I beg to differ. It's VERY worthy of a "rationalist's" time and consideration. It's about the suppression of free speech. Please show where the ARTICLE is "Bush-bashing." The article and the show both do NOT say that "Bush = Hitler," but that the social conditions in the US now are very similar to those in Germany during Hitler's rise, when fear led people to give up their rights with little protest. Those who did (or now do) object to the erosion of personal rights were/are labeled as "subversive" and "unpatriotic." It would seem that "rationalists" (whatever that means; some equate that term with "atheists," others with "Randians," others with something else), even more than most, should be screaming loudly about the loss of freedom we are experiencing. For example, what are our Libertarian (or libertarian) friends, who say that they value personal freedom, saying and doing while the federal government's power over us is increasing dramatically? Are they being "bought off" by the promise of tax cuts?

I have noted that some of the folks screaming so loudly about "respecting" the President and decrying "Bush-bashing" were leading the "Clinton-bashing" only a few years ago. That would seem to say that it's OK for one to disrespect/"bash" someone one doesn't agree with, but not for someone else to "bash" someone one agrees with. That's neither rational nor democratic. It is, however, the attitude of the current administration (and some others before it, of course). I found it extremely disturbing when Dick Cheney, who avoided service in Vietnam because, in his own words, it was "inconvenient," called those who opposed the war "unpatriotic." Excuse me? What about Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO? Senator John Kerrey, who has two purple hearts from Vietnam? (Don't give me a list of retired generals who supported the war; it's not a pissing contest. The point is that Cheney & Rumsfeld by inference called these people and thousands like them "unpatriotic," which is a bald-faced lie.) It was an insult and grave injustice to friends who risked their lives in Vietnam, Bosnia, or the Gulf War but who opposed this war. I also found it personally insulting, since I opposed the war. (See the signature.)

A few relevant quotes, vis-a-vis the article Jer referenced--see if you can guess (or know) who said or wrote these:

1. "It is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history. It matters little who wins. To make a people great it is necessary to send them to battle even if you have to kick them in the pants. That is what I shall do."

2. "Are wars . . . anything but the means whereby a nation is nourished, whereby it is strengthened, whereby it is buttressed?"

3. "The art of leadership . . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."

4. "I don't believe that the big men, the politicians and the capitalists alone are guilty of the war. Oh, no, the little man is just as keen, otherwise the people of the world would have risen in revolt long ago!  There is an urge and rage in people to destroy, to kill, to murder, and until all mankind, without exception, undergoes a great change, wars will be waged, everything that has been built up, cultivated and grown, will be destroyed and disfigured, after which mankind will have to begin all over again."

[Anon 2], Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (Retired)