Re: old piece

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:

This is FABULOUS. But I see    things:

Can't see here that Khan says he doesn't drink? Probably you should say he's "probably not a big drinker" or something?

I hate luxury and exercise moderation. I have only one coat and one food. I eat the same food and am dressed in the same tatters as my humble herdsmen. I consider the people my children, and take an interest in talented men as if they were my brothers. We always agree in our principles, and we are always united by mutual affection. At military exercises I am always in front, and in time of battle am never behind. In the space of seven years I have succeeded in accomplishing a great work, and uniting the whole world in one empire.

And you probably need to update this about Bill Kristol -- does he still have a column in Time? I don't think so.

Less enraging, even, than thinking about how William Kristol has his own magazine simply because his daddy had his own magazine, or that William Kristol has his own column in Time

And these guys are old news, probably need to find new knuckleheads, like (conservative politician) and Glenn Beck.

very thought of jurisprudential knucklehead Alberto Gonzalez or fascist nerd Glenn Reynolds

Actually, you probably DID already update all that? If so, send the updated version to me to read? This is very funny and smart!

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

I wrote this for Daily Kos a couple years back and just tweaked it to make it current. Let me know if you think I should use this. It was very well-received at Kos:

Hitler and Company

   Some have said that Obama is like Hitler. They are correct.

  The Reader will now suspect that I am doing that thing that bad columnists do whereby I begin a piece with some unexpected declaration and then later it turns out I meant something entirely different. Unfortunately, this is the case.

   If Genghis Khan were to be brought back to life tomorrow by way of nanotechnology or just a very well-written historical novel, would he be tried for war crimes? Would Mr. Khan be spat on in the street? Would you yourself feel the urge to spit on him?

   If Mr. Khan appeared on TV, would simply seeing his face make you angry? Would you feel the need to go outside and smoke a cigarette or, if you're a non-smoker, to do whatever it is that non-smokers do when they get angry or happy or have just finished a big meal?

   Less hypothetically, when you read in a history book that Genghis Khan executed men, women, and children when a village failed to submit, or when you read on Wikipedia that Genghis Khan orchestrated the assassination of Bobby Kennedy at the behest of Gore Vidal, do you get mad?

   When you see an old Chinese print of Genghis Khan, do you become enraged?

   Let us assume that you would answer "no" to all of those questions. If you answered "yes," then you are no doubt an interesting person, and I would like to meet you.

   If Genghis Khan were alive today, my first inclination would be to talk to him. And like a movement conservative who's about to make the most important civic decision that an American citizen can make, I might also wonder what it would be like to have a beer with him. But I'd never know, as Mr. Khan refrained from alcohol, as he once mentioned in passing within one of his few remaining letters:

I hate luxury and exercise moderation. I have only one coat and one food. I eat the same food and am dressed in the same tatters as my humble herdsmen. I consider the people my children, and take an interest in talented men as if they were my brothers. We always agree in our principles, and we are always united by mutual affection. At military exercises I am always in front, and in time of battle am never behind. In the space of seven years I have succeeded in accomplishing a great work, and uniting the whole world in one empire.

   A real uniter, that Mr. Khan. And something of a neo-khan in his love of empire, though very much unlike our neo-khans of neo-times insomuch as that he makes a point of fighting his own battles and seems to have some use for talented men.

   Did you, like me, find Mr. Khan's gentle boasting to be somewhat less irritating than anything you've heard this goofy-tooth say back in day? Less enraging than watching William Kristol go on television and make more predictions? Less enraging, even, than thinking about how William Kristol has his own magazine simply because his daddy had his own magazine, or that William Kristol has his own column in Time simply because that guy who once famously predicted that IBM would only be able to sell seven or eight computers is now dead and was thus unavailable?

   You would probably answer yes (you'll have to pardon my presumption, but you seem to be the quiet type). So why it is that you and I are more enraged at the very thought of jurisprudential knucklehead Alberto Gonzalez or fascist nerd Glenn Reynolds or the president of the United States than we are at the thought of Genghis Khan, who routinely ordered the deaths of children and Bobby Kennedy?

   For the same reason that Republicans get more enraged at the very thought of Hillary Clinton than they do at the thought of Franklin Roosevelt, no doubt. Chronology might have something to do with it, or perhaps proximity - anger is more useful when targeted at someone in power right now than it is when targeted at someone who was in power long ago, like Genghis Khan or Franklin Roosevelt.

   By the way, out of those two, who was the least like Hitler?

   The answer, of course, is Franklin Roosevelt, because Franklin Roosevelt was a smoker, whereas Hitler and Genghis Khan were not.

   Now, did I just break Godwin's Law by comparing Genghis Khan to Hitler? Was that inappropriate? If Genghis Khan were alive today, would he tearfully demand an apology? If he did, would the pundits take his side? Would they call me shrill?

   I hope not, because I'm right. Insomuch as that Hitler and Genghis Khan were both non-smokers, they share a common characteristic. And insomuch as that two subjects share a common characteristic, they are like each other.

   And so it is that I myself am somewhat like Hitler insomuch as that I am now a non-smoker myself. And so it is that Jim Morrison was somewhat like Hitler insomuch as that he was an artistic type who disliked his father and was fond of Romanticism. And so it is that anyone who finds himself consumed with hatred is like Hitler. And so it is that anyone who seeks to persuade others by use of symbols, emotion, and appeals to national greatness is like Hitler. And so it is that someone who launches a two-front war without really thinking it through and then denies that he's actually losing right to the very end is like Hitler.

   All human beings are like Hitler insomuch as that they are human beings. That includes George W. Bush, who is, in addition to being a human being, also a non-smoker, as well as an occasional launcher of ill-conceived two-front wars, just as many of us are. Maybe it's a two-front war of career and family. Maybe it's an actual two-front war that ends up killing a lot of people, like that one we've got going just now. Maybe it's some fourth thing.

   But all human beings are also unlike Hitler, and thus Hitler is also unlike all human beings, and thus unlike Bush as well. For instance, one of Hitler's grandfathers is unknown to history, whereas one of Bush's grandfathers was a prominent senator who did business with Hitler. And unlike Bush, Hitler never considered himself to be Winston Churchill.

   By the way, doesn't this look like a good read?