The "Hitler Comparison"


The "Hitler comparison" should be shouted from the rooftops, as should the Goebbels comparison, the Himmler comparison, the Mengele, Stalin, Torquemada, Beelzebub comparisons and all the rest. If it struts like a Nazi, talks like Nazi, tortures like a Nazi and wages aggressive and illegal war like a Nazi... it's not a duck.

Eighteen months or so ago I wrote a post comparing Bush, Cheney and the boys from PNAC to Hitler, to the Nazi hierarchy and to the wonderful folks who gave the world kristallnacht, the terror bombings of Guernica, of London and conducted history's magnum opus of human carnage, the holocaust, the destruction of two thirds of the Jews in Europe and millions of other "undesirables."

I took a moderate amount of heat for what one local (Dayton) commenter called my "classlessness," and received a few surly EMails from people who are probably, to this day, driving around with "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers on their Cadillac and Lexus SUVs but since I want so badly to be loved and admired, (or at least not ignored) I resolved to try to avoid using the "Hitler Comparison" after that.

I saw it used by others on the blogs and, guardedly, in the MSM, witnessed their reception of similar treatment and I realized that a taboo (see Godwin's law) had been created. "Disrespectful to the office of the President," some cried, "diminishes the horror of the holocaust and the brutality unleashed on Europe's Jews by the real Hitler," cried others, "the ultimate ad hominem attack," wrote one academic seeking to show that such comparisons were childish , demeaning to those who offered them and "kills dead," scholarly internet discussions.

As the months dragged on and the war escalated, the deaths, the casualties, the carnage mounted, the attacks on dissent increased, civil liberties began to erode and disappear, as the regulatory bureaucracy and the judiciary were stripped of independent professionals and replaced with ideological partisans, as tens of billions of dollars of American taxpayers cash simply disappeared into the black hole of "privatization" and reason itself came under constant attack, I couldn't help myself, I began to use the "Hitler Comparison" more often in my various rants.

I don't pretend to scholarship, or journalism, I'm an old carpenter, not an academic, I'm content to be a pamphleteer. As long as the feedback tells me that people are reading my electronic leaflets, not ripping them from under their wiper blades and kicking them to the curb, if I sense that they are following the links, I find a small measure of hope, not a lot, just enough to make me look forward to coffee and another batch of leafleting in the morning.

The war..s continue, and as the fervor grows for another, in Iran and more evidence of official "misdeeds," of lies, of outright criminality, of incompetence, rampant cronyism and fraud continue to seep out from under the closed doors of what has developed into the most secretive, insular, antidemocratic administration in the history of the Republic, the "Hitler comparison" has grown in my mind and, I believe, much of the public's to the point that we need to repeal the "Godwin law" and popularize the idea in the hopes that by holding up the mirror to the tyrant we may drive him from our shores. I'm serious, we need "Hitler Comparison" T shirts, by the millions.

Sunday night I watched Naomi Wolf on PBS as she was interviewed about her recent book by "guest interviewer" Viet Dinh, a former Assistant Attorney General, and principle author of the Patriot Act, greatly admired by none other than Rupert Murdoch, in other words, as Adol George W is wont to say, no cream puff. Ms Wolf more than held her own, after all, she knows her book and the research on which its based and defended it well against a wholly predictable neo-con cross examination.

Her book may represent, albeit in a much more scholarly and reasoned way, the ultimate in "Comparisons," (I confess I haven't yet read it) She says that she charts the closing of various previously open societies, from Hitler to Stalin to Pinochet and on to our current rapidly closing system, and finds the comparisons striking, the trends frightening, ant the peril, imminent enough to cause her to run around the country like a latter day Paul Revere shouting that the redcoats brown shirts are coming, while making astute "comparisons" between current and past events, motives and personalities.

It is, of course, a book tour and yes, the object is to sell the book but there is much more here, I hear a clarion call in her voice and feel truth in her message.

