February 23
Grab a hold of something or sit down, because an unabashed liberal who wrote a play about Nazi war criminals is about to defend a holocaust denier.
I'm referring I hope you realize to the conviction of historian David Irving for denying the Jewish holocaust happened. He's best known, aside from the inflammatory statements, for his book Hitler's War. I have a copy purchased as a trial membership with a history book club back when I was a teenager. Yes, I was precocious, though almost everyone I know in my living history hobby was precocious that way. I mention that as voluntary disclosure that I own and have read the book, though I was young enough to not remember if it's true Irving downplayed the holocaust. That out of the way, I don't defend the things he said, but, and probably every American can finish this sentence, I defend his right to say it. It is chilling to hear someone denying what can only be denied through lunacy or grotesque bigotry, but it is also chilling to hear of a judge in a criminal trial questioning the defendant regarding his beliefs. I don't defend Nazis in any way, not even in terms of hate speech. Given their history, their threats, even implied threats, mean something. There is nonetheless a difference between espousing the beliefs of Nazis and denying the reality of what happened. Even if that denial has to deny living survivors, the remains of the camps, the film footage, and extensive documentation, it's not the same as threatening to kill Jews again. I actually don't have a problem with banning Nazi parties, since they have a history of turning hate speech into action, and threats are not legally protected speech. Hate speech by itself, however, is free speech, and if that is protected then surely just expressing delusion about history must be protected too.
One other aspect that is disturbing is the timing of this trial coinciding with the protests over the Muhammad cartoons. A defense Muslims have used of their desire to outlaw images that offend their beliefs is that some western nations outlaw denial the holocaust happened or speech that tries to downplay it. They ask what the difference is, and I don't have a good answer. In fact they're right on that point. I understand the impulse that causes Iran to run a contest for cartoons about the holocaust, and the best counter argument I can offer is that the Jews didn't run the offending cartoons. Once again, whatever happens, they blame the Jews. Still, I wouldn't pass laws against anti-semitic cartoons or pictures of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban. Bigotry must be called what it is, it must be exposed and shamed, but outlawing speech won't make it go away.
A couple tough critiques of Bush that have appeared on the editorial pages of the Twin Cities dailies lately have come from conservatives. Maybe they just seem tough because they come from Bush supporters, or maybe they're former supporters. Over in the quotes column on the right, I put a quote from a recent column by George Will (if it isn't there, check the civil liberties quotes archive) taking apart every defense the acting president has made of his warrantless surveillance of Americans. For example, WIll pointed out that Bush has claimed to be searching for judicial candidates who will strictly interpret the Constitution, yet he claims all sorts of powers are implied in a document intended to limit his power by specifying it. Will calls the idea that the president's power expands over the other two branches in wartime "monarchical". Like many liberals, Will points out how absurd it is to think that until this secret program was exposed by some unknown whistleblower, terrorists never would have suspected the government would try to eavesdrop on them.
There was a wow factor, and I did say "wow" when I read the concluding sentence, in a column by Kathleen Parker. She wrote about the decision to approve the sale of the British company that runs six US ports to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, specifically about how it indicates Bush has lost his survival instinct. Her take seems to be that Bush has lost the most rudimentary sense of how to protect the country. She finished by saying:
"In the more likely event Thanatos [she explained at the beginning of the column that Thanatos was sort of an ancient Greek grim reaper] truly is at the helm of our ship of state at this titanic moment, we can't afford to let Bush's death instinct subsume the national imperative to survive.Was this a conservative calling for Bush's removal? Are some conservatives realizing what liberals have been thinking since at least the time we were sort of counting Floridian ballots in 2000, that a disaster is in the making? Maybe, just maybe, between principled conservatives who realize Bush is a scofflaw, non-delusional conservatives who realize the Bush administration presents a grave danger to national security, and those who might decide Bush's political survival endangers their own, impeachment looks more possible. It's hard to believe even now that conservatives/Republicans would permit a president of their party to be forced from office when they still have trouble just investigating him, but it feels like they're wishing there was some way to make him go away without giving a victory to the opposition.Survival now depends on fitter minds."
February 22
I appreciate those of you who keep checking the site occasionally, even when I can't make frequent updates, which is the case lately because the raven and the missus are packing up the nest and flying to a new one. Actually we're loading boxes on a rental truck, but you get the idea. So enjoyment of my wisdom grows less frequent for a while. However, here's something. OK, this next bit is mostly lifted from a letter to the editor I wrote and may or may not get published. But I guess that's why I have a blog.
In recent letters to the editor in the local dailies, writers have asked in response to release of more photos from Abu Ghraib why liberals keep bringing up old news. That's a reasonable question, and the answer is simple. It's not old news while those responsible have never been held accountable. No rational person believes the torture was all the doing of a few enlisted men getting out of control, not when the Bush administration has made acceptance of torture government policy. So when those held accountable are named not Karpinski, England, and Graner, but Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Bush, then it will be old news.
