SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tsigprofit who wrote (16846)5/10/2005 8:50:32 PM
From: Raymond Duray  Respond to of 20773
 
Robert Scheer: www.robertscheer.com

NATIONALISM'S PSYCHOTIC SIDE

Even decent people can be swept along by barbarism when a nation gets sick.

May 10, 2005 -- When I was a kid in the Bronx during World War II, my mother got me to eat my vegetables by playing a war game in which the spinach or the broccoli were the Germans -- the evil ones to be gobbled up. The tastier items on the plate were labeled Americans, British and Russians -- the good guys. Even now, on the 60th anniversary of Germany's defeat, I experience a twinge of anxiety over my mother's mealtime allocation of ethnic virtue.

The problem was that my father was a German-born Protestant farm boy who had come to the United States as a teenager and spoke English with a pronounced accent. My Jewish mother, who was 19 when she fled the Soviet Union soon after the Bolshevik Revolution, earnestly assured me that my kindhearted father was not one of the bad Germans. Nor was his brother, who took me fishing quite often.

Out on the pier, the fishermen were a typical sample of New York City's ethnic stew, and German and Jewish Americans mingled quite happily. One of my assignments was to search out the men keeping kosher to see if they would keep their "junk fish" for me -- especially the scaleless eels my uncle liked so much.

Despite the terrible backdrop of the war, ethnic tension on the pier and back in our neighborhoods was not particularly pronounced. This followed the national pattern. German Americans at the time constituted the largest immigrant group in the U.S., firmly assimilated into the dominant culture. The patriotism of relatively few German or Italian Americans was questioned. Meanwhile, the Japanese Americans of the West Coast were being rounded up and shipped off to grim desert internment camps while I was being indoctrinated by comic books to see the Japanese as bucktoothed savages.

But there wasn't much time to think about all this because U.S. involvement in the war was quite short. Forgotten in President Bush's legitimate criticism of postwar Soviet behavior last week was our own nation's reluctance to enter the war while Hitler's armies conquered France and marched deep into the Soviet Union.

It seemed to me as a child that no sooner had the dead been memorialized by the gold stars placed in the windows by grieving mothers than the war was over -- and, seemingly overnight, the Russians and Germans reversed their good-guy, bad-guy roles in the tabloids.

In the six decades since, I have visited Europe a dozen times trying to figure out why my father's relatives went along with killing the relatives of my mother, and am most often drawn back to Hannah Arendt's defining phrase, "the banality of evil."

Sadly, if not unsurprisingly, I could find no trace of my mother's family left in Lithuania or Russia; whether any survived Hitler, the war and Stalin, I'll probably never know. In my father's hometown in southwestern Germany, life goes on as if uninterrupted, however, and one day I managed to find and surprise another uncle, who had only heard of me as the half-Jewish son of his brother, yet welcomed me warmly.

It was hard, though, while eating the Scheer family's dumplings, to connect the dots between Auschwitz and these pleasant, normal people. When I asked if the Nazis had been strong in the area, my uncle just shrugged. "You were either Red or Brown, and we were not Red," he said.

Even the Protestant church where my father was baptized has been led by a minister who wore a Nazi uniform. My aunt and uncle's wedding certificate was bound into a hardback copy of Hitler's "Mein Kampf," signed by the village mayor.

I believe that my German uncle, the spitting image of my American father, was a decent man who, like the new pope who once joined the Hitler Youth, was swept along by events far beyond his control. He recalled that as a teenager, Hitler was a distant voice on the radio promising to return order and prosperity to a depressed country. Little did he know that the highway built near the town in the '30s, eagerly welcomed for creating local jobs, was intended to carry tanks to conquer Paris, or that the coming war would leave him near death on the Russian front.

After the war, my late father never visited Germany. He couldn't get over the shock that his "landsmen," whom he had respected as the best-educated and most industrially proficient people in the world, had descended to the lowest level of primitive barbarism yet recorded in human history.

What disgraced the German people indelibly was nationalism gone mad, and against that rapacious force the high standards of civilization offered scant protection.



To: tsigprofit who wrote (16846)5/10/2005 11:33:22 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 20773
 
Sorry, that was not a good example. The Fortas' confirmation
is an inappropriate comparison. Here's why.

Disingenuous and unserious

Power Line

The Washington Post delivers a characteristically disingenuous editorial on "ending the Senate impasse." The Post's thesis is that the Republicans are trying to engineer a one-sided solution to the confirmation stalemate that ignores the fact that they blocked some Clinton nominees through means other than the filibuster. But the Post fails to acknowledge that the Republicans have offered a compromise that would put an end to all methods of obstructing an up-or-down vote, not just the filibuster. The Post also fails to acknowledge that, although the Republicans had a majority in the Senate for most of the Clinton presidency, the Senate confirmed a higher percentage of Clinton's court of appeals nominees than it has Bush nominees.

The Post's disingenuousness doesn't stop there. It refers to the good old days when both Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg easily were confirmed. But Scalia's confirmation was not the rule with respect to the way Democrats dealt with conservative nominees to the Supreme Court The Democrats refused to confirm two Nixon nominees (Haynsworth and Carswell) and one Reagan appointee (Bork). And the dominant liberal wing of the party fought tooth and nail (actually dirtier than that) against Justice Thomas. Meanwhile, the Republicans voted pretty much without a murmur for every liberal Supreme Court nominee (some of whom their presidents nominated). Democrats like to cite the fate of Lyndon Johnson crony Abe Fortas. But despite his liberlism, Fortas became a Justice with no difficulty. It was only after clear evidence of impropriety on his part came to light that Republicans balked at Fortas' elevation to Chief Justice. Shortly thereafter, Fortas resigned from the Court, and his old law firm (in which he had been a name partner) wouldn't take him back.

The Post ignores all of this history.
It knows the Democrats have led the way in scorched earth confirmation tactics, but wants to insist that the Republicans are just as bad. Thus, we read that "Mr. Bush shares a good deal of culpability for the present impasse." Why? The Post doesn't say. Bush has nominated a mixture of conservative and moderate candidates, reflecting where he stands politically, and insisted that they be voted upon. This is what all presidents do, and what they should do.

The Post waits until the end of the editorial to unveil its solution. If the rules are to be reformed, the reform shouldn't become effective until January 2009. This way, the Democrats will have a chance to regain power before a new Supreme Court Justice is confirmed (unless Bush nominates someone the Democrats like). And this way, the minority party similarly will have the power to veto President Bush's appellate nominees for essentially his entire second term. The Post can't be serious.

powerlineblog.com

washingtonpost.com



To: tsigprofit who wrote (16846)5/11/2005 8:19:05 AM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20773
 
At least I got him to state that what he really objects to is Senate Democrats obstructionism. The filibuster rule as a Constitutional matter is a red herring.

jttmab