Hannah Arendt on Evil

Arendt’s observation that Adolf Eichmann, rather than being an inhuman monster, was actually an ordinary man of at best average intelligence who believed the aberrant culture of Nazi Germany was completely normal and behaved accordingly, was regarded as radical, even heretical, in 1964. Events have proved her thesis sickeningly correct, (see, for example, Jared Kushner.) From the introduction of her masterpiece Eichmann in Jerusalem.:

Evil need not be committed only by demonic monsters but, with diastrous effect, by morons and imbeciles as well, especially if, as we see in our own day, their deeds are sanctioned by religious authority.

And here it is in the beautiful reading of Wanda McCaddon:

Putin’s favorite 2016 candidate illegally took top secret documents from the White House?

I don’t see why he would, which is to say, of course, I don’t see why he wouldn’t. In fact he did, as the National Archives has confirmed. What could go wrong with a transactional, money hungry, deeply in debt, beleagured, compulsive liar having a trove of top-secret national security information for over a year in his private villa? What could go wrong?

Colbert I. King lays out the answers in a piece he calls What worries me most about the classified information discovered at Mar-a-Lago (link below).

https://wapo.st/3HiMqAg

Putin, predatory putz

Vladimir Putin launches a full scale military assault, on three fronts, a blitzkrieg, if you will, to “liberate” the people of Ukraine from an illegal “junta” that “seized control” after ousting Putin’s guy Yanukovych, the Russian oligarch-backed brute Paul Manafort spent years grooming to be Putin’s man in Ukraine.

Putin has announced plans to “de-Nazify” Ukraine, since the little Ukrainian Jew who was elected president in 2019 only got 73% of the votes cast in an election as corrupt, according to Putin, as the one that elected Joe Biden in 2020. Talk about yer Kremlin firehose of falsehood.

It’s tempting to to tell Putin “de-Nazify yourself first, motherfucker.

The battle for control of Reality

The war over what is real is constantly being fought by partisan advertisers and influencers of all stripes. On one level it is what all of us do whenever we try to persuade someone to see things from our point of view. On the political level, it gets kind of crude sometimes.

For example, there are always a few clearly marked “Blacks for Trump” posers seated directly behind the great orange man as he orates, proving, of course, that the angry demagogue is no racist. To hammer this home it is good to have messaging like this out there, I suppose, inserted into the unsuspecting viewer’s YouTube suggestions.

It strikes me as highly unlikely that Biden ever foolishly claimed that Trump, though openly racist, was our first racist president. Most of the early presidents were slaveholders, more than one more recent president was in open sympathy with the Ku Klux Klan. Biden surely knows this, but why let the fact that he never said it stand in the way of making a hateful meme about him? It’s all about owning him, like Thomas Jefferson owned Sally Hemings.

So, since it is a war, fire must be strategically returned. I thought this was a pretty good one, with a big plus that it is hard to actually dispute based on the facts.

History for Americans

Americans, as a people, are not super interested in history, the past is old, tired, boring, we love updates, the latest, new and improved.  Because we pay so little attention to events of the past, and history is often so superficially taught, we live through familiar echoes of it all the time that many are unaware ever happened in the human experience.  The current rise of angry, armed, violence-threatening contrarians who shout “NO, Hell NO!” in unison, no matter what the underlying question is (if the question is posed by a perceived enemy) is regularly repeated, worldwide, throughout history.   If you hate Jews, and a Jewish epidemiologist urges you to take precautions against a highly infectious and deadly disease, this mob has a ready answer, a regional variation on “fuck you, Jew. How about a noose for the good doctor?  What say ye, fellas?”  The same goes for anybody who contradicts the “populist” leader’s message.

We have these Hallmark greeting card style themed history months here, a sad American attempt to provide an inkling of historical perspective, a nod towards correcting historical injustices.  February is now Black History Month, and even though it has largely been preempted this year by the racist shenanigans of Trump’s base, as the legal hot water gets hotter for the daring old man in the yellow hair, we get some programming and mass media coverage of overlooked Black achievements in American history, as well as infamous stories of long ago racist atrocities we have somehow never been told.   There is Women’s History Month, a month devoted to the progress of a crucial half of the human species.  You can add Immigrants History Month, LGBTQ History Month, Workers’ History Month, Corporate History Month (these vampires are people too, just like you and me, ask John Roberts), Billionaires’ History Month, etc.   Every interest group and demographic can get a slice of a month for the promotion of their history (though some, including Women and Blacks, have more of a right to it than most, very important struggles, stories and lessons that everyone should know).   

