Clearly these liberal krauts were trying to besmirch Our Leader with this disgusting word that would imply he is some sort of fascist. Those editors ought to be spirited away in secret to Guantanamo to be water-boarded and burned with cigarettes. You know, for freedom.

I suggest your readers look at the Medienkritik article and decide whether this was all innocent editing for themselves.

Secondly, if you’d honestly like to know how Medienkritik feels about politics (instead of reading the innuendo posted here) just click here.

I suggest your readers look at the Medienkritik article and decide whether this was all innocent editing for themselves.

I read it. Big freaking deal. God, conservatives are such fucking pussies. The reason conservatives are upset about this is because the shoe fits a little too snug. Bush, wunderbar fuhrer? Sure.

Hearing conservatives complain about media bias is like hearing Hugh Hefner complain that he never gets laid.

Cobaggendesturmerzieners!

@ JK47

So how do you know I’m conservative? Is everyone to the right of Hugo Chavez a conservative these days? Just wondering since you never even met me.

When planning for English to German translation, we usually allowed for around 35% more space for the equivalant German. I’d guess you could account for all of the trimming that took place within that margin.

Gee, RayD, I too wonder how someone who just said he’d read some stuff at your blog could have ever come to the conclusion that you’re a conservative, and that there’s quite a bit of real estate between you and Chavez. I mean, he’s never even met you! He’s only read stuff you wrote! That’s no way to judge someone’s opinions!

Sheesh, I hope someone doesn’t sic the translation police on the Bible. Then we are in for some serious controversy.

They are cobags if they twisted her words, but then again, she is a propaganda mouthpiece anyway, so what the hell is the point? You can’t convince them they are wrong about torture, secret prisons, Bush acting like a fuhrer- it won’t happen, because you have to lie to make an argument against reality. Co-bags.

So how do you know I’m conservative? Is everyone to the right of Hugo Chavez a conservative these days? Just wondering since you never even met me.

In all fairness, it didn’t read RayD’s blog. I was referring to the Medienkritik article. But I never called RayD the “C” word. I said, “The reason conservatives are upset about this is because the shoe fits a little too snug.” I did not address him personally.

Now, if you’re defending the Medienkritik article, which is completely ridiculous, maybe that makes you a conservative, maybe not. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but people who whine about the mistreatment of poor widdle Georgy Bush by the mean old librul media don’t have a lot of credibility in my book.

JK47, if you read the Medienkritik article, you read RayD’s blog. Of course there’s more than the one article, there’s the gushing over a Cox and Forkum cartoon, the breathless reporting that Insty’s says he’s wearing a Medienkritik t-shirt, a stern report on “Great-Great Grandmother of all Bush-haters” Cindy Sheehan and where to go to protest against her protest, even a few choice words for biased pro-Chavez reporting(with bonus slam on Democrats for good measure). Subtle, I know, but I think we can piece it all together if we put our three-cornered thinking Hüte.

JK47, if you read the Medienkritik article, you read RayD’s blog.

Ah, I see. Now that guy really needs to STFU. Douche.

So the Euro press isn’t parroting Karen Hughes’ propaganda. Boo-fucking hoo. Pass the tissues. Poor conservatives can’t get a fair shake.

I also read the David’s Medienkritik article, and was not impressed. Most of what he takes issue with are paraphrases and editorial comments.

I would think that someone with a blog devoted to criticizing translations would be aware that there is rarely ever any such thing as a one-to-one correspondence between languages, since literal translations from one language are often not idiomatic in the other, and since even words that are semantically equivalent will have different cultural significance. The fact that he gets his objectively pro-fascist underpants in a bunch over the word ‘Fuhrer’ demonstrates that he understands this perfectly, so forgive me if I dismiss the majority of his criticisms as crybaby neocon wanker posturing.

(PS – just one question: is Guantanamo bay a prison in a place outside the purview of US law, or isn’t it? (ok, one more: If it is, what does David have against factual editorial clarifications in magazine articles?))

I get it. So if you oppose Cindy Sheehan and Hugo Chavez propaganda you are automatically an arch-conservative and even pro-fascist. I can see where this conversation is headed. I think I’ll depart the echo chamber before things get too ugly. Again, if anyone is really interested in what we really wrote, just check my links in the second comment.

Be careful, we wouldn’t want you to run out of straw.

Yes, people, please, check out his posts on Medienkritik, and decide for yourselves if “conservative” is a fair approximation for his stated opinions, or if he’s just too darn close in opinion to Hugo Chavez to be considered conservative. Or don’t, because really, who cares.

