Thursday, May 29, 2025

The Bureaucrat of Death: Adolf Eichmann and the Machinery of the Holocaust




(This post is edited and improved by ChatGPT. The original version is here.) 

In 1932, Adolf Eichmann was an unemployed Austrian drifting through a country in political and economic chaos. Desperate for work, he crossed into Germany and joined the rising Nazi Party—more out of need than ideology.

Eichmann soon found employment in the Nazi campaign to make Germany Judenrein—free of Jews. Between 1933, when Hitler rose to power, and the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the regime's goal was deportation, not yet mass murder. During this period, the Nazis expelled Jews from the Reich, often forcing them to navigate a labyrinth of bureaucracy that made escape painfully slow.

Eichmann, however, had a talent for logistics. He centralized the deportation process by bringing all necessary agencies under one roof. What once took months now took days. But the streamlining came at a cost: Jews were stripped of their assets and left with barely enough to reach their destinations. Many ended up in British-controlled Palestine, Spain, or other countries the Nazis never conquered. Though they lost everything, they escaped the coming catastrophe.

Once the war began, deportations largely halted. For over two years, Eichmann and others involved in Jewish expulsion waited as the Nazi leadership decided on a new direction. In the meantime, local massacres claimed the lives of millions of Jews, carried out near their homes by bullets rather than gas.

Then came January 1942. At the infamous Wannsee Conference, the Nazi regime formally adopted the “Final Solution”—the systematic extermination of Europe’s Jews. Eichmann’s organizational prowess, once used to deport Jews out of the Reich, was now repurposed for industrial-scale murder. He managed the transportation of victims to Auschwitz and other death camps with cold precision.

By 1944, his methods were devastatingly efficient. In Budapest, working with the cooperation of certain Jewish leaders, Eichmann deported nearly half a million Hungarian Jews to their deaths in just three months.

Eichmann was no mastermind of evil in the comic book sense. He was a functionary—a man of forms, files, and timetables. When the orders were to deport, he deported. When the orders were to kill, he ensured the trains ran on time. He was an amoral bureaucrat who helped send over three million Jews to their deaths, not out of personal hatred, but out of dutiful obedience.

After the war, Eichmann disappeared. He hid in Austria before escaping to Argentina through the infamous “Rat Line” — a network assisted by Catholic Bishop Alois Hudal. At the time, Pope Pius XII, whose papacy has been heavily criticized for its silence during the Holocaust, remained in power. In Argentina, Eichmann lived under an alias but eventually bragged about his role in the genocide.

In 1960, Israeli agents captured him and brought him to trial in Jerusalem. He was convicted and executed in 1962.

I've read and reread Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt’s account of his trial. Her concept of the “banality of evil”—that horrific crimes can be committed by ordinary people who simply follow orders—remains controversial. Many critics of her work, both then and now, have not actually read it.

I strongly recommend all of Arendt's works, several of which I've summarized briefly in other posts. Among them, The Origins of Totalitarianism stands out as the most essential for understanding the ideological and structural roots of the Holocaust.


Recommended Works by Hannah Arendt:

These books provide not only a window into Arendt’s profound political thought but also a vital lens on totalitarianism, moral responsibility, and the capacity of ordinary people to commit extraordinary crimes.

Wednesday, May 28, 2025

First Car Purchase in Twenty Years (And a ChatGPT experiment)

 

A New Prius and a Lifetime of Vehicles

Today, my wife and I bought a 2017 Toyota Prius. It replaces our old 2001 Prius, which we donated to a local high school auto shop before moving to Panama in August 2024.

As I logged the new car into the spreadsheet where I track all my vehicles (yes, I’m that person), I realized something surprising: this is the first car I’ve bought since 2006, when I picked up a white 2002 Chevy Malibu. Coincidentally, this Prius is white too.

Since I got my driver’s license in 1969, I’ve owned—or had long-term use of—41 cars, trucks, and motorcycles. With this latest addition, the total I’ve spent on vehicles has officially crossed $100,000. That works out to about $2,500 per vehicle, though like most averages, that number doesn’t really tell the whole story.

The last five vehicles alone cost over $70,000. Once you subtract nine company cars and long-term loaners, that means the remaining 27 vehicles set me back just $30,300—an average of a little over $1,100 each. Safe to say, I bought a lot of cheap cars in the ’70s and ’80s.

To put it in perspective:

  • Between 1969 and 1979, I bought 21 vehicles.

  • In the 1980s, I added 12 more—six cars and six motorcycles.

  • The 1990s? Just one car and one motorcycle.

  • Since 2000, I’ve only picked up three cars and a 15-passenger van.

What changed? Somewhere in the late ’80s, I became increasingly obsessed with bicycle riding and racing. That shift gradually replaced my interest in cars—and it shows in the numbers.

