Graduate Oregon State University and Northern Illinois University,
Former City Manager, Corporate Vice President, General Contractor, Non-Profit Project Manager, occasional free lance writer and photographer for the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Though Stalin is never named in “Darkness at Noon”, Stalin is the “one” that encapsulates a vision of Communism that demands submission by the individual to the collective.
When a young communist refuses to distribute Stalinist Party’ literature that ignores Nazi attacks on local Communist’ cells, he is expelled from the Party.
In real life, Koestler joined the Communist Party in Germany in 1931. His resignation from the Party in 1938 is a likely motivation for writing “Darkness at Noon”.
Koestler’s hero is a young communist leader that disagrees with his Russian controller and is expelled from the Party in the 1930s. The substance of the disagreement is the heart of the story.
The central character of “Darkness at Noon” is Nicholas Rubashov. Rubashov enforces Stalinist’ Communist belief in the collective, but he has doubts. Rubashov is the apparatchik who is ordered to expel a young German’ Communist because he looks at Russian Communism as a personal rather than collective savior.
Imprisonment of Putin’s political rivals, invasion of Crimea, and buildup of Russian troops on Ukraine’s border is reminiscent of Stalinist tactics before and after WWII.
Increasingly, Vladimir Putin exhibits the same drive for power as that characterized by Stalin, particularly in regard to his action in Chechnya and now Ukraine.
Koestler’s hero is characterized as one of the original participants in the 1917 revolution. As he ages, his blind acceptance of Stalin’s Communist belief in the collective waivers. Rubashov is imprisoned and ordered to sign a confession. The interrogators, Ivanov and Gletkin, are responsible for getting a signed confession from Rubashov.
Ivanov, who is a former acquaintance and civil war comrade of Rubashov’s, offers an opportunity for Rubashov to redeem himself. Ivanov suggests that Rubashov confess to a lesser charge to justify incarceration for five years with a chance to return to political power. Rubashov initially says “no” but Ivanov’s “plea bargain” approach works and Rubashov signs a confession.
However, Ivanov is later removed from power and Gletkin takes charge of Rubashov’s case. Gletkin argues Ivanov’s approach is a mistake. Gletkin insists on a complete confession of guilt; i.e. no redemption, only execution.
Much evidence is brought before Rubashov. The evidence is weak but Rubashov becomes convinced through sleep deprivation, and a clever manipulation of Rubashov’s logic, that he must be executed. Rubashov’s personal feelings of guilt come from his denial of collective good. He reasons–the way he has been judged is the way he has lived his life; therefor his life should be forfeit for the cause; in the interest of the many over the few.
Gletkin might be characterized as a mindless Neanderthal because of his belief in torture, but one of many of his clever manipulations suggests he is diabolically clever.
Gletkin suggests Rubashov was given a watch when he was 7 or 8, which Rubshov acknowledges is probably correct. Gletkin says he did not have a watch until he was a teenager and that he did not know there were 60 minutes in an hour until then. No one in his social class looked at time in segments; waiting in line was not characterized by time but by results from waiting in line.
“Darkness at Noon” implies the end result is what is important; not the means and time that one stands in line. This is a quintessential belief of the “true believer” in Stalinist communism.
The Unwomanly Face of War–An Oral History of Women in World War
II
By:
Svetlana Alexievich, Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky
Narrated
by Julia Emelin, Yelena Shmulenson
Svetlana Alexievich (Author, Belorussian Investigative Journalist, 2015 Nobel Prize in Literature–for her polyphonic writings.)
The author of “The Unwomanly Face of War”, Svetlana Alexievich, suggests women’s deployment in war dates to the Greco-Roman wars. However, some say Russia is the first nation to deploy women as combat troops. History shows Russia enlisted women as a fighting force in WWI.
“The Unwomanly Face of War” notes nearly 1,000,000 women joined the Russian military to defeat the German armies in WWII.
Alexievich interviews former WWII Russian women as pilots, snipers, mine clearing commanders, and military tank leaders. Some were as young as 13; others in their late teens or early 20’s when they joined. At the time of the interviews, all were in their 50’s or older. By any definition, these Russian women were combat troops.
This is a particularly timely release of a translation of “The Unwomanly Face of War”. In western nations, as early as the 1940 s, the role of women in the military has been in transition.
Most countries recognize the immense contribution “women in war” have made since WWI. However, the WWII veterans in Russia’s battles were not fully recognized until the 1950s.
What Alexievich offers is a peek into what Russian women in combat experienced during WWII. She identifies similarities and differences military men and women experience in war. To listeners of Alexievich’s interviews, similarities appear much greater than the differences.
The preeminent common characteristic among combat troops is nationalism. Whether man or woman, the belief in the sovereignty of one’s country supersedes gender. The disgust for an invading country and its military is equally reviled.
Alexievich suggests women feel the atrocity of war more than men because women bare and raise children. She argues women are more nurturing and emotion driven than men.
However, her interviews recount two events that would equally engage and enrage men as women.
Two interviews reveal a mother’s decision to sacrifice her children. One circumstance is for a mother to quiet a crying child by infanticide because of an approaching German troop. The second is a mother who has her child carry a bomb into a military mess hall to kill the enemy as well as the sacrificed child. How does maternal instinct differ from the worst actions taken by men?
The human response to war seems as brutally evident in
women as men. The trauma of war seems to
be absorbed in similar ways. War
experience is something never forgotten, and often repressed. There seems little difference among the sexes
based on Alexievich’s interviews of WWII women veterans.