RayD: If the jackboot fits…

But back on topic linky. Looks like it gets a lot of use for being practically a curse word, most of which don’t refer to A.H.

So, a liberal German magazine manipulates the words of the Mouth, the Mother of All Manipulative Statements…and ends up making her call her boss a facist.

I’ll say it again: Schadenfreude is a beautiful thing.

Oh, and those that did follow the linky to RayD’s blog -how long did it take you to find the conservative slant? 0.01 seconds? Yay! Me too!

I get it. So if you oppose Cindy Sheehan and Hugo Chavez propaganda you are automatically an arch-conservative and even pro-fascist.

Let’s see, did anyone say or even imply anything like that? No. Straw man. Next.

I can see where this conversation is headed. I think I’ll depart the echo chamber before things get too ugly.

Don’t let the door hit yer arse on the way out.

Again, if anyone is really interested in what we really wrote, just check my links in the second comment.

Yeah, then check out the homepage on his blog where Mr. How-Do-You-Know-I’m-A-Conservative almost blows a load in his pants because Instacracker linked to him. Talk about “echo chambers.”

Second link was supposed to be this.

The real scandal here is that Karen Hughes is being paid with our tax dollars to travel around the world and spout this bullshit:

“[George W. Bush is] a very warm person, he’s a very thoughtful person, he’s a very decent person. He cares deeply about people, he’s a wonderful leader,”

Barf me.

Hey Ray, if you want to object to someone’s right to protest (as you did), then yes, you are exhibiting facist tendencies. A true freedom lover would defend her right to free speech to the death, even if they disagreed with it. Read the founding fathers’ stuff much?

Translation controversy?!? Ugh. As anyone who has ever read a post by me knows, I barely parse American English, so I guess I’ll sit this one out….

How did they translate “peeance” and “freeance?”

Is there any other word for leader in German?

Here’s a translation of the German Wikipedia page on ‘fuehrer’:

link

The term can certainly be negatively loaded, but it’s very much in use (and opposition to it is criticized as ‘political correctness’). There are many Googleable examples of Der Spiegel using it for other political leaders.

It’s also possible to use ‘leiter,’ or the English word, ‘leader.’

And (by the way Gavin) here is the English version of that link (so that people here can actually understand). Money quote:

“Modern Usage of the word Führer” Due to its excessive use in Nazi Germany, the term Führer is not popular in modern Germany. Anführer, with a slightly more tangible meaning than Führer, is now more common as a literal translation of “leader”, while Führer itself is almost exclusively used in composites, e.g. Lok[omotiv]führer (engine driver), Zugführer (railway guard), Flugzeugführer (aircraft pilot), Bergführer (mountain guide), Führerschein (driver’s license), Spielführer (team captain), Mannschaftsführer (teamster), Fremdenführer (tourist guide), Geschäftsführer (director), Führerstand (driver’s cab), and so on. In today’s federal army, the composite word “Unterführer” is still an official term for a non-commissioned officer. The word Leiter can also be used as a substitute, though it is somewhat ambiguious.”

Note that the googles done by several commenters have almost exclusively turned up composites. As a stand-alone, the term “Führer” is rarely if ever used to refer to modern-day politicians precisely because of the historic connotations to Hitler and National Socialism. (And wasn’t that my point to begin with?)

And now I will get out of your way for good.

Note that site-Googling Der Spiegel turns up multiple uses of “Führer” referring to modern leaders, as already pointed out twice: “die politischen Führer,” “Der Führer des rechtsgerichteten Likuds, Ariel Scharon,” “der Führer der al-Aksa-Brigaden,” “der Führer der Islamischen Revolution in Iran,” “85 Führer der religiösen Rechten der USA,” “Die Führer Ägyptens,” etc etc etc

Such a google contains NO composites like those you claim are the “almost exclusive” results, the only “composites” are things like “Hamas-Führer,” different in kind as well as scope from your examples.

You know what I don’t get? Several commenters are throwing around terms like ‘fascist’ and ‘jackboots’ and ‘Führer’. Like those are bad or something? C’mon, you liberal weenies, stop being so squeamish and join the party. Or should I say, The Party!

@ tigrismus

If you knew anything about German you would realize that you are proving my point for me. Haven’t you noticed how “Führer” is modified by an adjective referring to some specific nationality or political faction in virtually every example you give? I would hardly classify that as a stand-alone use of the term “Führer.”

