A point that people criticizing this book keep missing is that it's not just historians who have put Hitler on the right side of the political spectrum. Contemporaries of the Third Reich, journalists, diarists, letter writers, etc. referred to the Nazis as right wingers. Time Magazine, which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered liberal, referred to the Nazis as right wingers. Heck, even travel books at that time referred to the Nazis as being on the right rather than the left. What Goldberg and other revisionists are trying to accomplish is a massive redefinition of "right wing" and "liberal" that defies, not just all those dastardly "leftist" historians, but most living observers at the time of Hitler's rise and fall.

Language matters. The meaning of words matter. This book was not written in a vacuum. It is part of a push by the right to affect the way a new generation perceives the Third Reich and the lessons we supposedly learned from it. Loftily ignoring people like Goldberg, allowing their lies to go unanswered does not diminish their credibility. On the contrary, it allows them to mainstream a self-serving revisionist history.

is "Christian Reconstructionism."

just how nasty, clueless and potentially dangerous misogyny can be, the letters in this thread from "anonymous" provide a dandy example.

in a movie before?

How many movies HAVE you seen?

that has been raging here in California ever since I moved here back in the '80s. It's the struggle between people who embrace and kiss casual acquaintances and those of us who don't.

There's an unpleasant evangelical streak running through some of the letters here in which the writer's desire for physical privacy in Yoga is treated as if it were pathological. It reminds me of the Born Again Christians I left behind in the south who manifest their intolerance by laving us nonChristians with melting pity and concern over our unredeemed state.

wearing the C*** T-shirt in the ad has most of her face hidden. Bet that's the only way they could get her to wear the damned thing. And what we can see of her mouth ain't smilin'.

I'll try to explain this as simply and gently as possible.

No, a pet is not a child. But it's not an appliance or a toy either. When you adopt an animal, it is for that animal's natural life. You are accepting responsibility for its well being. This is a serious matter, and can involve a certain amount of expense -- healthy food, regular checkups, treatment and medication if the animal becomes sick or injured. I'm appalled at the writer comparing saving a presumably "beloved" pet's life with buying ridiculously expensive luxuries like doggie sweaters. That complaint about "luxurification" leaves the impression that the writer is less anguished about the painful decisions pet owners sometimes have to make than preoccupied with the notion that it's somehow undignified to shell out four figures for a cat's lifesaving medical care. Her notion that there's something amusing rather than touching about someone paying thousands of dollars for a few months more with a dying pet pretty much confirms that suspicion. Obviously, her vet is a compassionate soul who "Gets it." Calhoun isn't.

Your family comes first, obviously. If the medical bills for a pet are such that you will have to lower expectations for a child's or a spouse's well being, then either euthanize the pet or better, give it away to someone who can afford such care. But no, there is nothing "unseemly" about someone being willing to spend a lot of money on a pet's healthcare. It is certainly less unseemly than spending huge figures on cars or jewelry or clothing -- or new carpeting.

What annoys me about this piece is the fact that really, it doesn't seem to be about the agonizing decisions pet owners must make when faced with pet medical bills they truly can't afford. It's her obvious belief that there's something icky and undignified about spending four figures to save a pet's life. The fact that she equates buying "doggie sweaters" with paying for life-saving treatment, and expects to share a patronizing chuckle with her vet over people willing to spend the money for a few months more with a pet pretty much clinches this impression.

No, my cat is not worth $1,300.

But my peace of mind is.

Hope you never get a pet.

She not only makes the comparison, she explicitly declares, "And isn't there something sort of unseemly about spending so much money on one animal given the state of the world?," and describes herself being surprised that her vet didn't "chuckle" along with her about someone willing to spend large amounts of money to extend a pet's life for a few months. Dead give-away, that.

I can understand being saddened by an account of someone spending large sums of money to extend a dying pet's life. I'd even question whether doing this is in the best interest of the pet.

But LAUGHING? Thank God her vet disappointed her by not appearing amused. I'd hate to think of a veterinarian who had so little respect for a pet owner's feelings overseeing the care of an animal in such a situation.

"Afford" means, IMO, precisely what I said in my first letter:

Your family comes first, obviously. If the medical bills for a pet are such that you will have to cut back on necessities like education, food, health insurance, etc, then either euthanize the pet or better, give it away to someone who can afford such care. But no, there is nothing "unseemly" about someone being willing to spend a lot of money on a pet's healthcare. If we are going to apply the term "unseemly" to spending lots of money "considering the state of the world," it is certainly less "unseemly" than spending huge figures on cars or jewelry or clothing or redecorating.

What kind of answer to your question did you expect?