges rCo> themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and > even> arrest rCo cannot save democracy on their own. Broader societal> opposition is essential.>> American civil society has the financial and organizational > muscle to> resist Mr. TrumprCOs authoritarian offensive.>> But civil society must act collectively. Chief executives, law > firms,> universities, media outlets and Democratic politicians, as well > as> more traditional Republicans, have a common interest in > preserving our> constitutional democracy. When organizations work together and > commit> to a collective defense of democratic principles, they share the > costs> of defiance. The government cannot attack everyone all at once.>> So far, the most energetic opposition has come not from civic > leaders> but from everyday citizens, showing up at congressional town > hall> meetings or participating in Hands Off rallies across the > country. Our> leaders must follow their example.>> There are signs of an awakening. Harvard has refused to > acquiesce to> administration demands that would undermine academic freedom,> Microsoft dropped a law firm that settled with the > administration and> hired one that defied it, and a new law firm based in > Washington,> D.C., announced plans to represent those wrongfully targeted by > the> government. When the most influential members of civil society > fight> back, it provides political cover for others. It also galvanizes> ordinary citizens to join the fight.>> AmericarCOs slide into authoritarianism is reversible. But no one > has> ever defeated autocracy from the sidelines.>> https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-democracy.html>> Slightly shortened. Read the original, if you must.On the bright side, Trump is also very old, probably too old to bring about his full authoritarian vision. And, he's really been slipping badly of late, both physically and cognitively. My question is whether Republicans can maintain their pace of change without Trump? Or is he holding it all together? I think the latter.My impression is that J.D. Vance isn't all that compelling to MAGA. His authenticity was fatally tarnished, I think, during the campaign. And he'd likely have to spend the rest of the term fighting internal power struggles. I could see a Republican "civil war" between more conventional Republicans and the newer spend-thrift fascist types. What Republican voice could unify the party AND successfully realize Trump's authoritarian vision?

What's so wrong with fascism if people are happier with government doing stuff which makes people happy?

Nothing intrinsically, so far as I can see. It appears to be a linear descendant of the chief/priest form of governance. It is not possible to
have a multi-cultural fascist state that is even semi-stable, though.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:>>> What's so wrong
with fascism if people are happier with > government doing
stuff which makes people happy?That's a big IF!

Don't you find Jewish hypocrisy in this article hilarious? Or
you don't call out Jewish hypocrisy, like you, a hypocrite
buster, would normally do to others?

Sounds like you need a Gavin bible.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2