Another example that seems more of a provisioning than
sex difference is the reality of menstruation and how it is to be dealt with in
combat circumstances. With proper
provisioning the difference between the sexes seems miniscule.
Another circumstance alluded to is the physical strength differences between the sexes. The circumstance recalled is a woman tank commander who cannot physically rescue an injured tank soldier because she is unable to lift him out of the tank.
Pulling dead weight is a limit for men as well as women. Though the average strength differences might be true between all men and all women, brute strength is an extraordinary need in war; not a common requirement. If one person is not enough to move a wounded soldier, he/she gets help.
“The Unwomanly Face of War” addresses the reality of conjugal sex in war. War is little different than life in the civilized world when it comes to the battle of the sexes. Alexievich recounts affections that rise between men and women in the field of war. One can appreciate exaggerated interdependence when one’s life is at stake. Maybe there is a difference, but the difference seems more of imagination than reality. Peace has its own way of corrupting the relationship between men and women. One must question how different the battle between the sexes is in war than in peace.
Common purpose brings the sexes together in both war and peace. When common purpose is absent, the sexes battle for their personal interests. What distorts the battle is power.
History suggests power more often lies with men than women whether in civilian or military life. Until there is equalization in power, the potential for fairness among the sexes is unlikely.
Whether in war or peace, sexual orientation is subject to inequality. The only remedy is a set of rules and regulations judiciously enforced.
One will draw their own conclusion about the role of
women in war after listening to “The Unwomanly Face of War”. Whether in a time of war or peace, what is
incontestable is unequal treatment of women
Narrated
by Philip Glenister, Daniel Mays, Catherine Tate, Owen Teale
Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894, Author died at Age of 44)
Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Treasure Island” is a curious piece of literature that resonates with 21st century calumny. Humans are not perfect. There is a bit of Stevenson’s “Long John Silver” in everyone.
For those unfamiliar with Stevenson’s tale, “Long John Silver” is a pirate who hoodwinks a young boy, a crew of sailors, a doctor, a professional ship’s Captain, and a few others on a voyage to recapture a treasure. Silver has the “gift of gab”; salted with a lifetime of experience in getting what he wants.
What strikes one about Silver’s character is his ability to see things as they are and change his behavior to suit the circumstance. If a lie suits his purpose, he lies. If the truth suits his purpose, he tells the truth. What he lacks is morality.
Silver is a narcissist. He has an egoistic admiration of himself that includes self-flattery, arrogance, and a sharp tongue that cuts like a blade. When confronted with one whom Silver disagrees, he cajoles, belittles, or verbally (sometimes physically) attacks his opposition.
If disagreeing, belittling, and cajoling fail, a narcissist changes the focus of attention with a manufactured distraction.
Putting aside Silver’s narcissistic amorality, he understands a truth about human beings. Silver represents belief that money, power, and prestige rule the high seas and land. With the skill of a practiced politician, Silver manipulates events to conform to plan.
The curious piece of Stevenson’s story is Silver’s prediction that Ben Gunn, a stranded buccaneer on Treasure Island, would be cheated out of a share of the treasure even though he played a major part in the treasure hunters’ success.
Gunn is an anti-hero who has lost his mind because of his isolation on the island. Gunn is like a modern-day homeless man abandoned by society.
Silver’s plan is to capture the wealth of a buried
treasure. Though not entirely
successful, he captures a share of the booty by co-opting Jim Hawkins, a cabin
boy with a yearning for the sea. In the
end, Silver escapes the clutches of British authorities who would have convicted
him for mutiny, and possibly, attempted murder.
What Silver points out is that the doctor, ship’s
captain, and other survivors of “Treasure Island”, will cheat Gunn of his fair
share. Gunn is given 1000 Sovereigns (English
pounds) and the rest (hundreds of thousands per person) is distributed to the
surviving voyagers. Silver infers all
human beings are pirates.
Some pirates wear suits, speak the King’s English, and live in the city; a Pogo version of “We have met the enemy-of-the-people and he is us.”
A Fine Mess (A Global Quest for A Simpler, Fairer, and More
Efficient Tax System
By:
T. R. Reid
Narrated
by T. R. Reid
T. R. Reid is a reporter for the “Washington Post”. He is not an economist. However, he suggests there are more equitable ways of taxing the American public than presently used by the government.
Reid’s travels around the world investigating other countries tax systems are the basis for his theory for cleaning up America’s “…Fine Mess”. Sadly, Reid has a futile unrealistic attitude that the British characterized as pissing in the wind.
Reid suggests a tax overhaul is due in America. The last major revision was over 30 years
ago. He argues a mess has been created
by incremental tax changes that have greatly exacerbated the wealth gap in
America. Reid illustrates the many ways
in which the American tax system is a mess.
An often-quoted factoid is “Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate than
his secretary”.
There are many economists that would agree with Mr. Reid. The most famous is the French economist Thomas Piketty who wrote “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”.
Reid argues the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world but the lowest corporate taxes collected. Having the high rate and collecting it are two different things.
Reid notes corporations like Caterpillar, Apple, Microsoft and others spent millions of dollars to set up legal tax shelters that reduce corporate tax to single digits; to as low as zero for some.
Reid goes on to explain how billions of dollars are kept in corporate accounts outside of America to avoid taxation, and how that money is not repatriated to the U.S. because of current tax law.
(Ironically, during Trump’s administration, corporate rate was reduced from 35% to 21%; and continues to be a significantly uncollected tax.)
The fact that Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes (either legally or illegally) in the year he became President is an example of corporations’ failure to pay their fair share.
