Awhile ago I queried what it must be like for a Nazi survivor or a survivor’s relative to witness the belittling of Nazi autrocities with ignorant invocations of Hitler. Victor Davis Hanson just wrote a masterful piece about the causes and effects of comparing Bush to Hitler. I suggest you read it all. After delving into the reasons for the onslought of recent Bush/Hitler comparisons, VDH discusses the effects:

Is there a danger to all this? Plenty. The slander not only brings a president down to the level of an evil murderer, but — as worried Jewish leaders have pointed out — elevates the architect of genocide to the level of an American president. Do the ghosts of six million that were incinerated — or, for that matter, the tens of millions who were killed to promote or stop Hitler’s madness — count for so little that they can be so promiscuously induced when one wishes to object to stopping the filibuster of senatorial nominations or to ignore the objection of Europeans in removing the fascistic Saddam Hussein?

There is something profoundly immoral for a latte-sipping, upscale Westerner of the postmodern age flippantly evoking Hitler when we think of the countless souls lost to the historical record who were systematically starved and gassed in the factories of death of the Third Reich.

VDH concludes his article with the following point:

The final irony? The president who is most slandered as Hitler will probably prove to be the most zealous advocate of democratic government abroad, the staunchest friend of beleaguered Israel, and the greatest promoter of global individual freedom in our recent memory.

Once there has been sufficient time to allow the opportunistic political winds of passion to die down history will indeed judge Bush as one of the greatest promoters of democracy known to man. Until then, expect his opponents to compare him to the worst humanity has to offer.

UPDATE: Betsy has some thoughts on this too.

Find a video of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated, or an American convoy being blown up, or of Micheal Jackson simply walking out of a courtroom and it will get constant media play. Yet here we are at the apex of a furious societal debate about whether to starve a woman to death based on the assumption that she is a vegetable and videos surface showing this purported vegetable laughing, smiling, or otherwise responding positively to loved ones, and there’s complete silence from old media. Isn’t this “news”? I was shocked when I first saw them, as was my wife, as undoubtedly anyone else would be. They are shockingly revealing, and yet the media choses not to show them. Why?

Is it because those advocating that Terri Schiavo should live are being grouped in with “right wing” pro- lifers? Is the message being lost on the messengers as was the case with the Swift Vets? Is old media so blinded by their left leaning bias that they refuse to show obvious evidence of life in somone that is presumed to be dead?

Andrew McCarthy has an excellent analysis which puts into perspective the lack of rights being afforded to Terri Schiavo in comparison to convicted murderers and terrorists. (I can’t stress this enough, it is a must read). Sadly we don’t have to restrict ourselves to the human species in comparing the treatment afforded to Schiavo.

Consider this: it is likely that the issue of whether lobsters experience pain has undergone greater scientific/medical scrutiny than Terri Schiavo’s vegetative state. A court has decided to put a woman to death and the most basic of neural analysis, an MRI scan, has not even been performed. What a sad commentary on our society that this comparison has any validity whatsoever. What complete moral bankruptcy that we show such concern over the infinitesimal possibility that a crustacean may have some feelings yet we put a woman to death on the assumption that she has none.

UPDATE:
Do Vegetables Laugh? – One look at this video of Terri Schiavo responding to a loved one with laughter should be evidence enough that she is not a vegetable. Forget all of the affidavits, reports, analysis and opinions and see for yourself. Medicine uses the term “vegetable” quite literally when describing someone as brain dead. While they are technically living, their brain no longer functions, and so they are literally considered to be plantlike. Except that vegetables don’t laugh.

Lots more videos over at Blogsfor Terri.

UPDATE II: Jeff Jarvis did a piece on blogs on the Terri Schiavo issue on MSNBC, which included a brief piece on our blog Musing Minds. The full quote cited by Jeff Jarvis is here. The video clip can be seen at The Political Teen. (Double hat tip to Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit)

UPDATE III: Jeff Jarvis linked to us here.

An article by Rev. Robert Johansen at NRO is a must read (hat tip PoliPundit). It is filled with a number of startling revelations. In addition to the apparent evidence of neglect, what I find absolutely astounding is that Terri Schiavo has never received a proper diagnosis, and in particular she has never had an MRI scan. I had bad head aches for awhile and my doctor ordered one. It’s standard. Yet life and death decisions are being made in the absence of such basic diagnostic techniques. Why, you may ask? Because Michael Schiavo has refused to consent to one.

What is the standard of proof required to ends someone’s life? What should it be? In the criminal context it’s “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That standard is based on the premise that it’s better to let ten guilty men go free, than put one innocent man in jail. Yet in this instance, what is “better” than keeping Terri Schiavo alive? What is the weighty factor that sits opposite life on the scale of justice? What is the harm in keeping her alive?

