Rowan,

This is such a good post! You make excellent observations, so concise and well-researched. Some of the facts surprised me: "The US has the highest incarceration rate of any industrial nation " -- that is an amazing statistic and says something to me about the underlying dissatisfaction with the largest % of our population. "Hence, we have Cheney's refusal to release the notes and attendees of his energy plan meetings now before the Supreme Court." -- the idea of a Cheney energy plan seems like a misnomer in principle, but that aside, OUR vice-president will not release notes about his energy plan? How suspect is that?

The points you make about labor unions, an entity that so many workers fought to establish, is excellent. Case in point, I don't know a single person who belongs to a union! Even when I worked in the construction industry I rarely met someone who was union. I was also instructed to avoid union shops when seeking bids.

"US public generally has no problems with the idea that GOD speaks to George W. Bush, and that Bush is making policy and war on the content of those "messages." -- I shudder when I hear this, and I actually believe in a God-like something. Frankly, even if God DID speak, would it be to George W. Bush, and would he get it right? Seriously, it has been a real source of interest to me that so little is said about this. Are we having our own version of Jihad?

Anyway, thank you for this rundown on fascism. My grandmother lived through 2 world wars in Berlin, Germany. She was a social judge, allocating funds for people in need. She had plenty to say about American politics and policy. prior to her death.

I appreciate Gore Vidal's gift for hyperbole, but it's just too much to say that the US is a fascist state now. Could he say so in a truly fascist state? No. He couldn't even have said it in 1952's US, which was closer to fascism than even today's US--and Vidal should know that. A little perspective, please.

The US now risks fascist directions, though. The Netherlands (where I live until next month) is a very nice counterexample of how these things can be done much better.

Eric, do you think it's possible that Gore Vidal used dramatic language to draw attention to a trend? Using a term like fascism holds much more impact than saying something watered-down like "some people in our current administration are conducting business in a manner that is highly evocative of a fascist state ... " that would have, in my opinion, too many qualifiers.

And anyway, language and culture should be taken relative to the history of the country, don't you think? And in the case of the United States, a country founded on relatively noble principles and with an eye for an above-board government, we need to stand up and take notice of our changing liberties.

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.htmlxlnt post! Eco also has 14 points in this article. intresting coincidentce why only 14?

ALL HAIL BUSH AND HIS MASTER PLAN
How longer before he shows the public a serious potential death treat to himself just to bolster his polls. Bush is a lying sack of #$%^.

I just hope the public and the electrolate see thru him.

The definition of fascism alone describes the state of this nation today.
So why aren't we all screaming "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
It is time to wake up America and 'reorganize' who runs the government.

No, we are in MORE of a fascist state today than in 1952. Back then, the federal government more often than not conformed to the guidelines framed in the U.S. Constitution, which was designed to limit the power of government.

Today?

Ii's difficult to find ANY law sent through legislature today which is legal based on the U.S. Constitution. Plus, states do not bother to defend their own rights, much less their citizen's rights against the feds.

Point #3 overlooks W's obsession with gay marriage and riling up the fundamentalists against the pink triangles. Another example, and a very close parallel to the fuhrer.

Letter to the Editor

First, I agree with almost everything you wrote in your article, "FASCISM USA", EXCEPT these lines:

"'Others' are the targets, and 'whites' are being protected from them" AND

I did not quite understand your meaning with

"These 'whites' are perceive[d] as traitors in a variety of ways, but at base they are seen as 'race traitors'."

OR WITH...

"The 'criminals' and who people are told to be afraid of is primarily embodied in the person of 'non-whites' who are over-represented dramatically for most crimes."

First, I will tell you right off...I am a crime victim and my dignity was robbed by two men, one more violent than the other. Both were African American males; I am caucasian. Because of this crime (a last straw, added to previous abuse and insults to my dignity and emotional health, including when many, many, many African Americans refused to hire me, yet, in my side-line as a jazz vocalist, I, for years, hired people of many races, to perform with me on stage, which I no longer do to any "earning" degree, because of my disability. The point is, my attackers were "shooting the messenger".

