Maggie's Farm

I have no doubts that what once was can be again. That's not the point.

If this guy wanted to make his point more effectively - and it's a point I happen to agree with - he should have left the references to the Holocaust/Kristallnacht out of his little diatribe.

When my wife and I read this, we both had the same initial reaction, though I had to take the added step to point out to her that his point is accurate.
She agreed, but said that most people don't understand this, and what they will take (and have taken) from this, is that the wealthy will view themselves as victims.

Certainly, this is where we're headed with the liberal/progressive alliance for the 'good of mankind'. They will, at some point, begin confiscating goods and capital 'in the name of the people'. Then, when some legitimately resist, they will kill those people and say it's 'for the good of the people'.

Yet, even today, I know people who say this can't happen. Smart people. Intelligent and well-educated people. They believe we live in a democracy (we sort've do, I guess) and as a result there are protections (there were, not anymore) against this kind of thing.

Cuomo and de Blasio are just the first few to admit openly they are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them and would be happy to expel those who disagree.

In addition, I have very well educated people who have said to me they are pleased the NSA is bugging their phone calls. They 'have nothing to hide'.

Making the point to them that having nothing to hide doesn't prevent somebody in a position of power from using information to invoke a vendetta drew derisive laughter. Yet the very next day, information was released that the NSA is helping small nations keep the populace under control by sharing the information they have illegally collected.

Perhaps the fact that I believe we can make our points rationally and without alienating people who sit on the fence scares you. But by making analogies like this guy did, the fence sitters (who are not well educated, usually) become confused. After all, in their minds, how can the wealthy be 'victims'? The rich and powerful 'have it all', including the power. But we know this isn't true, they don't.

All they think is that if the nation faces difficult financial times, the best way to get it is to take it from 'the wealthy'. By comparing the inevitable outcome this man has laid out to the Holocaust, all he does is cause the fence-sitters to roll their eyes. When the eventual day does, in fact, arrive, those fence-sitters will say 'they deserved it because they thought they were victims - and now they are'.

Recently, a former Wall Streeter wrote a piece about his 'addiction to money'. A friend sent it to me, insinuating that we needed laws to prevent people like this from being rapacious and greedy and destroying our nation. I replied simply "I have friends with real addictions like drug and alcohol. None of them, even in recovery, would suggest better laws would have prevented them from becoming addicts. None of them, even in recovery, have suggested that making alcohol illegal would help them today."

He silently agreed.

We can make our points and our views known by being rational and objective. The piece I linked to was rational, but not objective at all.

We're not there yet. We're approaching those times.

Rational thought can still win out, but it has to be applied properly. Yuri could have buried his brother, intellectually. But he knew it was not the best way to handle the situation. His problem was that he chose to go it alone, and run.

Not being a particularly big fan of W, I'd have to agree with you about his inability to parry the press' misrepresentations. I can honestly say I saw the same thing happen today on Face The Nation, with Bob Schieffer being a complete tool toward Ted Cruz - but Cruz acquitted himself well using a rational and objective response to every question. I'm sure he won many people over, though Schieffer used emotion to parry his responses, and then allowed that dirtball Schumer on to sell his snake oil.

Still, I don't believe the Progressives are 'winning' by any stretch. They have pockets of support, but those pockets are few and far between.

Even today, I was shocked to get emails from 2 rather liberal friends of mine stating their dissatisfaction with the current regime. They are beginning to realize (mainly because of idiots like de Blasio) that the Progressive movement has failed miserably.

The poor are still with us 50 years after the War on Poverty began, Obamacare is a hash, and wealth inequality (which is a statistic I don't care about, but they do) has increased under Obama despite his taking action to reduce it (the logic of which is only beginning to hit home with some people).

No, I'd say the Right is slowly winning, but we can't afford to squander our victories - the GOP has a very bad habit of doing this.

I was aware of this. It was for donating money ($20,000, I believe) to a political candidate. The problem, of course, was that there are limits to what you can donate, and he exceeded them.

In addition, he was involved in a complicated means of reimbursing people for their donations to the failed campaign.

It was a legitimate arrest, since the law is pretty clear and he obviously exceeded the amount.

What bothers me isn't the arrest, but bail being set at $500k. For a $20,000 donation?

Yes, the 'crime' is punishable with 2 years in prison, but is rarely implemented.

Legit arrest, I have no issues with it. He did something monumentally stupid.

Whether the law is legit, now that's an entirely different question. I think the law itself is absurd.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I made that comment because, realistically, those who are currently 'without' do not view things this way.

Anybody can be a victim. But if the victim is somebody who is wealthy being demonized and having wealth appropriated, in the minds of many this is not a victim but someone getting his/her just reward for being a greedy, evil capitalist thief.

Whether this view is justified isn't the point. In the minds of the many who have little, it is justified.

You can't diminish this point of view just because you and I don't agree with it. Is it correct? Absolutely and positively not.
But that will matter little when some greedy politician decides to tell them confiscating things is a good idea.

Some time ago, I posted a video from "Dr. Zhivago". It was his return from the front of the Winter War, when he finds his old home appropriated. He is clearly put out, but just nods and says something to the effect of "yes, this is much better." Mainly because there's not much he can do, and doing anything would lead to his being killed.

