Dr. Frank's What's-it

Do note that Bush isn't the only president to be compared to Hitler, he's just the most recent:
http://images.google.com/images?q=clinton+hitler

wow. that's a pretty strong statement. not exactly fair, but strong nevertheless.

see ya at the fireside bowl, frank.

Dave Bug: It's not really comparable. Of the "clinton hitler" GIS results, four of the first twenty images involve comparing Clinton to Hitler (one of them based on the fact that Clinton and Hitler both at some point were proponents of uniforms). A GIS for "bush hitler" yields an entire page (twenty pics) of images with Bush's face on Hitler's body, or of protesters holding similar signs, and that's only the first page.

"Everybody does it," certainly, but it looks as though it's being done to Bush with unprecedented gusto by people with louder voices and more sway than the equally idiotic Clinton=Hitler shouters of yesterterm.*

Who was it that recently asked, "As Hitler was coming into power, who did everyone compare *him* to? What did we do before we had Hitler to compare everyone to?"

*I just invented the word "yesterterm." I hope.

While I do not like Bush, and like the democrats even less. It is completely unfair to compare ANY American President to Hitler. The only person in recent times that we could compare to hitler is probably Slovadon Milutinovic. So enough with the Hitler stuff already, because heck Even Hitler had A Girlfriend ( I know that didn't make sense, but it waas too good of an opportunity to miss).

Well if i remember my high school history, Hitler's athletes had a pretty dissapointing run at the Olympics that year. The Patriots are in the superbowl this year, an American team name if i ever heard one. So lets settle this once and for all! If the Patriots lose, history has repeated itself, and Bush is Hitler. If the Panthers win, he isn't, and the whole Bush / Hitler thing should never be spoken of again. This is starting to turn out like an episode of The Simpsons...

I think it's perfectly possible to argue that Bush is a horrible, dishonest, hypocritical, self-interested, arrogant, anti-democratic president without bringing Hitler into it. In fact, I do it all the time.

But let's remember that Hitler didn't win in 1933 on the "Let's rev up the Final Solution" platform. The creation of the worst of Naziism was more incremental than that. Most people know that "First they came for the Jews..." poem by Pastor Martin Niemoeller http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html, the point of which is that it wasn't obvious to everyone what Hitler was up to until it was too late. If you had said in 1933 that Hitler was going to start WWII, murder 12 million civilians in death camps, try to wipe out Judaism, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc., people wouldn't have believed you, either. In fact, in the early 30's many Americans openly called for a dictatorship to get the country out of the Depression. It seemed like a nice, orderly way of running things. I'm not totally sure about the history, but I think that both Mussolini and Franco were more openly anti-democratic and fascist from the start of their regimes. That's why the "slippery slope to fascism" stuff usually refers to Hitler.

The Hitler stuff is politically pointless, for both sides, I think. Still, unless you hold as axiomatic the principle that fascism simply can't happen in the US, which I think is unsupportable, you need to ask, "How will we know our country is moving in that direction?" Obviously, if we actually get to that point it's too late to do anything about it, so you want to nip it in the bud. If someone claims that Bush today = Hitler post 1938, that's beyond absurd. But if they claim that Bush today = Hitler 1933, well, I think they're wrong, but a lot of Germans were wrong, too.

And Channon, I'd say that Idi Amin was worse than Milosevic, and also had a really great song written about him. Kinda like Hitler.

I think the admin really is unacceptably anti-civil-libertarian in many ways, (by a long shot) I'd rather see any of the (plausible) Dem candidates in office next time, and so on... but yeah, that point by point stuff is extremely weak, and that Superbowl::Olympics analogy is plain idiotic. "Bush=Hitler" is dumb, but this is in conspiracy-mongering territory. What are the American analogs of "Kristallnacht" or "Night of the long knives"?

Nick,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I'm drawn to Dr. Frank's blog for the discussions about music more than the often right-wing propaganda that emanates from this space. Bush=Hitler is a bit of an exaggeration, but there are some eerie similarities - similarities more apparent to those of us who think GW's both a dreadful president and morally deficient human.

As the album title goes, Everybody's Entitled to Their Own Opinion. That's what I like about this country.

Now...about Idi Amin (and steering this discussion back to music, where it belongs)...were you referencing the Black Randy song when you said, "he (Idi) had a really great song written about him."