Now I will cut and paste a story that I wrote today, to David Neiwert, author of the article, "The Political and the Personal", posted on the

"David,

I read your article, The Political and the Personal, on the web, and thought you hit the nail on the head. In about six or seven months, my first book, a nonfiction will be published through PublishAmerica in Baltimore, it's title Bandleader's Bride: A Crime Survivor's Memoir.

In it, I advocate for disability rights, crime victim rights and Title VII rights that have been ignored for decades when judges continue to "rubberstamp" the Luevano Consent Decree, part of the law that replaced the PACE hiring exams with "set-aside" programs, and that was only intended for use temporarily, for five years only, but has continued misused for at least 15 years beyond its intended application, and when the federal government ignores Schedule A disability status (pretending not to see that document and certification while processing its applicants to federal jobs, including internships).

When you used the term "unpatriotic", I know all about that kind of attribution, when a federal (defense) employer (and I cannot divulge which--I have a "gag order" on me) blacklisted me after ignoring the "invalid source" law, ignored the list of personal "references" I gave for former supervisors (while those hired to the internship got to use their own, separate lists of references), meanwhile requiring all applicants to list all of their supervisors (or else their applications would have been deemed "incomplete", yet knew that providing the names of those supervisors on the actual federal application, did not mean the applicant was listing them as "references", and used a telephone (not the federal legal process requiring "permission" before obtaining "references", to call a former supervisor who "blacklisted" me, and ignored my former employer's official method requiring potential employers to contact only the Human Resource department. It gets worse but I cannot divulge the details, my "pro se" case is still pending in court, for more than three years now, meanwhile the judge tells me he probably won't get "round tuit" for months (last thing I did was fight a Motion for Summary Judgement) as he has a back log of 70 cases.

I will tell you this much...the federal recruiters who perpetrated the "blacklisting" admitted, when the DoD deposed them, statements that began with "Lordy..." and "God bless her but...", insinuated "we wanted someone to help out the [soldiers, and she just wasn't the type], when I had many years of DoD experience, had held three high clearances--the highest was active while applying for the internship--and learned, as a technical editor, years of acronym jargon, while conforming CDRLs for more than a decade. The attributed me as a "job hopper" basically, because I could find nothing but proposal work and contract work for more than 12 years. I explained in my first interview with that agency that some of my short jobs were due to having moved with my military husband, to accommodate his job. In Discovery, the recruiter "justified" her prejudice with "but she wasn't even married for some of that time" (which, had I included another category of EEO complaints with my initial complaint, it could have included prejudice against my marital status.)

I am a crime victim on SSDI since 2002 (a crime victim since April 2001), disabled because of the crime, and the "system" still treats me as "discardable"...as refuse.

I had to move from my 9-year Manassas, VA home, and had to leave my part time, fill-in job as manager of the jewelry store, where the crime happened. Threatened with a gun to my head, told "talk and you're dead", without further income, I fled to my boyfriend's home for shelter (before I was ready to consent to marriage, before either of us could even consider the possibility or discuss that possibility at length), where I still live.

What the republicans do not realize are the many gray areas in life, where "family" means different things to different people. Nine months before the crime rendered me disabled, I was abandoned by my 8.5-year boyfriend, after I had helped him raise his daughter from age 10 to age 18; I was a stepmother, by most authors' accounts that define that term.

When republicans fail to fund programs to help crime victims, they also create (is there such a word?) concubinism when crime victims have to give up what remains of their dignity and potential independence, and meanwhile the gaps widen on their resumes. Meanwhile also, more sons and daughters of republicans are becoming democrats because of the social darwinism inherent in President Bush's administration.

Just think...had I married the man I lived with for 9.5 years (a fraud and abuser who I came to find out was advertising on swinger web sites, after he left me--I can prove this--and he went bankrupt while living with me), he would have surely pulled down my credit line.

Keep up the good work.

G. Baer
Graduate
School of Speech Communication, 1990
GMU"

By the way, one of the defense agency "recruiters" I mentioned above was an African American female; she was the one who I allege "overlooked" the Schedule A letter with my first application to the agency (pretended it wasn't with my application package); she claimed to have "known nothing" about Schedule A appointments; if that was so (that she "knew nothing", nor how to process those "noncompetitive" documents, why did that federal agency hire her, hmmm?

