History repeats (?)

Dealing with Germany's Nazi history has been difficult for the modern German people. They have passed stringent laws against Holocaust denial and laws forbidding the display of the swastika or anything that incites hatred against segments of the population.

Yet, they have collectively been (understandably) slow to have open discussions about the role of the German people in the rise of Hitler and Nazism.

Now an exhibit is about to open in Berlin at the German Historical Society which, in its display of prosaic artifacts of ordinary people from that time, tacitly emphasizes the abetting role of just such ordinary people. For example, one item is a tapestry designed to glorify the union of the church and the Nazi party; and it was woven by church members at the behest of the priest.

One of the curators says: "As a person, Hitler was a very ordinary man. He was nothing without the people." That is not to say that the people were motivated by the evil and cruelty that became the Nazi rule; rather, they were motivated by complex fears and were too easily led through incremental steps into that morass of tolerating gross inhumanity.

As pointed out in today's New York Times article:

[T]he show focuses on the society that nurtured and empowered [Hitler]. It is not the first time that historians have argued that Hitler did not corral the Germans so much as the Germans elevated Hitler. But one curator said the message was arguably more vital for Germany now than at any time in the past six decades, as rising nationalism, more open hostility to immigrants and a generational disconnect from the events of the Nazi era have older Germans concerned about repeating the past. . . .

Increasingly, Germans have put the guilt of the past behind them, reasserting their pride in national identity in many positive ways. But there have also been troubling signs seeping from the margins into the mainstream.

A spokesman for the museum said it would be presumptuous to say that an exhibition could counter the radiance of populism, but they are trying to achieve what they can afford. A fellow with the German Marshall Fund said:

This exhibition is about Hitler and the Germans -- meaning the social and political and individual processes by which much of the German people became enablers, colluders, co-criminals in the the Holocaust. That this was so is now a mainstream view rejected only by a small minority of very elderly and deluded people, or the German extreme right-wing fringe. But it took us a while to get there.

According to the Times article, the exhibit explains the early appeal of the Nazis, who demonstrated a keen appreciation for the politics of populism's creating a sense of unity and purpose among the people. It was not simply the imposition of power and control over the helpless masses.

By holding up heroic resistance fighters who did not go along, the display also debunks the notion that the Nazis were impossible to resist. But that, of course, runs counter to the stories their elders have always told their young about why they got involved instead of resisting.

So the exhibit should provoke a national conversation that is needed.

My interest in this was piqued, not just out of interest in the Holocaust and the German character, but what it might say about where we are in our own country right now. With the populist anti-government rage washing over us as we approach the November election and then 2012, I do not feel altogether comfortable that, given a charismatic enough figure to jump in front of the parade, we could wind up with a disaster. Something along the lines of Glenn Beck revving up the fervor and then handing them off to Newt Gingrich. Glenn apparently knows he is not presidential material; Newt "knows" that he is. It wouldn't likely be a holocaust, but it could be a very sharp turn to the right.

Newt is probably sitting in his office right now contemplating how to become that charismatic one. I see him as the most dangerous politician we know, dangerous because he is smart enough and articulate enough to convince people he knows what he's talking about -- and, at the same time, unprincipled enough to exploit that talent. Our only hope with Newt is that his narcissism also knows no bounds, and he tends to self-immolate sooner or later. Let's hope he never learns how to rein that in.

Ralph

ActBlue, true blue

Boy, is this ever true.

The liberal activist group ActBlue just sent out a fund-raiser email that begins with this:

This election would make a novelist blush: the voices of ordinary folks are being drowned out by a flood of anonymous corporate cash, channeled into major races by Republican groups helmed by Karl Rove and other Bush-era figures. All the while, the largest news channel on television flaunts its "fair and balanced" credentials while cutting million dollar checks to Republican groups.

That about sums it up -- except that they left out the further factor that would make a novelist blush to have written, because it is so over the top:

The sheer nuttiness of some of the Republican candidates running neck and neck with seasoned lawmakers - and some of them will likely be elected. Hopefully not Christine O'Donnell, who is just a little too loopy for Delaware voters, I hope; and the guy who is making news by his hobby of dressing up in a Nazi uniform and performing re-enactments of German history. But there is Sharron Angle, tied in the polls with Harry Ried; and Rand Paul tied with Kentucky's highly qualified Attorney General Jack Conway.

