On this day in 1961, Adolf Eichmann was sentenced to death. It’s remarkable to think that he was only 39 years old at the end of World War II. And then you look at him in prison in his mid-50s and it isn’t hard to see why people picked up on Hannah Arendt’s concept, “The banality of evil.” This wasn’t what she was getting at, but I know we all have the same reaction when we see a war criminal long after the fact, “That average looking old man did it?!”

But based upon Arendt’s reporting, I would say that Eichmann was a totally typical authoritarian. So when he gave the explanation that he was simply following orders, he was being honest. Obviously, it is wrong to follow orders when the orders are wrong. But the issue that our civilization has never wrestled with is that all of our governments depend upon people following orders. Every aspect of the official state is designed to get people to follow orders without thinking.

All you really need to do is look at the way that our government responded to Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. I don’t believe for a minute that the government really cares about the secrets that were revealed. The overblown outrage that we see is to send a message: it doesn’t matter what you do because you think it is right, the government will hunt you down and destroy you. Do you really think that the US government would have forced another country’s airplane down to search for Robert Lewis Dear, if he were on the run? Of course it wouldn’t. No one needs a lesson about murder, but they do about never crossing the government.

I do think there was something banal about Eichmann. He was doing what almost all authoritarians would do in his place. And in America, I would say that about 25% of us are authoritarians. But the real problem is that the government seems to think things would be better if we all were.

On this day in 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured by American forces in a hole on a farm near Tikrit. I’ve always felt a bit sad for the man. Sure, he was a horrible despot. But he really did play by the despot rules. He had managed his power with a great deal of thuggish intelligence. And then he gets invaded for what?! I’m still not clear on it.

And the Persian Gulf War: what was up with that? Here’s the thing: the United States had supported him while he did all kinds of terrible things. And then, suddenly, it decided that it wasn’t going to support him. It amazes me that people like King Abdullah trust us. We really aren’t good allies. Personally, I would prefer if we actually did stand for democracy and all the other nice things we claim to. But we don’t. Is it asking so much to have a bit of consistency?

Of course, there is consistency. It is just that it isn’t of action, but of motivation. We do whatever is in our best interest at any time. We are not loyal to anyone. In other words, as countries go, we are a psychopath. Saddam Hussein never seemed to realize this. Before the invasion, he thought we were just bluffing. He was right that it made no sense in the grand scheme of things. (That’s another thing about us: we are sometimes led by complete idiots.) What can I say, it’s hard out there for a pimp; but it’s much worse for a despot.

Exactly 80 years ago, in 1935, Lebensborn was founded by the Nazi SS for the purpose for getting more Aryan babies born. Like racists everywhere, the Nazis were very concerned that the “lesser races” were breeding too much. Walk around California and you will hear people say the same thing about Latinos. Of course, there is something to this. Immigrants tend to be the people who are scapegoated. Immigrants tend to be younger. Younger people tend to have babies. It’s the perfect situation for racists.

Anyway, what I think is interesting about Lebensborn is that it is based on a kind of thinking that is very common among middle class white liberals. It is the idea that what we really need to do to help the poor is to stop them from having babies. I’m pretty old and I’ve never had any children. So I don’t think it is necessary to have children to have a fulfilling life. But that was my choice. I don’t think that’s true of most people.

But we have this attitude that unless someone has money, they shouldn’t be able to be parents. Why do we do that?! Why is it that as liberals, we think the poor have a right to food and housing, but not parenthood? I think it is mostly because we’ve never thought about it. We are still operating with conservative notions — very much linked to racism and eugenics. And we need to stop doing this. It is one thing to make birth control easy to get. It is great to help people avoid pregnancies that they don’t want. But let’s not get confused and try to stop the poor from having children because we might think that it is a good idea.

On this day 1934, according to Alcoholics Anonymous lore, Bill Wilson had taken his last drink. This has led to decades of drunks and other addicts all over the world suffering for far longer than was necessary. You see, AA is a religious program — a way to purify the soul. And in that way, I suspect it isn’t any worse than most other notions that Christians have about spirituality. But I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with drugs. It’s only thanks to decades of propaganda that anyone thinks addiction is a moral problem.

But you have to ask yourself: how did good ol’ Bill W get sober? I contend that it has squat to do with working the steps and all that malarkey. Rather, creating and building the group gave him something to do. I’ve long argued that rather than provide drug “treatment” in jail, they should provide job training. Give them something to do when they get out other than sit in useless — as much as it’s been tested, counterproductive — meetings.

“It works if you work it!” That’s what the AA bots say. Of course, that’s ridiculous. According to AA, addiction is a disease, yet its cure is some kind of spiritual self-help program? If you had cancer, would you ever consider an oncologist who told you that in order to cure the cancer, you were going to have a make a list of everyone you harmed and make amends? Of course not. You’d think she was crazy, or some sort of bizarre witch-doctor. And you’d find someone else.