Would that several million people, Germans perhaps, in 1933, 34 or 35 had been possessed of the poor taste and "classlessness," had been willing to succumb to the gaucherie of loudly and publicly comparing Adolph Hitler to... well ..what the hell, lets go for it.. Adolph Hitler, I wonder what result might have ensued. Or, back in the USSR, had Russians stood up and said "hey this Stalin guy is becoming a real Hitler or maybe even a Stalin," how many of the fifty million Russian dead might have been spared, the cold war, arms race avoided, at least greatly reduced.

There is a responsibility of those who govern to speak truth to the governed, but, when they fail in that responsibility, there is a greater responsibility on the part of the governed to speak truth to power, to spit in its eye and to dethrone it as necessary to insure the continuity of the rights, freedoms and welfare of the public, for that is what finally matters, not the government, nor the corrupt interests of the criminal oligarchs that it represents.

I listened to the GOP candidates a bit the other night, a little goes a long way with these birds, and heard the words "personal responsibility" several times, a phrase which is nothing more, on Republican lips, than a code word for racism, sexism and a continuation of the war they have waged against the "lesser classes' for all of modern history.

I agree with them in this sense, it is time for a large percentage of the population to take personal responsibility for themselves, for their country, to unite in the name of freedom, in the name of economic, political and spiritual liberty, to rise up and seize control of the whole package, the big damn shebang, to wrest control from the five percent who have kept them enslaved, who have enforced ignorance and poverty and to throw aside the twenty percent who guard the prison.

It may be "classless" and a violation of "Godwin's law to "Compare" George Walker Bush, the arrogant young scion of eastern establishment wealth and power, grandson of Senators and son of Presidents, cowboy of windshields and owner of chainsaws, to the beer swilling gutter scum of the beer halls of Munich and Berlin but I'm afraid it is unavoidable, it is inescapable, obvious, and it is historically necessary.

Terrorism? 9/11? The attack on the World Trade Center was their Reichstag fire, the invasion of Iraq, comparable to the blitzkrieg into eastern Europe. They share the same motives and ideology, the same vision, they exhibit the same compassion, and wield power with the same ruthless disregard for the lives, for the welfare and dignity of common humanity.

Make no mistake, these people, the architects of the last six years of international turmoil, of domestic division, of war and death, of crushing despair and hopelessness, are Nazis, perhaps not yet in the full bloom of adulthood, not yet grown to the evil proportions of their twentieth century predecessors, but they have emerged from their larval stage and are prepared for full flight, They have all the weapons, they lack nothing, nothing, but to complete their rewriting of our laws and of course, they need those handsome uniforms.

The only thing that can prevent them from fulfilling their wretched and terrible goals of oligarchy, universal slavery and domination of the world is your voice, your derision, your hand, raised in resistance, your lips mouthing a simple no.

Hurry, I think the uniforms have been ordered.

Bob Higgins

Worldwide Sawdust


BobHiggins October 24, 2007 - 5:07pm
( categories: USA: Presidency )

With respect, I say it's worse than that, Mr. Higgins. But yes, all you say is patently sayable. Disrespect of the citizenry, of civilization and the world, of sense itself, is the crime at hand and so brings forth this repression, for sure for sure. The uniforms are already being worn. The camps and prisons are built and manned and already utilized.

The constitution is buried. A new congress has long been called for. The Dare has long been out yet wisely we are not drawing to the bait to rise foolishly. The dare now is to rise wisely and that's the question.

Let us accept the loss of this very internet discourse as a given and seek now new venues, new postal systems, new networks. Let us now accept a future where such government code as in Vista is instead hardwired into the very processor chips themselves of the near future and allied with RealID. Other chips, other OSs, other means entirely are called for now. Ditching digital itself perhaps, unthinkably stupid as that may sound, may be called for.

