Is Obama a Socialist?

Before we get mired down in arguments about what is or isn't "socialist," let's look at a basic difference in how people look at the relationship of individuals to society and vice-versa.
One basic principle, not a bad one in its intention, is that we should earn everything we get. If we find ourselves helpless, broke, sick, homeless, it's because we didn't plan well enough or work hard enough. The moral implication is that if society is properly structured, virtue -- hard work -- will be rewarded, and vice -- waste, laziness -- will be punished. Who can quarrel with that?
And in normal situations this is a good way to run things. If you work harder, you should earn more. And if you choose to be lazy or to squander your money on gambling or liquor or worse things, it's only fair that you should eventually be poor and miserable.
But what about disasters that we did not bring upon ourselves? What about droughts and famines and forest fires and floods? What about cancer and other devastating diseases not caused by our own stupidity? What about steady workers suddenly thrown out of work?
If you agree that such things happen, then you have to acknowledge that almost all of us could at some time find ourselves in a difficult situation which we did not cause and which we cannot fix by ourselves.
Here is where, for most of us, another principle applies: As a society, we all have a responsibility to care for others, and we all have a right to expect the help of others when disasters strike. Or, as the Bible says, "Do unto others," and "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto Me."
Unfortunately what I seem to be hearing from some politicians (and others) is a rejection of this second principle. "Cut welfare, cut Social Security, cut food stamps, eliminate Medicaid, reduce unemployment benefits," the litany goes on and on. The usual justification for this position is an unwillingness to support lazy bums who don't want to work.
But I think even most bleeding-heart liberals share that unwillingness. And we know that there are abuses of every system that doles out money -- there are always people (and not just poor people) who look for ways to con the system. So let's agree: Every money-spending system needs screening, controls, checks and balances, audits, investigations, and ultimately prosecutions of violators.
That being said, there are needy people, generally people who have worked hard and paid into the system all their lives (or people with legitimate disabilities that have prevented them from doing so). And we as a society, recognizing that "there but for the grace of God go I," have a responsibility (which in the long run may turn out to be enlightened self-interest) to help those in need.
So is this "socialism"? Perhaps. But Obama did not invent it. He has simply seen -- and seeks to enlarge -- this principle of helping the needy as a guiding principle of our caring society, manifested over the past seventy years as Social Security and the more recent Medicare and Medicaid

Gays in the Military--What's the Problem?

The long-festering issue of gays in the military has again surfaced. And I still haven’t heard anyone explain in simple direct language what the issue is. I can imagine several fears, which get expressed as issues:
One is that some straights (I suspect those with fears of their own possible latent homosexuality) are simply uncomfortable being around gays.
Another is the fear that straight guys will be assaulted by gays in their beds or in the shower.
Another -- perhaps the one behind the resistance by some congressmen -- is the conviction that homosexuality is a sin, and we shouldn’t place these sinners side by side with our virtuous straight men in the military.
And the final one I can think of is the fear of the “homosexual agenda” -- the belief, related to the point above, that homosexuality is a (sinful) choice, and that homosexuals are trying to “convert” straights to be homosexuals.

These last two are matters of ideology, unsupported by any of the research on homosexuality. Medical science is emphatic that homosexuality is a condition, not a choice. And there is no evidence that homosexuals could, or would want to, “convert” others to homosexuality. In my experience, homosexuals want just two things: fair and equal treatment and acceptance, and, perhaps, the freedom to speak to encourage latent or “closet” homosexuals to accept their own homosexuality (which is not at all the same as trying to turn heterosexuals into homosexuals).
As for the first item, I think that is much the sort of thing that was said when the question of racial integration of the military was first considered: “Our boys wouldn’t feel comfortable having to associate with colored soldiers on an equal basis.” I’d say, “Get over it.”

What about the second item, fear of being assaulted by a gay guy in bed or in the shower? How about putting that to a scientific test? It should be fairly easy on a statistical basis. There are some reputable estimates of the number of gays currently in the military under the present “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. And there are specific numbers of gays who have been discharged from the military since that policy was imposed.
I assume that if any of those gays were discharged for making homosexual attacks or advances on straight guys, that fact would be documented. And of all the gays currently serving without being identified as gays, they presumably have not attacked or made advances toward straight guys -- or they would have been discharged.
So where are the numbers? How big a problem is this? I suspect that the facts would make clear that it is a vanishingly small problem. All the news reports I have read on the subject mention gays (something like 1300 in the past year, 12,000 in the last fifteen years or so) who were discharged either because they themselves admitted that they were gay or because someone else reported them -- but none of these reports that I have seen mention gays being reported for making advances toward straight guys. More likely it was because someone observed some sort of sexual contact between two gays, or -- who knows? -- overheard a sexually explicit conversation between two gays.

