OK, one more post, and then I really will go and do the right thing and get drunk.

Hannity had on a guy from the Huffington Post and a guy from Breitbart.com — apparently Hannity’s idea of an ideological cage match. They were talking about Hugo Chavez, and the Breitbart.com guy was saying that leftists always support dictators. Look at Stalin, he said. Look at Hitler, he said.

When the Huffington Post guy objected to placing Hitler among the left’s heroes, the Breitbart.com said something like this: “What do you mean? Hitler had ‘socialist’ right in the name of the party.”

Hitler, of course, was a fascist. That’s not even a slur: He was proud of it. He hated the left. He banned the Communist Party and went after communists even before he went after Jews in a serious way. He invaded the Soviet Union, which was, and remained, the poster child of a Marxist paradise. He vowed to eradicate Marxism from the face of the earth.

And yes, it’s true, the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. It’s also true that German soldiers wore the words “God with us” on their belt buckles. And it’s true that some concentration camps had the words “Work makes one free” above their entrances. Are there any other Nazi slogans that Breitbart.com would like us to accept at face value?

For a definitive takedown on Breitbart.com, see here.

It was 40 years ago today that I got out of the Army, and I’m not even drunk yet. Disgraceful.

Limbaugh and Hannity were in love with Rand Paul for filibustering. Setting aside the obvious reality that they would never in a million years praise a Democrat for doing exactly the same thing to Republican president, they nevertheless had a point here. I have long been an admirer of Rand’s dad and have been looking for some reason to feel the same way about his son. Maybe now I have found something.

Still, although I admired the old-fashioned gumption of the deed, I thought he was making the wrong case at the wrong time. Many reasonable questions can be asked about the propriety and wisdom of drone attacks, but the concern he raised — about attacks on noncombatant Americans on American soil — is so improbable as to be almost pointless (not too pointless for Aaron Flint’s radio show, though, where a couple of callers seemed to be convinced that they might be only minutes away from being attacked by a drone just because they own guns and speak out against the Kenyan oppressor). And drones have nothing really to do with the appointment that was actually before the Senate.

If Huckabee mentioned drones, I missed it (always a possibility). Instead, he went on about how great George H.W. Bush was. The occasion was an interview with Andy Card that apparently had something to do with this book although I never quite figured out what the connection was. Now, I happen to agree that the elder Bush was a fine and decent fellow and a better president than he is often given credit for, even by his own party. He presided over the dismantling of the Soviet Union and had the political courage to raise taxes, which led to the only string of balanced budgets in my lifetime. His coordination of the first Iraq War was a textbook example of how to get one’s ducks in a row, then shoot the ducks. Maybe he could have done a better job of raising his kids, but raising kids is harder than being president.

Huckabee, however, is such an incredibly lame interviewer that he managed to avoid getting anything interesting at all out of Card, who seemed game for a candid talk. As a journalist, Huckabee is just a disaster.

And Aaron Flint wasn’t much better in his off-the-cuff comments about coal development on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. His take was that only federal bureaucratic do-gooders are in the way of making the Cheyenne a coal-rich people. I haven’t followed this issue closely in recent years, but at one time I did a lot of reporting on Cheyenne coal, and unless things have changed dramatically, Flint is just dead wrong about this.

When I was covering this, there was plenty of Cheyenne opposition to coal development, much of it based on the idea that it was basically sacrilegious to ravage the earth. Attitudes may have changed somewhat since then, but I will bet those opponents are still around, and still outspoken. Blaming bureaucrats totally misses the boat.