In 1980, I was invited to spend a month in Philadelphia with a cartoonist named Matt Howarth whom had a studio named Howski comprised of many people. He was involved in the mail art culture that was largely Kinko's-powered but also incorporated cassettes etc. He showed me a room literally filled with such products of others. His own products filled another room. Having come from a comic books fandom background, I was already familiar with the obscurity of such very very large subcultures, such networks. After the digital age arrived, these things yet remained; there is still that very same Kinko's-powered 'mail art culture'.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22mail+art+culture%22&btnG=Google+Search

Something of this sort needs be sown early, now.

All the current hoopla surrounding the telecom industry is small compared to the near future. Digital is wonderful but intensely vulnerable. I sure wouldn't want voting handled digitally. Digital can be hacked. Yes, I loathe to consider paper costs and all that's involved with any altternative to digital, but digital must not be entrenched as a given. That's dangerous thinking to my mind. Thomas Paine would laugh.

The dumbing down of our culture is what breeds generations susceptible to indoctrination. Let us address our culture now, and the means of it's dissemination. I am doing so myself. And grateful I still have my decades old deep throat stapler.

Carry on, and godspeed.

Zuma October 24, 2007 - 5:45pm

That was quite a link!
It ultimately locked up this weak under-rammed computer I am using, but still it was quite apart.
I thank you for your work and will be reading more.

Zuma October 24, 2007 - 7:06pm

My front page is sort of huge, but I'm an old carpenter flying a website by the seat of my pants.

Sorry about the lock up, try it again after a clean boot, once it's cached it will load quicker.
Bob

BobHiggins October 24, 2007 - 7:29pm

hmmm, im finding a lot more agreement on this very issue these days. thats what makes me scared, i could think about this stuff while telling myself im being too paranoid, too pessimistic. but now, it seems the pessimism is not on the inevitability of the neo-fascists but on the impossibility of stopping it. We are weak and soft, we avoid any conflict, we dont defend ourselves, our rights, or most importantly others.
The facts of what has happened and what is happening are entirely absent from public knowledge so that even opposing politicians debate on false assumptions and premises. What is talked about here and on other sites is unknown by the vast majority of the population, a pure scientifically objective list of the facts and it would be unreasonable for anyone not to demand immediate change.
The supposed public discourse is based on opinion and lacks any credible backing or statistical evidence. the actions of the US gov't go unnoticed and there is no questioning of anything on moral grounds(except you know when it comes to fags and abortion, cause then its about moral outrage, still not supported by any facts. my favorite facts are that abortions are just as frequent when illeagle and the argument against sodomy is moot because the vast majority of sodomy is heterosexual)
i see people argue on the internet using misinformation we would confine to the realm of small children, see anything on feminism or just watch a woman even try to talk about inequality(from economic to social), god forbid a minority tries. you know something is terribly wrong when you have privileged white males claim they have worse than women, or those lucky minorities and their accursed affirmative action.
This alone is why i would advocate that sociology,history and political science be mandatory from from as young as possible to using university courses in high schools, its desperately needed.

but getting back on topic, you have to ask: just how evil does bush and co have get before we can say these things openly without censure(or rather censor) just how many do they have to imprison,torture, and kill. the million they already estimate, two? ten? Fuck, stalin got it right with the one quote of his: the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic"
What do we measure evil in some convoluted system now, cause apparently they are not evil enough yet. if we go by that system we have to go back and say the twin terrors werent as evil as they say they were cause both did great things for their nations, both created wealth, created jobs, vigorously defended their nation and it's interests, created social programs, provided food in times of need or at least tried, many other things.
oh wait, THEY WERE STILL EVIL BASTARDS WHO IMPRISONED,TORTURED, AND KILLED and many other unquestionably unethical,immoral, and just plain evil actions against millions of innocent people.
by the damaged logic required to not demand justice you have to forgive individual murderers if they somehow helped enough people.

arrrg, i can only replace despair and pessimism with anger and rage.

i must ask, what reason do we have to NOT seriously consider active , organized resistance? if not when would it be required? show me how even non-violent mass organization could possibly work, could stop what has been set in motion.
i am not a pacifist, but i consider violence to be a measure of last resort, and i cant see any other possible resorts. even violent measures would be likely doomed to failure, but even thousands of dead rebel martyrs seems far better than what we know is coming. Then we could at least show future generations that we tried and were willing to die.
Please tell me what else could work?