DEFINITION BBLR
Reid persuasively argues that a tax overhaul should be made based on the principle of BBLR, a “Broad Based Low Rate” tax. The purpose of a tax overhaul would be to eliminate loopholes, broaden and reduce tax rates while equalizing citizen’ tax burden. Schemes for creating tax shelters would be eliminated.
As is widely known, millions of dollars are spent by American citizens and corporations to file tax returns.
Preparing and paying taxes is laborious and confusing task for many Americans. Even basic tax return filings are difficult for many American citizens to complete. How many do not file because of that difficulty? Some buy software to file taxes. Add to software purchases and there is only growing tax-preparation costs to file for others. Those costs are borne by individual tax payers. The expense of our inefficient, and inequitable tax system multiplies geometrically when you add corporation efforts to avoid taxes.
America’s taxing inequity is glaring. Millions of dollars are spent to avoid taxation through creation of tax shelters. The formation of these shelters costs millions in lawyer, tax consultant, and auditing fees but save billions of dollars for corporations and the super-wealthy who legally (sometimes illegally) reduce taxable income.
“Occupying Wall Street” is not a hippie “sit in” but a plea for reform of American “moneycracy” just as Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” was a plea for reform of Aristocratic inheritance.
Reid’s point is that America’s “…Fine Mess” can be made simpler, fairer, and more efficient by creating a completely new tax system. He suggests the corporate tax might be eliminated and replaced by a flat rate with no loopholes.
Reid argues for a “Value Added Tax”. A VAT would be a combination of local taxes and federal taxes on all consumable goods.
After collection, this tax would be distributed between States, and cities, as well as the Federal Government. The purpose of these taxes would be for maintenance of local services (like education, public safety, public works, and administration), and Federally mandated services (like national defense, health, education, and public welfare).
Reid’s argument is that VAT’ enforcement would require less supervision by the government because a VAT applies at each stage of the production of goods. Each stage of production is rebated for taxes paid by the handler that adds value. The VAT is a combination of taxes at each stage of production which is reported to the government for reimbursement. The reimbursements must add up to the final tax charged to the consumer. If the numbers are not the same, the IRS will be able to tell which manufacturer failed to pay their tax.
A simple computer program would be able to monitor the
collection of the tax because it must balance to all reimbursements of added
value. In theory, a VAT eliminates much
of the need for a massive Internal Revenue Service which Reid suggests is
unable to adequately monitor the present taxation system. Reid notes that it is impossible for the IRS
to closely monitor today’s taxing system because of the complicated nature of
its Congressionally legislated structure.
Another BBLR tax recommended by Reid is a financial transaction tax that would be low but capitalize on every financial transaction in the United States.
This transaction tax would be less than a penny per dollar but capable of raising billions of dollars based on the many financial transactions that occur in the U.S.
Reid offers the example of Hedge Funds that specialize in massive trades for short periods of time. These Hedge Fund trades move the stock market by fractions that reap millions for traders. With a tax on financial transactions revenue would be created for Federal Government programs that serve the health, education, and welfare of the nation.
What concerns a listener about Reid’s argument for a Value Added Tax is its potential for continued inequity. The poor may have to pay the same price for food, energy, and shelter as the rich. Reid does not adequately address that concern except to suggest a system would be established to offset that inequity.
Another concern, inadequately addressed by Reid, is the impact on Hedge Fund traders business if they lose the advantage of small changes in quick trades. Will Hedge Fund transactions disappear?
Political will is another issue not adequately addressed by Reid. What majority of congress men and women will stand up to the many lobbyists who support them in their election? Will most Republicans and Democrats co-opt or fight special interests that object to a massive change in the American tax system?
Finally, how would America deal with the lost jobs for tax lawyers, tax preparers, software developers, and corporations that benefit from tax preparation and tax avoidance schemes?
One may agree with Reid’s assessment of America’s tax system. It is a “A Fine Mess”. The question is–Do our elected representatives have the political will to clean it up; or at least make it fairer?
Incremental change of the tax code only makes it less intelligible. In Reid’s opinion, it is all or nothing. Reid implies “go big” or “go home” because nothing will change if the entire tax code is not replaced.
Reich explains how the concept of the origin of homo sapiens has evolved since the discovery of “Lucy” in East Africa in 1974.
Few scientists disagree about humankind’s place of origin. It may have been somewhere other than East Africa, but human origin is genetically linked to the African continent.
However, Reich notes that geneticists no longer believe African origin is an adequate interpretation of the wide differentiation of human beings. The evolution of homo sapiens is not like the branches of a tree but more a tapestry of interwoven threads.
Listening to “Who We Are and How We Got Here” reminds one of the Dragnet’s 1950s-character Joe Friday saying, “just the facts ma’m”. Aside from Officer Friday’s hint of sexism, it is never just the facts.
Genetic evolution is always interpretation of facts. Interpretation is David Reich’s “Achilles heel” for exploring and expanding DNA research to determine “Who We Are and How We Got Here”.
Humans interbred to create a fabric of intermingled genetic characteristics that came together, separated, re-combined and changed over thousands of years.
Genetic discoveries of Neanderthal and Denisovan genetic markers show there is no direct line of descent from the “Lucy” origin of homo sapiens. Genetic studies show that DNA changed as the human species grew. Some genes survived and evolved while others disappeared. Current theory discounts the principle of an “immortal gene” in the sense that the origin genes changed into something entirely different.