I have written a couple of posts about letters I have been asked to translate that were written by a young German in 1933 to his American pen pal. Now comes a third letter, this one from 1949. As it turns out, he survived the war, although not in great shape: Key passage (my translation):

At the beginning of this year I was sick for a long time, and after that I was in a frame of mind that I can’t properly describe to you. I had a depression of the soul that took away from me the energy for any undertaking. The privations of recent years have taken a toll on my health, which to some extent still persist, although I can now add fat, and so on. Only with difficulty can one overcome the past. I have been steadily in a doctor’s care and am only slowly improving. … Finding the urgent necessities for my family also causes great concern. As I once wrote to you, we lost everything in the course of the war, and we are short of all things. Before the currency reform (July 1, 1948) one could buy no clothing or furniture, even when one had money, and now after the currency change the windows are full of goods and there is too little money to buy all of the most basic necessities. Through the currency reform we also lost all of our savings except for a tiny amount (I could not even buy a coat with what was left) so my family and I rely on our monthly income, which is just enough to pay for the most urgent needs of life. Goods are very expensive compared to the times before the war, but wages have remained the same, so that there is no connection between income and costs. Despite that, I believe that I will manage to get by, if I become and remain completely healthy and we suffer no more blows of fate that we lack the strength to fend off.

No more mention of Hitler’s peaceful intentions. It would be interesting to know exactly what he did during the war but that, for now, remains a mystery.

Two of the biggest stars in my personal firmament — Napoleon and Stanley Kubrick — may still get together.

Last week I mentioned that I had been asked to translate a letter from a 20-year-old German bookstore employee writing to his American pen pal in 1933. As it turns out, that wasn’t the only letter. A couple of days ago, I was asked to translate another letter he wrote to his pen pal in August 1933.

Mostly, the letter is just a description of his hometown, but it includes this passage (my translation):

Just as in America, a change in the nation’s leadership has taken place in Germany. Since January 30 of this year Adolf Hitler has been our chancellor and he has in that time rebuilt the country from the ground up. In my next letter I will report to you about the laws that have resulted so far. Today I will just tell you that Hitler’s measures already have made a distinct improvement. I know that many untruths have spread about Hitler and his ideas in foreign lands. For this reason, I have enclosed the opinion of an English officer about Hitler’s Germany. It would interest me very much to know what one thinks in your homeland about the new Germany.

The enclosure was a piece of propaganda from Graham Seton Hutchison to the effect that  Hitler’s intentions were both peaceful and justified by the punitive Treaty of Versailles. “No man possessed of the least knowledge of the Hitler movement can speak of it as one lustful for war,” he wrote. “Hitler’s aims are, above all, German life and German culture.”

That must have been a relief for the 20-year-old.

The wife and I had a couple of free tickets to see Lisa Lampanelli here last night, so we went. Our bad.

I don’t mind coarse humor and am occasionally guilty of it. We get HBO. I’m a big Bill Maher fan. I think Lewis Black is funny not despite his profanity but in large part because of it. It flows naturally from the incessant outrage that makes up his on-stage character (but not the real guy, I hope).

But jeez. How many jokes about private parts can you fit into a two-hour show and still be funny? And jokes about Donald Trump’s hair? And jokes about amputees needing only half as many shoes?

The underlying cynicism of it all wore me down. There was this whole attitude: I can say whatever I want because everybody knows I have no brakes. I can make racist jokes because everybody knows I’m not racist. I can say awful things about people because everybody knows I’m not an awful person. I can use all the foul language I want because everybody knows that words are just words and never a cause for offense.

OK, I get it. Words are just words. But if your whole act is based around that sort of language, what’s left after you have extracted all of the meaning from the words? “Celebrity Apprentice” jokes, I guess.

When I told my wife that I could have managed the whole rest of my life without hearing another joke about Donald Trump or “Celebrity Apprentice,” she pointed out that lots of Lampanelli fans are also probably “Celebrity Apprentice” fans. She’s probably right.

So the last laugh may have been on Lampanelli. Two girls in the row in front of us spent the whole show talking and texting on their cell phones. I’m not sure they heard a single joke. But it was all just words, right?

Everybody was talking about Bob Woodward’s claim that the White House threatened him. Typical Obama bullying, the right-wing pundits all said, then Michael Smerconish, that insanely fair-minded guy, read the actual email. Suddenly, it didn’t seem so threatening. I’ve seen more ominous threats on mattress labels.