But here’s my idea: History Month.   Every day during that month another celebrity (from across the political spectrum, such as it is here) would go on prime time TV (repeated on demand and forever on the internet) and deliver a short, snappy factual account of some illuminating aspect of American or world history.  Teachers would discuss it the next day in class. It would increase interest in history, and awareness of its lessons, if done right.  Why not?   

Though there are radically different “historical” views of events (January 6th — riot or peaceful protest) there are not radically different facts, there is documentary evidence on which a more or less reliable story can be based.  You have Putin’s old KGB Firehose of Falsehood, employed by Sloppy Steve Bannon and the regular and “alt” right, which deliberately overwhelms a society with wild, distracting lies and crazy conspiracies — the only antidote to that high pressure hose of diarrhea is clarity, one subject at a time, laid out clearly and calmly. 

I see the objections, we are too divided, extremists have seized control of history, everything is weaponized, the firehouse is too powerful, propaganda is too sophisticated, even when it seems incredibly stupid.  These are all reasons we need a history month, the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine (abolished by Reagan in his pursuit of Morning in America and Making America Great Again) and a renewed focus on public discourse.  Many in their silos will tune out this attempt to agree on the basic cause and effect of history, but many others will learn and begin to consider things they never thought about.  When people know the actual choices they face in a democracy, based on what happened the last time these ideas were tried, things tend to be more intelligently decided.    My two cents, as someone with an abiding interest in the past — and the future.

Trump can be sued under the Ku Klux Klan Act

Clear legal analysis from Jennifer Rubin in a recent Washington Post, laying out the reasons Judge Amit Mehta’s recent ruling against the strained claims of our obsessive ex-president is bad news for 45. Mehta ruled that Trump is not immune from a lawsuit under the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, which provides punishment for conspiracy to deprive parties of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Here that violation was done by intimidating officials and preventing them from carrying out their legal duties. The op ed, Trump’s legal problems are about to get much worse, is well worth a read.

Of the angry ex-president’s argument that he is absolutely immune from the lawsuit since he was acting in his official capacity as president when he whipped up an angry mob he’d assembled, Judge Mehta set out several ways the rally and riot were beyond the scope of presidential duties:

[Trump] repeatedly tweeted false claims of election fraud and corruption, contacted state and local officials to overturn election results, and urged the Vice President to send Electoral ballots back for recertification. The President communicated directly with his supporters, inviting them to Washington, D.C., to a rally on January 6, the day of the Certification, telling them it would be “wild.” He directly participated in the rally’s planning, and his campaign funded the rally with millions of dollars. At the rally itself, the President gave a rousing speech in which he repeated the false narrative of a stolen election. The crowd responded by chanting and screaming, “Storm the Capitol,” “Invade the Capitol,” “Take the Capitol right now,” and “Fight for Trump.” Still, the President ended his speech by telling the crowd that “we fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Almost immediately after these words, he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol to give “pride and boldness” to reluctant lawmakers “to take back our country.” Importantly, it was the President and his campaign’s idea to send thousands to the Capitol while the Certification was underway. It was not a planned part of the rally. In fact, the permit expressly stated that it did “not authorize a march from the Ellipse.” From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes.

as to Trump’s First Amendment claim:

Having considered the President’s January 6 Rally Speech in its entirety and in context, the court concludes that the President’s statements that, “[W]e fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” and “[W]e’re going to try to and give [weak Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country,” immediately before exhorting rally-goers to “walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,” are plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment. … It is reasonable to infer that the President would have known that some supporters viewed his invitation as a call to action …

So, when the President said to the crowd at the end of his remarks, “We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” moments before instructing them to march to the Capitol, the President’s speech plausibly crossed the line into unprotected territory.