“But why?” you ask. “We thought we didn’t have to put up with that guy complaining at us in a rather disorganized and irregular fashion!”

The answer to that is that one of my favorite subjects has come to the fore. Kind of. Well, in a manner of speaking. One which results in a statement wherein I would have had to use too many line breaks to follow my usual pattern, and it would have just looked even more ridiculous than normal.

The point of the matter is, people are comparing people to Hitler.

Note that I am not comparing people to Hitler here. Why? Because of a little something known as Godwin’s Law:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

So… that actually means nothing in this context.

But! The more important bit is… that actually, this is going to get out of hand if I do it the way I had intended. So! Let’s just go with the Godwin’s Law FAQ:

	o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
	  wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
	  insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
	o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
	  was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
	  the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
	o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
	  going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
	  a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
	  other side.

Note, though, Quirk’s Exception, which states that “Intentional invocation of this so-called “Nazi Clause” is ineffectual.” Note also that Godwin’s Law does not apply to topics wherein Facism or 1930s/1940s Germany is a legitimate topic of discussion.

So, now that you’ve received a thorough grounding on Godwin’s Law and the correct usage of Nazis in arguments, lets move on to why I’m bringing this up now.  I would like to refer you to a quote by one Robert Gibbs, here (last paragraph):

You hear — in this debate you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning. And you hear it all the time. People — imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler.

And the guy’s right. There has been a distressing trend recently to compare Obama not just to Hitler, but also the Joker and Mao. Seriously, Republicans? You guys should be smarter than that. Come on, people. Way to lose the health care debate, the debate over bigger government, and just about everything else. Seriously.

Well, wait. Didn’t the Democrats lose this as well? I mean, didn’t Alan Grayson, a Democratic congressman, compare the current U.S. healthcare situation to the Holocaust? (By which I mean “he did.”)

So… the Democrats lose as well. Everyone loses! (Except, you know, Ron Paul and Nader. But that’s beside the point).

But wait! you cry. Gibbs wasn’t referring to that. He was obviously referring to the lack of Democratic supports walking around with posters five years ago, as he clearly said, not to Democrats using other mediums to compare Republicans to Hitler and/or the Nazis as a whole.

Well, that does resemble a point. Except that you don’t really have to imagine it, because it happened. Just one list of examples can be found here.

So, here’s the question: What game is Gibbs playing? The guy can’t have been foolish enough to have not, you know, GISed “Bush + Hitler” before making a remark like that, claiming that only Republicans lost due to Godwin’s Law. I mean, he’s the Press Secretary, for crying out loud. It took me all of 2 seconds to find some nice images of Bush compared to/dressed up as Hitler, and I don’t even get paid for this! I mean, there’s no way. Right?

But if he did just make an honest mistake, well, we can’t really blame him for not taking 10 seconds (hey, maybe he’s a slow typer or has bad internet) out of his busy day, now can we? After all, shouldn’t the media have been decrying such posters back during the Bush years as well as recently? Honestly, people.

Before you go, I would like to leave you with some advice for the next time you find yourself in a heated debate, and can come up with no better response than to play the Hitler Card (and yes, I know there’s a lot of links as opposed to me simply complaining about things. Deal with it.):

RULE 1: Nothing is like the Nazis.

Seriously. Those people who don’t agree with your ‘ship? They are not like the Nazis. Those people who don’t agree with your politics? That mod who banned you? That person who corrected the spelling in your fanfic? None of them are even remotely like the Nazis in any way, shape, or form. Nothing is like the Nazis. Even those guys who hang out at the mall in black leather with shaved heads and swastika bling are not like the Nazis – they’re only trying to be because they think it makes them rebels, when in fact it merely makes them badly-dressed idiots who will never get laid because if they ever took their clothes off in front of another human being they would find themselves in the incredibly unenviable position of having to convince that other human being that their tattoos are ‘just kidding’.

Should you find yourself tempted to compare somebody to the Nazis, follow these steps:

1) Stop typing.

2) Log off and shut down your computer.

3) Visit the nearest bookshop or library. Get yourself a nice cup of coffee and find a book on the Holocaust. Read the book from cover to cover.