I think it is fair to note that, according to published reports, a woman in the military has far more risk of sexual attack from a male in the military than a straight male does of an attack, or even an advance, by a homosexual in the military.

Sarah Tucker, a Remarkable Woman -- In Memoriam

Kay and I drove on Thursday from our home in Durham to a funeral in Charlotte, the funeral of an amazing woman I had known for forty-five years (though I didn't realize fully how amazing she was until I heard the testimonials at the funeral).

Here's how I got to know Sarah Tucker:

In the mid-sixties I spent four years as the program director for an ambitious project in a low-income school in Charlotte. The mandate of the program was to select the most promising seventh-graders in six successive classes, work with them in a variety of ways, and prepare them for college. (I've written in more detail about this elsewhere.)

Carlene was one of that first group, and I soon got to know her mother, Sarah. I learned that Sarah was young (just six years older than I) and had been widowed for several years. She had seven small children and no job skills, not even a high school diploma. She was working as a domestic. Realizing that she could not earn enough to provide adequately for her children, she completed her GED and took a secretarial course, which prepared her for a higher-paying job. Then, a couple of years later, having somehow discovered what she really wanted to do, she went back to school again for nursing training, and got into the field she worked in for the rest of her working career. And of course she had to get all this schooling evenings and whenever she wasn't out earning a living.

This was potentially a recipe for disaster for her children -- seven kids at home, no adult supervision, all kinds of attractive trouble outside the home.
But it didn't happen. In a community where half the kids dropped out of school and many got in trouble with the law, every one of her children graduated. Why? She was both loving and firm. She let her kids know that she loved them and had confidence in their worth and their ability. And she laid down the law: "You will go to school every day. You will do your best in school. And you will graduate from high school." I'm not sure if she ever spelled out what she would do if any of the kids broke any of these rules, but I'm sure none of them ever wanted to find out.

So all seven graduated. Most went to college. Two became ministers. One completed a doctorate and became a clinical psychologist. And in later years -- as I learned at the funeral -- when several grandchildren were in danger of getting themselves into serious trouble and ruining their futures, they at various times came to stay with Grandma for a number of months. And they responded to her mix of praise ande support and confidence-boosting, and they turned their lives around -- as they emphatically and emotionally told the two hundred mourners at the funeral.

Restore the Economy by Jobs and Education

All predictions say that even though the recession is technically over, unemployment will decline only slowly and over several years. Since -- as has been pointed out -- 10% of the population controls some 90% of the investment market, that 10% may be quite comfortable with the status quo, but for the other 90% of us the situation is at least worrisome and, for the 10% who are jobless, the outlook is just plain bleak.

It may be necessary to continue to pump money into Wall Street and big corporations and the like, but none of this has much immediate effect on the jobless.

There has been talk about job creation, but I have heard little emanating from Washington that sounds as though it will do much anytime soon, and what I've heard doesn't sound like a comprehensive coherent plan.

Here's my proposal:
First, some self-evident facts:
1) We are going to have to subsidize the unemployed for a long time.
2) The unemployed, for the most part, have lots of available time.
3) There is much work that needs doing in this country, including a) building/repairing/ upgrading facilities in national, state, and local parks and other public facilities; improving streets, highways, and bridges; building mass-transit (train, streetcar, and bus) roadbeds and rolling stock; c) upgrading the electric grid and transmission facilities; d) developing, manufacturing, and installing alternative power equipment -- solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
4) We are going to need more, and more highly trained, workers for a vast range of technologically advanced fields in the future: alternative power, medical technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and many others.