I was forced through the Outstanding Scholar process, when I'd actually asked to use the Schedule A process; subsequent to my applying for a federal internship, the recruiters HELD BACK my application form, meanwhile hiring others, most of whom had less than half of my work experience and/or had no active government clearance (as I had), claiming that my GPA was not high enough, when, the only GPA required of me, if that, was a GPA of 3.0, not 3.5; meanwhile I had a 3.3 GPA. only a handful in hundreds of the interns that this "agency" hired were over age 40; most (except a few, and their disability was no worse than mine) had no disability; and most of those hired were African Americans or Hispanics.

If you do your research, you will find--including among MSPB reports in year 2000, that the Luevano Consent Decree has been misused, eliminating thousands of qualified applicants, and dismissing their invidivual skills and qualifications, just to comply with that Decree, to "set aside" positions for Hispanics and Blacks, and that has been happening for more than 15 years! I also refer to the CRS Report for Congress, "Affirmative Action Revisited: A Legal History and Prospectus", updated January 30, 2004, edit. Charles V. Dale, Legislative Attorney with the American Law Division.

Stop pretending that one race is being "victimized" when all minorities...INCLUDING DISABLED WHITES...are being marginalized, and it becomes worse when one is also a crime victim and over age 50, not protected by a spouse's health benefits, and when one has no children of his/her own to protect them in old age from "Nurse Rachet" types.

I also disagree with your comment:

"It is easier to expel (or intern/incarcerate) those defined as not being white, but white privilege still prevails with the choice to leave - rather than be expelled. Those not taking that choice are now defined as enemies of the state."

P.S. if you add my comments to your "Letters to the Editor" section, please remove my email address and contact information from that release, whether on the web or elsewhere. Thank you, G. Baer in Alexandria, VA. (besides, my email address will change in a few days, anyway.

Most white amaricans, when asked if they are concerned about things such as The PATRIOT Act or racial profiling, are not. They do not see it affecting them. That is what I mean. Further, that given the racial overtones of the "war on terrorism" (or the wars on crime, drugs, poverty, etc) as being perpetrated by non-whites, those who protest the war are seen as siding with them - non-whites.

While I am sympathetic for your victimization and the damage it has left you with, the fact that it was African American men who were involved does not change my point. The problem with racism in the US is that it is a core paradigm that is instilled in all of us - regardless of race. That racism, when it comes violently or hurtfully into play does not distinguish "good ones" from "bad ones" of any race. The hatred is played out on our bodies.

I too have been a victim - several times in fact. I have aslo been harassed and accosted, and overwhelmingly it has been by whites, and usually white men.

Poor experience with a given individual of a specific group does not in my mind support the stereotypes.

You are certainly welcome to disagree. But race has been the primary distinguisher for laws to expel or confine parts of the population (Native Americans, Chinese Coolies, African Americans, Mexicans, Japanese ...). That intersects with class in relationship to "street" crimes and who is arrested and imprisoned.

Look Rowan,

If it were just ONE incident I speak of--about racial discrimination in hiring--I could see your point.

But...following the crime, and at least 10 years before it, with the only folks I got interviews with, in private industry (who "blindly" pulled my resume out, and didn't "cull" me from job fairs), at least 12 interviewers were African Americans who refused to hire me, most of them men, but a few women, too, including at SAIC in Falls Church, VA, and yes, I will name him here...Mr. David A. Lee, Jr.

Then, I will add a second story. After I had searched for years for work, with a three-ring binder notebook of "FOD's" (I call them Fly-Off-and-Die letters, leaving off a course invective), three inches thick for each year (about 8 in all) that I searched for work, to jobs I used to land "hands down" before turning age 40, when I had worked for nigh 20 years in 'secretarial' jobs, to gain my first BA in midlife, thinking I could extract myself, finally, out of poverty),
waiting on the 'last resort' federal internship that would 'save me', one year later, I landed a state job at a community college, in September 2002, after searching for years and being made to search (I resorted to find work at a vocational rehab center was was made to search, for months relentlessly, 10 searches a week--that's twice as many required for collecting unemployment insurance)--futily. Most of the person who ran the DRS were African Americans. When I tried to get DRS to enforce their "post-employment" policy to help me retain the community college job, they did nothing.