ActBlue is also correct in saying that I feel helpless against this tide of anger that has genuine roots but is being multiplied and misdirected by the Republican misinformation machine. Of course, ActBlue has a solution -- send them money to help combat all this. But even that feels to me like it will be too little, too late.

How could we -- the Democrats -- have allowed the other side to control the narrative so that they were able to turn this populist anger against those trying to dig out from the mess and instead channel it to benefit those who caused the problem in the first place. That should have been the top priority in message strategy. It now appears that large segments of the voting public blame the Democrats for everything and are ready to give the car keys back to those that ran it into the ditch.

I have a sick feeling about it all.

Ralph

Viva la Chile !!!

Whether it was the Chilean government or the mining industry, the flawless final rescue of the trapped miners should give us pause to reflect on their handling of this disaster and what we, the mighty United States, might learn from them.

The San Jose copper and gold mine is a state-owned industry, which has been criticized in press reports for past safety violations. Chilean President Sebastian Pinera has said that the mine will never open again.

Whatever the prior problems in mining safety, we can only be impressed with everything that has transpired since the accident. First of all, that there was apparently a safe place that was equipped with enough air supply, food, and water to maintain 33 miners until help could arrive.

Second, small holes were quickly bored to establish contact and to transfer further maintenance necessities to those trapped half a mile down in the earth.

And the final denouement: all 33 men survived for 69 days deep in the bowels of the earth and were eventually brought home without a single casualty. Further, their experience seems to have been one of bonding rather than fighting among themselves. They were supported throughout the ordeal by constant contact with those on the ground, including video cameras and messages to and from loved ones. Psychologists were available to help.

This also included daily contact with doctors who monitored their nutritional and electrolyte balances, prescribed the diet to bring them back from the initial starvation levels before contact was made, so that when they were rescued their nutritional status was excellent. They had lost body fat but not muscle mass through proper diet and some exercise. They were not confined to the small rescue chamber but had the full run of the mine so that they could exercise, some even ran through the half mile of the accessible mine corridors to maintain fitness.

Now that was a "heck of a job" indeed. Take note Brownie and Bushie.

Chile has intermittently had socialists in charge of its government, although the U.S. has intermittently interrupted the will of their people: i.e. the CIA-backed military coup that ousted and killed it's democratically elected Marxist President Allende in the 1970s. And its 2010 elections resulted in a turnover from ten years of moderate socialist presidents to its current right-wing government.

Nevertheless, many socialist inspired policies must still exist, presumably including an emphasis on the welfare of the workers rather than the owners of mines. President Pinera says, "A country that wants to call itself developed is a country that takes care of its workers." He added that "Chile owes protection and dignity to all of its workers."

In the recent disasters in the U.S. (whether mines or off shore drilling), it was revealed that safety regulations had been routinely ignored in favor of corporate profits. We would say the same thing about protecting our workers; and we have regulations that do. The problem is the years of neglect and intentional ignoring of the regulations under the influence of those who were supposed to be regulated. That's the Bush way; Obama is different, but he hasn't been able to move fast enough to replace all the old appointees.

Chileans should be proud of the way they have handled this disaster. I can't really say that the U.S. has anything to be proud of in any of our recent disaster responses.

Ralph

Rotten journalism

Long gone are the glory days of the Washinton Post with Ben Bradley as executive editor (1968-1991), a time that included challenging the federal government over the right to publish the Pentagon Papers and overseeing the Woodward and Bernstein investigative reporting of the Watergate Scandal.

But I did not realize how low the WaPo had sunk until this week, when they decided that fair and balanced reporting required them to publish -- on National Coming Out Day -- an editorial by Tony Perkins of the anti-gay Family Research Council.

Do they publish a rant by someone who hates mothers on Mothers' Day?

More than the inappropriateness though, this was bad journalism -- as all of that Christian anti-gay pseudoscience stuff is. Doesn't WaPo even do fact-checking anymore? The article was full of discounted research and lies about gay people, blaming them and their "homosexual life style" for the scars that have clearly been demonstrated to result from growing up in a homophobic culture, while making the assertion that there is no empirical evidence to show that. I have a list of just such evidence, Mr. Perkins, if you would care to open up your mind.