I would put all these indisputable facts together in this way:
Instead of just providing unemployment checks, let's offer most recipients two alternatives:
1) You can go back to school to learn some advanced skills. Government will put lots more money into paying stipends to those who want to improve their skills -- and perhaps the stipends will be bigger than the unemployment schecks. And while several million unemployed ate back in school, hundreds of thousands of teachers (who might be unemployed scientists and engineers) will also be given employment. And when the recession is truly over, and jobs are again plentiful, there will be a large workforce available of people with new high-tech skills.
2) Or you can move into any of a range of WPA or CCC type jobs: The government will pay wages for people who are available for relatively low-skill jobs improving the nation's infrastructure and public facilities. Many state and local governments have lists of "shovel-ready" jobs, some of which are already being done with stimulus finds. (Or if private companies need a boost to do many of the tasks suggested in (3) above, government might supplement wages, sort of like older OJT -- on-the-job-training -- programs.)

The advantages of this approach to the unemployment situation should be clear. Roughly the same amount of money would be spent, but this way it would produce improvements to the nation's infrastructure and facilities, and it would train a workforce for future jobs.

Bill O'Reilly -- Secrets of Success

I've just read most of a new book, "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," by right-wing commentator Bill O'Reilly (I hope that's the right way to characterize him). The book was given to me by my very right-wing father-in-law, perhaps with the hope that it would help to straighten out my thinking.

Interestingly, I agreed with many of Bill's beliefs -- in justice and fair play, for instance.

But as I read on (and on and on), I realized what Bill's blind spot was. His implicit (and sometimes explicit) argument throughout this childhood-memoir-as-polemic is: "I didn't start out with any advantages, and I made it, so anyone can." He often compares himself with his classmates at various educational levels, classmates who came from wealthy and socially prominent families. He harps on the fact that he had none of their advantages going for him.

Ergo, he's saying, any kid from the slums, any kid from a broken family, any abused child of alcoholic or drug-using parents, has no excuse for not striving and becoming a success.

So where's the blind spot? Right here: Again and again, Bill tells of his somewhat cold and unsympathetic father, who, when Bill came crying to him about some mistreatment at the hands of other kids, would tell him, "Don't come crying to me. Get out there and fix it yourself." And he talks about the nuns at the parochial schools where he got his early education -- they were tough, and their educational and disciplinary techniques may have been questionable, but they set tough standards and demanded that kids live up to them.

(It's a little ironic that as Bill talks about his first teaching job in Florida, he criticizes most of his fellow teachers for failing to set up the sorts of expectations he sets up for his students; he feels that most of the faculty disliked him as much as he disliked them, because he was willing to be tough and they weren't. But he fails to recognize that the majority of students have missed out on something he had and which he as a teacher was trying to instill.)

So Bill, even if he lacked material advantages, had the indispensable advantages of self-reliance, self-confidence, discipline, and high standards. And, though he can claim credit for retaining and using these characteristics, he cannot claim to have invented or discovered them on his own. In his life were some powerful influences -- without which he would almost certainly have amounted to nothing.

The moral: It's not, as Bill accuses liberals of, to coddle criminals and bums because they didn't have the advantages. It's not to overlook criminality and laziness. No. But our moral obligation is to do everything in our power -- as individuals and and as a society -- to create learning environments (and to improve parenting) so that every young person acquires values -- and motivation -- similar to that which inspired Bill O'Reilly to strive, to compete, and to succeed in life.

More on Gov. Perdue's Lifers

I was pleased to see that the N&O published my letter about Gov. Perdue’s Lifers. Please read yesterday’s blog, an expansion of that letter, before reading this one.

1) Prison authorities have been quoted as saying that the system of reducing sentences through good behavior is an important factor in maintaining order in prison. After all, if you see no possibility of getting out, or at least of getting out early, what incentive is there to be cooperative?
So if the official policy now is that all these earned credits will not count toward an earlier release date, then some prisoners – out of boredom or deep-seated anger – may be inclined to break the monotony by causing disturbances.

2) There is a moral issue here, and perhaps a paradox. These prisoners ended up in prison because they did not follow the rules of society. So it is ironic that the Governor is choosing not to follow the established rules – rules regarding the length of a sentence and the rewards of good behavior in reducing that sentence – in now seeking to redefine the meaning of credits earned for good behavior.

3) The Governor has repeatedly referred to these prisoners as rapists and murderers. Indeed, those are the crimes that got them into prison. The implication of these labels is that, once released, these prisoners would resume their past careers of murdering and raping. While I recognize that her stance on the issue is based at least in part on the attitudes of family members of the victims, I find her wording inflammatory; it is an effort to justify doing what some victims’ family members demand that she do: keep these criminals behind bars and throw away the key. I am disappointed that either she is making a decision based on emotion or she is allowing her rational principles to be influenced by the emotions of others.