Of course, the great legacy of Bill Wilson — the reason that he is known — is because AA became part of the criminal justice system. It needed something to do with all the drug users (Only some addicts!) that the state was arresting. So when a convict was on probation or parole, the state couldn’t just forget about “helping” the poor sod. Just the same, the state wasn’t willing to actually pay for anything that might work. And there was AA: the perfect thing! Did it work? No one cared. That’s the American way: it doesn’t matter that you actually accomplish something, so long as you look like you are working the problem. In that way, AA is perfect for America.

There is no question that Bill Wilson’s legacy is terrible. He has caused so much harm, it would be hard to calculate. Yet there are millions who admire him. This is because he created a cult. But not just any cult: a cult that was useful to the state! And then, with court-mandated “treatment,” lots of hospitals and private companies got into the 12-step gravy train. It’s been absolutely fantastic — for everyone but the addicts and their friends and family. For them, it’s sucked. Thanks Bill W!

On this day in 1817, Mississippi became the 20th state in the union. And it’s pretty much stayed there. Oh, I know I should be nice. But I went to college with a guy from Alabama who told me the great pride of his state was that they could always count on Mississippi to be the 50th worst state in whatever was in question. The point was that Alabama was 49th. But that is probably being too harsh to Alabama. Not so much Mississippi.

Of course, there is an area where both states excel: in the amount of money they get from the federal government compared to how much they send. It changes year by year and analysis by analysis. But it’s always more or less the same: Mississippi gets roughly $3 for $1 it sends. In a lot of states, this is an indication of an old population (Social Security). But Mississippi is one of the younger states. It’s just that Mississippi is really poor.

So why is Mississippi a red state? Well, it isn’t because the poor are conservative. I guess it is because the poor don’t vote in high numbers. And knowing Mississippi, it probably isn’t really easy to vote in the state. But whatever. It does seem like it ought to be blue state, given it is almost 40% African American. Maybe liberals need to return another time and help the poor register and vote. There is little doubt the same stuff that was happening before is happening now, just in a less violent way.

Finally, I just want to mention that flag. Not only does it have the abhorrent Confederate battle flag in it, the thing is just poorly designed. I’m none too happy with the American flag. But the Mississippi flag makes our nation’s flag look like fine art. Why is it that bigotry so often comes with a total lack of taste?

On this day exactly 150 years ago — 6 December 1865 — the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. It abolished slavery, except as punishment for a crime — a loophole the south would use against African Americans in very clear ways. And thanks to the “war on drugs,” it has come back in a big way. Still, this was an important amendment. But it’s odd that it is more symbolic than anything else.

It is, of course, the Fourteenth Amendment that created the modern United States. This is something that I find conservatives just don’t understand. The United States was founded. It was pretty screwed up. But we had an amendment process. The Fourteenth was part of that. They might want to wish it away so they can go back to the good ol’ days of a weak federal government. But this is what America is, based upon its founding documents; if you don’t like it, you don’t like America. It’s as simple as that.

Perhaps the reason that the Thirteenth Amendment is not more important is that the Constitution never directly claimed that slavery was legal. Again, conservatives may be unhappy that Obama issues executive orders (though they didn’t have a problem when Bush did so). But they too are part of the government, and because of the way the Constitution was originally set up, Lincoln was able to free all the slaves in the Confederacy with the Emancipation Proclamation. But again, it was good to clarify that slavery was done. Plus, there were still slaves in Union states.

The whole thing is nicely ironic — and I think entirely typical of conservatives — that if the Confederate states had not been so pigheaded, the should would have been able to keep it’s “peculiar institution” for a lot longer. I know I’m rambling, but I keep remembering this line from Ken Burns: The Civil War. When poor southern soldiers were asked why they were fighting, they replied that it was because the northern soldiers were there. Well, first: they weren’t northern soldiers, but the soldiers of all of them. Second: isn’t that typical that the elites could convince poor southern whites to fight and die for an institution that doubtless made them poorer than they would have been? Nothing changes.

On this day in 771, Carloman I died. He was King of the Franks — for a couple of years anyway. He was the son of Pepin the Short, although I don’t know if that means he was actually short. Anyway, so Pepin was King of the Franks, and after he croaks, Carloman becomes King of the Franks, and after he croaks, his brother Charlemagne takes over. And Charlemagne is the great man who brought the Holy Roman Empire back together. Hooray!

Actually, I don’t really care. What I do care about is that Charlemagne, like most “great” leaders, was no kind of self-made man. They were almost all of them born into it. War was the family business just like farming was for the vast majority of other people. It’s the way with humans. Look at Hollywood. I’m a great admirer of George Clooney, but he was born into the business.

I don’t especially have anything against any of this. Genghis Khan’s daddy was a Mongol ruler. Fine! What I do have a problem with is this creepy cultural tendency — especially in America — to attribute success to some personal greatness. It just ain’t so. Let’s go back to actors again. I’ve noticed something about great old British actors like Laurence Olivier or Alec Guinness. Again: I admire them both greatly. Neither man was born into the business. But you could say they were born for the business. They were both very attractive young men. It wasn’t their acting talent that made them stars.

So hooray for King Charlemagne! I’m sure he did about as well as any other person put in his position.