The interesting part was hearing right-wingers defend Woodward while a lot of liberal blogs went after him. That seemed kind of a reversal. But then it struck me how little I have liked Woodward all these years. I read the Watergate books, “All the President’s Men” and “The Final Days,” and thought they were OK. At least they relied on information that had been pretty well confirmed by the time the books appeared.

Then I tried to read “The Brethren,” his book about the Supreme Court, and gave it up about halfway through. I just was not willing to accept his ubiquitous use of anonymous sources whose reliability I had no way of determining.

A few years later, when I was temporarily a member of the Book of the Month Club, I accidentally ordered a copy of “Veil,” his book on the CIA. I’ve tried several times over the years to give it a read but have never gotten more than a few dozen pages into it. Again, I just am not willing to trust Woodward as much as he wants me to. I’ve never attempted another of his books and probably never will.

Last week’s flare-up did nothing to cause me to reconsider.

Local Republicans are continuing their investigation into allegations that Chairman Jennifer Olsen posted a racist joke on her Facebook page, I suppose, but we already know enough to be assured that she won’t escape without some culpability. Here are the possibilities, as  I see them, in ascending order of culpability.

1. She didn’t post the joke but handled the accusation badly. Forgivable. A teachable moment, perhaps.

2. She posted the joke but deleted it as soon as she came to her senses. Forgivable, I suppose, but it would still leave one to wonder what sort of things go through her head. We all do stupid things, but if she can’t come up with a better explanation and apology than she has managed so far, then she ought to resign.

3. She posted the joke and then lied about it. Pretty hard to forgive. All politicians lie, the saying goes, but this is really pushing it. She should resign.

4. She posted the joke and then lied about it by alleging that someone else posted it. Absolutely unforgivable. She’s done as a political figure, or ought to be.

Which possibility is correct? Perhaps time will tell; it had better.

Adrian Jawort digs deeper into the Jennifer Olsen story. Lots of stuff here you haven’t seen elsewhere, from this week’s Outpost:

By ADRIAN JAWORT

For The Outpost

The man who lit that match that started a wildfire over a racist joke allegedly posted online by the chairman of the Yellowstone County Republican Central Committee says he had no desire to feed a media frenzy.

Last week’s Outpost reported about the alleged online indiscretions of Jennifer Olsen, chairwoman of the YCRCC and a leader of the Yellowstone County Montana Shrugged Tea Party.

On her personal Facebook account, Olsen had allegedly re-posted a racially charged joke of a photo of a watermelon under a box that was to be used as bait in a plot to kidnap President Barack Obama. The stereotype of African-Americans only “interested only in such mindless pleasures” as indulging in watermelon has been “a staple of racism’s diet” since the slavery plantation days, wrote Keith M. Woods from the Poynter Institute.

Olsen denied she posted the photo, calling it a “fabrication” put forth by fellow Republican and Montanafesto blogger Nicole French.

Following the leads of the Montanafesto and Montana Cowgirl blogs, the Outpost and the nationally known liberal blog, Daily Kos, picked up the story.

After The Billings Gazette ran the story online later last week, national news outlets from the Associated Press to The Huffington Post (with 36.2 million readers a month) wrote about the controversy, demonstrating the power of stories spreading like wildfire in the internet era.

The person who started that wildfire, however, says he is “sick” about the way the story has developed.

Russ Hart was in class casually browsing through his Facebook page while waiting for his 11 a.m. class to start on the morning of Feb. 15.  The now infamous watermelon photo allegedly re-posted by Ms. Olsen caught his eye, and he was taken aback.

“I guess my initial reaction was I couldn’t believe that somebody in a leadership position like would be so careless to post something like that,” Hart said. “That was real surprising.”

He typed his shocked response to Olsen, “Are you kidding me?”

Hart said, “Then she typed something like, ‘I just couldn’t help myself. LOL’ – something to that effect.”