As for Hitler and songs, although none of the songs are "about" Hitler, let's not forget Nick Lowe's "Little Hitler" and Elvis Costello's "Two Little Hitlers" - though one could argue they are not be in the same class with "Even Hitler Had a Girlfriend".

Have you ever noticed the History Channel runs the 'Hitler and the Women Who Loved Him' segment regularly? Why is that? Eva Braun wasn't that hot, was she?

note to J.Francis: Frank initially started this blog as "the blogs of war" a political blog. The music has de-facto become the sidetrack of the blog, not the reverse as you stated. This is Frank's personal blog, not the official MTX blog. Go to http://www.themrtexperience.com for the "official" MTX site. I could be wrong in this assertion but I believe that Frank has a Master's in History and Political Science from UC Berkley and this blog was/is a way for him to amuse himself outside of music/MTX. My most humble apoligies if I'm wrong in this assertion, Frank.

j. francis,

Yes, I was talking about the Black Randy & Metrosquad song "Idi Amin," which I love (though not quite as much as "San Francisco"). I highly recommend "Pass the Dust, I Think I'm Bowie," which is available on CD. Incidentally, when I say that Idi "had a great song written about him," I didn't mean that he CAUSED the song to be written, as if he'd said "I think I'll call up Black Randy and ask him to write a song about me. I just love that little smack-shootin' punk!" Though I'm sure Black Randy would have been happy to take the call, and the commission.

I also tend to disagree with a fair amount of the politics here -- I'm one of those Lefties many of the posters make fun of. Such is life. I'm really not trying to be a troll, but at the same time I will say when I disagree with a political point on this blog (Dave, I owe you a response down on the Kucinich thread, and I will respond, I promise). I personally like the overlap of music and politics, because it prevents this blog from being too homogeneous, and people here seem to be capable of disagreeing with each other without flaming.

Death to Football

j francis,

I'm having an English major moment here, but propaganda implies some sort of doctrine being pushed on this site.

I tend to get the same impression as Channon as to the purpose of this blog. I came here because it was Dr. Frank, I keep coming back because it's fun.

And right wing? Hmmm, I tend to find the observations here to be of a more eclectic nature, which appeals to me personally. (And any fun at the expense of the left seems to me to be tinged with a vague sense of disappointment. And as a disenfranchised socialist, I heartily share that sentiment.)

Frank, if you are indeed seriously going about propagating some doctrine, accept my apologies along with Channon's for, uh, misinterpreting it and being amused by it.

Geez, a whole post spurred by the semantics regarding a single word choice. I am truly a nerd.

I'm so sick of Hitler. Can't we find another megalomaniacal, psychologically unfit ruler to compare our nation's leadership to? Bush isn't out to cleanse the nation's evils -- he's out to use the nation's evils for his own ends, like most folks. But he's just stupid enough looking that he makes great fodder for slapping-heads-onto-bodies comedy. c.f. http://www.bushorchimp.com/

QOTD: Mediocre times produce the very worst that the world has to offer: Reagan, Bin Laden, Bush, Hussein, Sharon, and Blair. None but the feeble minded could draw inspiration from such a ghastly lineup of "leaders". -- http://www.counterpunch.org/stanton12032003.html

Dave,
My use of the word propaganda was an overstatement. In retrospect, my comments were generally insensitive and careless. I rather enjoy this forum, even though I tend to be a bit further to the left than our host.

Channon,
I’m not quite as stupid as you have concluded from my inappropriate postings (I admit I’m fairly stupid, nonetheless). Believe it or not, I’m familiar with the origin of Dr. Frank’s blog. However, I’d much rather read a discussion about Black Randy and the Elite Metrosquad’s song about Idi Amin than seemingly pointless ramblings about a poorly written column by Harley Sorensen (again, I realize my use of “pointless ramblings” is subjective – don’t feel compelled to scrutinize it, Dave). Call me selfish. I stand accused. And if you forgive me, Channon, I promise to exercise better judgment and restraint in the future. I’ll watch quietly from the sidelines.

j. francis

I Stand Accused. Now there is a great cover by EC... Oh wait, that's another thread.

I'm not some po-mo deconstructionist, but the weirdest things set off my nerdness.

Sidelines? (sniff, sniff)

And to make things relevant to the topic, uh, hey! Even Hitler had a girlfriend. How bad could he have been?