4) Admittedly we do not know – with total certainty – what these prisoners might do when released. But we have a pretty good idea. First of all, we know that when they committed their violent crimes, they were in their teens or early twenties. And it is well known that people tend to “age out” of their violent impulses. People in their fifties and sixties are far less likely to be involved in violence than young people. And let’s look at the record these prisoners have compiled: To have their sentences, in effect, cut in half, they have compiled forty years of at least good, and probably exemplary, behavior. At a minimum they have stayed out of trouble, in an environment where that can be very difficult. But many of them (and I would like to see the facts on this published) have furthered their education, helped teach fellow inmates, and generally shown that they have turned their lives around. Some of them have done more with their lives in prison than many people I know of out of prison. If you can compile such a record during forty years in prison, then I, for one, have no fears that you will harm me, and I would be happy to have you as a next-door neighbor.

5) Except for the criminally insane, who might well commit more violent crimes if they were released, the goal of society should be to lock up criminals, to offer them opportunities to be rehabilitated, and then to release them back into society as soon as there is reasonable assurance that they are ready to be good citizens. It makes no sense to spend vast amounts of taxpayer money to imprison people who are not a danger and who could be productive citizens.

Free Gov. Perdue's Lifers!

This is an expansion of a letter I wrote recently to the Raleigh News & Observer (which might or might not get published):

For those who came in late: Sometime in the 1970s, the courts defined a life sentence as 80 years. And the prison system has a policy of giving credit for good behavior, such that in effect every day in prison can reduce the length of the sentence by a day. And the net effect of these two policies is that a number of prisoners, originally sentenced to life imprisonment for murder or rape, have now acquired enough credits to be released, after serving some forty years.

When a group of these prisoners petitioned for the release to which they said they were entitled, Governor Perdue stepped n to prevent “the release of murderers and rapists that would threaten public safety.” She is having legal experts and the courts examine the rules to redefine them as necessary to keep these murderers and rapists in prison.

After this issue had been in the news for a week or two, the News & Observer had an article about a petition filed by one of these worst-of-the-worst, Faye Brown, who, in prison, has completed a bachelor’s degree, got certified to style hair, is learning to teach others to cut hair, is let out of prison each day to work as administrator at a beauty school, and gets passes twice a month to visit her sister. Yeah, sounds like a real threat to public safety.

The word “penitentiary” is about being penitent, about repenting, rethinking one’s life. And when that happens, the repentant criminal should be re-introduced into society as a contributing citizen. If we’re not willing to do that, we’re cutting off our nose to spite our face. We’re running up our tax bill to maintain these prisoners, and we’re not letting them contribute to society, all because we’re afraid they haven’t paid enough (not because we’re afraid they’re a threat to society).

Not paid enough? Twenty years (let alone forty!) doesn’t sound like much, until you think about missing out on a generation of family events, children, career, your whole life. These prisoners have paid. Let them have what’s left.

On the one hand, I think the cases of these prisoners should be examined one-by-one to be sure we are not indeed releasing people who are a threat to public safety. But it seems to me that if a convict can stay out of trouble in prison for forty years in order to accumulate forty years of credits, that person has been rehabilitated and needs to be let out to become a productive member of society.

Credit-card sharks vs. regulation

A PBS Frontline program last night documented the thinking and the policies of credit-card companies as they seek maximum income. An interview with the man who, in a sense, started the whole process when he was CEO of Providian was refreshingly (and frighteningly) candid. He acknowledged that Providian had led the way (with many followers) in offering free credit cards (when most competitors were still charging annual fees) but making up the lost income by charging high interest rates combined with huge overdraft and late-payment fees. And of course other credit-card companies and banks saw the possibilities and quickly followed suit.

But this former CEO said something that I think gives a clue to the whole issue of government regulation of business. He acknowledged that his company – like almost every other – will be looking for loopholes in the newly passed credit card law. He said (paraphrased), “You [the government] can make any stupid laws you want, and we will play by those rules. But since our job is to make money, we will be looking for angles, loopholes, that will leave us a way to make a profit.”

I think this is a reasonable attitude, much though we would like every business to be charitable and altruistic – and much though it appears that Congress believes that to be the case when it passes laws that let business monitor itself and make its own rules.

