Louis XIV, Louis XV, Donald I

"L'etat, c'est moi." Louis XIV.

"French King Louis XIV believed that he had the right to do whatever he desired as the ruler of France. When asked to explain how he thought the king should interact with the rest of the government and the people, his reply was, “L’etat, c’est moi”, or “I am the state”, meaning that he was bound by no rules and had no limits.

Over the years, the expression became a catch phrase for those government officials who overstepped their bounds."

http://catholicexchange.com/%E2%80%9Cl%E2%80%99etat-c%E2%80…

“The one that matters is me. I’m the only one that matters.” Donald Trump

"Apres moi, le deluge." (After me, the flood.) Louis XV

Book Review: Moral Combat: Good and Evil in World War II, by Michael Burleigh.

Synopsis: The Nazis were bad people who did bad things for bad reasons. The Soviets under Stalin were bad people who did bad things for one good reason. The Japanese did a lot of bad things, but since the legal definition of conspiracy is unfathomable, those things just happened – and some of them were good people who loved their families, so there's that. The Americans were good people who did good things but were too naive and unsophisticated to know why they did what they did. The British are good people who did good things for good reasons, except when they did bad things for good reasons, so those were good things too, really. The Italians changed sides so that 99% of the Fascists could escape punishment for the not so terribly bad things they did. The Croatian Ustashe are beneath notice, and while Polish and French resistance is remarkable, the Yugoslav Partisans turned out to be Commies, so there is no reason to acknowledge them.

Reinhold Neibuhr and Martin Niemöller can't hold a candle to CoE (Church of England) clergy when it comes to the theological implications of morality in wartime, so are justly ignored. Also, lawyers, and moral philosophers, the political “left,” the New York Times, and all other historians are ignorant. And you can tell whether someone is morally virtuous by their appearance and personal habits. Lastly, apparently there is no problem with using terms like “Apache-like” and Gypsy.

TL, DR: Hitler bad, Churchill good.

Not a Yelp review.

So, about 15 years ago (!), I had cause to travel to Banja Luka, in northern Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) every month or so. Back then, it was about a four hour drive, via Doboj and Prnjavor. Banja Luka is the capital of Republika Srpska (RS) - one of two component entities of BiH, and whose very name reminds the remaining non-Serb ethnic minorities of their, at best, second-class citizenship. So, leave Sarajevo early in the morning, working lunch in Banja Luka, more meetings, then check into a hotel for an overnight stay before yet more meetings the next day and the drive home.

My first trip up was in August, and it was suggested that I not stay at the usual "foreigners'" hotel, the Balkana*, as recent visitors found it less than pleasant and newer places had been opening, now that it was coming up on five years since the war.  Proposed was the Dvor*, near the center of town. Ok, said I.

Reception:  The desk wasn't busy, but the clerk still took his time to respond to my presence - which gave me to time to check out the dimly-lit array of pigeonholes behind the desk, each with the room key hanging in front of the slot when any guest was currently not in their room. I handed over my passport; the quickly-concealed expression across the clerk's face hinted at the expectation of a small emolument from the local secret service for promptly notifying them of my arrival and the chance to review the booklet. Oh well; it's not like they hadn't been tailing ever since we crossed the last bridge on the way intio Banja Luka. I was handed the key, told the room number and reminded to hand in my key any time I left the hotel grounds.

No elevator, so I trudge up the dimly-lit and somehow already crumbling stairs, just a single flight to my floor. At least I didn't have to tip the bellboy for carrying my overnight bag and showing me my room: no bellboy.

The Dvor's rooms were recently remodeled and refurnished. Apparently they obtained the wall-to-wall carpeting from a demolished Motel 6, and glued it directly to the concrete floor.  At least the room had air conditioning, a relief with  high temperatures around 90 F (32 C). But the air conditioning didn't work. At all. So open the window, as the night should be cool. The open window looked out over a sidewalk cafe, which afforded my tails a convenient and comfortable place to await my reappearance, and music. Loud music. Until 3 a.m. Not provided by the window - any sort of breeze, cool or otherwise.

Turn on the TV in time for the news and the weather, presented by a middle-aged woman, haired dyed "Balkan red" - in this case, orange. Like meterological forecasts anywhere, the weather report appeared to indicate that the weather halted at political boundaries. Surreal in Banja Luka, as Republika Srpska wraps around the Federation of BiH, and is itself encompassed by Croatia and Serbia. It was if the weather was affecting a very large horseshoe.

Off to bed, to sleep and perchance to dream. More like fat chance. The mattress was fair to being an imitation of a pool table, only without cushion rails, and the pillows bags of cement.