As I said, I'm fully aware that what happened before can happen here. I have a very wealthy friend who regularly tells me he should be taxed more, and that he's willing to "do his part if the government asks." I always respond "why are you waiting for them to force you to do something? Isn't it better to do it voluntarily?" At that point, some nonsense spews forth and I usually stop paying attention. Typically, it's something along the lines of "why should I do something if nobody else is?"


Well, simply because that's the right thing to do.

I think you're confusing a few things here, most importantly the power of the "Big Lie", which Goebbels did such amazing work with and has been expanded upon in modern media.

Whether what he wrote is correct or not is immaterial anymore. It's how it is said and how it is done, and he did it poorly.

Already, the media has attacked this piece, with some very limited justification. While it's likely most of us here at Maggie's agree (to whatever degree) with the premise, most people will not. Particularly those who went through the Holocaust.

Banging a drum and saying "But look - historically his view is 100% correct" will not get you many sympathizers. Mainly because modern media runs on emotion. Emotions on a topic like the Holocaust run high, in many different directions, and lead people to make outrageous and often incorrect (but emotionally acceptable) statements.

This is why it's best to avoid comparing most things, particularly items relating to wealth and inequality, to the Holocaust.

If you ask a person if the Holocaust could happen today in the US, they'd say no. If you asked them the day they started rounding up the Japanese and putting them in internment camps, they'd rationalize it somehow.

Democracy is good for many things, but one thing it excels at is using the media to spew emotionally driven points of view that avoid rational thought and skew facts in order to promote a rationalized definition of 'equality' and 'fairness'. Nevermind that both are defined poorly. The definition tugs at heartstrings, and that's all that matters.

Non-naturalized Japanese could (and should) have been expelled. Citizens, on the other hand, being interned would mean you are OK with limiting their Constitutional rights. And that is exactly what happened.

I was not making that comparison.

I was merely pointing out that the idea that denying Constitutional rights to anyone in the US is 'something that couldn't happen here' is clearly wrong. Rounding up people and putting them in camps, denying them basic human rights, is inhumane in its own right.

Yet it's merely the first step on a very short road to becoming a death camp situation, and ignoring this puts everyone in great peril when the time comes.

I disagree.
First of all, Germans and Italians who were interned never got any press, any apologies or any reparations. It was only the racial motivation, and substantially larger numbers of Japanese that led to any apologies.

Secondly, when neighbors start getting rounded up, it will not start openly. It will be slow and insidious. Hitler didn't start all that openly with his programs. Remember, it was the dim-witted and outcasts who were rounded up first. Few were going to argue with that. Meanwhile the campaign of hatred was begun against the other classes of people he sought to send away, allowing him to eventually create the 'reasons' he needed. When enough people decide 'the wealthy' are a problem, nobody will say anything.

Finally, it is a very short path from Manzanar to Treblinka. You may say the difference in magnitude makes it OK for cops to search a person on the street who merely LOOKS like a problem, insuring 'public safety'. I say how long before someone says "take that person downtown and lock him up for a while"? Because, you know, that's even safer and spending a few hours in lockup is no harm, no foul. It doesn't take much to move the boundary from something that seems 'tolerable' toward something that is intolerable. Mainly because what is 'tolerable' for 'public safety' is only tolerable for those who aren't impacted by it. For everyone else - innocent of any suspicion or not - it's intolerable. But hey, it's not as bad as being gassed, so get over it.

Sorry, I don't buy the order of magnitude argument. I prefer the imperfection of emergent order to the presumed (yet non-existent) order enforced by an all-knowing state which claims to derive its power from 'the people' and operates 'for their safety and best interests'.

While I am a supporter of the police and count some among my circle of friends, there are many who are just on a power trip and willing to just do as they are told.

These changes exist only because, at this point in time, there is a need for certain people to continue to win votes.

de Blasio, for example, would be unlikely to deploy anything which is even mildly counterproductive, image-wise, at this point in time. I'm hard pressed to believe, if he could, that he wouldn't. I firmly believe he would expel each and every person who disagrees with him.

That is not a situation which can, necessarily, last forever. It may not even last much longer. The current neutering of the police works in favor of guys like de Blasio today - but when he wants them to engage more violently, for his causes, I'm sure that won't bother him one bit.

I agree with you that the comparison to Kristallnacht is counterproductive - that was why I posted. On this point you and I agree.

I am not so naive to believe the NSA is just collecting data for fun and games, however. You collect data for a reason, and when politicians decide to implement those reasons, we all lose.

As long as it's the 'correct' political party asking for implementation of violent measures against the 'wrong type' of people, you can be sure the press will go along like panting dogs.

As a side note, I wasn't implying this author was utilizing the "Big Lie", but rather it would be, and is, being employed against him.

As for the Westhoughton Mill, I have no doubt there would be few people upset if he used this as the basis of his analogy. In reality, it's a better analogy. More importantly, I hardly think journalists know, or would take the time to find out, what it represented.

If you believe, in the world of ideas, Barnum's statement "there is no bad publicity" is true, then probably not.

However, it's my view that when presenting an idea, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

Just having people talk about this isn't what's important. How they discuss it is vitally important.

By making a bad analogy, all he reinforces are the ideas that "this can't happen here".

I never said I was skeptical of it - in fact, I expect it at some point, because it's the natural next step if it's not nipped in the bud.

I just don't think bad analogies based on misguided emotional appeals will work in the favor of the right.

There is an emotional appeal to be made - based on reason and basic human rights. The left claims to care about these things, and if they do, then it has an impact.