We’re hearing a lot of inflammatory rhetoric from the Democrats on the filibuster issue. With all the talk of abusing the “checks and balances” and one party “seizing power”, when it comes down to it the filibuster is an inherently undemocratic process. Here it is in a nutshell:

The objective: stop a vote from taking place.
The means: endless debate.
The motive: the minority does not want the majority’s will to be enacted.

Doesn’t sound very democratic does it? No wonder the Dems are going on wild tangential rants. It’s in their best interest to keep the debate as far away from the basic facts as possible.

Also check out Hugh Hewitt and Captain Ed, both have good stuff on this issue.

Reuters reports that a study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is affiliated with Columbia’s School of Journalism, shows that there were three times as many negative stories about Bush than about Kerry. Hat tip: Powerline

This also just in: The Center for the Attainment of Moderate Temperatures in Hell just concluded a study which shows that most people would prefer to avoid eternal damnation after death.

China is increasing the saber rattling and tensions in the region are rising. The U.K.’s Independent reports the following:

China’s new “anti-secession” law authorising the use of force against Taiwan has sent ripples of alarm throughout the region and beyond, drawing a stern reaction from the US, and casting new uncertainty on European plans to resume arms sales to Beijing.

That there is still “uncertainty” at this point speaks volumes about the value of U.S. “alliances” with Europe. As we’ve learned from the Cold War, arms don’t necessarily have to be used to have a real effect on an adversary. Of course there’s also the possibility that arms sold to China may actually end up being used against the U.S. Without going into the technicalities of specific treaties, selling arms to your enemy doesn’t sound like something an ally would do. Actually, it sounds more like something an enemy would do.

Bush took a bit of a gamble in softening his stance by agreeing to give Iran incentives to drop its nuclear ambitions. Iran’s response was to yank the olive branch out of Bush’s hands and snap it in two before our eyes. We have definitely arrived at a turning point. Iran not only rejected the offer, but essentially dared the U.S. to respond with force. If Bush backs down, it will send a signal that the U.S. expended all of its willingness to use force in Iraq. Rather than representing U.S. resolve in the region, the Iraq war will be considered the battle that sapped the will out of the mighty U.S. Bush must get tough with Iran now.

Gallup came out with a poll which shows that political blogs are still far from the mainstream. Powerline looks at the bright side saying we still have room to grow. I agree, but I also think that the numbers belie the impact of political blogs. First, the poll is a sample of the general population and not of likely voters or people who are otherwise politically active. The poll also fails to account for the importance of blogs with respect to opinion leaders.

We know that just over half the population actually votes in national elections. As for the rest, they’re not in the game, so they don’t really matter. Given that those who visit political blogs are inherently more politically interested, its not a stretch to say that among “likely voters” or those who are “politically active” the number of people who read political blogs is going to be significantly higher than with the general population. While news from old media often falls on deaf ears, political blogs invariably engage a willing participant.

Perhaps more importantly is the impact of blogs on opinion leaders. We have opinion leaders for all aspects of our society, including politics. Not necessarily occupying a formal position of power, the opinion leader is any member of a group that the others trust to inform or otherwise lead. She’s the woman at the party who seems to know what she’s talking about. He’s the guy at the water cooler who has a good grasp of the facts on a particular issue. Others in the group, who are less willing or able to inform themselves, but nevertheless wish to participate, take the lead from their opinion leader. This doesn’t mean that others will blindly follow, but on average, they will have an effect.

The blogosphere is far better suited to the opinion leader than old media. Rather than being told what the “news” is in short clips or wire releases, one can enter the vast array of knowledge and opinions of the blogosphere and determine for oneself what information and viewpoints are relevant. In addition to attracting opinion leaders, the blogosphere also likely creates opinion leaders – willing leaders who were previously uninformed and thus practically unable to lead, now have far more information at their disposal.

Old media may still have a lot of readers, but political blogs have a lot of the readers that matter most.

Mypetjawa (the Jawa Report) is still on top of the Sgrena story. Apparently she’s still being questioned by Italian police. That may or may not indicate that they are looking at her as a suspect. But they should be looking at her. If her statements to the Italian police are like the statements she’s made to the press, it’s likely she’s lied to authorities. That’s not good.

Recall that Martha Stewart didn’t go to the big house (ok it was more like a nice Cape Cod with a wrap-around porch) for insider trading. She was convicted of lying to authorities in the course of an insider trading investigation. Of course Martha was an evil business person not an innocent communist propagandist.