The great controversy that Reich explores is factional resistance to genetic research because of fear of misuse of the data. There is ample evidence to substantiate that fear.
James Watson (American molecular biologist, Nobel prize winner and co-author of the double helix structure of DNA)
In 2007, Dr. Watson told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.”
Reich adds to the “Watson story” by saying he met Watson and was appalled by his comments about Jews being intrinsically smarter than the general population.
Somewhat disingenuously, Reich notes that a disproportionate number of Ashkenazi Jews have received Nobel prizes. Is that fact relevant to genetic research? Does it apply to all Jews or just Ashkenazi Jews. Reich is an Ashkenazi Jew. Is this a reflection of the same concern over misuse of genetic information?
Genetic facts have been used by prominent scientists, like Watson, and ignorant political leaders, like Adolph Hitler, to falsely interpret genetic evidence. Genetic information opens a door to racist arguments for racial superiority.
Information banks created by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon are weapons of privacy destruction. In modern times, the only possible defense is “a right to be forgotten”.
One comes away from Reich’s book only semi-convinced of his search for truth through genetics. Reich insists that the benefits of genetic research far outweigh the potential harm the research may cause.
His point is that there are genetic studies that prove some genetic markers make people more susceptible to disease like anemia for blacks and Tay-Sachs disease for Ashkenazi Jews. With exposure through genetic research, these medical maladies may be cured. Without knowledge of genetic predisposition, there is less focus on what might cure certain diseases.
The problem always comes back to interpretation of facts; not the facts themselves. Reich certainly has a point in insisting on continuing genetic research but how does one protect themselves from misinterpretation of facts.
Dr. Watson is a Nobel prize recipient. Look at what his interpretation of genetic facts became.
Six million Jews were murdered by Nazi Germany’s belief in a master race of genetically “pure” Germans. Reich’s work suggests there are no “pure” races. There are only similar genetic traits among a few isolated populations.
Do potential medical benefits from genetic research outweigh a racist use of genetic facts? “Who We Are and How We Got Here” seems much less important than “Here We Are and What Can We Do About It”. Particularly considering our experience with the Covid19 pandemic.
David Guterson creates a court room drama in “Snow Falling on Cedars”. The court case is presided over by a competent Judge, a determined prosecuting attorney, and a detail-oriented public defender.
“Snow Falling on Cedars” reflects on a criminal trial’s strengths and vulnerabilities. It is a story of institutionalized discrimination that is as relevant today as in the 40s and 50s. Though the author, Guterson, is not a lawyer, he is the son of a criminal defense attorney.
As an author, Guterson tells the story of a Japanese American citizen accused of first-degree murder.
The story unravels slowly but with beautifully written descriptions of an island community off the Washington coast. The setting begins in the 1940’s and ends in the 50’s.
The historical relevance of “Snow Falling on Cedars” may be repeated in the tribulations of Carlos Ghosn; not in the sense of indictment, but for being guilty or innocent based on cultural bias.
Carlos Ghosn–Former CEO of Renault, Nissan, and Mitsubishi Motors (indicted by Japan) who escaped to Lebanon to avoid a trial which he believes is culturally biased.
“Snow Falling on Cedars” is equally a reminder of today’s appalling American attacks on Asian Americans.
The accused, Kabuo Miyamoto, is a gill-net fisherman like the person who is murdered. The crime allegedly occurs on a foggy night when both fishermen lay their nets in the open sea.
The victim is Carl Heine, a childhood friend of Kabuo before the war. Kabuo’s wife is Hatsue Miyamoto who also grew up on the island. A fourth major character is Ishmael Chambers, the local newspaper publisher. All three men serve in WWII.
In early chapters of Guterson’s story, a young Ishmael falls in love with Hatsue. However, at a critical point in their burgeoning feelings, Hatsue, her family, and all Japanese-descent Americans are interned in a northwestern camp during the war. The internment separates Ismael from Hatsue and she eventually marries Kabuo.
A NORTHWEST JAPANESE INTERNMENT CAMP:
This is the era of Pearl Harbor, WWII, and Japanese American internment.
The story explores the nature of human beings in a small American community.
Kabuo, Carl, and Ismael serve in the military during WWII. Kabuo serves on the German front; Ismael on the Japanese front. Carl’s location during the war is superfluous except that he served and was the son of a local strawberry farmer who employed Hatsue’s father.
Before WWII, Americans of Japanese descent were not allowed to own property on the island. Hatsue’s father makes a deal with Carl’s father to buy 7 acres of land for strawberries on an unrecorded contract. (This private contract violates the intent of the law.) The last 2 payments on the property are not made because of Japanese American internment during the war.
A feud rises between the Miyamoto family and the Heine family because the 7 acres is sold to another, based on Miyamoto’s payment default. There had been a verbal agreement for the last two payments but it is dishonored because Carl’s father, who had made the agreement, died. This is interpreted as Miyammoto’s motive for the murder of Carl on a foggy night of fishing.
The American judicial system’s intent is to mitigate unfairness by having 12 jurors of one’s peers, competent legal investigators, judges, and attorneys. However, fairness often takes a back seat to politics.
Facts of a trial, whether true or not, are subject to interpretation. What one sees, hears, or feels affects opinions.
Guterson creates characters that fulfill the intent of the American judicial system. The 12 jurors are islanders (though none are Japanese Americans). The investigators are thorough (though they miss two important but obscure facts). The judge is competent. The prosecution and defense attorneys are fully prepared in presenting their arguments.
In spite of America’s intent, Guterson illustrates how America’s judicial system is subverted by human nature. Guterson peels back the layers of human nature that distort truth.