Morning arrives. No hot water and little water pressure. A Continental breakfast is included, so I traipse down to the serving room. As is too often the case on the Continent (and at least once in northern Virginia), the room is the basement. The white bread toast is dried out, the jam mere gelatin infused with food coloring, the "cold" cuts oddly warm, the slabs of pre-sliced cheese able to substitute for kitchen countertops, the coffee cold and faintly oily.

At least I got a receipt for my stay, to attach to my travel voucher.

* Names are changed. Standard disclaimer: The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. 

Overrated Classic: Fritz Fischer's Germany's Aims in the First World War

Fritz Fischer's Germany's Aims in the First World War is an acclaimed classic, usually cited for breaking with forty years of German accepted wisdom that, unlike in 1939, in 1914 Germany “slid” blamelessly into war (to quote UK PM Lloyd-George). That is to say, Fischer asserted iconoclastically that the German Reich bore "a substantial share of the historical responsibility for the outbreak of the general war." And this assertion, commonly accepted outside of Germany long before Fischer's 1961 pronouncement, is what gained Germany's Aims in the First World War such fame and notoriety – even though Fischer himself states in his book “It is not the purpose of this work (to debate) the question of war guilt.” p 87 And truly, what Fischer spends over 500 pages on is not war guilt, but an effort to show that the Second Reich sought to use the war to establish itself as a “world power,” through the political annexation of its nearest neighbors and the economic subordination of much of Europe into a Mitteleuropa.

Unfortunately for readability, Fischer pursues this goal by repetitive chronological rendering of state papers and the opinions of Germany's government officials and occasionally politicians and leading businessmen. Make no mistake, getting through this tome is a slog, one that is rarely rewarding.

Fischer's genuine thesis is buried halfway through the book: “Leading circles in Germany were convinced that only a victorious war ending in substantial gains would enable them to maintain their political and social order;” p. 329 Such a stance certainly explains the stubbornness with which the Emperor, Army (and Navy), and Reich and Prussian governments held to to arrogant war aims – domination of Belgium and Poland, exploitation of Romania, seizure of the Baltic, Ukraine, even Caucasus, and commandeering the mine fields of northeast France.

But Fischer's emptying of the German archives into his expose leads him astray, by overvaluing any and all documents that support his thesis of an unchecked German will to power. For example, he cites the views of the head of the German Colonial Association and the head of the Reich Colonial Office as proof of German war aims in Africa. p. 587 Bureaucratically, an organization will always advocate for its own narrow goals, irrespective of whether those goals serve the greater good. Without clear evidence that the goal was accepted by the state, such views are interesting, but not dispositive. One might as well say a child's wish for a pony proves the existence of the stable.

And again, Fischer proffers arguments such as that on page 603: “a long report (in June 1918) by the [Prussian] Ministry of State (was) one more testimony to Prussia's obstinate determination to expand....” It is more likely that the report is testimony to the inertia of bureaucracy, offering reports to the captain on how to arrange the deckchairs long after hitting the iceberg.

The past few years have seen numerous new books on the question of why the Great War broke out. Any of them, even the least of them, is a better contribution to the field than Fischer at this date.

Neither Confirm Nor Deny

"The White House does not confirm or deny unsubstantiated claims based on illegal leaks from anonymous individuals," said a White House spokesperson who declined to be named.

1) So, the WH statement is, itself, anonymous - and not to be believed?

2) "Neither confirm nor deny" is known as the Glomar response (see Wikipedia) -- aka a non-denial denial -- - and it turned out that the denial was demonstratively false. Or, as the NZ Government concluded when the US Navy refused to "confirm or deny" whether nuclear weapons were on board ships planning to make port visits - yep, there's nukes.

Word of the Day

Capricious.

: changing often and quickly; especially : often changing suddenly in mood or behavior
: not logical or reasonable : based on an idea, desire, etc., that is not possible to predict

(from Merriam-Webster)

The Anomaly of Employer-Paid Health Insurance

Ever wonder why health insurance in the US is provided through employers, which is NOT the norm in countries with health coverage? (pace Miss USA)

1939—Revenue Act of 1939 (Sec. 104), establishes employee tax exclusion for compensation for injuries, sickness, or both received under workers' compensation, accident, or health insurance.

"The link between employment and private health insurance was strengthened during World War II when in 1943 the War Labor Board ruled that controls over wages and prices imposed by the 1942 Stabilization Act did not apply to fringe benefits such as health insurance. In response to this ruling, many employers used insurance benefits to attract and retain scarce labor."

