Wednesday, January 26, 2005

X = Hitler

For folks who spray nuance all over everything like cheap perfume, you think liberals could afford those they don't agree with a squirt or two.

My point is this: just because you guys don't agree with something, doesn't equate said something with Hitler. It's an emotional rather than intellectual approach to arguing your viewpoint. Ted Turner took this approach to criticize FoxNews: FoxNews is popular, Hitler was popular from 1933 up until, oh, the point Soviet tanks started rolling into Berlin. Hitler was a bad man. Both FoxNews and Hitler are linked by their popularity, albeit 'former' in the case of the Fuhrer, therefore not-so-subtly suggesting that FoxNews is Hitler and therefore also Bad.

Don't ask me how Ted got so rich. Maybe he prints money with his likeness on it in his basement.

Where do we go with this? Don't like bad weather? Hitler was bad. The weather's acting like Hitler! The local zoning committee won't approve your privacy fence? They're authoritarian. So was Hitler. Hitler must be on the staff! No veggie options on the menu? Why, Hitler was a vegetarian, so....wait....

Bush isn't even afforded this tortured logic. He's just Hitler, with all the attendent baggage - Night of the Long Knives, Invasion of Poland, Invasion of Russia, invasion of just about everybody who let their guard down for a moment, Wannsee Conference, Holocaust, the SS, and so on and so forth and isn't it all a bit much? Do even liberals take this seriously? Clinton was a morally putrid specimen, but I never equated his bumbling, Benny Hill antics with the crimes of Stalin or Caligula. He wouldn't kill his enemies. He'd just dialogue them to death. But it's like Ann Coulter said: when you debate liberals, it's always Bambi vs. Godzilla.