Great article! I don't care for Bieber's music or public persona, but I think his reaction was genuine, and Jay's article really highlights something about our assumptions and knee-jerk reactions to both the Holocaust and figures like Anne Frank. With all respect to the first two commenters, I don't think this article demeaned the memory of the dead or showed any lack of respect to the young Anne Frank. Her story was so powerful because she humanized, and put a face and a story to the tragedy that so many shared. It's hard to wrap your head around 6 million, but when you bring it back to the individual level, it hits you all over again. When we deify her, her story loses its truth, its reality and its power. Its sad to think in another time and place, she might have been a Bieber fan. Was his comment narcissistic? Absolutely, but it also humanized Anne Frank and to me at least, breathed life into her again for just a moment. Maybe this was JB's intent--probably not.

Your ignorance of grammar is not lost on me ("Its" is possessive and "it's" is a contraction of "it is") Poor grammar undermines your point, although you had done a pretty good job of that yourself, especially in light of your disdain of education.

Point of clarification: I am not denying the Holocaust by any means. The point I was making is how when people equate every little problem they have with the Holocaust (Peta with animal rights, Pro-Life groups with abortion, all the way to people who use terms like parking-Nazi to refer to overzealous meter maids, Fox News with nearly everything) it belittles the horror that actually happened, desensitizes the public to history and does a disservice to those who died. I think we agree there. What I said was doubtful was the link to governments taking away the guns. That's a storyline the NRA is pushing. Had you understood that, you might have not chosen to get so petty and argumentative.

Universal healthcare works quite well in many places, and they narrative that the government has taken over or "socialized" medicine couldn't be further from the truth. It's a conservative story that scares people and sells media space, but it's false. Even if (and this is a big if) the government had expanded coverage to every citizen (the dreaded public option that never came to be), it would have little to no effect on the private sector. If you're not happy with the public option, go private. There will always be a market. Look at the education system as an easy comparison. Has universal access to public schools caused an end to private schools? Last I checked, Harvard is doing just fine.

Family planning is not a euphemism for abortions. It is also system of education, healthcare for the uninsured and contraception to prevent pregnancies. Your own impotence as an employee of CPS does not make it, or all social services ineffective and I don't know where in the world you got welfare rolls from disability rights. Look up ADA (1990). The two are not even remotely related.

Please reply. I'm not going to respond anymore (I have better things to do) but the more you write, the less credibility you have. Your soapbox, Sir.

Of all the Holocaust survivors I have heard speak on the subject, not one mentioned lack of a gun license as a part of their narrative. This whole story is doubtful.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_abou...

Frankly, I find it offensive when any person with a cause which he finds unjust or disproportionate, chooses to link it with the Holocaust. It does a dilutes the power and impact of what ACTUALLY happened to Jews and others the Nazis deemed undesirable. When everything is the Holocaust, nothing is the Holocaust, including the Holocaust. The net effect is remarkably similar to Holocaust denial.

And to Texanbabe, I agree with your premise that all people deserve a measure of dignity and self determination. Going forward with this in mind, I hope you are as adamant about access to education, healthcare, voting, social services, family planning, disability rights. On a day to day basis, each of these causes has a more direct impact on human dignity than one's (questionable) right to hoard a personal arsenal for the upcoming revolution, zombie apocalypse etc.

Again, more ambitious doesn't necessarily mean "bigger" or bad. What many people fail to consider is the costs of inaction. Take for instance his proposal to expand preschool. Research shows, time and again, that investment in early education leads to greater school readiness, less remedial work, higher achievement, all of which lowers costs to school systems in the long run. Take a look at The Urban Child Institute for more info (tuci.org.)

The whole of Europe couldn't stop Hitler. You think a few Jews with guns would have made a difference?

I was hoping for for 5 original thoughts, not the same knee-jerk anti-Obama talking points we can find on Faux News. I expected better than this. Having objectives and goals only means "bigger" government if you hold efficiency constant. I think the point he made rather eloquently was the need for government to stop wasting effort trying to negate and undermine the other party and focus that energy on achievable goals. Rather than slowing bills until they die, let voices be heard with a vote, and then let us move on. The government can't simply stop spending, but it can spend wisely in areas that will pay dividends and save money in the long run. Infrastructure and education are no-brainers. I don't believe for a second the author doesn't understand this. This piece was petty and lazy.