How can they give space in one of the major newspapers in the country to someone whose purpose is to try to discredit the gains that gay people have made in society -- on the very day set aside to encourage self-acceptance and honesty about who we are?

It helps that this was actually overshadowed by the judge in California who said No to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. No, Uncle Sam, you may not continue to discriminate, you may not continue to treat honorable, highly qualified service men and women as unworthy human beings.

I guess their next move will be, in reporting about the spate of gay teen suicides in response to bullying, to include an editorial about why gay teens should kill themselves. I'm sure they could find someone to write it in this bigoted land of ours.

The Washington Post is losing its prestige very quickly, and this will only accelerate the process. Meanwhile, we're winning in battle after battle, with fewer and fewer losses.

It's only a matter of time. Some day, the difference just won't matter any more.

Ralph

Military draft

I've advocated for re-establishing the military draft -- not because I want us to have involuntary military service, but because I think we'd be less likely to go to war if it put the sons and daughters of the entire populace are risk.

But, in a blog on Huffington Post today, Dan Froomkin makes the point that we have had a "backdoor draft" operating during the Iraqi-stan wars in the form of the Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy of involuntarily extending the tours of duty of our volunteer armies beyond their contractual dates. It was the Bush administration's way of coming up with the troops necessary to fight these two wars without risking the uprising against a draft.

It worked something like this: a young man would enlist as a volunteer for a certain period of time, say three years. When it came time to be discharged, the military would say: sorry, we need you to stay on; you can't be discharged. You would have no choice, except to desert. Presumably, there's some fine print that gives the government the right to do this in time of war.

Some 145,000 have been affected by this. By contrast, during the Viet Nam war, some 1,900,000 Americans were conscripted for service under the draft. So it hasn't been anything like that -- but who wants to use V.N. as the standard for proper handling of a war?

At least the practice is coming to an end now. Only the army is still using stop-loss, and the last of its troops who were involuntarily extended will be coming home next March.

Have we at least learned this much from Bush's debacled war-mongering? You do not go to war without even making a gesture toward paying for it; you do not go to war with only a volunteer army; and you do not go to war without a plan for what to expect and what to do the day after their government falls into you hands.

Ralph

DADT is dead #2

Back on May 27th, I wrote a blog titled "DADT is dead." The House had passed a bill overturning it, and it was headed for the Senate, where ultimately the Republicans and some conservative Democrats blocked it -- they were even willing to vote against the military appropriations bill to which it was attached.

I still contend that DADT is dead -- we're just having an extended death struggle. There was a significant death rattle yesterday, when a judge in California declared it unconstitutional and ordered an immediate worldwide ban on enforcing DADT. If this holds, this will be an historic day, alongside the Supreme Court decision that eliminated sodomy laws nationwide.

Most notable to me in the judge's opinion was that she used the newer reasoning that DADT itself actually undermines military preparedness by reducing the number of available recruits and requiring them to accept lesser qualified enlistees and by discharging highly trained service men and women who are needed in vital positions. She also referred to the culture of lying and living in fear of exposure that DADT requires.

The Obama Department of Justice has 60 days to decide whether to appeal. Obama is clearly in favor of getting rid of the failed policy. But he has listened to the military advisers and wants to take it at a measured pace. The study he ordered of the effects of overturning it is due December 1; and he is reportedly working with Democrats in Congress on a bill to be introduced after that.

If the DoJ does not file for appeal, then the ban holds and it's over.

If they do appeal, it goes to the Circuit Court of Appeals in California, where the ban could be overturned or upheld. If it's overturned, Congress could still act on the timetable that Obama had planned. It would not be the first time the administration has appealed decisions that run counter to what it actually favors -- sometimes because there is another tactical issue involved.

It's possible they will decide to appeal, either (1) to give time for a more orderly transition that they prefer; or (2) in order to have it ruled on by a higher court and therefore given a more solid basis as precedent in future challenges. That could be risky, because the Appeals Court might not uphold the decision.