When Hart took a screenshot of the alleged indiscretion, Hart’s “Are you kidding me?” words could be seen. It was a spur of the moment decision.

“I really wasn’t preserving evidence,” he said. “I took a screenshot, sent it to a couple of people, and it was sort of a, ‘Can you believe she did this?’ scenario.”

A week later, the photo was plastered on national media sites.

Hart remained anonymous because he was in the middle of a job search, and didn’t want to be associated with any political fallout or bickering from the situation. After Montanafesto posted the screenshot picture, he was immediately taken off the Facebook friend list of Olsen.

The first screenshot image released by French’s Montanafesto blog was a close-up picture that featured just Olsen’s name and the racially charged anti-Obama image.

After the full screenshot was released later in the week, Hart’s “Are you kidding me?” comment could be seen. People commenting online inevitably asked why Russ Hart wasn’t coming forward after the YCRCC claimed that none of Olsen’s Facebook friends had seen the image. He knew he’d eventually be approached as he read online comment sections mentioning his name under articles.

As a Republican who’s been involved with volunteer political organizations like the YCRCC, Hart sympathized with the group even though it wrote a press release essentially stating his screenshot was possibly the job of a hacker or photo shopped.

The YRCC official press release on Feb. 22 read, “This alleged posting has not been corroborated by any of the over 1,000 friends following the chairwoman’s personal Facebook at the time or any other witnesses.”

Hart said of the press release, “They’re giving their chair the benefit of the doubt, and I can’t fault them for that. She told them something that wasn’t true, and that’s what they’re operating on. It would be really unfair for the party to come out looking bad for that.”

Since he was no longer a Facebook friend of Olsen’s, he couldn’t corroborate the story as a Facebook friend. Mark Higgins, also a former Facebook friend of Olsen’s, said he was immediately “unfriended” after he emailed the YCRCC Tuesday claiming he could verify seeing the racist post on Olsen’s Facebook page.

He’d just been in contact with Olsen that same day, and according to a screenshot taken by Higgins, she’d written about the controversy surrounding herself:

“People should be given a way to fact check … . It is clear the news media only reports one side. That has been a battle for conservatives for many years. So we will never be able to get out the truth.”

Higgins replied, “Jennifer, I did also see the watermelon under a box repost come from your updates. How is that lying?”

According to Higgins, Olsen had also posted Montanafesto blogger Nicole French’s personal contact information to presumably call and harass her.

“I said to her, ‘Is it really necessary to act so immature that you need to post this information? People see you as a leader, and is that what you want to teach them?’ I didn’t think that was very appropriate.”

He’s baffled the story has spread so far, but defends French as an honest person. “We need people like Nicole in our community calling people out for being hypocrites. That’s important,” he said. “It might help keep some of these politicians honest.”

Higgins noted about Olsen’s continued denials, “People start to get defensive, and then they start to lie about things. It’s just so much easier to come out with the truth. Otherwise you rapidly start forgetting all the lies you’ve told, and you’re stuck with that story.”

As far as Olsen claiming she may have been hacked, or that someone created an fake Facebook profile to discredit her, Higgins said, “This came from her Facebook page, and it’s not like I was friends with any of these supposed fake aliases, I was friends with her account. She posted pictures of her place, and it was all her stuff. I know what I saw.”

As far as Hart’s role in coming forward, he sent an email to the YCRCC, and has been contacted in the committee’s ongoing investigation.

“They’re in a tough spot,” he said. “They don’t want to throw their chairwoman under the bus when she says it didn’t happen.”

Even though Hart simply wished Olsen hadn’t denied posting the joke, “I don’t think she’s a bad person,” he said. “I would’ve liked to talk her about it, but that’s not going to happen now.”

Hart says part of him feels remorse about the events that have transpired since he took the now infamous screenshot on a whim.

“Part of me wished I would’ve reached out to the party first, but I don’t know if that would’ve gotten me anywhere,” he said. “It’s making me sick the way it’s all going down, but I guess that’s the world these days.”