Warvigilent October 24, 2007 - 7:16pm

right track and the time is now.

Bob

BobHiggins October 24, 2007 - 7:26pm

The old Doors song, 'Five To One', comes to mind, but never mind that.

This quote from The Art Of War also comes to mind: "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in dissipating the enemy's opposition without fighting." -Sun Tzu

Ghandi and Martin Luther King come to mind likewise.

Never mind them though.

Think instead of Orwell. 1984.
forcesofhate.mp3
It is in fact available online somewhere as an audio book, from which this was excerpted.

So, your question remains. As it has for centuries. What does one do?

Something altogether new, apparently.
Ain't that America?

A new Congress. With real representation, of people, citizens, and their beliefs. Not their geography, not their property, not their holdings corporate or otherwise, not their real estate, not their money, not their Power, but their own sovereignty as human individuals, as people of conscience, as the bearers of their own responsibility for each other and all others of this whole planet we share.

This government is no longer by us, but a government of whim rather than law, and as such lawless and patently broken and dysfunctional. If we do so remain with such dignity for ourselves, we will act accountably. Bravely, truly bravely, and adultly. As Americans, we not only have this right but this responsibility.

Let not the final outrageousness come from us, by our actions, or inactions.

declaration.mp3

Zuma October 25, 2007 - 1:03am

in that non-violent victory was Sun Tzu's preference and Gandhi's whole enchilada. Sun Tzu had other clubs in his golf bag for when that wasn't feasible.

But let's take a step back. This ain't the 60s and violent revolution's not going to be the way. The way you are going to win this is to count on the lip service everyone has to pay to the Constitution (yes, even as they're shredding it in practice they're still trying to wrap themselves in it) and fold it into sharp corners and ram it squarely where it hurts.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch October 25, 2007 - 1:14am

I take it you agree then with the proposition of taking the DOI itself to it's word and starting from square one ('where it hurts') with a congress of the citizenry, or some sort, of any sort, of actual collective representation and address of grievances.
   Perhaps not...
   Bear in mind the constitution has no more bearing itself any longer save what we regain by the only remaining historical recourse, in such case, rooted in the DOI, such roots being as first lain by John Locke, who felt our own empirical cognitive faculties held their own authority, (much as suggested in your sig) and even sovereignty as argued by the British conservative, Edmund Burke, and even later reiterated by Paine and our other revolutionary authors.

http://agonist.org/zuma/20071002/to_form_a_more_perfect_union
http://agonist.org/graham7/20071006/after_morality#comment-132084

We *must* excel. Supremely. Unpreferentially. I would submit Sun Tzu and MLK differed far less than you may believe, and arrived at the same conclusions -as Orwell -for necessarily the same reasons. King, however, spoke not of war.
   Consider King's history as actually not too much different than Malcolm X's.
   Consider moreover my actual point in referencing 1984 in contrast. We face not what King or Sun Tzu addressed. Burke, and Orwell, addressed our concerns.

Otherwise, I'd then direct you here to these links of equal and greatly earnest endeavors ostensibly along your lines if I understand correctly:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-pau_b_69042.html
http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/
http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/

***

...I've yet to read this essay of Orwell's that the 60th anniversary of which is being celebrated now, and so off I go in curious search...