Here is where the reinstitution of the death penalty by William Barr raises the question of “common good”. Juries do make mistakes.
How many innocent people have been convicted and executed in the United States? The Human Rights Foundation reports 31 innocent people were executed between 1973 and 2004.
Facts are immutable but facts are woven into stories by the human mind.
Those stories fit preconceived notions borne from personal experience and internalized opinions. Personal opinions are a fungible commodity that can distort the truth.
Facts are clear. Miyamoto is a Japanese American. Carl Heine is a white American. However, during the trial these facts are interpreted differently. The prosecutor points to facts for guilt and the defending attorney points to facts for innocence. The truth of facts is to be adjudicated by a jury of peers. However, a jury of “peers” listens to prosecution and defense arguments and makes a judgement based on their personal interpretation of the facts and arguments of the attorneys.
Guterson cleverly interjects the feelings generated by the main characters who served in WWII. Kabuo feels guilty for having killed a young German soldier who seemed to be asking for mercy. Kabuo’s guilt for murdering the young German makes him feel a cosmic force, like fate, is leading him to the gallows. He begins to think he should die.
Ismael lost an arm in the war and led a broken-hearted life because of Hatsue’s marriage to another man. Ismael resents Hatsue’s rejection of him and chooses to withhold a crucial fact in the trial.
Layers upon layers of human nature’s fragility bares witness to the truth.
A man’s life hangs in the balance. Will he be convicted for murder based on facts or truth? Is Miyamoto guilty or innocent? Or, like all human beings, is he guilty of some things and innocent of others?
In some sense, the American judicial system is on trial
in “Snow Falling on Cedars”. Truth is a
slippery slope. Facts are immutable but
interpretation is fungible. Knowing
facts is only part of the truth. Therein
lies the tragic reality of institutionalized discrimination.
Anna Burns’ “Milkman” touches on Ireland’s conflict over independence. Though the story is set in Ireland’s period of conflict, the books fundamental message is “words matter”.
“Words matter” is a timely subject in the era of President Trump’s America. President Trump is a showman with no moral compass. Appearing to be what his constituency wants is his “reason for being”. The consequence of Trump’s words increases extremist actions on both the left and right.
These are the indicted extremists planning to kidnap the governor of Michigan.
From saying Mexico sends their “rapists and criminals” to the United States–to saying he could “…stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue, shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters” is absurdist language. It energizes political extremism.
How many people are not wearing masks or practicing social distancing because of Trump’s ambiguous comments about the danger of Covid19? His words have particular consequence because of his position as President of the United States.
Those who are not wearing masks are not entirely Trump’s fault but Burns’ story shows how people fail to think for themselves and are influenced by what people in authority think and say.
Burns tells the story of an 18-year-old girl, a middle child of a presumably Catholic family, who is defined by other people. She is influenced by others because of their words and the examples they set.
This is an old story; philosophically revealed by David Reisman in a 1950s book, “The Lonely Crowd”.
Contrary to the main character’s professed independence, this 18-year-old allows herself to be defined by what other people think of her. Reisman called this malady “other directedness” meaning humans being more concerned about what other’s think of them than what they think of themselves. This “other directedness” erodes independence. The development of a personal, moral inner compass is subverted by concern over what other’s think. We become what others want us to be rather than who we choose to be based on a personal moral code. In Reisman’s language we become “other directed” rather than “inner directed”.
There are two milkmen in Burns’ story. One is a 30ish leader of a violent Irish independence group; the other is a 30ish bachelor emotionally connected to the 18-year-old’s family. Rumor is spread that the independence leader, who is married, is sleeping with the young girl.
The girl’s mother believes the rumor and berates her daughter for an affair that does not exist. The 30ish bachelor is generally viewed as a maverick in the town who likes no one and chooses to live alone. In fact, he is a caring human being that decries the violence of Ireland’s conflict and treats people with respect and kindness. In Reisman’s vernacular, he is “inner directed”. He lives his life in accordance with a personally developed inner moral compass.
Ironically, the young girl is intimately involved with a young man who she later finds is having an affair with another man. There are many ways to look at these characters’ circumstances but fundamentally it clarifies the truth that humans are more than what words make them to be.
Words can do great harm when used by a showman who has no inner moral compass.
Kimberley Strassel’s defense of Trump’s response to Covid19 in the 2/12/21 WSJ editorial is appalling . Most in the medical community emphasized the use of masks while Trump denigrated its importance, conducted rallies without masks, and made wearing one a political statement.
Importantly, a showman’s words reinforce what other people think rather than what a singular person’s inner moral compass would dictate. Relationships become infected by what people think; more than by what they do. It is particularly confusing to a young person of 18, but it is a confusion that pervades all human relationships, regardless of age.
“Jane Eyre”, by Charlotte Bronte, is a story about a young woman who listens and follows her inner moral compass. She refuses to bow to what other people say she should do. She chooses her own path.
This is a crossroad that Burns’ 18-year-old is confronted with in “Milkman”. It is a crossroad that her gay boyfriend fails to negotiate. It is unclear that Burns’ main character is ready to come to grips with “other directedness” but leaves one with the impression that she is beginning to find her own way.
Former Ambassador of the United States to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
“Milkman” addresses the human need for an internal moral compass. Words are weapons of mass destruction in the hands of amoral leaders. (Reference here is to the despicable way the Trump administration treated America’s ambassador to Ukraine.)
