Comment on: "Google’s War Over the Sexes", by Ross Douthat

See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/opinion/google-women-memo.html?comments&_r=0#permid=23634653

As so often, Douthat misses his own point. Of course there are differences between the sexes. Societies, however, are changing such that in many, if not most, areas "female" qualities have advantages. We no longer live in a world where male physical strength and aggressiveness are needed for survival. Already an increasing number of "households" are supported primarily by females; including single-mother households, they probably dominate. There are already more female college graduates than male, and women now often have the better earning potential.

As a society we need to acknowledge the differences and encourage lifestyles and policies which allow both sexes to make optimal contributions to the rapidly changing needs of society in general. Men are largely fighting a rear-guard battle, trying to protect as much of their historical prerogatives. Just look at the arrogance with which male members of Congress treat their female colleagues, while at the same time the only two GOP Senators who showed guts and consistency during the Health Care debate were women, while the men proved to be cowering cowards, afraid to stand up to the super-bully McConnell.

The disadvantages women have are mostly due to the irresponsibility of men, in family planning/birth control, child care, household chores. So, since men will not share equally in these responsibilities, society needs to give women the tools to compensate for the male irresponsibilities - examples: Family Planning, guaranteed child care.

Comment on "Germany Joins the Resistance"

Ref.: "Germany Joins the Resistance" by Anna Sauerbrey

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/german-politicians-cool-merkel.html?comments#permid=23601960

As someone who immigrated to the US from Germany many many years ago, and has lived and worked in Germany in the interim, I generally enjoy Ms. Sauerbrey's columns for their German/European perspective.

This column, however, seems like a disjointed mishmash, intent on saying something "cool". I follow German news fairly closely, reading two to three of their daily papers every day, and watching "Heute" on ZDF more or less every day. And while there is quite a bit of coverage of Trump - who can blame them, the coverage here in the US on Cable is literally all day, with almost nothing else - the news in Germany does focus on issues relevant to Germany.

"Cool" is not something one would ever associate with Germany, especially not with German politicians, and to suggest that Merkel and Schultz are trying to be "cool" is just silly. Lindner is a different story, his Party, the FDP is fighting for relevance after disappearing from national politics for several years, and he will try anything.

Ms Merkel, in her very un-cool way, was absolutely right in warning that Europe and "The West" could not relay on Donald Trump, and that Europeans must concentrate on being masters of their own fate. That is not gratuitous Trump bashing, that is the unfortunate reality of a crazy person in the US White House. When Trump is gone, hopefully sooner than later, Europe/Germany and the US, and Germans and American will find back to their mutual trust and respect.

Review of: Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle

This review is from: Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle (Hardcover)

To me, the title is an oxymoron. I can fully endorse Mr. Flake's introductory definition of "conservatism", but of course the devil is in the details. There is indeed a valid discussion to be had about the appropriate role of government vis-a-vis allowing "market forces" to determine what is and is not done in a society. The trust of conservatives in "free market forces" is often blinded by dogmatic ignorance. Take health care, which even most economist describe as a classic example of "market failure". Or take the conservatives railing against "income transfer" (from high to low), when in fact evidence shows that for decades now "income transfer" has been flowing dramatically from poor to rich.

But all that aside, the inherent incongruence between "conservative" and "conscience" can be most dramatically seen in the actions of our current Congress. Here we have a Senate which proposes a Bill which virtually no one in the Senate wants to see become law (the Skinny Repeal), in the completely unjustifiable hope that a "reconciliation" between the House and Senate will come up with a doable bill, when each house separately could not do so. This is truly unconscionable, and all but three GOP Senators voted for this FARCE; only TWO of those Senators can be given credit to have acted consistently and honorably, with a conscience, and both were women. John McCain's role was anything but consistent (with his own words), and a little dubious in his self-serving grandstanding.

But back to Mr Flake. In comparing his words with his actions, one can only come to the conclusion, that he is a complete flake (sorry, I just can't help myself). Only someone whose actions are reasonably in line with his words can be said to have a conscience and act honorably. Mr. Flake, however, has voted consistently with the GOP leadership and rank-and-file, which he himself criticizes vociferously. So, yes, Flake is a complete flake.

All that aside, I still felt the book was a worthwhile read, because, I believe, his tracing of the history of the degeneration of the conservative movement, embodied in the current GOP, is right on target.

The Generals

The Generals

There is supposedly a tradition in the US that the military is subservient to civilian elected government. This is not anchored in the Constitution, but is generally assumed to be a necessary condition for liberal (in the sense of The Enlightenment, not in the sense of current American politics) democratic governance.

There is ample historic evidence that direct military involvement in governance virtually always leads no non-liberal, dictatorial governments. 