In the cases you point to, the term consistently refers to the leader of… a country or political faction or religious group. I challenge you to find one single example in German where Gerhard Schroeder or any Chancellor since 1946 is referred to simply as the (wonderful) “Führer” by a serious news magazine with no modifying adjective refering to his party, fraction or some political or religious group. Happy hunting…I won’t hold my breath…

in the comments of Wizbang there is a link to two spiegel articles, one on Clinton, and one on Nelson Mandela, where ‘Fuhrer’ is used within obvious translations of non-German speakers. (one Maureen Dowd, the other apparently Mandela himself.)

The referent in Dowd’s comment seems to be Clinton, and is indeed modified by an adjective, ‘vershuct.’ (properly a participle, if Im not mistaken.)
(those comments are linked to in the comments of the ‘sadly no pasaran’ thread below.)

I am sure RayD will now inform me that those don’t count, but they seem to prove my hypothesis that this is nothing more than crybaby posturing from neocon wankers.

I am sure RayD will now inform me that those don’t count, but they seem to prove my hypothesis that this is nothing more than crybaby posturing from neocon wankers.

Now how could you accuse the good RayD of being a crybaby? I mean, this is a fellow who stated unwaveringly that Spiegel covers featuring a “negative” portrayal of an American president is a sign of anti-American bias, while at the same time insinuating that covers featuring “positive” portrayal of an American president… are also signs of anti-American bias!

And no matter that they’re different presidents. That’s perfectly irrelevant. No, because this enlightened soul has not uncovered a bias against certain policies, nor against certain political parties, nor even an individual regime… Nay! This Crusader for Truth has uncovered bias against America Itself, as a homogeneous atomic entity!

Um… er… that is…

…

Partisian cobag shill.

I thought fuhrer meant guide.

I love how it went from composite usage (cobaggenfuhrer) to usage in Fuhrer of something (Fuhrer der cobaggensreichen). Well, duh, when you are the Fuhrer it’s obviously of something, so the thing is stated or not stated, except when it’s Hitler because the unstated part there was kind of “everything”

RayD, your German is atrocious. You’re making all these charges that der Spiegel is being dishonest in its translation, yet your points show you don’t even understand what the article’s saying in the first place.

Just as an example, your fifth bullet point references the article’s mentioning of a UN report about Guantanamo. You mis-translate the segment in bold and then implicitly accuse der Spiegel of calling Guantanamo “a prison in a space with no legal jurisdiction.” The key word is “sei.” If you spoke better German than Shrub does Spanish, you’d know that that is a form of the subjunctive, which is used widely in news articles. It’s purpose is to state what a third party is saying without implying that it’s also the reporter’s opinion. ie. The article is stating that the report says it’s a lawless prison. If the article said “das ist ein Gefaengnis,” you’d have a point, but since your ability to speak German is proportional to your inability to not succumb to a touch of the vaypuhs when there’s rational thought afoot, you do nothing but prove you have no idea what you’re talking about.

The next point, though, has another (possible) mis-translation. (I am unable to view the German article myself, so I’m unaware of the context.) You say “Sie hatten ihre Gruende dafuer” translates as “You had your reasons for that.” Wrong. It’s “They had they’re reasons for that.” Now, if “ihre” is capitalized in the original, your translation would be correct (though it would mean you copied the sentence incorrectly, but have such limited knowledge of German that “ihre” and “Ihre” are the same to you), but as written in your post, your translation is once again wrong.

“Hate is not the right word.” How the hell is that not the same in meaning as “That (hatred against Americans) is not an accurate depiction”? No, it’s not word-for-word exact, but the sense is the same.

Please, before bitching about supposedly poor (and dishonest) translating on the part of a major newsmagazine, actually learn what the hell the newsmagazine’s translation says.

Before anyone says anything, I am fully aware of the irony of my using “they’re” instead of “their” while telling someone his German is poor because he confused “ihre” and “Ihre.”

I am aware! 🙂

I am aware! 🙂

You’ve really lost a lot of hair.

You are actually right about the second point, thanks we appreciate constructive criticism. However, the difference is tiny (whether “i” is capitalized or not) compared to SPIEGEL’s obvious and numerous changes. The second difference is that we’re willing to fix it (and already have), SPIEGEL isn’t. Thirdly, we aren’t a million dollar (Euro) operation with armies of editors. SPIEGEL is.

@ Andrew,

You are pretty demanding of me. Fair enough. Now let’s be intellectually honest. If you are that hard on me, how could you let SPIEGEL totally off the hook after they made so many “adjustments”? You’ve obviously read my points so I’d like to know. Have another look.