4) Spend 24 hours thinking about what was in the book.

5) Get back online and re-read the post that made you angry.

6) If you still feel like comparing something to the Nazis, repeat from step one.

7) Once you have gained some perspective, then and only then may you post your reply.

Of course, any post on people referring to other people as Hitler wouldn’t be complete without a nice bit of hypocrisy which I’m not even clever enough to come up with on my own:

You wanna know who else used laws to stop debates? HITLER!

Enjoy the completely off-topic and irrelevant time sink, everyone!

And there you have it.

Looks like I owe some people apologies here, from my earlier post about Obama’s speech to the nation’s schoolkids.  And by “some people” I mean “Ms. Malkin and Mr. Beck.“  Because turnabout is fair play.

Now, that being said…

Do I, personally, believe that there’s a problem with the president addressing schoolchildren?  No.  Not at all.  In fact, I’d even go so far as to recommend it.  Have the president send out a message to kids in school annually, as a kind of variation on the “State of the Union” address.  By which I of course mean “not really a variation, since it’s an entirely different purpose,” but you get the point.

Again, though, I’d like to salute Mr. Varadarajan.  I’m sure that the ma n was just as outspoken about the Democratic response to Bush’s speech to schoolchildren.  I’m sure that he issued an open challenge for pistols at dawn then as well.  So well done, sir, for sticking to your principles!  The world needs more people like you around, rather than those with selective memories who blind themselves to the darker actions of those they support.

And there you have it.

Thank you for all the emails and letters of support to the Central Park Conservancy. The missives really helped and we so appreciate them. Several positive steps have been taken as a result of our arrest: 1. The Conservancy removed the “quiet zone” signs. 2. The performers in the tunnel have put aside their differences and come together to create a schedule. 3. The Conservancy has set up a meeting to talk to all of us.
During our court date on August 27th, our lawyer tried to get all charges dismissed, but the judge (a snarky lawyer in disguise) would not listen, so our lawyer asked that the case be heard by a real judge. The new court date is September 21st.

Let’s hope that all goes well, and this “real judge” gives them a fair time.

And there you have it.

For today:

It’s rare when I target someone personally.  I mean, it’s just not the thing to do.  It distracts from the issue at hand.  Sure, refuting a specific argument is fine.  But going after someone personally?  It just isn’t done.  By me, at least.  Except when it is.

Today’s target:  Tunku Varadarajan.

Why?  Because the following passage caught my attention:

“If anyone thinks that’s unpalatable, subversive, Commie and un-American, I’d like to meet for a duel at dawn by the skating rink at New York’s Central Park. (Pick your weapon, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck …)”

Now, what he’s referring to is Obama’s address to the nation’s schoolchildren.  Which, I’ll have you know, I do not feel is a bad thing.  The man’s a speaking president, as it were.  Giving inspiring speeches is what he does.  There’s no reason why he shouldn’t be turning that talent to inspire kids to work hard in school.  Certain parties (i.e. Malkin and Beck) seem to take issue with this.  Why?  Because of a bit in some letters sent out to teachers where kids are supposed to think about questions like “What is the president trying to tell me?” and “What is the president asking me to do?”  They seem to have construed this as some sort of attempt by Obama to get kids to lobby on his behalf.  But I have some advice for them:

“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

Granted, they might not appreciate that sentiment, as JFK was a Democrat, but still.  It’s a good saying.

So.  Given that I seem to be agreeing with Mr. Varadarajan, some people might wonder why I’m upset with him.  Go back and reread the bit of his editorial I quoted.  I’ll wait.

Can you see the part I take issue with?

I highly doubt the guy would actually show up for a duel if someone took him up on the offer.  Unlike, say, Hal Siegal (aka Therion), who I fully believe would fulfill his offer of settling lawsuits against him via Trial By Combat should someone feel the burning desire to take him up on it.  (Also Saxton Hale, but as he’s fictional, he doesn’t count for the purposes of this discussion).

My point is this:  Don’t offer to duel people if you don’t intend to step up to the plate if they want to pitch.  Which is a terrible, terrible metaphor gone wrong, but still.

