How much like a nazi are you?

Congressman Steve Cohen, in a house floor speech this week, referenced a Nazi to help drive home a point. He compared his opponent's method of using propaganda to that of Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels was the Nazi's chief propagandist.

As soon as Anderson Cooper heard the word Nazi, his brain completely shut down. He stopped listening. Cooper somehow lost his ability to comprehend Cohen's comparison. Instead of hearing:

My opponent uses the same propaganda techniques as Goebbels

Cooper heard:

My opponent is a Nazi

which, of course, is not what Cohen said.

Anderson Cooper was completely incensed. He was so focussed on his crusade against the N-word, that he completely lost his ability to comprehend the nuance of Cohen's statement.

Cooper made a rounding error. He didn't hear Cohen's actual meaning. He instead heard an oversimplification. He heard something he wanted to hear.  

As far as I can tell, Goebbels propaganda techniques were extremely effective. It is scary and relevant that he was able to convince a huge amount of people to take part in (or go along with) one of the most horrific crimes in history.

Perhaps those same Nazi propaganda techniques could be used to find homes for puppies. Or to convince America to hate Obamacare.

If the same techniques used to make everyone hate Jews are being used to make everyone hate Obamacare, how is that not relevant?

Cooper had no desire and made no attempt to analyze or understand the nuance of Cohen's statement. He made no attempt to actually ponder Goebbels propaganda techniques or how they were (or were not) similar to those used by Cohen's opponents.

This just didn't interest Cooper. He was too focused on the word Nazi. And that the word Nazi must be offensive no matter the context or subtleties of the situation.

Using analogies from history is appropriate when trying to make a point. The Nazi story is a big story, an important story, a story with many facets. It is a huge part of humanity's shared history. It represents not one bad thing but practically every bad thing. Almost every negative component of human nature is somehow contained in that story. And we should never forget it.

If our politicians are doing something that is Nazis-ish, even if just in kind but not magnitude, it is a valid and relevant thing to bring up.

I wish that Cooper would have taken his half hour to objectively investigate the relevant questions:

• What propaganda techniques were used by Goebbels?
• What propaganda techniques are used by Cohen's opponents?
• How are they alike? How are they not alike?
• What are the ramifications?

But perhaps that is just my idea of what is relevant and interesting. Maybe cooper and his audience find it more interesting to talk about how offended they are by the word Natzi.

Because we all know that the best way to prevent something like the Nazi party from every happening again is to make the topic taboo.

Here is the Cohen interview.

By the way, this kind of thing is apparently in fashion. Here is a similar interview by Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer hears the word Nazi and completely shuts down any desire to comprehend the interviewees subtle points. And here is Jon Steward doing the same thing.

So therefore I propose a new website called:

www.how-much-like-a-nazi-are-you.com

Republicans started income tax

Did you know that the first federal income tax was created in 1861 by a republican congress and signed by a republican president?

Extremists and Moderates

It has become fashionable to use the word extremist (or radical) as a way of describing our enemies.

But if you read history you know that many beliefs which today are mainstream and moderate did not start out that way.

Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King were all extremists in their day.

Abolitionists were considered radical extremists in the 1850s. William Henry Seward (who later became Lincoln's Secretary of State) was an outspoken abolitionist in the 1850's. According to the New York Herald, "[His] views are those of the extreme fanatics of the north".

I think we should be more concerned with the wisdom and truth of the message rather than how moderate or extreme it is.

Shakira fights Arizona’s anti-immigration law

http://www.topnews.in/light/shakira-fights-arizona-s-anti-immigration-law-223909

Germany, Minority Religions and Tom Cruise

The country who's history is forever stained by discrimination (in its most extreme form) against a religious minority is back at it again.

According to a New York Times article from June 2007, the German Defense Ministry banned the filming of Valkyrie (Tom Cruise's new movie) at German military sites because they didn't like Mr. Cruise’s religion.

.

Abstinence Ineffective

I have always thought that teaching abstinence is a sin, but apparently it is also ineffective: Teaching Abstinence Ineffective

Why I support legislating from the bench

I understand that the founding fathers intended the Supreme Court to interpret the law - and not make the law. But these same founding fathers expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a pure democracy. This was to protect us against the "tyranny of the majority". I agree with this. So does Ron Paul who said: "Pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty."

In California, a 51% vote of the people is all that is needed to alter the constitution. If this isn't mob rule than I don't know what is.

So given the choice between "legislation from the bench" and "legislation from the mob", I'll take the former.

I am Going to Vote for Obama

The more I learn about Obama, the more I like about him. I also like Hillary and McCain. But I like Obama the best. I really think he has the potential to energize and inspire our country back to its position of greatness and respect in the world. Check out this speech he gave in 2002 (before we invaded Iraq). This is a great speech. This is the kind of speech that Lincoln or Kennedy might have written:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Any numnut can criticize the war after the fact but it took courage and prescience to do so in 2002.

Why I am Optimistic about America

With all of the dooms-day talk in the press about recessions and war and so forth, I want to tell you why I am optimistic about our country at the moment.

In every presidential election since I have been old enough to vote, my voting thought process has always been: "Who sucks the least". This was especially true in the last Bush/Kerry election. I remember thinking: "is this all we can come up with"?

But this year is different, I actually like most of the candidates that are still in play (with the exception of Huckabee). I would be happy with any of these 4 (in order of preference):

Obama
McCain
Hillary
Romney

My main criteria, coming after Bush, is that I want a smart president. Ideology aside all 4 of these contenders are very smart and talented people.

Of these four, my favorite (by an increasing margin) is Obama.

Minority Scapegoatism

I like to read history. One of the cool things about reading history is that you start to recognize recurring patterns.

In my industry (software development) they make a big deal about recurring patterns. Some people make a career out of distilling and naming patterns that recur in the world of software.

I personally like the idea of extracting the common patterns out of life and attaching catchy names to them. It aids discussion.

So, getting back to history, I would like to propose a new name for an old and recurring pattern in history: I call it Minority Scapegoatism. Following the tradition of software patterns, we also name to the pattern's chief ingredients:

1. The Chief Scapegoater: A deranged but influential leader (or leaders) who rally the majority by scapegoating the minority (witches, Jews, blacks, communists, gays, undocumented immigrants, etc.)
2. The Simpletons: A large number of simple people who get behind the movement. They find it comforting to blame others for their situation - to have such a simple and tidy answer to difficult problems ("it's the Jews").
3. The Rhetoric: A large quantity of official sounding (but ridiculous) rhetoric, to make the racism or scapegoatism appear legitimate or legal to the simpletons.
4. The Blind Eyes: A large number of less simple people who don't fall for the rhetoric and understand what's going on but turn a blind eye because it doesn't effect them.

People always say, we need to tell the story of the Holocaust so that it never happens again. But I believe, more import than telling the story, we need to understand the story. And, part of understanding that story is understanding the Minority Scapegoatism pattern. I think it's is an important topic that needs to be discussed and debated. Hopefully, coming up with a succinct name for the pattern is a good first step.

What do you think? Is this really a pattern worthy of a name or am I talking crazy? Is there already a name that describes this pattern and I just don't know about it?