No, let’s have a realistic separation of functions: let us recognize that the function of business is to make money, and one necessary function of government is to set up reasonable but realistic limits on how business can make money.

It appeared from the PBS program that the new law already has numerous loopholes, and credit-card companies will be able to exploit them to make even more money. Since it takes Congress an extremely long time to respond to abuses (and then the influence of lobbyists prevents Congress from really solving the problem), there seems to be an excellent case for a new regulatory agency that can create rules for credit-card companies (and other lending institutions) and modify them in a timely manner if they do not work as intended.

Health Care Reform -- or Abortion

Killing is bad.
Abortion is killing.
So abortion is bad.

So if a health-care reform bill would in any way pay for -- or even condone -- abortion, it should not be passed.

But wait a minute: is abortion worse than other forms of killing? If your family is penniless and your child dies of malnutrition, is that not a form of killing? If you have a treatable disease but die because you couldn’t afford treatment, haven’t you been killed just as surely as if someone shot you?

How many women have abortions in a year? How many people die because of inadequate health care?

Some experts are saying that some 15,000 people die yearly because they lack access to health care. Either they don’t seek treatment because they can’t afford it, or they are turned away from hospitals or doctor’s offices for lack of insurance.

The counterargument has been that uninsured people can always go to an emergency room and receive treatment. Now there are studies that show that such people have a higher death rate than insured people with the same ailments. Why? Because the uninsured have not received the early interventions -- in the beginning stages of the disease -- and go to the emergency room only when the disease is far advanced. And they do not receive any follow-up after they leave the emergency room. So let’s add these numbers to those who die for lack of access.

And here’s something that perhaps should not be brought up here, since it would be hard to attach numbers to related early deaths, but here it is anyhow: It is well documented that about half of all bankruptcies -- and that’s several hundred thousand a year -- are medical related. Typical scenario: You have a job, and you have health insurance. You come down with a catastrophic illness -- perhaps a cancer that requires long and expensive treatment. You are out of work so long that you lose your job. Soon the health insurance expires or reaches a maximum pay-out level, and the insurance company tells you your treatments will no longer be covered. You borrow, you re-mortgage your house, eventually you declare bankruptcy, and you and your family are penniless. We have read -- anecdotally -- or people who have committed suicide in despair when they find themselves in such a situation. Obviously, there is a heavy economic and emotional cost to this scenario, and undoubtedly a cost in lives as well, even if we’d have trouble attaching numbers to it.

About abortions: I agree with the way Hilary Clinton phrased it: “Abortions should safe, available -- and rare.” Instead of banning abortions, it makes more sense to me to try to remove the conditions that cause unwanted pregnancies. Let’s teach young people -- male and female -- about human dignity, about respect for themselves and their partners, about sex as an expression of love and respect and dignity. And while we teach young people these things, let’s also teach them that if they insist on having sex without the intention of creating babies, they need to take precautions so as not to create babies. If we as a society could succeed in doing these things, there would be very few abortions in any case.

I would urge the anti-abortion opponents of health-care reform to save lives by working on eliminating the need for abortion, and to save more lives by supporting health-care reform.

A Message from Two German Films

I recently watched two very different German films, made even more interesting in juxtaposition, so that I couldn’t help seeing in them a kind of before-and-after relationship: they sort of book-end the war. Both, I think, qualify as classics. The first, Triumph of the Will, made in 1934 and directed by Leni Riefenstahl, is widely acknowledged as a classic, and may represent the invention of the documentary film. The other, a film adaptation of a diary or memoir published anonymously in 1959, was more or less banned in Gerrmany because it told some very unpleasant truths about World War II and its aftermath.

Leni Riefenstahl was a young woman who had made a number of what we would now think of as Grade-B movies in the late 1920s, and she was, understandably, eager to show what she could do in a major film. Her opportunity came when Adolph Hitler invited her to film the famous 1934 Nuremburg Nazi rally. The rally was in itself a spectacular production: It brought together some 200,000 party members and government officials, all playing carefully choreographed roles, marching in formation, to the beat of stirring patriotic music, furling huge flags and banners, to listen to tributes to Hitler by top Nazi leaders, and to several galvanizing speeches by Hitler. It was a demonstration to Germany and to the world of Hitler’s power and the rising power of the once-defeated Germany.