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
By:
Michelle Alexander
Narrated
by Karen Chilton
MICHELLE ALEXANDER (AUTHOR, CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATE, VISITING PROFESSOR AT UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY)
Multicultural societies are threatened by closed minds. Michelle Alexander pulls no punches in explaining how American minds are not exempt. From both conscious and subconscious actions, people who are perceived as different are treated unequally.
America, like most (if not all) nations, is a failed egalitarian state. From its early history, America has striven to mitigate inequality but with mixed results, and only marginal successes.
This is not to suggest America is less egalitarian than most nations but that unregulated human nature is a danger to all nations. Witness the murderous regimes of Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and more recently, al Assad in Syria.
Two police officers are shot during a public protest over the police shooting of Breonna Taylor (a police raid’s innocent bystander). Where does this end? Public policy failures should not be used as an excuse for violence. No one wins, everyone loses.
Money, power, and prestige corrupt every nation’s leaders; whether well or poorly educated. America is different from many nations because society is subject to a system of checks and balances. However, checks and balances have not saved America from discrimination and inequality.
As memorialized in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment (which requires equality of all before the law) America attempts to treat all people equally. America succeeds in principle and fails in practice.
Though the American mind is willing, the will fails to support the mind. Alexander notes how some laws passed by the American government purposely, and sometimes inadvertently, undermine the Constitutional guarantees of equality for all.
The veil of which Dubois is speaking is the real affect of American laws and customs on black Americans. It is the same veil one sees in history that is written by victors; not the defeated.
Examples of unequal treatment are noted by Alexander. She exposes the insidious affects of the war on drugs and America’s “3 strikes law” that disproportionately affect the poor; particularly those raised in black communities.
Alexander reflects on America’s failure to address root causes of crime—like unemployment, inadequate medical care, poor education, and racial discrimination. She suggests those failures are exemplified by “…New Jim Crow” laws. Her point is that “…New Jim Crow” laws are re-hatched by the War on Drugs and “3 strikes law”.
Jim Crow laws segregated the Southern United States in the late 19th and early 20th century. Her argument is that today’s Jim Crow laws are like Dubois’s explanation of the veil of American acts of conscience. It is a veil in the guise of fighting crime.
No one wants crime; whether poor or rich. The author does not argue that fewer violent crimes occur in poor communities. She acknowledges more violent crimes occur in poor communities. But, poor communities, like all communities, abhor the reality of violent crime.
Whether poor or not, all want protection from violence. No one wants to see their family threatened. Those truths make the policies of the War on Drugs and 3 strikes appealing to most Americans. Alexander’s point is these well meaning policies do not address the root causes of crime. They attempt to treat symptoms rather than offer cures. In treating the symptoms, the underlying causes remain untouched and ever virulent.
Alexander suggests the war on drugs and “3 strikes law” are a return of Jim Crow laws that segregated the Southern United States.
The War on Drugs and 3 strikes neglect the reality of living in poor neighborhoods. Poor neighborhoods resort to drug use and sale because it is the only job available, or often the only way of escaping the reality of being trapped in a circle of despair.
When a person is convicted of a violent crime, manufacture or sale of drugs, or minor drug charges, they are marked for life.
Job applications ask if they have ever been convicted of a crime. If the answer is yes, most are left with poor prospects for employment or advancement. No effort is made to rehabilitate but only to isolate. Once a criminal, always a criminal.
America chooses not to spend money to educate the young in poor school districts. America chooses to ignore the circumstances of drug addiction or the need for medical treatment. Crime is a zero-sum game with no treatment for the psychologically disturbed. Little investment is made in rehabilitation or re-introduction into society for the first-time offender.
The drug laws and “3 strikes law” dis-proportionally fall on the poor and black as evidenced by America’s prison population. Alexander argues the real effect of these laws is the same as the historic Jim Crow laws. They segregate minorities from the dominate American culture.
Alexander’s book is difficult for some to read because it denies the universality of the American Dream. What is forgotten is how much the luck of race and circumstance play in everyone’s life. Equally forgotten is the good for those in power is not always good for those without power.
Dubois and Alexander have something in common. Minds must be kept open to the truth. Empathy is needed by both those in power and those without power. Trust must come from both sides of any power structure.
No singularly elected person or autocrat will unwind history’s discrimination. Respect for difference and rule of law are the best one can expect. With respect and rule of law, equal opportunity is possible.
Police who brutalize the poor are as guilty of crime as the poor who victimize the rich. Each needs to put themselves in the other’s shoes to understand their own closed mindedness.
With better understanding of ourselves and others, more will be done to constructively address public policy failures. The alternative is increased cultural deterioration, discontent, and violence.
The Great Courses: The Skeptic’s Guide to American History
By:
Professor Mark A. Stoler
Narrated
by Professor Stoler
Mark A. Stoler, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Vermont
Contrary to popular opinion, Professor Stoler argues history does not repeat. Stoler suggests history reflects current beliefs influenced by past remembrance.
What is the truth of history? Is there a truth? Mark Stoler, like many historians, sets out to debunk modern perceptions of history. To professor Stoler, context and interpretation are the arbiters of history’s truth.
The frustration one has with historian’s analysis of the past is with “fact choices” and interpretations. Historians write about the past through the prism of the present. The result confuses readers who seek knowledge and truth.
The value of Mark Stoler’s lectures is realization that facts of history are immutable; interpretation is not. That may be what Conway meant but not what she said. There are no “alternative facts”.
Some suggest Kellyanne Conway’s comment about “alternative facts” means there is no truth.