For some reason I want to do the unnecessary and say: you all know that's a joke right? Ok. Whew...

lots of assholes have girlfriends. hitler's not really special in that regard. i mean i wouldnt say he's "got it goin on" or anything. i mean if youre going to date a jerk, he should at least be hot, right?

maybe eva's dad was a fuehrer too and that's why she was drawn to hitler. maybe she thought his funny little mustache was cute.

hey, even w has a wife.

Yep. W has a loyal wife that he is monogomous with. Doesn't sound bad to me, unlike another Prez who would stick his Willie in any wet hole he could find. He also was caught in several money laundering and tax evasion schemes. Not to mention the conviently disappearing and reappearing files from the White House. Oh, and let's not forget his partners that oh so mysteriously DIED when they were about to spill the beans on Bubba. You dumbocrats are all the same. Bubba, Carter, Kennedy could do no wrong, when in fact Bubba and Kennedy were two very morally bankrupt people. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II are evil Nazis (hahahahahahaha). If ever there was a republican villain, it would be Nixon, but now he's just a running gag on Futurama.

Actually, ClintonIsScum, I think if these comments demonstrate anything it's that we dumbocrats aren't all the same. But thanks for proving that this kind of idiocy exists on both "sides" in this country's sublimely vacuous contemporary cultural-political "debate."

As to propaganda: I like to think that the only actual propaganda disseminated by me is of the self-aggrandizing type. All hail the Royal Me!

You all make variously good and interesting points, with the possible exception of troll boy up there.

Oh, and by the way, J. Francis: I totally agree that Black Randy and the Metro Squad is far more worthy of serious discussion than any of this Who Wants to Marry Hitler trivia.

Speaking of which, though, a friend of mine is using a cut and pasted excerpt from the Chron article as part of her Super Bowl party invite. Now that's edgy...

Why is it so difficult for lefties to understand that national security is directly tied in to those civil liberties they're fretting about? What do they think is going to happen to civil liberties if there's another mass casualty attack on US soil? And what's their long-term strategy to defeat radical Islam? Do they even have one?

Typical childish leftist whining. Blame evil Republican presidents without a realistic assessment of options at hand, then when the danger passes pretend there never was any.

Is anyone surprised that Harley Sorensen does the Bush=Hitler schtick? He's a liberal shit-disturber (said without contempt, I swear--I usually admire shit-disturbers), what would you expect? He writes far-out, far-left opinions, and gets mail so that he can write more columns about the mail he gets.

To HS's credit (I suppose), he does mention that "some comparisons between modern times and Nazi Germany are valid, and some are not." Although, if he had mentioned that in his first paragraph, he would've discounted the half of his column that isn't a letter, and then he wouldn't have had a column for us to wring our hands over.

As for the specific Superbowl/1936 Olympics comparison, that's less than "not valid," that's retarded. Hitler's Olympics were an Aryan Lovefest of the first order, and Jesse Owens was the notable party-crasher. I'm still trying to figure out if HS really believes that Germany was "putting its best face forward," or if that's said with any irony at all. I suspect it's not.

As for the superbowl--fat, sweaty guys in shimmery pants, lithe, semi-nude women in shimmery pants, beer commercials, drunken debauchery, hootin' and hollerin'--I'll take that any day. That's America, baby--a loud, drunk, sweaty, semi-nude multi-ethnic melting pot. Last time something sounded this good to me was when Hostess came out with Chocodiles (O! where have they gone?!)

Well-said, Sheckie. I say we let it stand there.

Bring on the self-aggrandizing Dr. Frank propaganda, pleeze. I loves it.

JB-

I surely don't want a sequel to 9/11. However, I like the civil liberties because they are directly tied to issues of *personal* security, which is very important also, at least in my world. Did you read the thing about that dude they booted off to Syria for "questioning"? And obviously there are civil liberties issues that don't have anything remotely to do with national security--such as enjoying the same legal and economic protections as everyone else if you're a homo.

yeah those crazy "homos" always wanting their equal rights. what bothers me most about loss of civil liberties is the fact that, dammit, i wanna do what i wanna do. and i want other people to be able to do that as well. civil liberties ARE all about security. they're about keeping you protected from your government and keeping the government from controlling what you do with your personal life. and that sounds good to me. how could you not want that?

Okay, all you leftist radical extremists (Bush=Hitler) and right-wing whackos (ClintonIsScum), here is who gets my vote even though he doesn't have a hope in hell of getting more than a couple of % points, it's the values and fundementals that he stands for: http://www.badnarik.org/

As usual, I can't stand any of the mainstreamers, so I have to go off into left field with this guy, but he accurately represents my values 90%.