Also, don’t forget that dueling is illegal in the US!  That’s right, it’s against the law!  Now you know!  And knowing is half the battle!  And the other half is comprised of excessive exclamation points, obscure references, and incomplete sentences, apparently!

Oh, one more this about his column before I go.  This bit here…

“Call me naïve, but I believe that Americans ought to accord their president a formal, ex officio respect, irrespective of party affiliation. He is, after all, the president of all of us (whether we like him or not), and it is unseemly that we should withhold civility from him on grounds of political disagreement.”

Now, since this is the first time I’ve ever seen this guy’s column, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I’m going to assume that he was equally upset when all those democrats were hating on Bush a few years ago.  So well done, Mr. Varadarajan!  You are truly a paragon of sincerity, and the front line in the ongoing fight against hypocrisy.

And there you have it.

I’d like to leave you with a thought, however, by mentioning an editorial I saw recently, which stated

“FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) is about choice for all.  The anti-FOCA contingent as about choice only for themselves.”

So I’m curious… “Choice for all.”  Does that include the unborn child?

And there you have it.

My apologies.

There’s been an update.  Gothamist reports that they’ve gotten a response from the Parks Department:

“There are many spaces in Central Park where unamplified music may be played without a permit. However, the Bethesda Terrace area has been designated a ‘quiet zone’ for many years. The Parks Department routinely asks musicians and performers to move from Bethesda to other areas of the park such as the Bandshell and Dead Road.
On Sunday afternoon, many performers were playing at Bethesda at the same time creating a great deal of noise as well as crowd congestion. Parks asked all of them to relocate, which they all did, except for two individuals who refused to move. Those individuals were arrested by Parks Enforcement Patrol and taken to the Central Park Precinct where they were issued summonses and released.”

Okay, I suppose that seems… legitimate enough.  I mean, the place where Thoth was Prayforming had been a ‘quiet zone’ for quite a while, right?  I mean, I’m not sure of exactly how long the guy’s been there, but he can’t have started too much earlier than 2002, when the Academy-Award winning documentary about him was made, so I’m sure that the Parks Department has been trying to get this guy to stop so the area gets all quiet again ever since.  They’ve just been stymied by red tape and all the other stuff in New York for them to worry about.

Oh wait.  Central Park advertises Thoth as an attraction at the park.  To quote the important bit:

“It [Bethesda Terrace, where Thoth Prayforms] has also brilliantly fulfilled the designer’s purpose in becoming Central Park premiere spot for crowd watching. Another aspect, perhaps unforeseen by Olmsted and Vaux is the Terrace’s role as center stage to a wide variety of artists. The most famous of these is Thoth, one of New York City’s most talented and celebrated street performers and subject of the 2002 Academy Award winning film of the same name.”

Wait, what?  I don’t even know how this is supposed to work.  How can you claim that someone is an “attraction,” as it were, specifically due to their abilities as a musician, and then claim that they aren’t allowed to be where you say they are because they’re making music?

Doesn’t this just send a great message?  “Hey, people!  Come to Central Park and watch talented artsist perform!  If you get lucky, you’ll even get to watch someone be arrested!  What fun!  Exclamation points for everyone!”

Sorry, Parks Department.  I’m not buying your explanation.

Incidentally, in case you wish to bring this up with someone, Thoth recommends writing to AColletti@centralparknyc.org.

And there you have it.

What.

Now, as near as I can tell, the reason Thoth (and Pink Angel, his fellow Prayformer) were arrested was because they didn’t have a permit.  City of New York Parks and Recreation Rules and Regulations section 1-05  d.4  states that “No person shall play or operate any musical instrument or drum or cause any noise for advertising or commercial purposes except under the express terms of a permit.”  All right, fair enough.  It seems to me that it would be a bit of a pain to get one, though, given that the section of the official NYC P&R website with the permit forms on it has no information whatsoever regarding permits for playing music.  No cost of permit, no form to fill out, no one to contact regarding the matter, nothing.  I don’t even know where I’d begin to go about getting a permit… and when you combine that with standard beaurocratic efficiency… well, it doesn’t exactly seem like getting a permit is a walk in the park, so to speak.

