Ah yes, Democtacy in America. Those of you familiar with deTocqueville's narrative on the American political society would tend to understand where this comes from. Since about 4pm today, I have been intently reading Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's opinion on the Perry v. Schwartzenegger case. While may proponents can summarily extract that the plaintiffs were denied their fundamental protections of the US Constitution, I fear there is more unseen than seen.
Tonight's famed Yahoo! Political Theorists Dumb and Dumber theorized on the levels of voting meaning nothing. While voting DOES mean something, there are some eccentricies in the American Political System that tend to trump the one man, one vote card. Unless you're living under a rock, the electoral college and a constitutional convention can quite easily triumph over absurdity.
I have grave concerns over this ruling, not because it tends to favor something I believe to be a fundamental right, but more because I have deep concerns over the future it holds. This will simply not stand alone, it will be challenged in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, most likely being upheld in the longstanding most Liberal Appeals Court in the Nation. What concerns me, is the Roberts Court. While CJ Roberts tends to be much more moderate and soft spoken opposed to his more famously draconian counterparts J Scalia and J Thomas, I stand firm in my belief that this will eventually be overturned on a 5-4 majority by the Supreme Court.
Psuedo back on topic: deTocqueville looked at the tyanny of the masses, specifically in terms of population. We have long debated on the merits of one person, one vote; the rule of law and proportional representation. In essence, the United States been founded on championing the rights of teh little guy. From the time of our founding, in 1776, we were fighting as the little guy. We fought for emanicipation, we fought for womens suffrage, civil rights, the right to make the choices that affect ourselves. Americans have fought for these rights. Yet now, a theocratic and at times, ridiculous display against the fundamental right of marriage is seemingly for naught.
I welcome debate and commentary on this, as it seems to be the most effective outlet for understanding additional viewpoints. However, I will not tolerate religious or hate-filled/mongering responses. This is for educated people, discussing an educated thread. Leave the playground on the playground.
Cheers-
M
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Why was Hitler so power-hungry?
One of my co-workers has a very curious son, particularly relating the the Holocaust, Nazism and other WWII Related things. Knowing that I have a relatively worthless BA in History, she asked me if I would be willing to answer the questions that he has. Seeing as how, before tonight, I haven't updated in a while, and I'm bored, I'll answer one of his many questions here tonight, with more to follow.
Why was Hitler so power-hungry?
The first thing to consider, is Hitler himself. Austrian Born, with an immense sense of German Pride. You must remember that to many Europeans, pride for your ethnicity is much stronger than the pride for your country. Here, we are all Americans, sure there are sects of every ethnicity in the world here, but we tend to show our westernized American pride more than our ethnic pride. Hitler had served in the German Army during World War I, served valiantly, and was willing to fight on their behalf.
Hitler was not always the most conforming person in the world. After his failed Beer Hall Putsch, he was jailed, where while incarcerated, he wrote his acclaimed work "Mein Kampf", literally translated, "My Struggle". He highlighted the failures of the German state in the events leading up to, during and immediately following World War I. Particularly faced with massive amounts of restitution required by the opposing forces following WWI, the German State was nearly bankrupt. This led to colossal fears from the German people.
Hitler was able to capitalize on these fears and started to make a name for himself in the German Political realm, consistantly opposing the Weimar Government. Shortly after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, worldwide economic collapse ensued. Hitler, through his affable and charismatic speaking style, won the hearts of the German People. For a lot of reasons, that I won't get into, Hitler was able to assume power after the death of President von Hindenberg, and the rest, in theory, is well, history.
So, as for the original question, why was Hitler so power-hungry?
Hitler wanted to prepate a perfect German state. Aryans would dominate, this is generally accepted as a delisional schizophrenic dream, but it was Hitler's mission. He allowed his pride for the Germanic race to overcome reality. His pride was seriously damaged after the Treaty of Versailles, the repercussions of this treaty damaged the German state and its financial affairs. A man can heal from physical wounds, but once his pride is damaged, it becomes personal. Adolf Hitler personified this to the nth degree.
Power-hungry, perhaps, sociopathic, absolutely, neurotic, most definitely. Yet the rationality of this defies all logic. It can be summarized very simply; he was Hitler.
Why was Hitler so power-hungry?