Having to "hide" the extent of my disability (or else the man would not have hired me--that had been my experience), I came before another African American male, a "temporary" worker himself for only five months, a business manager, his name Silas Smalls. He told me in pre-employment interview, "I don't know if you believe in God, but if I didn't your resume would not have been shuffled to the top of the stack". He said nothing in the interview about cashiering. Cashiering was not on my core job description, nor was it on my predecessor's job description. It was a "non-essential" task. He wanted to fold 2.5 people's task into one job. Predominantly, his staff contained mostly (except for one or two people), African Americans. This is in Alexandria, VA. When, on my second day, I asked for accommodation to not train to cashiering (as he suddenly asked me to), explaining that my disability and medical requirements prohibited it (I was victimized while cashiering), he asked me, point blank, "was your attacker black or white?", playing "race" games, and "Is he going to morph into me?" (more race games), and "I don't believe you have a college degree (after he hired me...second guessing me), bring it in tomorrow and show me", and "shall I call your references? I haven't yet", to which I responded, "Please do, in fact several of my professors are in this very school. By all means, call them." He was insisting on the cashiering task, I informed HR of the dilemma, HR put me through "proving grounds", to prove my disability, in a process called "The Deliberative Process", required me to fill out many forms and submit my med docs that I had obtained before hire; I did so--complied. Within two hours of turning them in, Mr. Silas Smalls fired me, on my third day. By the way, he had a NAVSEA plaque on his wall; he was a Navy reservist. I went to see the HR manager, Mr. Eberhardt (another African American male) and explained the situation. He projected me as a "potential EEO complainant", took a too-agressive posture (when I had not been strident, merely businesslike), to say, "you won't win; we always win"...like that.

If you think that mine was just an "isolated case", you are wrong, as this cr_p has been happening for almost 12 years!

Rowan…more…

I am not saying that the “discriminating” employers have all been African American, either. Many of them have been men, though.

Let me just give you another example…my experience at STG, Inc. (Systems Technology Group inFairfax. My first supervisor there was
Ron Romanchuk, my second superivosr there was Tony Mulieri. Both men were Caucasians and Catholic.

I was hired as a technical editor and assigned two project managers over me. After about two months, the two project managers began giving me duplicate assignments. For example, they would have me retrieve information for a capture manager that I had already retrieved, but because they were using two versions of an RFP, mismanaging version control became a problem with them (they initiated double versions of documents…an inefficient practice). I reported this to my second supervisor, Tony Mulieri, who replaced Ron Romanchuk as my supervisor after I had been there three months.

One day, an STG employee came to me and confided that her supervisor had threatened to give her a bad reference to her new employer if she did not stay on the job an extra two weeks beyond the date she had given him for her last day. She had a job offer from GTE or GE. I told her that if her supervisor gave her a bad reference then that would be defamation of professional character. I encouraged her to report to HR what her supervisor had said. I spoke in a very low tone to her, during a slow period at work, for all of about five minutes, and was not disruptive of my work environment when helping her. Apparently, one of the two project managers or both of them—I am not sure which—heard me talking to her.

Next, my former STG supervisor, Ron Romanchuk, who still worked at the desk next to mine, made some raunchy sexist comments about one of the leading female executives. He said that he “[wanted] to get some of her oral reviews (heh heh)” and also made another comment about another female employee, said “she was sweet before she became menopausal.” I said nothing to him, but reported this to personnel.

Next, Tony. Mulieri swung his light-weight jacket with its open zipper at me. He thought he was joking but struck my hand with the zipper in the process. It happened during lunch hour, near the elevators. I pulled a stuffed animal out of a paper bag that I had bought for my graphics assistant for her birthday, to show Tony and Ron, who had arrived back from lunch together, near the elevator.