In the US this separation between the military and civilian governments is not absolute. We have had a number of (former) military leaders elected President and we have had many former military officers serve effectively in civilian governments. Participation by active military in “partisan” political activity is prohibited by statutes (Ex. Title 10 U.S. Code § 113 and DoD Directives (DoD Directive 1344.10).

Of all recent Presidents, Donald Trump has aggressively gone against this tradition, and possibly against statutes, by the number of former and active-duty military officers (primarily Generals) in his administration. Aside from the somewhat worrisome personality traits which cause Donald Trump to turn to military advisors, at the very least this is worrisome in both domestic and international policy-making in that it gives excessive voice to the somewhat one-sided preferences for military-style solutions; a more bleak interpretation is that it sets the stage for a militarization of government in general.

There is another characteristic of the American psyche, that of excessive patriotic fervor whenever talking about military actions and military personnel, which could further encourage this militarization of formerly civilian governance. I hale from a country (Germany) where such almost blind trust in, and adulation of the military, first in the Prussian tradition and then the NAZI regime, led to complete collapse of liberal, democratic, civilian control of government.

Germany learned the hard way to be skeptical, if not downright distrustful, of the military in general, but especially its involvement in government. America need not go through quite such a radical shift in its attitudes towards military leaders, but I believe it would do well to be a little bit more skeptical before, almost by rote, accepting them as virtually infallible “heroes” by definition.

Our recent history shows a number of worrisome examples of high-level military officers committing near-treasonous acts - David Petraeus divulging classified information to his mistress, Michael Flynn having unauthorized contacts with Russian and Turkish officials, possibly working against stated US policies and interests.

We should also learn to be more skeptical and critical of the advice military leaders give to our civilian government when it comes to deciding between military and non-military (diplomatic, economic) policy solutions to international issues.

The war in Afghanistan, by now the longest war in American history, was felt to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attack. Its stated objective at the outset was “to get Osama bin Laden”, and eliminate Afghanistan as a sanctuary for non-state-sponsored aggression against the US. Ultimately this was a decision by our civilian government, in the person of President Bush, but it certainly involved the faulty, if not disastrously wrong assessment by military leadership on their ability to be successful in Afghanistan.

Iraq is another example where the military leadership provided disastrously faulty assessments of its capabilities of fighting a “limited war”. One can argue that the decision was made by an unusually dumb President, influenced by an insane group of “neo-cons”, who resorted to fabricated “evidence” of WMDs to make their case, and that the military only did its constitutional duty to carry out the Presidents directives. However, as both the Afghan and Iraq wars ground on, the military repeatedly provided overly optimistic, and in many cases downright wrong assessments, and is continuing to do so.

The Vietnam War, too, provides ample evidence where the military leadership provided disastrously wrong assessments, and even purposely wrong assessments for political reasons. General H.R. McMaster, currently Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor, is credited with writing a definitive PhD dissertation, and a book based on this (“Dereliction of Duty”), which, as the title implies, accuses the Generals of the Vietnam War era of dereliction of duty for not providing accurate and honest assessments and advice on the status and prospects of the Vietnam War.

Unfortunately, even an almost universally praised General like H.R. McMaster, once faced with the real-world need to follow his own professional, ethical and moral conscience, failed disastrously. In his public comments regarding the divulging of highly secret information to the Russians in the Oval Office (with only Russian media and no US media present), McMaster’s comments were, at the very least deceptive, if not outright lies. 

Bottom line is that the “militarization” of our supposedly civilian government is dangerous to liberal, democratic government on its face. In the US this trend is especially worrisome because of the unquestioning, hyper-patriotic adulation of the military leaders, which gives them additional credibility within government, which is often deserved, but in many cases is definitely not warranted.

The Generals and Donald Trump

See also:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/sunday/mattis-mcmaster-foreign-policy-trump.html?ref=opinion

The Generals and Donald Trump

There is supposedly a tradition in the US that the military is subservient to civilian elected government. This is not anchored in the Constitution, but is generally assumed to be a necessary condition for liberal (in the sense of The Enlightenment, not in the sense of current American politics) democratic governance.

There is ample historic evidence that direct military involvement in governance virtually always leads no non-liberal, dictatorial governments. 

In the US this separation between the military and civilian governments is not absolute. We have had a number of (former) military leaders elected President and we have had many former military officers serve effectively in civilian governments. Participation by active military in “partisan” political activity is prohibited by statutes (Ex. Title 10 U.S. Code § 113 and DoD Directives (DoD Directive 1344.10).

Of all recent Presidents, Donald Trump has aggressively gone against this tradition, and possibly against statutes, by the number of former and active-duty military officers (primarily Generals) in his administration. Aside from the somewhat worrisome personality traits which cause Donald Trump to turn to military advisors, at the very least this is worrisome in both domestic and international policy-making in that it gives excessive voice to the somewhat one-sided preferences for military-style solutions; a more bleak interpretation is that it sets the stage for a militarization of government in general.