Zuma October 25, 2007 - 3:15am

i wish we could follow in the footsteps of those such as mlk but what is faced today is something terribly different, i dont think the majority of the nation marching would do anything. especially since there seems to be a lot of reason to believe there are groups that actively provoke violence at any and all protests for the simple reason of giving the police and stormtroopers reason to break up the rallies ( that is something really hard to hear, when it comes from a collage professor, but he hasn't been wrong yet. unless the agonist has been wrong all along). we cant depend on non-violent protest because they will make it violent, thats why i find myself wanting to advocate violent resistance.
we can show what is better, we can create a new good government, but nothing will happen unless this one either gives itself up or it is torn to pieces. along with the class that created and supports it, and of course a change in the degenerate demented perversion of an economic system that would be blasphemy to its early philosophers and thinkers. i dont agree with utilitarianism but no ethical theory can possibly justify what we do in the name of profit.

but still i am afraid, as you warn our inaction will define our period in history, i fear when they look back at us they will point to how we allowed atrocities for decades when we all knew much much better, they will deride us for falling for fascism when our own grandparents fought and died against that very same evil. they will laugh at us for being afraid to risk our comfortable lives to stop evil being done in our name and indeed against us and those around us.

i am afraid those who do see what is so terribly wrong are so pitifully few, and fewer still who would be willing to act.(my prof for example, has two kids, even protesting is out of the question for him) we are Winston, we saw what was presented to us but we looked past it and could practice Aristotle's inner dialog from the corner that the camera cant see.the worlds beauty and glory paled to what darkness we saw in the hearts of greedy men, we can not just stand by and do nothing but so far the truth, the facts, the reality does nothing.(my hunch is because it purposely reaches the fewest ears possible) but we are still Winston, doomed to failure even armed with the full knowledge of our adversary, his lies,his methods,and his doctrine. but ultimately alone, surrounded by millions of souls who suffer and die but remain afraid and apathetic(worse,in the west ours are filled with unjustified confidence,moral superiority/security, and infinite pointless meaningless distraction)
protests are already limited beyond that gets you a ticket to the ministry of love. maybe i have given into despair but i feel that what feeble calls for resistance i can and could make will fall on deaf ears. where even the actual practical organization of those willing will be fated to fail before they start. even now i am a raving extremist, a madman, a criminal, a terrorist.
maybe we should seek salvation not from within but from without, the very people our society exploits and oppresses. those who truly have nothing to lose and everything to gain. a thought, at least looking without we might learn how to resist. Sun Tsu's wisdom would be an excellent base for our art of war, indeed he provides an example of how one might even fight a war as morally as possible, but we have missed his advice already for any hope of supreme excellence, a victory at great cost might be our best case scenario.

so, anyone know an experienced military leader a resistance would need? It didn't help the Canadian revolutionary Mackenzie all that much, and he had a lot more popular support than what i believe we could even hope to muster, maybe when things are far worse , there is little indication things wont be getting worse across the world sooner or later.

Warvigilent October 25, 2007 - 2:43am

and addressed as much in my reply to Escher Sketch.

I also agree with the practical need for a practical leader for after the fact, and so believe my suggested first step pursues that question as well. We need convene.

I added links to my reply to Escher Sketch of those still holding weight to their actions reinvesting the constitution with authority. Taking nothing away from Ron Paul or these endeavors and the beliefs founding them, I see vulnerability there as any constitutional basis is so undermined these days and so move to the DOI as basis. Bob's post here is spot-on in the regard of danger, the danger we're in right now, and that's it's significance to me. He speaks calmly strongly (if you will) and I appreciate that about him, and he's right about the danger. I just think we can get out of it properly if we give propriety itself it's due.

Hope dies last they say, eh? Take heart.

Zuma October 25, 2007 - 3:35am

i must ask, what reason do we have to NOT seriously consider active , organized resistance? if not when would it be required? show me how even non-violent mass organization could possibly work, could stop what has been set in motion.
i am not a pacifist, but i consider violence to be a measure of last resort, and i cant see any other possible resorts. even violent measures would be likely doomed to failure, but even thousands of dead rebel martyrs seems far better than what we know is coming. Then we could at least show future generations that we tried and were willing to die.
Please tell me what else could work?

This site is not the place to be advocating violent resistance. IMO you should take your tactics someplace else.

LJ October 25, 2007 - 6:02pm

- eom


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch October 25, 2007 - 6:06pm

responded to wrong post.