The most obvious synonyms for Fuehrer are:

Anfuehrer, which means ‘ringleader’
Leiter, which means ‘manager’ or ‘principal’ or ‘conductor’

The only way to avoid using the word Fuehrer is to paraphrase with Fuehrungsqualitaeten or Fuehrungsstaerke, but you would have to alter what she actually said. It is certainly not as if this particular F-word is an offensive term in German.

I thought you left about four posts ago, RayD.

In her response to the second question on the recent release of Abu Ghraib photos, Hughes says: “We don’t want to be defined by those pictures, any more than the people of Germany would want your country to be defined by pictures of crimes.” The segment in bold (emphasis ours) is omitted from the German version.

Deleting that bit was doing Karen a huge favour. If her response to a neutral question about the Abu Ghraib photos was really along the lines of bringing up the Holocaust (the implication being: who are you to criticise?) then she needs her head examined.

The other omissions are totally inconsequential.

And as for the ‘America’s Shame’ cover being inflammatory? The pro-US Economist had the exact same words (in English) on its cover depicting victims of Hurricane Katrina. If you found the photos embarrassing, maybe you should try getting angry with the people who allowed it all to happen.

From the post

No German would innocently use the word, (F)ührer, in such a way.

I’ll assume that you mean “as applied to a person.” “Führer,” is used quite often in German, as in Reiseführer (travel guide), Restaurantenführer (restaurant guide), usw.

Going upthread a bit, Führer does, indeed translate primarily to “guide.” Although, Führer can be used as applied to a person, it is more likely that Leiter(in) would be used. I suspect that Der Spiegel’s use of Führer was intended to make an editorial comment regarding Bush.

The first portion of the second sentence of the German version (“Die Menschen liegen ihm am Herzen”) makes no sense in the context of the portion of the English version that it is intended to refer to (“He cares deeply about people”).

You are actually right about the second point.

Only the second? I honestly want to know what is wrong with my first. Not only is your translation slightly incorrect in a literal sense (in context a better translation would be “which is…” and not “that is…”), but it is even moreso contextually, as you are implying that the reporter is adding his own opinion into the paper. ie. Your translation implies something like, “And a report from the UN is demanding the closure of Guantanamo Bay, which is a prison outside of any legal jurisdiction.” A proper translation would read instead, “And a report from the UN is demanding the closure of Guantanamo, which the report says is a prison outside of any legal jurisdiction.”

As for der Spiegel omitting a lot of what Hughes says, I don’t see how the sense of the the sentences are altered, which is the only thing to be concerned about. I don’t have time to go point by point, so I’ll just go with the second one. “We should not allow a difference over how we handle 490 terrorists to divide our countries.” That’s what the sentence looks like with everything in bold omitted. I don’t see what’s missing from the sense of the original. We know terrorists “have pledged to kill Americans and others,” so why take up the space in the printed version? Our countries are able to be divided only because we are friendly, so mentioning “our historic friendship” is again pointless and redundant. It’s about economy of space without losing the sense. The sense of the sentence isn’t lost, while taking up only about a third of the space on paper.

I suspect that Der Spiegel’s use of Führer was intended to make an editorial comment regarding Bush.

They used the same word to refer to Nelson Mandela.

The first portion of the second sentence of the German version (“Die Menschen liegen ihm am Herzen”) makes no sense in the context of the portion of the English version that it is intended to refer to (“He cares deeply about people”).

It is a perfectly good idiomatic translation of the English version. “(The) people are with-him at-the/his heart.”

Haven’t you noticed how “Führer” is modified by an adjective referring to some specific nationality or political faction in virtually every example you give

I chose those examples precisely because they made it perfectly clear that “Führer” was being used to refer to modern-day politicians, the very way you said it was “rarely if ever used”. If you now want to declare only “non-modified” usage is a valid counter(as if a news magazine article specifying “Hamas leader” and “leader of Hamas” proves the word “leader” is rarely if ever used, which I utterly deny), I submit “Arafat ist der gewählte Führer,” “der liebe Führer,” “kein wirklich starker Führer,” “ein großer Führer,” “ein Englisch sprechender Führer,” “ein grausamer Führer” blah blah blah “[E]in wunderbarer Führer” is not really looking all that pearl-clutchingly outrageous.

There’s also the translation of Nelson Mandela’s words as “Ein Führer ist ein Hirte,” unless you think Der Spiegel was dissing him, too.

There were over 10,000 results, Führer is NOT “rarely if ever used” no matter where you move those goalposts.