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14839.pdf?new_window=1

Two-term Presidents

To date, no incumbent President who has sought renomination to the office has been denied his party's endorsement. (Some, most recently Bush the elder, didn't get re-elected in November.)

New Rule : Put Up or Shut Up

djt's aides keep telling us that he's gone to one of his golfclubs for "meetings and phone calls." djt leaves after 4 1/2 hours (an average golf game lasts four hours - and he needs time to change), after being espied wearing golf togs (shoes, glove, gold slacks, polo shirt).   then we are NOT told who djt "met" with, or "called", let alone who he played with. Meanwhile the press is tucked away in a corner of the club.

New rule: the press is allowed to place 18 photographers, no audio recording equipment, at the golf club while djt is having "meetings and phone calls": one at each hole. (If the course is larger, say 27 holes, the photo pool gets larger.)

Partisanship

It is expected that if the ACHA passes, it will do so with solely GOP votes, just as the ACA passed with just Dem votes. It wasn't always this way.

In late 1940 FDR had just won an unprecedented (and now unrepeatable) third term as President, with 55% of the popular vote and 85% of the Electoral vote. FDR proposed that the US should be the "Arsenal of Democracy," supplying the sole major country still in the fight (Great Britain and her Empire and Dominions) with the means to fight. He then proposed "Lend-Lease," to allow the increasingly destitute British to acquire weapons, ammunition, and materiel even without the means to pay.

The House voted on the bill in February:

                                      Aye               Nay
Democrats                    238                25
GOP                                24              135

The Senate voted in March:

Democrats                      49                 13
GOP                                10                 17

Apparently, back then, it was thought the representatives of the people, not the party leadership, should decide on important issues.

Excusing the inexcusable

The intelligence community has concluded that Putin ordered Russian hackers to influence the 2016 US Presidential election. At least seven members of the djt campaign, some at very senior levels then and now, met with Russian officials and attempted to hide those meetings, even while under oath.

The hacking, the dissemination of the stolen material, and possible collusion with a hostile foreign power in either the hacking or the dissemination raises serious questions about whether Moscow has gained undue influence over the US Executive. But many in the GOP and elsewhere, even on the left, wish to sweep it all under a rug.

The excuses offered that I have heard include:

1. "Well, doesn't the US do that to other countries? This is just payback."
2. "There's nothing illegal about seeking to influence voters."
3. "It's just another conspiracy theory/spy novel."
4. "I'm not the puppet, you're the puppet." (projection)
5. "This is more hyper-partisanship."
6. "The 'Deep State' just doesn't like ... (fill in the blank - Flynn, Putin, Russia, djt)."
7. "It'll all blow over. The real problem is the GOP is ... (another fill in the blank).
8. "If we investigate Republicans we can't attend to our agenda." 
9. "But Hillary! But DNC! But Bernie!" also "But Obama!" (deflection)
10. "The Government's collection of information showing the action, especially of links to Americans, was itself illegal, and that's the problem."
11. "It was a routine meeting(s), nothing to see here.”

12. “What he really meant to say was ...”

The Bigger Haystack

What's being missed in "Bowling Green massacre" story is what was reported at the time: In 2011, the FBI arrested two Iraqi refugees who were caught in a sting sending money to Al Qaeda (not planning an attack in the US). In 2013, ABC News reported: "Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan."

That FBI belief led to reviewing the cases (identity, affiliation, etc) of 58,000 Iraqi refugees in this country. How many more arrests of suspected terrorists by the FBI or any law enforcement occurred? Zero are reported, six years later. It would appear that the vetting was already, shall we say, extreme - an error rate of 0.0017 %. And remember, the error was caught by domestic law enforcement, and before any harm occurred.

Meanwhile, the new policy is leading to large numbers of false positives: doctors, patients, prominent news producers, five year US citizens, the former Prime Minister of Norway. Rule of thumb: if you increase the size of the haystack, the chance of missing the needle goes up.

Wag the Dog, Part II - The Media Copies Each Other's Exam Papers

USA Today, 1/29/17: "In one of three executive actions Saturday, President Trump reshuffled the National Security Council to include his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, and limited the roles of the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
BBC: "The director of national intelligence and the joint chiefs will attend when discussions pertain to their areas. Under previous administrations, the director and joint chiefs attended all meetings of the NSC's inner circle, the principals' committee."

WaPo: "That memo also states that the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will sit on the principals committee only when the issues to be discussed pertain to their “responsibilities and expertise.” In the previous two administrations, both were included as regular attendees."