When I first told Tony Mulieri that I planned to buy the animal for my assistant, Ron suggested that I buy it as a project present for her, not as a present from me. I agreed to do what they wanted. I bought the present during my lunch break and pulled the cow out of a paper bag, while I was on my way back to the office, in the hallway near the elevators and our office entrance, to show Tony and Ron what I’d bought. Tony began slinging his lightweight jacket, with zipper open, at the cow that I held in my hands. In the process, he hurt me…cut my hand slightly with the open zipper, and I was not at all sure that he did not do it on purpose.

Tony had been with Ron R. My former supervisor witnessed this. I kept silent about this until Tony fired me after I’d reported to him the “double version” problems that the project managers had created. Tony had also marked me down on my performance review (papers) for having “poor attendance”, which my time sheets proved this claim was untrue. I had only been absent two days, for pre-approved doctors appointments to see my gynecologist. I had been hospitalized and had polyps removed from my uterus because I was bleeding constantly. So what the man did was mark me down for using my medical benefits, for taking care of a “female” problem, against my FLMA rights!

I filed an EEO complaint and even got a lawyer. I did not get a settlement because my lawyer wanted too much money up front, a $2000 retainer and $5000 after my deposition, to continue my case. I had not the money, since relying solely on unemployment insurance that was about to run out, my savings depleted. I dismissed my complaint “with prejudice”, so I could tell this story. The defendant’s attorney wanted me to sign a non-disclosure agreement when signing off, but I would not do this because I wanted to be able to tell my story, like I’m now doing. So this employer fired me for whistle blowing, too.

By this time, my confidence was pretty low and I was very bitter about being backstabbed at former places of employment. Having a “poor record” was not my modis operandi for many years…not for decades before I got my degree and I did not understand why I was getting one repeatedly, from several co-workers or supervisors, usually because I reported an infraction to my civil liberties…and always after I reported hostility from coworkers, or in the case of STG, because I also tried to help another employee with her grievance to HR (on my lunch hour, not on work time.) I wanted to work in peace, do my own job, and not have others interfere with the progress of my work.

And think about this form of "facism"...

the current Bush administration funds a war and not professional training programs through vocational rehab, sending off young men and women to die. Spouses of those who die, if they haven't even worked a day in their lives, in the "traditional mold" will get medical and life insurance benefits FOR LIFE, and I'll wager that most of them are under age 40, since the military does not allow enlistment (other than those in the military reserves) of people over age 26. The benefits they receive come out of OUR TAX DOLLARS.

Meanwhile, more than one million of us are still unemployed, and I'll wager a preponderance of them are women in my same age bracket or disabled folks.

Think about it.

Dear Mr. Wolf,

I principally agree with what you've written concerning fascism in America. On the other hand, what I miss in your thesis (which is also largely mine for many years now) is a somewhat more differentiated social-historical account of the American brand of fascism as distinguished from that of a Hitler or Saddam Hussein. Further, it appears to me that when a careful distinction is not made between what unfolds in America and what -- to my mind -- needs to be classified as "old" fascism, one inevitably falls prey to the ever-present skeptic who dismisses the whole thing as either hyperbole or hysterics.

In some ways, I believe we still find ourselves today in a position comparable to that of Alexis de Tocqueville during the early 1830's when he wrote:

"I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words DESPOTISM and TYRANNY are inappropriate: the thing is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it." (Democracy in America, Vol. II, Chapter VI, "What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have To Fear")

Tocqueville was confronted with the appearance of the first mass democracies conceived upon the principles of freedom and (absolute) equality. In addition to perceiving the enormously positive potential in such societies, Tocqueville was also aware of the great danger for a mass democracy to tip into a kind of "despotism" -- or indeed "fascism" -- ON THE BASIS OF ITS OWN EGALITARIANISM. Following the above quoted passage, Tocqueville continues:

"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.(. . .)"

While it makes a certain sense to say that Americans are in the process of willingly giving up their democratic freedoms (as the Germans did during the 1930's), I find it far more important to observe that the seeds of a repressive "fascism" are already contained in American mass democracy by virtue of what Tocqueville diagnosed as the historially unique "spiritual conditions" of life under this new social form. (It is also useful to remember that when Tocqueville was making his analysis, Germany was still essentially a collection of feudal states.)