LJ October 27, 2007 - 12:37pm

He is asking for nonviolence. He is asking grievances be peaceably addressed. He is asking for solutions. He sees rabblerousing as a problem in recognising his own outrage overload. It was a positive and constructive question in the search for and on the behalf of constructive and positive solutions by such selfintrospective selfrecognition.

You do not address your own concern -you do not address his question or even acknowledge it -or his earnestness (as I recognise it).

Censor or banish him? You're not proposing that but asking he leave without question. I ask you, should I? I am way too verbose to engage in discourses discordant due to anything but miscommunication, misunderstandings, or earnest disagreements on principle. Let us not trivialize our seriousness or the seriousness of the moment's discourse. The need for nonviolent resolution of violence is paramount. Force must be met with antiforce not counterforce, and that is what he apparently seeks as it is what I definitely seek. I will ask if I ought leave before ever being forced out. No one likes to overstay their welcome, IMHO, even inadvertently.

Zuma October 25, 2007 - 8:13pm

in answering. I did not see the response.

Frankly, I agree with much of what you and Warvigilant say. But I guess I have no patience with any language around violent resistance. Historically, it has only fed the reactionary forces and made them stronger. And I don't have a lot of alternative answers. I think the most encouraging solutions are just the people in the re-localization movements who just don't give what is happening on the national and international scene their energy. Best to get busy building an alternative society in your own locality. Is that THE solution? Well, no, but it is the best I can think of.

The present dominant logic will play out until its own internal contradictions bring it down. I don't find that comforting, but that is what I see for our future. Best get busy and build some other way of doing things.

What am I doing myself? Not nearly enough, but there are practical reasons for this.

BTW, I am not advocating any banning, unless the language about violent resistance turned into a constant theme. I don't see that happening.

LJ October 27, 2007 - 12:51pm

picture and it's not appropriate comparisons.
911, our Reichstage Fire!

Lasthorseman October 24, 2007 - 7:30pm

what I said.
Yes folks the answer must be a censored internet, a corporate controlled "news" network. We must moderate what people say, I mean think.
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/
1984-2004
So Orwell was only 20 years off.

Lasthorseman October 25, 2007 - 8:07pm

This isn't just about Bush or the fascist cabal that surrounds him in the White House. How come no Republicans of stature have stood up to him? When one of the two major political parties turns authoritarian, and values power, influence and wealth over the commonweal, either that party heads off to oblivion, or we can say goodbye to the republican form of government. Even as just an opposition party, the Republicans in their fascist mode will constantly be pressing the Democrats to defend themselves against charges of weakness, and it only takes one further attack like 9/11 to push the electorate back into its fear mode and the Republicans back into power.

Numerian October 25, 2007 - 12:58am

I cannot even recall who he represents, but he's a new hero to many of us asking just that question.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-pau_b_69042.html
FOXDebate-Paul-Rudy.wmv

Zuma October 25, 2007 - 1:13am
ww October 25, 2007 - 9:04am

Libertarians are either naive fools or duplicitous bastards. The naive fools do not understand the problem of the 'Tragedy of the Commons' and the the bastards are the neo Nazi's.
Libertarianism will work when all humans live like saints or when the population has been so reduced that humans can live in widely dispersed small subtribal units again.
When enough humans get together, someone wants to be in charge...that is called government. Be it a tribal chieftain, George Bush or the Congress of the US. They want to be the decider. Without a lot of complex restraints which most Randoids and Libertarians see as trampling individual liberty...the decider moves in and tramples individual liberty...usually in a much more vicious manner. Been going on for a long time. History is one long example of failed libertarian experiments. Ron Paul would be no different.

JT October 25, 2007 - 11:14am

understand the 'Tragedy of the Commons'. History is also full of failed attempts at socialism and communism (two that come to mind are Nazi Germany and the USSR).

Sounds like you confuse liberty and anarchy. Not the same.

All the "isms" fail when humans opt to be selfish and evil.

And most would work if people did the right thing.

