Here's my problem, Goober: Iott's choice of hobby is, in part, a reflection of his character. Wiking, in part, promotes itself because the Wiking division fought in the Soviet Union and did not face American troops. However, the Hitler Youth division became infamous for executing surrendered Canadian troops in the Caen sector, and do I really have to recount what Joachim Pieper did to surrendered GI's at Malmedy? It's okay to commemorate the Wiking division because it killed Russians, but not Americans?

I'd have less of a problem if Iott had worn a Heer uniform as a Wehrmacht re-enactor. If nothing else, Iott displayed ignorance of history by wearing the lightning bolt and totemkopf insignia of the SS: I argue those symbols are just as disgusting as the swastika, and are just as implicated in horrific crimes.

Fair enough; just ask 596SignalCo, I have a thing for German weaponry. However, that doesn't change (or excuse) what the Germans used those weapons to fight for. Don't forget that Soviet civilian deaths exceeded their military dead. And yes, I know the Soviets executed their own, or used the shtraf (punishment) battalions to force minefields or be first wave in an assault. However, the Germans "appropriated" foodstuffs, starving the civilian population in occupied Russia.

Heer and Waffen-SS troops committed atrocities; both served a racist policy of removing or exterminating whole ethnic groups; all in service to a militaristic, expansionist, racist, bureaucratized state unlike any in human history. Commemorate the war? Yes. But in Wiking's case, consider what those death's heads and lightning bolts REALLY mean before you put them on.

Here's a nice fastball over the plate: knock 'er out of the park!

I'd never heard of Rich Iott until this morning: seems he's an Ohio GOP candidate for Congress. He also spent time as a military re-enactor in a group called "Wiking." If you're not a WWII buff, the Wiking division was a Waffen-SS armored division implicated in the murder of Hungarian Jews. Knowing nothing else about Iott, I have to question his judgement for wearing the Waffen-SS insignia and uniform: you CANNOT depoliticize the SS. Here's an article with accompanying photo: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/...

Comments?

Ohmigosh, Peter, I missed ya'! Just had to come slumming, and here you are, blathering more blithering nonsense.

You can come out of the closet!

What would Marrionnette Miller-Meeks do? Shall I look for you at tonight's debate?

This is an excellent starting point, triper. You are absolutely correct to see both parties as extensions of the ruling class which work to limit our political choices and even the political vocabulary we use.

Let's keep working on this...

"Again you assume that the people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. the 'Party' knows better; the Government knows better."

Don't put words into my mouth, triper. You are right that the Constitution does not require the two-party system; the current setup has emerged as a compromise. The first hurdle you'll have to jump are ballot access laws which give precedence to Democrats and Republicans. If you want to see a parliamentary-style system with multiple parties, be ready for even more horse-trading than present, since parties will need to reach out to construct a governing coalition.

I don't inhabit fantasy land, triper, we live in the same reality; we just see it differently.

We've argued before, triper, so you should know by now I consider myself "progressive," whatever the heck THAT means. And, I'm all for grass-roots, bottom-up organizing. I post here because I know you folks are committed, and I want to find common ground. Where do we start?

Well, we can't unring the bell, belle. The last thing this country needs right now is ANOTHER impeachment fiasco.

triper, we have different views on the two parties: ever since Reagan, the GOP has moved to the right. I would contend that governance has suffered. If we are to have a constitutional system built around two institutional, governing parties, instead of a parliamentary system built around a plurality of ideologically-based parties, then there MUST be ideological overlap betwen the two parties.

Think of it this way: I've seen GOP partisans invoke the GOP's role in passing LBJ's Civil and Voting Rights Acts. The Republicans who supported those acts were the northeast moderates you criticize here. Would thsoe acts have become law WITHOUT moderate Republicans?