In fact, the Nazi Germany parallel is more misleading than instructive and should probably be avoided -- or at least highly qualified. Hitler "modernized" -- with considerable success -- a traditional form of tyranny. Nevertheless, the fascist tyranny of a Hitler or Saddam Hussein always remains primarily dependent upon the crudest tools of "exteriorized" physical coercion and violence -- methods possessing deep historical roots. In sharp contrast, American mass democracy -- the incarnation of modernity itself -- now finds itself in the unusual position of having evolved a wholly new foundation for fascist tyranny. In Tocqueville's view, this is accomplished by DIRECTLY ATTACKING THE HUMAN SPIRIT -- instead of, as in the former case, THE BODY ALONE (see Democracy in America, Vol. I, Chapter XV, "The Unlimited Power of the Majority"). This is why the ongoing development in America may be said to represent an unprecedented historical phenomenon. (All of this holds true, by the way, regardless of the fact that America has the highest incarceration of any industrial nation.)

A "new fascism" without an adequate definition is relatively easy to discredit. Such a state of affairs also leaves the "new fascists" with the advantage of only needing to perpetuate -- using every possible means -- the illusion that real fascism exists everywhere EXCEPT America. That this illusion continues to be so effective may in part be due to a failure of the opposition to define -- in the most precise terms -- what we're actually up against.

David A. Powell
(Wolfenbüttel)

P.S.: I'm an American painter living in Germany since 1990 -- one of the people who, after seeing the writing on the wall, left before being openly told they could.

David,
Thanks for adding the importance of noting the differences. I agree that there are important differences between German Nazism and contemporary US fascism. For one thing, there is almost 60 years of finesse, research, and economic bulwark in play. I was trying to talk specifics with this article and did not discuss the philosophical and political differences. I appreciate your adding some.

To David Powell,

I agree with most of what you said and though I may not be able to "intellectualize" as well as you, I want to comment on your statement,
"America has the highest incarceration of any industrial nation"...yes that is a problem.

I don't recall if the program aired on Channel 9 a few weeks ago, or on PBS, about how President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives are applying, to train prisoners on parole (in hopes to avoid recitivism), and enrolling them in job training programs sponsored by Christian fellowships. Is this not ironic, that felons can be trained to jobs while programs to educate and empower crime victims are not implented or are underfunded, and when those "faith based" programs are not offered (as far as I could find or know) for others not of the Christian faith (to Buddhists or Hindus or Moslems, for example)? Nowhere, while researching these "faith based" programs, could I find the "faith based initiative" funds allotted to any of those charitable organizations of "alternate faiths" than the Christian faith.

On the web site Pampered Prisoners, Jay T. Widmer-Baum, an Employment and Training Counselor in Davenport, Iowa, explains the benefits of WIA Programs for Prisoners:

“The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 is a piece of federal legislation which was passed to assist disadvantaged individuals (youth and adults) secure education, training, and employment. One of the specifically mandated target groups includes ex-offenders.

The mandates of WIA are carried out by local agencies. Most states rely upon the local Workforce Development Centers/Job Service to carry out many of the components of the program.

Eligibility is determined based upon a number of factors which include income and barriers to employment. Ex-offenders qualify based upon income and the obvious barriers that they face upon their release from incarceration.”

WIA service providers, the local agencies which carry out the provisions of the Act, can provide the following services:

Job Search Assistance
Work Experience Program (where the Agency places the participant with an employer for
13/26 weeks, so that the participant may develop good work habits, establish an
employment history, and references. All wages are paid by WIA.)
On-the-Job Training (where 50% of the participant’s wages during the training period (up
to six months) are reimbursed to the employer.)
Resumé development
Assistance with Small Business Planning and education related thereto
Vocational Training Assistance (WIA will assist participants who are enrolled in full time
vocational programs by paying for supplies, books, and tuition which are not covered
by Pell Grants and/or other available financial aid.)
Leadership Training
Assistance with child care and transportation
Relocation assistance if it is related to employment
Job Developing
GED/High School Diploma courses

The above list of services is not exhaustive.“

It has been my personal experience that these same services have been, for some time (in my case, at least three years), continually denied to crime victims.

By the way, I am an oil painter too, plus a lapidary and writer, about to publish her first book.

G. Baer