The notion that libertarians (Ron Paul in particular) want to abolish all government is an exagerration that goes so far as to be a lie.

I do acknowlege that Ron Paul draws lots of crazies and extemists. But they'd be disappointed in him in the end when they discover that he is a decent and caring human being.

I did inhale.

Don October 25, 2007 - 2:28pm

sticks and stones were all i saw, save for one actual indictment; he frets over the NWO. well hey, me too.

no matter, he's a hero to a lot of us i said, and that too was reported, yes, but it's not quite as i painted: i'd no intention of voting for him. -i simply am grateful he said what he said (about blowback, and noninterventionism) during the debates. those things desperately needed be said. saddam hussein had been our product no less than the shah of iran had been and so we'd reaped what we sown and got khomeini and so forth. good on paul.

those links raked him over the coals and kept inferring actual charges were to follow in that way, but as i say, i didn't find them.

with all that said, i say i was surprised at that. all that made him look better than i'd expected even, as i had indeed been waiting for his other shoe to drop as i expect it will by and by.

racist this and racist that but never any actual allegation save stormfront is for him. well who else would they be for? mccain? giuliani? i don't think so. i so far think paul was their man by default. that's the appearance anyhow.

below jt opines the other shoe will drop eventually and i expect he's right. that doesn't make it a past truism.

for all that, i appreciate the links and feedback. thank you. fear not my voting for the guy i say.

Zuma October 25, 2007 - 12:46pm

he's just honest and straightforward about his beliefs. But his beliefs on things other than the Iraq War and civil liberties are far from decent.

Bolo October 25, 2007 - 11:34am

Because he didn't believe in Medicare, he performed his services as a doctor free of charge for those patients that couldn't afford to pay.

He actually returns a portion of his salary as a congressman each year.

While it may be hard for some to believe, some people actually believe in and try to live a Christian lifestyle.

I did inhale.

Don October 26, 2007 - 9:20pm

Ok i have been too busy to write a book review but Naomi Wolf's book is really quite good. A lot of it was not really new to me, since I had some pretty intense instruction on fascist regimes in college. However for making the case that 'certain traits come along with fascist shifts' and using well-founded examples of the ten major elements of that, I had to conclude the book covered the bases and came across 'not written in a shrill and annoying way with the usual cliches'. Which is really difficult, since isn't that what Godwin's Law is all about??
--
Hongpong.com

HongPong October 25, 2007 - 12:16pm

He may be a psycho-sociopath but george w. punk couldn't carry Adolf Hitler's jockstrap. Hitler was a decorated combat veteran who was wounded in battle.

Hitler himself writes: "on 17-9-1917, I was awarded the Cross of Military Merit, third class, with swords; on May 9, 1918, the regimental diploma; 4-8-1918 the Iron Cross, first class; on 18-5-1918 a black wound stripe; and on 25-8-1918 the Medal of Military Service, third class."

Reference

bush is merely an aged fratboy, a military shirker who sends other people on false pretenses to fight wars he was frightened to fight himself. Comparing bush to Hitler is an undue compliment to bush and an insult to Hitler. That's "Adolf" btw as opposed to "Adolph."

Jonny Verdorben October 25, 2007 - 1:00pm

The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs

I realize there is nothing more important to the American Republic than Franklin Foer's editorial judgment in the Scott Beauchamp matter. But there is a secondary issue in this story that is being ignored -- how the U.S. military, like everything else, is becoming rapidly politicized, fully incorporated into and following the model of the Republican right-wing noise machine.

Throughout this year, the U.S. military in Iraq has become staffed with pure Republican political hacks -- including long-time Bush/Cheney P.R. hack Steve Schmidt and former White House aide Gen. Kevin Bergner. These are the most partisan and politically-motivated people around shaping U.S. military conduct. And it shows, as the Army's behavior in the Beauchamp case is exactly what one would expect from an increasingly politicized, Republican-controlled division of the right-wing noise machine.

.....

ww October 25, 2007 - 3:54pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.