It is a perfectly good idiomatic translation of the English version. “(The) people are with-him at-the/his heart.”

I understand that, but the English version said that he (referring to GWBush) cares deeply about people. The German translation appears to indicate that people care deeply about GWBush. There is a substantial difference.

The German translation appears to indicate that people care deeply about GWBush.

It’s more like “the people are near to his[Bush’s] heart.” It’s just one of those constructions that don’t quite convert one-to-one.

Just a quick comment from Germany:

Beware of wikipedias bearing gifts. The link given by RayD gives slightly different information than the one given by Gavin M. and seems a little suspect to me. At any rate, “Unterführer” does not mean “non-commissioned officer” (the proper word is “Unteroffizier”), it is more properly translated as “sub-leader” or “subordinate leader”.

As noted in the article linked to by Gavin M., “Führer” is the word one would use in German to mean “leader” in the sense of someone who leads, who displays qualities of leadership (as opposed to someone who occupies a high position in a social or official hierarchy but may or may not have leadership qualities). “Anführer” really is not a substitute here, it is most commonly used in the sense of “ring-leader” or “leader of a (criminal) gang” (“Anführer einer Bande”). “Leiter” also does not really work, as it is mostly used for hierarchical position, not personal authority and leadership. An office head is an “Amtsleiter”, for instance; and a “Leiter” would not necessarily be the top person in a hierarchy. (Also, it is not quite innocent a word either, the Nazi party’s regional leaders had the title “Gauleiter”). I am not sure if that many Germans would use “leader” much in any case, except in a few speciallised fields While in German you have the words “Führerqualittäten” and “Führungsqualitäten” (“qualities of a leader” and “leadership qualities”), I don’t think I’ve ever heard “Leiterqualitäten” or “Leitungsqualitäten” (not even in the sense of “ladder qualities” or “(water/electricity) main qualities”) and if the someone used the word “Leaderqualitäten”, most Germans would think they were speaking of a rock musician. “Chef” in modern German basically means “boss” (except in compounds such as “Stabschef” – chief of staff), and that’s not what Hughes meant.

Yes, in certain contexts you avoid the word “Führer” due to Nazi usage, but you don’t go crazy about it. Even in the GDR, where they replaced “Führerschein” with “Fahrerlaubnis” (driving permit) shortly after the war, they reverted to “Führerschein” later. But in some context there really is no other word unless you want to use elaborate circumscriptions.

raj –

“Die Menschen liegen ihm am Herzen” can only be translated as “he (deeply) cares about people”. “People care a lot about him” would be “er liegt den Menschen am Herzen”, or, with a slightly odd, if permissible order of words “Den Menschen liegt er am Herzen.”

Funny (in this context). From my dictionary:

to help an old lady across the street
eine alte Dame über die Strasse führen

Well…maybe they ARE comparing Bush to Hitler.

But not FAVORABLY. Shouldn’t that count for something?

Raj,

I just wanted to back up Menshevik’s comment and also to tell you your confusion might stem from misreading “ihm” as “ihn.” With “ihn” the sentence as is would make no sense, but with a slight change in the verb (“liegen” to “legen”/ lie to lay) it would then translate literally as “People lay him at the heart,” which sounds like what you’re taking as the meaning.

Like tigirismus said, it’s one of those things that doesn’t really translate well word-for-word, kind of like “mir ist kalt. (In fact, with a little word order change, you can see how it is exactly like that: “Ihm liegen die Menschen am Herzen.”)

Gavin,

Ben Shapiro called. He thinks it’s seditious that you stole that picture from his agitprop material. I told him I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.

Why does it matter if a German newspaper doesn’t like Bush? Heck, why are we agruing this with a guy who thinks a postive portrayl of American President Clinton is anti-American?

SO Mr. Ray is claiming he’s not a conservative?

Well, one might go look at his list of endorsements from Malkin, LGF, Instashiznit, and Sully; as well as his links to “Day By Day”, Nice Doggie, Vodkapundit and Roger Simon.

Well, they shall judge thee by the company you keep. Or in other words, lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Ein Volk
Ein Riech
Ein IQ point…

“And now I will get out of your way for good.”
Posted by: RayD | February 27, 2006 04:53 AM

…and yet he keeps on coming back time and time again.

OCD?

No, Dr. Freud, it’s just yet another wingnut making a liar of himself, as per usual, and splendidly at that.