Channon- I didn't even know the LP had somebody running this year. I'm glad to see that they do, and that this Badnarik guy seems to stick to most if not all of the same principles I do. Of course, the age-old dilemma of "Why vote for a guy that has no chance whatsoever of winning" kicks in, and of course, if everyone thinks that way then the guy indeed has no chance of winning.

I dunno. I found this neat page though- "Myths About Voting Libertarian."

http://www.libertarianthought.com/texts/myths.html

Good comments Geoff, thanks for the link. Why vote for a guy that stands no chance? It's a matter of principle. I would hate myself if I were to vote for somebody that I can't stand and totally disagree with on most issues. Then some people would say, why vote at all? The answer to that is simple, you always hear people complaining about apathy and voter turnout, plus it's my right as an American (waving flag while Glory Glory Halleluja plays in the background).

I wouldn't be surprised if a consistent argument could be made that it's each individual's moral responsibility to vote for the candidate who is most in-line with that individual's beliefs, but on the other hand... couldn't a case also be made for the idea that in some situations, doing so is equivalent to voting for the guy who's *furthest* from your own beliefs?

One thing to keep in mind, I guess, is that if enough people voted, say, Libertarian, then perhaps both the Republican and Democrat candidates would take on more Libertarian-like positions come next election, to win over the people who voted L the last time around. In the end, the Libertarian-minded people would be getting *something* for their votes, even if it's not the specific candidate they wanted.

In a certain sense, I would likewise hate myself for voting for a guy who I knew was an ass, but I know that I'd hate myself *more* if I knew that my vote helped elect a guy whose assery was twice as bad as the other guy's.

In any event, I am damn sick and tired of this "vote for the candidate who sucks the least" business.

You know, Geoff, that we almost had a Libertarian President, until he uttered the two most fatal words that has ever been spoken in a speech: "you people".

To whom are you referring? I'm in the dark... (and a Google search for "libertarian speech "you people"" didn't shed any light, hehe)

Ross Perot. He was runing neck to neck to neck with Clinton and Bush I before he delivered the infamous "you people" speech in front of the NAACP, which I think is just a coalition of overly sensitive biggots and gold-diggers.

Ohhh, Peroooooot. I remember him. Well, at least, the parodies of him. I don't recall what his positions on anything were; I couldn't get past his general kookiness. Were his chances *really* that good before he pissed off said overly-sensitive bigots and gold-diggers?

All three had 30-something% of the vote until that speech, within a week afterwords Bush I and Clinton had 40-something% and Perot had like 8 or something close to that and that's how the election wound up. Clinton won with a minority %, I think it was 45 or 46%, if not it was close to that.

Channon,

Ross Perot was not a Libertarian, he was a cook and a crank. I don't remember him calling for total legalization of drugs, abolition of the FCC, SEC, FDA, or the overwhelming majority of the Pentagon. In fact, I remember him calling at least once for essentially martial law in inner cities to control the drug and crime problems.

Here's my basic problem with Libertarianism: it presumes that Government is the only threat to personal liberty. Back in the 18th century, when America was essentially a preindustrial society, this seems to have made sense to the Founding Fathers. What other institution could systematically deprive a people of their innate liberties other than a central government? Limit the power of government and you preserve the liberty of the people.

In a post-industrial world of multinational corporations, this is no longer a valid premise. If the government were to virtually disappear, our society would be dominated by the superwealthy and by corporations, as it was from the Gilded Age until the New Deal. Abdicating control of society to these interests didn't increase general liberty in the 19th century, and it won't do it now.

You're both right and wrong Nick. I did a bit of research and turns out that he began as a Libertarian but then changed to Independent. I was too young to vote in that election, so my memory was a little faded.

Even with a much smaller government, I don't see how we'd all be at the mercy of giant corporations-- which liberties could they take away from anyone that the government doesn't already? Nobody's talking about the government virtually disappearing (in this case, anyway), it's just a matter of eliminating as much of the wasteful, corrupt, mismanaged, and unconstitutional crapola as possible. Laws (and the means to enforce them) would still be in place to protect people and their property from threats or violence (or from giant multinational corporations). Etc. I just don't see why it should be written off under the assumption that corporations would end up in "control of society." In control of production, sure-- and without the government aid that makes monopoly-like situations possible. People would be in control of themselves. I likes it that way.

For the record, I didn't recall that Perot ever ran as a Libertarian either.