But it would be mostly forgotten, just a footnote in history books, if not for this magnificent film assembled by Leni Riefenstahl. Hitler gave her full freedom to film the multi-day rally and to edit the result into a documentary film. Looked at today, the film is a masterpiece of cinematography. It shows huge formations of supporters -- the military, unions, a workers’ organization similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps in this country (armed with shovels on their shoulders), Hitler Youth (sort of a politicized Boy Scouts), and others. The film shows overhead views (filmed from a plane or balloon or atop a cathedral -- it’s not clear) of phalanxes of supporters marching into town in a huge parade. Then it shows scenes from the window of a tri-motor plane bringing Hitler to the rally, and then his motorcade into town. The film never gets boring: it cuts from views of the crowds in formation, to the speaker, to individual listeners with rapt looks on their faces. At several points during the rally, Hitler is introduced by his top leaders, always in glowing terms expressing total loyalty and devotion and exhorting the listeners to be equally devoted. For those of us who have seen or read about modern dictators and seen what happens in dictatorships, this is all very disturbing -- as if we didn’t know how it would play out.

And then there are views of several speeches by Hitler. On the one hand, there is the idealistic message of peace, exhorting his listeners (particularly the Hitler Youth) to sacrifice and to work hard to rebuild Germany. All very positive. But then there are a few darker themes that slip in, easy (at that time) to ignore: We need to crush anyone who would hinder us. We will create One People not just by assimilating everyone, but by removing anyone that is not a part of us. And there are subtle hints of a Greater Germany, meaning a Germany that will include neighboring areas (in other countries) where Germans live. So if you watch and listen carefully, you see that the seeds for everything that would happen in the next eleven years is already there.

And of course we know how that played out.

Which brings me to the second film, A Woman in Berlin. The author, who had been a foreign journalist before the war, returned home and then was trapped when Russia and the West advanced into Germany from both sides. She kept a journal of her experiences as the Russians devastated Berlin in late 1944 and 1945. She published the book in 1959, but it met such a negative reaction that she withdrew it. But in recent years it has been made into a very grim but powerful movie.

Why was the book so despised? Because it presented, through the narrative of the author’s experiences and those of women around her, several realities that Germans were at that time not willing to confront. First was the fact that virtuous German women in Berlin, almost without exception, had been raped by Russian soldiers, most of them multiple times, and that many of these women figured out that the only way to avoid more rapes was to ally themselves with officers who could protect them from the predations of common soldiers. Better to sleep with one officer -- who might even have some manners and some human feelings -- than to be at the back and call of any brutal soldier who sees you on the street. So after the war, German men did not want to look at German women -- particularly those in Berlin but elsewhere too -- either as sullied by multiple rapes, or as more or less willing sexual partners of Russian officers. It’s much more comfortable to believe that, even though these things may have happened to some, all the women I know were virtuous and managed to hold themselves aloof from both these alternatives. Sorry, fellows: women who wanted to survive either yielded to any demand or paid for a price for protection. Better bed than dead.

But the movie -- and the book before it -- also contained another indigestible message. Before the Russians take Berlin, one German soldier, a family member, returns home from the eastern front, and drops a figurative bombshell. One of the women, knowing that the advancing Russians are almost certain to take Berlin, asks the soldier what is likely to happen. The soldier says, “If they treat you the way we treated their people, you’ll be lucky if anyone is left alive in Berlin.” Just in case this is not clear enough, the narrator, since she knows a little Russian from the days when she was a foreign correspondent in Moscow, is called to interpret in a confrontation between some Germans and some Russian soldiers. One of the Russians demands that she translate his words. He says, “In our village, the German soldiers killed all the children. They picked them up by the feet and they swung them. They smashed their heads against a wall.” She balks. “Translate this,” he orders. She asks, “Did you see this, or did you just hear about it?” She is obviously hoping that he will admit that this is just hearsay, so she can dismiss it. But no. “I was there,” he says. Obviously this goes a long way toward shattering her faith in her country, and she is going to have to mull over this for a while before she can accept it.

So it’s pretty clear why Germany had a hard time accepting what this book had to say.

But let’s face it: This is the way war is. And the larger moral is that if we abuse the enemy -- raping women or killing children or whatever -- then sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost. But can we be sure that if we treat enemy populations humanely, the enemy will treat our people equally humanely? No. But we can be sure that if we treat enemy populations like animals, they will treat our people badly when the tide turns.