epic Godwin battle of the century

Damn!!

First, Bush violates all kinds of political norms in going off on Obama (well, his favorite "some people") during a speech to the Knesset for Israel's 60th anniversary.

Second, Democrats and tv journalists go nuts blowing his lame comments away. (Especially on the heels of yesterday's idiotic "I quit golf" lies.) Biden calls "bullshit" -- LITERALLY.

Third, some absolutely psychotic right-wing talk show host (Kevin James, apparently - no, not that one!) goes on Hardball to try and defend the comments and attack Obama. Pulls out all the appeasement b.s he's been trained to do... and Matthews asks a simple question: "What did Neville Chamberlain do?" Hilarity ensues.

Salon War Room's summary:

Matthews asked James a simple question: What exactly did Chamberlain do that was so wrong? (The following is a close paraphrase of the ensuing exchange.)

Well, he was an appeaser, James exclaimed.

Yeah, but what did he do?

He was an appeaser!

Kevin, what exactly did Chamberlain do?

He appeased!

Pretty much sums it up. The whole segment has to be seen to be believed. James was screaming and finger pointing from his first words. Matthews was bemused at first, then ripped him a new one. One of the more amazing takedowns of recent tv gabfests. Matthews absolutely destroyed him -- "if you don't know what appeasement is, don't talk about it!"

Definitely one to show the kids in class. How NOT to do historical analogies. You can't just throw out buzzwords, you have to define them with details.

Johns Adams fact and fiction

Writer of HBO's recent (and excellent) John Adams considers what parts of the historical record they changed, and why. (TNR: "One for the Books")

A screenwriter always seeks economy in storytelling. Of course I knew that there were two Boston Massacre trials, not one. But the audience would not have thanked us for devoting the whole of the first episode to an examination of courtroom procedure, with two separate verdicts rendered. The key dramatic points are Adams's decision to defend Captain Preston and his soldiers, and his success at exonerating them on the charge of murder. Both points are "factual." Has there been some manipulation involved in the dramatization? Absolutely. But the outcome of the proceedings has not been altered.

Other examples are more suspect. But the general point remains, and in any case it's an interesting thing to present to students as a thought piece on how to write and present history.