The first thing to consider, is Hitler himself. Austrian Born, with an immense sense of German Pride. You must remember that to many Europeans, pride for your ethnicity is much stronger than the pride for your country. Here, we are all Americans, sure there are sects of every ethnicity in the world here, but we tend to show our westernized American pride more than our ethnic pride. Hitler had served in the German Army during World War I, served valiantly, and was willing to fight on their behalf.
Hitler was not always the most conforming person in the world. After his failed Beer Hall Putsch, he was jailed, where while incarcerated, he wrote his acclaimed work "Mein Kampf", literally translated, "My Struggle". He highlighted the failures of the German state in the events leading up to, during and immediately following World War I. Particularly faced with massive amounts of restitution required by the opposing forces following WWI, the German State was nearly bankrupt. This led to colossal fears from the German people.
Hitler was able to capitalize on these fears and started to make a name for himself in the German Political realm, consistantly opposing the Weimar Government. Shortly after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, worldwide economic collapse ensued. Hitler, through his affable and charismatic speaking style, won the hearts of the German People. For a lot of reasons, that I won't get into, Hitler was able to assume power after the death of President von Hindenberg, and the rest, in theory, is well, history.
So, as for the original question, why was Hitler so power-hungry?
Hitler wanted to prepate a perfect German state. Aryans would dominate, this is generally accepted as a delisional schizophrenic dream, but it was Hitler's mission. He allowed his pride for the Germanic race to overcome reality. His pride was seriously damaged after the Treaty of Versailles, the repercussions of this treaty damaged the German state and its financial affairs. A man can heal from physical wounds, but once his pride is damaged, it becomes personal. Adolf Hitler personified this to the nth degree.
Power-hungry, perhaps, sociopathic, absolutely, neurotic, most definitely. Yet the rationality of this defies all logic. It can be summarized very simply; he was Hitler.
DADT?
I've watched with some comical amusement over the last few weeks, and the media coverage of the Dont Ask Don't Tell Debate within the Pentagon, the Congress, and beyond.
This is a slightly irritating debate, as it becomes a theological/moral debate, laden with slur and innuendo. As barack Obama recently found out, its the extremists on both sides of the debate that seem to be the proverbial "sqeaky wheel".
Frankly (no correlation to Rep. Barney Frank, btw), who cares? The United States is the only superopower that doesn't allow gays and lesbians to openly serve. The Pentagon has been "studying" the issue for the past year, and has failed to come up with any foregone conclusions. Perhaps one of the most interesting things in this debate isn't being said.
Since the "War on Terror" began, we have had our men and women serving alongside teh British Troops, the Isreali troops, the Austrailians, and numerous other developed civilized nations. They have had gays and lesbians on the battlefield, on the front lines with our troops. Does the continental divide seem to ellicit rampant homophobio?
I've researched the issue, I've read the policy statements. I find this policy to be absolutely riduculous. If men and women are willing to fight to defend our country, and Constitution, are willing to lay down their lives for the protection of you and I, who cares what they do behind closed doors? We've had much worse come through the military (cough*Benedict Arnold*cough), how much worse could it get?
The debate needs to end, while the brass and the Capital Hill leeches debate the issue, they need to put their own prejudices away. This is a democracy, not a theocracy.
Viva le resistance!
Cheers-
Matt
This is a slightly irritating debate, as it becomes a theological/moral debate, laden with slur and innuendo. As barack Obama recently found out, its the extremists on both sides of the debate that seem to be the proverbial "sqeaky wheel".
Frankly (no correlation to Rep. Barney Frank, btw), who cares? The United States is the only superopower that doesn't allow gays and lesbians to openly serve. The Pentagon has been "studying" the issue for the past year, and has failed to come up with any foregone conclusions. Perhaps one of the most interesting things in this debate isn't being said.
Since the "War on Terror" began, we have had our men and women serving alongside teh British Troops, the Isreali troops, the Austrailians, and numerous other developed civilized nations. They have had gays and lesbians on the battlefield, on the front lines with our troops. Does the continental divide seem to ellicit rampant homophobio?
I've researched the issue, I've read the policy statements. I find this policy to be absolutely riduculous. If men and women are willing to fight to defend our country, and Constitution, are willing to lay down their lives for the protection of you and I, who cares what they do behind closed doors? We've had much worse come through the military (cough*Benedict Arnold*cough), how much worse could it get?
The debate needs to end, while the brass and the Capital Hill leeches debate the issue, they need to put their own prejudices away. This is a democracy, not a theocracy.
Viva le resistance!
Cheers-
Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)