There is another characteristic of the American psyche, that of excessive patriotic fervor whenever talking about military actions and military personnel, which could further encourage this militarization of formerly civilian governance. I hale from a country (Germany) where such almost blind trust in, and adulation of the military, first in the Prussian tradition and then the NAZI regime, led to complete collapse of liberal, democratic, civilian control of government.

Our recent history shows a number of worrisome examples of high-level military officers committing near-treasonous acts - David Petraeus divulging classified information to his mistress, Michael Flynn having unauthorized contacts with Russian and Turkish officials, possibly working against stated US policies and interests.

Unfortunately, even an almost universally praised General like H.R. McMaster, once faced with the real-world need to follow his own professional, ethical and moral conscience, failed disastrously. In his public comments regarding the divulging of highly secret information to the Russians in the Oval Office (with only Russian media and no US media present), McMaster’s comments were, at the very least deceptive, if not outright lies. 

Donald Trump telegraphed his low opinion of “Generals” during the election (“I know more about ISIS than all the Generals”), and the Generals who joined his administration are continually being emasculating, the latest being the Tweet about transgender people serving in the military, catching the entire military hierarchy unprepared. 

And now he has appointed another highly respected General, John F. Kelly, to be White House Chief of Staff. Just as McMasters and Kelly have essentially failed to be the stabilizing, rational forces in US foreign and military policy (which are in complete disarray) and have done irreparable harm to their reputations, Kelly will fail to reign in the complete chaos in the White House and domestic policy making. 

Generals are trained to exercise power and leadership through the strict adherence and enforcement of the “chain of command”. This works against them in this White House in two ways: the “chain of command” almost instinctively makes them follow the lead of the President, even a deranged one, and their “chain of command” power downward in the Trump White House either does not exist (Kushner, Ivanka and now Scaramucci seem to be explicitly exempt from this chain of command), or is made a mockery of by the chaotic and despicable behavior of President Donald Trump.

The Generals will not save us from Donald Trump.

What Is Sanders’s Endgame?

By Charles M. Blow

April 20, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/opinion/campaign-stops/what-is-sanderss-endgame.html?comments#permid=18276762

As a long time Social Democrat, I have a lot of sympathy for Bernie Sanders' critiques of the current US social, economic and political realities.

However, to implement real change it takes more that spouting slogans and making grandiose promises, which he, Sanders must know he cannot accomplish. Senator Sanders has a quarter century of experience in the US Congress, and thus must know the difficulties of effecting radical change, or any change at all, in a representative democracy.

Senator Sanders claimed for himself the title of King of Amendments. His record is OK, as far as it goes, but it gives absolutely no indication that he has the ability to enact "revolutionary change". His record as Chairman of the Veteran's Affairs Committee during a time when much of the scandalous situations within the VA where coming to light, is anything but revolutionary - in fact, he often acted as an apologist for the dismal state of the VA.

Sanders' latest health care proposal, although admirable in its objectives, is blatantly misleading in terms of the costs to individuals. His $450 PER YEAR contribution is complete nonsense, and the attempt to allude to other tax revenue to cover the costs is purposely obscure, so that he can tout the $450 annual individual contribution vs. $5000 annual savings in insurance premiums - complete nonsense.

Yes, Sanders was initially important in shaping the discussion, but has become increasingly non-credible, and a liability to his stated objectives.

What to Look For in the Democratic Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/us/politics/democratic-debate-preview.html?comments#permid=18204450:18211243

Bernie Sanders deserves a lot of credit for focusing on topics, which have always been tabu among "establishment" politicians, and for embracing his "social democratic" background - perhaps after this election Americans will have learned enough not to equate "socialism" with "communism", something I, as a life-long Social Democrat in the German tradition, have been hoping for for years.

However, Bernie Sanders should be extremely thankful, that he will NOT become the Democratic candidate, and even more, that he will NOT be elected President.

François Hollande, President of France and a socialist of long standing, won his election by making outrageous promises to the French people, which even to an interested outside observer were completely unachievable. Bernie Sanders is making the same kind of unattainable promises ("We WILL break up the big banks", "We WILL implement Medicate for all", "We WILL have tuition free higher education for all", "We WILL reverse Citizens United"). None of his 25 years in Congress have shown ANY ability to implement such sweeping changes in America.

France, and Hollande, have a long history with Socialism, while most Americans still subliminally equate it with Communism. But even in France, Hollande could not achieve his policy proposals and he has now become pretty much of a joke in France.

If Sanders were to win, that would set back Americans' acceptance of social democratic ideals and goals, because he would end up a complete failure.