Ok, here's the relevant sentence from the 2009 and 2017 memos:

"The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall attend NSC meetings."

"The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings."

Quick: Which is the 2009 memo, and which is from 2017? Bonus points - what is the difference, and what is its effect?

Digging even deeper, WaPo transposed the words quoted as "responsibilities and expertise" from the memo's discussion of the senior subcommittee (the PC), which "considers policy", to the NSC proper, which "advises the President." The roles are not the same, and the more limited PC role does always require direct intel and unformed military involvement in the discussion itself.

Wag the Dog

 I just (re-)read Obama's memo organizing the NSC, and the new one. The status of the DNI and the CJCS is essentially unchanged (the caveat is because the new memo describes the Prez, VP, and Secretaries as attendees at Council meetings, where Obama had those as Council members, with only advisers described as attending).

Bannon and (apparently) Kushner are added, which is both highly atypical and not surprising, for the same reason: until now, purely political types were kept out to minimize "Wag the Dog" scenarios.

The most interesting omission is the former memo's requirement that "The NSC shall meet regularly and as required."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/national-security...

Alternate Facts, Day Four**

Spicer: "Finally, the president issued a memorandum outlining executive branch hiring. This memorandum counters through dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years. " (sic)

Non-alternate fact: the work force decreased under the 44th President, especially compared to population growth.

From OPM.gov, civilian employees, executive branch:
1981: 2.8 million
1989: 3.1 million
1993: 2.9 million
2001: 2.6 million
2009: 2.8 million
2014: 2.7 million *most recent data, 2016 estimate is also 2.7 million

CF, US population:
1981: 229 million
1989: 247 million
1993: 260 million
2001: 285 million
2009: 307 million
2014: 318 million
2016: 323 million

Population per Federal civilian employee
1981: 82
1989: 80
1993: 90
2001: 110
2009: 110
2014: 118
2016: 120

** Or Day One, depending on who's counting.

Resignation of Political Ambassadors: Tempest in a Teapot (So Far)

Honestly, I feel the NYT and others have blown the resignation of political ambassadors out of proportion. (NB: I retired from State after 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer.) Some media, even Reuters, have abbreviated this as "all ambassadors appointed by Obama" are to resign. Well, all ambassadors, career and political, are appointed by the President. Traditionally, ALL "political" ambassadors are asked to resign before a new President takes office - but the career folks stay in place.

E.g.: There are three (sometimes four) ambassadors in Geneva - UN, Disarmament (CD), WTO (Human Rights). In Early 2009, the UN ambassador left on his private plane on the morning on January 20. My boss (Disarmament) left a few days before. Even though our new boss was a career FSO, she was not sworn in until March 2010. We functioned fine in the 15-month gap, facilitating in Geneva a successful seven-month negotiation of the New START treaty, cutting nukes 30%. So things get done without ambassadors in place.

Remember too that many (way too many, IMO) of the political ambassadors got the nod by raising campaign funds, and have little to no qualification for the job. (These are carried by the career staff.) Obama's political amb to Luxembourg was so awful her two senior career officers transferred to Iraq and Afghanistan! They are also rich (see Geneva amb & private jet, above). Every one of these should have started packing November 9th.

The folks I feel sorry for are the management folks who have political appointees who thought they could stay on - and now have to scramble to get them out the door. And of course for millions of Americans, not nearly so well off, who will be harmed by the policies of the next two years.

And all bets are off if the new powers-that-be start going after career national security folks, in State, intel, and defense.

Warning: No simple answers ahead.

Greg Palast, reported on RT, reports on the vote-suppression caused by the "Crosscheck" program, designed by GOP Kansas SecState Kris Kobach to suppress registration of likely Dem voters in the guise of removing duplicate registrations. Now, I like Greg Palast, who does solid fieldwork and writes articulately. But I see no reason to say that "X" is the reason the election came out the way it did - so "A", "B", "Y", and "Z" are irrelevant. That's stage-magic, and it doesn't matter if the stage is PEOTUS' Twitter or RT's (Russia Today before they started to obscure Russian government funding - and control).

Remember that this story is in fact bigger than the election and hacking of the DNC. The sanctions announced at the end of the year also responded to: "a pattern of harassment of our diplomats overseas that has increased over the last four years, including a significant increase in the last 12 months. This harassment has involved arbitrary police stops, physical assault, and the broadcast on State TV of personal details about our personnel that put them at risk. In addition, the Russian Government has impeded our diplomatic operations by, among other actions: forcing the closure of 28 American Corners which hosted cultural programs and English-language teaching;" 

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/12/266145.htm