These are details and delaying tactics though. DADT is dead, no question about it. It's just that sometimes death takes a while.

Ralph

"Seize the Day" - $4.95; "Get Motivated" - $1.95

The motivators are coming to Atlanta.

Two different, perhaps competing, mega-celebrity-starring, all-day programs of motivational speeches to get people taking charge of their lives and their businesses are coming to Atlanta just a week apart.

November 1: "Get Motivated," described as a business seminar. For only $1.95 admission fee, you can hear Colin Powell, Bill Crosby, Steve Forbes, Goldie Hawn, Rudy Giuliani, Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- and more big names that I don't recognize because they're from worlds I don't inhabit.

"Huge Door Prizes: $10,000 cash, Disney World vacation, and much much more." "A Can-Do, Win-Win, Multimedia Extravaganza."

This one will be at the Georgia Dome, seating capacity 71,000. Tickets at the door $225. But right now you can get a ticket for $1.95.

Or you could wait a week and on November 8th attend: "Seize the Day" at Philips Arena, seating capacity 21,000. General admission $99, but act now and you can get a ticket for $4.95 or $19.95 for your entire office. Also with door prizes and give-aways.

For $4.95 you get speakers: Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Bush, Terry Bradshaw and more.

Wow !! Atlanta is going to be jumping with all that motivation and revitalized businesses. Goodbye unemployment.

What a bargain -- forget the motivation and inspiration. If you just want to see these people live, it's pretty cheap.

What intrigues me about all this though is really the math. Even if they sell out the Georgia Dome (71,000 x $1.95) that's only $138,450. I doubt that even covers renting the GA Dome for all day. It wouldn't even pay for the repeated full-page AJC ads they've been running for weeks. And then there's Palin's six-figure speaking fee on top of that, plus all the others. There must be a lot of hidden extra costs; probably what they do is motivate you to buy all these people's books and meet with them in small groups, etc.

I think I'll pass

Ralph

Symmetry requires a Brown win

Interesting parallel stats:

Jerry Brown is the Democratic nominee for governor of California. He is in a heated race with former eBay CEO, billionaire Meg Whitman, who has financed her campaign with her own money to the tune of $140 million. Of course, that's chump change to us billionaires, but to ordinary folks it must be staggering -- and alarming, if they think at all of the implications of super-rich individuals deciding to take control of our political process.

Look what the Koch brothers are doing behind the scenes now, financing the Tea Party and pouring millions into conservative campaigns. The presidential election could become a contest between dueling billioinaires, not necessarily as candidates but as the backers of candidates. Well, at least we might have Bill Gates and George Soros on our side.

But that's beside the point of this bit of factual whimsy about California's gubernatorial race.

Jerry Brown served as California's governor once before, from 1975 to 1983.

In that election, he replaced a Republican governor who was a former Hollywood actor.

If he wins in 2010, he will replace a Republican governor who is a former Hollywood actor.

Meaning? None, really. Just an interesting bit of factual whimsy.

Ralph

Palin at a price

We've heard about Sarah Palin's $100,000 speaking fees -- you know, get up at the bowling convention and string together her stock platitudes and rake in the bucks.

Required campaign reports with the state Elections Commission now reveal that Karen Handel's campaign paid $92,000 to charter the plane that brought Sarah Palin to a rally in Atlanta on the eve of the Republican gubernatorial primary and another $13,000 hotel rental fees for the event.

Apparently, Palin wasn't paid a speaker's fee; but reportedly she had previously said that she would cover expenses for such campaign appearances our of her political action committee. Not this time, it seems.

Handel might have done better to spend the same amount of money on more TV ads to denounce Nathan Deal for smearing, not only her, but Youth Pride, the honorable and invaluable Atlanta community resource for gay youth. It was one of the more despicable dirty Republican campaign smears since Saxby Chambliss smeared triple-amputee and Viet Nam war hero Max Cleland as unpatriotic.

But, given the climate of the Georgia elections, Chambliss won, and Deal won. Republicans smear, shamelessly and offensively, and they win. Even Sarah Palin's star power didn't pull it off for Karen Handel. Nothing beats pandering to the patriots who cling to their guns and oppose abortion and homosexuality. It's a winning combination in Georgia.

Ralph