Of course, there’s also the fact that Thoth’s been prayforming there for how many years without being arrested?  It sort of makes one wonder why the police all of a sudden decided that arresting him was warranted.

On the bright side, I suppose this means that the crime rate in NYC is down to almost nothing, given that the police have nothing better to do with their time than arrest street musicians, right?  Right?

I’m also curious as to where certain freedoms,  particularly speech and religion, come into play, given that Thoth “prayforms.”  I mean, freedom of speech would be involved regardless, but in Thoth’s case… yeah.

I have to admire Thoth’s spirit, though.  Even being handcuffed and led away by the police, it seems, couldn’t stop him from singing.  Nor could they stop the crowd from booing the arrest, and cheering his defiance.  Man, I wish I had that kind of inner strength.

And there you have it.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:  Michael Jackson.  Since, I mean, it’s not like the news has been absolutely plastered with rubbish about him ever sincec he died.  Someone needs to make up for that gulf, right?

Right?

Give me a break.

Now, I’m not going to say that Jackson wasn’t good.  I mean, I never actually heard one of his songs in its entirety, being far more familiar with the Weird Al versions, and my knowledge of the “Thriller” dance comes only through others’ imitations of it, but that’s besides the point.  My musical tastes are, after all, eccentric at best.

But this is just ridiculous.

That’s right, a Congressional resolution for the purpose of “Honoring an American legend and musical icon.”

So I decided to read the thing.  I figured that I might as well educate myself as to what exactly this thing meant.  As far as I can tell, the answer to that question is “absolutely nothing.”

First, I understand that Congress has its own special method of saying things, but the sheer number of times the word “whereas” is used in this thing… after a while, it just starts to look funny, like it isn’t even an actual word anymore.  Or maybe that’s ust me.

Second, did they really need to list everything the guy ever did in the name of being a nice guy and/or making music?  And why didn’t they list any of the things which might tarnish his character somewhat?  You know, something along the lines of “In spite of his dangling his child from a balcony;”  It would also have the added bonus of breaking up the barrage of “whereases.”  Yes, I know that’s not an actual word.  Deal with it.

Third:  there’s no actual point to the thing!  The end result is that the House of Representatives

(1) recognizes Michael Jackson as a global humanitarian and a noted leader in the fight against worldwide hunger and medical crises; and (2) celebrates Michael Jackson as an accomplished contributor to the worlds of arts and entertainment, scientific advances in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and global food security.

That’s correct.  They “recognize” him as a humanitarian.  Hey, I recognize that donating money to charity is a good thing as well, but I don’t seem to feel the need to write out a resolution officially stating such.  They also “celebrate” him for his contributions to various things.  What, like a party or something?  Is Congress going to throw a wake for Michael Jackson?  Maybe with some punch and ice cream?  And can they afford to throw such a party in the midst of this recession?

Oh, there’s one additional thing about this which makes it difficult to take the bill seriously.  If you noticed, the bill was “Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.”  So I’m curious.  Was Jackson not a U.S. citizen?  Or is there some other good reason why the committee which also is discussing resolutions about Tiananmen Square and FYROM is dealing with a resolution on Michael Jackson?

You’d think they’d have better things to do with their time.

And there you have it.

That being said, I feel that this needs to be posted anyway.  Worth a re-read, or being read for the first time if you never actually went through the whole thing.

I always find it interesting… if America hadn’t won the American Revolutionary War, this document would likely no longer exist today, and the men who wrote it would be considered the worst traitors since Benedict Arnold.  Actually, seeing as how that war was the one during which he switched sides, he would have come off as a great man who realised the error of his ways.  Perhaps “George Washington” would have become the popular term for a traitor.

Of course, this is assuming a complete lack of any Butterfly Effect from American never existing.  Perhaps I’ll try and chart that out some other time… by which I of course mean that I’ll never be able to do it properly, so I might go over it in some insultingly basic fashion.

But I digress.

So without further ado, the American Declaration of Indepenence.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

———————-

Hope all you Americans out there had a happy Independence Day, and for all the rest of you… well, I hope you just plain had a nice day.

And there you have it.