Councilor to President Trump
An example would be historians who argue about past Presidents by choosing facts of history that support their argument. A past President of the United States is great, average, or awful depending on what facts are chosen and how those facts are interpreted. History seems revised in every generation.
George Washington is the father of our country. Washington made many mistakes as leader of the military during the American Revolution. However, Washington won the most important American battles of the revolution leading to British withdrawal.
Thomas Jefferson sold all his slaves (except for the offspring of Sally Hemmings, his black mistress) to pay debts before his death. He believed blacks were inherently less intelligent than whites. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence which stated “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal…”
Abraham Lincoln proposes a plan to ship all American Negroes to another country to solve the issue of slavery. Lincoln executes the emancipation proclamation that frees American slaves.
Franklin Roosevelt supported industry over labor during the depression. He represented the upper-class of society. Roosevelt created jobs for American unemployed with a government financed program, the WPA.
Stoler infers there is truth, but it lies in knowing
history is a phenomenon that cannot be separated from the present. The facts of the past do not change but unreported
facts are dredged up by subsequent historians and history is revised. We call this revisionist history; i.e. a euphemism
for reinterpretation of selected facts of history.
The election is nigh–Stoler infers there is truth that cannot be separated from the present. The facts of the past do not change but unreported facts are dredged up by subsequent historians and history is revised. Which way Trump?
That is why Stoler insists history does not repeat itself while Twain suggests history rhymes. With human nature as it is, the past is always present but in similar; not identical ways. History is not repeating itself. New history is being made based on new facts that fit modern societal norms. Stoler implies context of the present has changed history of the past.
Stoler supports his argument with numerous examples:
The origin of religious tolerance is not a founding principle of America. Early Americans were as religiously intolerant as the countries from which they came. Stoler suggests religious tolerance evolved in American history through the mechanism of unintended consequence.
Stoler argues American history is a story of imperialism, and that America has never been an isolationist country.
Stoler explains George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt remain as the three highest rated Presidents but with interpretations of history that have changed in different eras. Many American Presidents have risen and fallen in the eyes of historians. Wilson fell in part because of disclosed information about his racism. Grant rose in part because of disclosed information about his opposition to Andrew Johnson (Abraham Lincoln’s Vice President) who condoned slavery.
In Stoler’s opinion, one of the greatest unsung heroes of American history is George Marshall because of his service to country.
To Stoler, America’s role in WWI and WWII is misleading in many American histories because of misinterpretation of America’s contribution to the war’s beginnings and endings. Nationalism often gets in the way of objective truth when assessing any countries role in war.
Stoler notes the United States has never had a laissez-faire government. American government has always had an out sized influence over winners and losers in the economy.
Religious Intolerance
Imperialism
George Washington
Grant is strongly supported by Abraham Lincoln who reveres and respects Grant’s hard-won battles against the Confederacy.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1882-1945, 32ND PRES. OF U.S.,1933-1945)
GENERAL GEORGE C. MARSHALL (1880-1959) Under appreciated hero.
Capitalism is not the problem in America. It is the failure of the S.E.C., the FBI, the President, and congressional legislators to do their job.
Stoler’s lectures are a remembrance of things past, but just as with all historians, Stoler reports facts he chooses to recognize. The value of his lectures is realization that facts of history are immutable; interpretation is not.
Support of capitalism is not the problem in America. It is the failure of the #Federal government’s bureaucracy, the FBI, the President, and Congress to do their jobs
There are no alternative facts in history. Is that a truth or another fiction foisted on every new generation? Is Trump’s challenge to the 2020 election fact or delusion? History will show it to be both.
In 1939, Churchill calls Russia a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Stephen Kotkin unravels some of that enigma in “Stalin. Volume II” but the unraveling is marred by details that will only appeal to historians; not dilettantes. Nevertheless, a dilettante listening to nearly 50 hours of narration will find much to recommend Kotkin’s second volume of what is to be a trilogy.
Was Stalin a mad man, committed idealist, or something else? Was Stalin paranoid and highly calculating, or something else? Was Stalin a detailed planner or reactionary? What drove Stalin to eliminate 90% of Russia’s military leadership before WWII?
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 2nd, 2022, the same questions may be asked of Putin. The answers are similar except Putin is at the beginning of his career as “The Red Tsar”.
In “Stalin, Volume II” Kotkin describes a despot. Stalin controls a population of over 109
million people before and during WWII. Before
the war, it is estimated–between 5.7 and 7.0 million die from famine in Stalin’s
Russian agricultural collectivization.
During the war, Russia is estimated to have had 10,700,000 military
deaths, and 12,500,000 civilian deaths, of which 1,000,000 were Holocaust victims.
It seems Stalin’s administration before and during WWII led to 23,000,000 Russian deaths. In contrast, Hitler’s administration’s toll is estimated at 7,000,000 deaths; of which 6 million were Jews.
This is not to trivialize loss felt by any culture or nation, but–none exceed Stalin’s atrocity.
(An exception may be China and the famine during Mao’s administration. An estimated 45,000,000 died in the 1958-62 “Great Leap Forward”, led by the “Gang of Four”, a cabal that Mao later opposed.) Communism is clearly shown to be a treacherous and ultimately failed form of governance.
The ultimate question is –how could Stalin remain in power before, during, and after WWII? What people or nation would countenance 23,000,000 deaths? “Stalin, Volume II” offers a credible explanation.
Kotkin infers Stalin is neither a mad man nor committed idealist. Stalin is driven by an insatiable need for power and international influence. This seems an apt description of Vladmir Putin.