Unless, that is, Roy takes “for good” to not mean “forever” as in common parlance, but instead something else, likely of his own coinage. Since the right these days is quite big on realigning the definitions of many common words–freedom, democracy, war, treason, compassion, conservative, to name just a few–to align them with their political objectives, Roy wanted in on this linguistic open season.

But, like a Dick, he shoots, sprays everywhere, makes a big mess, misses the target, and is then caught in a contradiction. Fun!

All that’s left undone in the Wingnut Field Manual now is to blame the victim.

Andrew | February 27, 2006 05:54 PM

Point taken. I’ve seen constructs such as the “mir ist kalt”, but I had always considered it that the subject (es) was left out because it was understood: mir ist es kalt (to me it is cold–although I would probably say something like “ich bin kalt). With the phrase at hand, I figured that the subject was “die Menschen” (since it was in the nominative case), and “ihm” is of course the indirect object (dative).

On the other hand, I recognize that one can’t directly translate from German to English, and vice versa.

“And now I will get out of your way for good.”
Posted by: RayD | February 27, 2006 04:53 AM

…and yet he keeps on coming back time and time again.

OCD?

Maybe he’s Daphne from Pandagon.

raj: I don’t think you’d want to say “ich bin kalt” in most situations.

Having read the original article in Der Spiegel auf Deutsch, I can’t say that I understand why these folks are getting their panties in a bunch. It’s hardly a hit piece.

“Die Menschen” is the grammatical subject in German, but that’s one of those places where language construction differs. “Am Herzen liegen” is like “fehlen” or “schmecken” and so forth in that the subject in German is an object when translated into English.

I tell a lie, “is” is a little strong. “Can be” would be more accurate, and the two examples are pretty different. You get my drift, though, I hope.

I’ll admit, Bush is a little on the controlling side, but comparing him to Hitler? C’mon, that’s the kind of nutty extremism that gives neocons an excuse to marginalize us libs. Not only that, it also trivializes the horror Hitler unleashed on the Jews.

leftwingnut, I hear you, and I agree that the neocons and other wingnuts would get upset with this comparison. After all, their hero was a decorated war veteran who was wounded in combat, not a drunken frat boy who went AWOL from a plummy National Guard spot…oh. Oh. Sorry….

I don’t understand why everyone gets so upset when they get compared to Hitler, you could compare me to Hitler all day, but you wouldn’t find too many similarities beyond “Hey that guy drinks orange juice… much like Hitler did once.”

I say, if you don’t want to be compared to hitler, don’t do things that make it easy for people to compare you to him.

Also, can I just say that the various commentors here that consistently hand people like RayD their ass in a paper bag are the Furers of mein heart.

Um, guys, where’s the Hitler kitty?

If you’re gonna do a piece like this, I should think that Hitler kitty would be an appropriate illustration.

leftwingnut – The problem is, (and I think that this was intentionally brought about by some on the right), that the very name of Hitler has become so associated with absolute evil that even salient comparisons are automatically dismissed as ‘nutty extremism’ or ‘trivializing the suffering of Jews.’ to the point where we get crybaby wankers bitching about tranlations that seem to imply that Bush is even remotely like Hitler.

(Personally I think he’s much more like Mussolini, whose public persona of competent manliness concealed a momma’s boy failure who was the figurehead of a violent and reactionary movement he could never really control.)

My point is though, that the typical reaction to the Nazis was ‘never again,’ and yet every time someone says ‘here we go again’ there is a chorus ready to accuse them of exaggeration and hyperbole. The only people who benefit from the Nazi comparison being out of bounds are those who would emulate them.

Furthermore, there was nothing really exceptional or remarkable about Hitler and the horrors he inflicted, not just against the Jews, but against millions of his neighbors of various races and religions. He was not an inhuman monster, but merely an all too human figure who was allowed to get out of hand.

So I’d much rather have people be too ready to compare a leader to Hitler than to say ‘well, he hasn’t actually killed a million people yet, let’s wait a little while until that total is high enough, then we can say he’s like Hitler.’

Keep in mind also that the loony right benefits from the double standard that they have set up. They are free to refer to the left as Stalinists or Nazis all they want, but as soon as one of us does it to someone on their side, it’s out of bounds and extremist. It’s bullshit, and I don’t buy it.

Ianua, the cult of personality certainly smacks of Il Duce, but the rest of it reminds me a lot more of the Falange – Franco, Jeebus, the Corporate State – all in one big messy stew.

There there is my next-door…whatever.

Four-square Christian and proud Fundi…according to her “Saddam is worse than Hitler”.

…classic.