Dan Conry is a local radio personality on KTLK 100.3 FM, the Twin Cities' main talk-radio station.

Dear Mr. Dan Conry,

Today I heard you describe Democrats as "goose-stepping" and "jackbooted" in their support for one of their presidential candidates.

Your usage of Nazi imagery is not only inaccurate in its description of Democrats, it also disrespects the historical reality and legacy of the Nazis.

The Holocaust, the greatest crime against humanity the world has seen, was committed by Nazis, and this is no laughing matter. Nazi terminology should not be bandied about in a haphazard, joking fashion.

National organizations like the Anti-Defamation League have actively worked to help Americans understand the historical reality and graveness of the Nazi legacy, and your joking use of the phrases "jackbooted" and "goose-stepping" deserves the ADL's condemnation.

This is no "politically correct" language policing. Idle, joking, and inappropriate language regarding the Nazi legacy, such as yours, masks the reality of the Nazis and the Holocaust for new generations.

Sincerely,

Adam Schenck

As someone who was personally branded an "enemy of the ADL" ten years ago because I had the temerity to criticize in print the organization's efforts in the states to exclude women from being counted as potential hate crime victims (too many potential female victims = too "distracting" to other types of hate), I am relieved to see this public discussion of the ADL's tactics.

Back then, as Democrat and activist, I was troubled that the organization would choose to personally threaten me while entirely giving a pass to all the Republicans who similarly opposed and voted against the bill the ADL was trying to pass. It seemed like a selective and cynical display of power (it also seemed tragically fitting, in retrospect, because what I was criticizing was a selective and thus largely cynical use of crime-fighting and educational resources "in the name of equal justice").

After that shocking experience, I understandably viewed the ADL as an organization that exclusively lashed out at those on the left who failed to tow the line with their left-wing agenda. So now I suppose I must additionally view it as an organization that exclusively lashes out at those on the left who fail to tow the line with their right-wing agenda. In any case, they seem to have shown an odd deference toward conservatives all along. Not to mention a disturbing affinity for defamation.

But then again, so do some on the left, who just as cheerfully wield "tolerance" as a brickbat against those with whom they disagree. Would this conversation be taking place at all if said tactics had remained internecene?

All of which doesn't reflect particularly well on the efficacy of those "teaching tolerance" programs Abe Foxman oddly highlighted in his response to Greenwald, an effort, I think, to remind progressives of the ideological and political common ground they've long shared with the ADL. Now that the League is (understandably, for the interests they represent) aligned even moreso with the right, what exactly is "tolerance" to mean next, in practice? And who will end up on the wrong side of it?

You are certainly correct that discussions about Israel can devolve into irrationality from different directions. There are times when someone on this particular comment area will make some comment referring to "the Jews who run this country" and they are called on it by all sides, including Glenn. But your two examples don't work for me. The first one you give is oft-repeated nearly word-for-word here many times daily. The second example sounds like nothing I've ever seen or heard in my life, certainly not in progressive circles.

Both examples were parody, and I'd hoped they would be recognized as such. I invented the updated blood libel. I acknowledge that no one has ever, as far as I know, accused Israelis of making wine with the blood of Palestinian children. Many people have made accusations against Israel that I have regarded as self-evidently insane. A real-life example would be the statement that Israel's policies re the Palestinians constitute "genocide."

I did not invent the term "Zio-fascist," which I have seen in a number of comments in the left blogosphere. It is commonplace for Israel-bashers to preface their remarks with predictions that they will be accused of anti-Semitism, as a way of preemptively defusing criticism and congratulating themselves for their self-perceived bravery.

It is, trust me, highly commonplace for Israel critics to imagine accusations of anti-Semitism where no such accusation has been made.

You can read that, can you? Then I'm sure you can translate this for me:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

Why should I have to? Assuming that's an accurate transliteration -- you cribbed it from Information Clearinghouse, not Ahmadinejad's web site -- it's already been translated by

1) The Iranian state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting service (IRIB)

2) The Iranian state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA)

3) Ahmadinejad's own English-speaking webmaster

4) The BBC

5) The Guardian

6) Reuters

7) MEMRI

as either Israel should be "wiped off the map" or "wiped away".

I don't know. An interest in the truth? Intellectual honesty?

So your position is that Ahmadinejad's staff in government and the government-run media are lying about what he said; and that all of the world media, as well as people like Kofi Annan and Saeb Erekat, who issued denunciations, have been fooled; but that you, Juan Cole and Glenn Greenwald know the truth.

And the burden at this point is on me to display "intellectual honesty"?

"Both examples were parody, and I'd hoped they would be recognized as such."

I missed the parody because the the "ANTI-SEMIIIIIIIIIIITE!!!!! WHY DO YOU HATE JEWS!!!??!" does actually occur around here, and it isn't funny.

So your position is that Ahmadinejad's staff in government and the government-run media are lying about what he said

No, my position is you have no interest in hearing anything that challenges your comfortable assumptions.

Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned,” [Iranian Foreign Minister] Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. “How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime,” he said.

http://tinyurl.com/36clvo

So now you have the choice of believing the Iranian government when it suits you, and ignoring it when it doesn't.

Of course, you could just read the actual quote, but that might expose your delicate sensibilities to intellectual challenge, which is clearly not your forte:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

I mean, if you want to believe so badly that Ahmedinejad is a committed ethnic cleanser, you have to ask yourself why he doesn't start with Jews actually in Iran, rather than start a nuclear war with Israel, which can have no other outcome than to leave every city in Iran a smoking, radioactive ruin.

But again, that would be an intellectual exercise. How much more satisfying the cozy confines of belief.