Kotkin shows Stalin is highly calculating more than paranoid. The clue is in the fact that Stalin never countenanced bodyguards because he did not fear assassination. His longevity is the result of pragmatic use of power to eliminate rivals. (Navalny comes to mind in the case of Putin.)
Alexei Navalny (Putin’s political prisoner. Noted receiver of the Sakharov Prize in 2021, Founding member of the defunct Anti-Corruption Foundation.)
Stalin assiduously pursues the preeminence of Russia as a communist state, not a Stalinist state. Contrary to some historian’s analysis, Stalin did not intend to create a “cult of personality”. Kotkin infers Stalin’s goal was to create a wider, more hegemonic, state of communism. (This may be where Stalin and Putin are different. Putin seems to pursue a “cult of personality” more than a hegemonic communist state.)
Stalin’s purge-
Stalin’s sleight of hand maneuvering is accomplished by publicly denying honorifics as leader of the state.
With that pirouette, Stalin systematically undermines any rivals by using state apparatchiks like the NKVD to arrest, torture, and obtain confessions. By branding rivals as “enemies of the state”, Stalin eliminated leadership competition.
Because Putin pursues a “cult of personality”, a Stalinist purge would be a hyperbolic characterization of his political actions. However, Putin is at the beginning of his role as dictator.
Stalin operates as a bully without outwardly appearing to be a bully. Each competitor who defies or competes with Stalin’s policies or position is confronted after gathered false or true accusations.
A confrontation can be direct or indirect depending on Stalin’s whim. If it is a close associate, confrontation is personal and accusatory in a way that causes some to commit suicide; some to be disgraced and sent to a gulag, and a few to defect.
Through personal intimidation, and the help of a secret police, Stalin systematically destroys public perception of potential competitors. They are summarily tried, convicted, and sentenced to Gulags, or executed.
Pavel Mikhalev, a wandering monk, was arrested in August of 1937 at the height of Stalin’s Great Purge for “counterrevolutionary activities”. He was tried on October 10 and shot on October 13. Mugshot taken in Moscow on October 13, 1937.
Stalin’s “hang man”, Lavrenty Beria.
Stalin replaces executed competitors with young followers. They are drawn from backgrounds of a less grounded education; similar to Stalin’s. These young followers become fierce defenders of Stalin; undoubtedly, in part, out of fear, but also out of appreciation for their gift of limited power and prestige in roles traditionally held by older citizens.
Stalin seduces new young leaders with dachas and improved economic benefits. Stalin appeals to the middle and lower classes; bypassing the upper-class or well educated.
A negative consequence of this system of promotion is lack of experience in leadership or management.
PURGED MILITARY LEADERS BY STALIN
Kotkin notes an estimated 90% of experienced military leadership is removed by Stalin before the war. The consequence is to make cannon fodder of many Russian soldiers as they are thrown into battle against better equipped and experienced German soldiers. Nevertheless, Stalin maintains control of Russia by recruiting from the young who are motivated by their own ambition.
Stalin, above all else, is shown to be a pragmatist in his increasing control of Russia after the revolution.
Prior to WWII, Trotsky attempts to form a competing communist party in Spain but is trumped by Stalin’s maneuvering. Stalin opposes Franco’s fascist fight. He balances his enmity toward Trotsky with armament provisions to Spain’s communist party. That support diminishes Trotsky’s effort to form a competing communist party.
TROTSKI
By discrediting Trotsky’s ideological support, Stalin undermines Trotsky’s success in forming any independent communist party. Kotkin notes that Stalin forestalls separate recognition of outlying communist parties by using Russia’s industrial capability to co-opt nascent movements. Stalin wishes to capture outlying communist movements by making it a part, rather than competitor, of Russian communism.
Stalin’s competition is either exiled or jailed. His ideological rival is Trotsky whom Stalin tries to have assassinated after exile from Russia. (Stalin finally succeeds in having Trotsky assassinated in Mexico.)
CHINA’S CHIANG KAI SHEK & MAO ZEDONG–eg. STALIN’S REALPOLITIC
Another example of Stalin’s pragmatic effort to extend territorial influence is in his playing Chiang Kai Shek forces against Mao’s communist movement. On the one hand, Stalin wants to spread communism in China but not Mao’s version. When Chiang Kai Shek is captured by Chinese communists, Stalin forbids Mao from executing him. Stalin insists on Chiang being released to join with the communists to combat Japan’s interest. Chiang refuses to join Mao but Stalin’s influence on China is undiminished. Stalin is playing a long game by offering arms support to Mao while resisting either Japan’s encroachment or Chiang’s defeat of Maoist communism.
Stalin is not characterized as a genius as is evidenced by his being duped by Germany. Stalin’s pragmatic effort to keep Russia out of war discounted Hitler’s oft spoken opposition to communism. Stalin fails to intellectually grasp the monomaniacal intent of Hitler.
Stalin is shown by Kotkin to be a consummate consumer of information. He uses information to make decisions about who to eliminate that might challenge his control. But, Stalin misses the realpolitik intent of Hitler.
In contrast to Stalin’s obsession for information, Hitler
is shown to shoot from the hip. Hitler
is neither a pragmatist nor an information addict. In shooting from the hip, Hitler chooses to
fight WWII on two fronts which is the beginning of the Third Reich’s end.
Kotkin’s second volume about Stalin is more for an historian than the general audience. The first volume is more audience friendly.
Nevertheless, the second volume is a worthy history of what makes Russia what it was and may still be.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 