Now, with our new Prius parked in front of the house, I’m reflecting not just on the car itself, but on the whole journey—decades of vehicles, roads, and shifting passions. Funny how something as simple as a new car can open the door to a little time travel.

---------------

The essay above was edited by ChatGPT. AI also added the Headline at the top ofthe text. 

The essay below is the original.

---------------

Today my wife and I bought a 2017 Toyota Prius.  It replaces the 2001 Prius we donated to a local auto shop class when we left for Panama in August of 2024. 

When I added the car to the spreadsheet of motor vehicles I keep, I realized this is the first car bought since 2006 when I bought a 2002 Chevy Malibu. Also white.  

In the years since I got my drivers license in 1969 I have owned or had long-term use of 41 cars, trucks and motorcycles. Buying this Prius finally pushed the total I spent on vehicles over $100,000.  That's an average price of $2,500 per vehicle, but as with most averages, the number is meaningless.

The last five vehicles cost just over $70,000.  Removing the nine company cars and long-term loaners, that means the other 27 cars cost $30,300 or just over $1,100 on average.  I bought a lot of very cheap cars in the 1970s and 1980s.

In fact, I bought 21 vehicles between 1969 and 1979.  I bought 12 between 1980 and 1989: six cars and six motorcycles.  I bought just one car and one motorcycle in the 1990s.  Then three cars and a 15-passenger van in this century.     

The difference in my buying habits was my growing obsession with bicycle riding and racing beginning in the late 1980s. 

Sunday, May 25, 2025

Ten Countries I Want to Visit

 

Mount Fuji, Japan

My travel is mostly guided by opportunities.  For instance, in the fall, I plan to meet two friends in Europe and travel to several Nazi Death Camps in Poland.  A soldier friend of mine is deployed to Poland for a year and can get a weekend pass. So we can travel together. 

Many of the places I have traveled have been last-minute changes in plan or just following a whim.  But another friend recently reminded me I am older than dirt and if I have places I want to go, I better make plans.  So I made a list:

  1. Japan: I have been fascinated with Japanese history and culture for most of my life, but never traveled to this beautiful country.  Top of my list. 
  2. Chile: I was there for two weeks in March this year, but only in the north.  I want to go back and see Tierra del Fuego, the Andes and Patagonia.
  3. Finland: In 2014, I wanted to ride from Odessa to Finland along the 2000-kilometer route my grandfather walked in 1914 to escape the Russian army. I would like to see the border areas and Helsinki maybe also the arctic circle in Finland. 
  4. Ukraine: I want to go to Kiev and Odessa. More than anything, I want victory for Ukraine.
  5. Israel: I visited Israel in 2017, 2019 and 2020.  I was planning to goback with my friend Cliff and clear rubble in the north. The trip did not work out this year.  Maybe next year. 
  6. Thailand: I was almost assigned there in 1973 in the US Air Force, but the war in Vietnam ended and fewer troops went to Southeast Asia.
  7.  Rwanda: I had tickets to go there and ride the first week in March 2020. I  was in Europe and decided not to go to Africa with Covid spreading fast. 
  8.  Poland: I rode across southern Poland in 2017. I would like to see Warsaw, Gdansk, and the Baltic coast.
  9. South Africa: So much naval history around this huge country when all trade to east Asia had to pass around the southern end of this huge continent.
  10. Nepal: I have never been to south Asia, anywhere between the Persian Gulf and Malaysia. I want to visit Katmandu and the lower Himalayas. 
I could add a lot more. Likely I will go other places as I have opportunities. I love travel. 





Thursday, May 15, 2025

Flying to the USA Today--With an Unusual Travel Accessory (for me)


Today the nine-month sojourn in Panama ends with two flights back to the USA.  Because the trip was really a temporary move, I had a very unusual travel accessory for me--a suitcase! With all the travel I have had in the last decade, the last time I can remember having a suitcase was a 2017 trip to Europe. I brought a bicycle on that trip--so I definitely had luggage. 

I also shipped the bike I bought here last August back to the USA.  So really two pieces of luggage.  I was going to leave the bike here but it is an aluminum-frame Giant road bike that would be a good travel bike for the future.  There is a possibility we could live in Chile for a month or two in 2026 or 2027. If so, I will take the bike there and leave it when the trip is over.  


 The bike survived here so it should be good for travel anywhere else.  And if Chile doesn't happen, it could go somewhere else.

USA late Today!!!

Monday, May 12, 2025

The Nazi Apprentice: Eichmann Sent Thousands of Jews to Palestine Before He Sent Millions to Death Camps


Adolf Eichmann on Trial in Jerusalem

In 1932, Adolf Eichmann was an unemployed Austrian who went to Germany to join the Nazi Party. He needed a job. 

He eventually found work in the Nazi effort to make Germany Judenrein, free of Jews. From the time Hitler took power in 1933 until he started World War II, the Nazis deported Jews from the Reich, mass murder was still in the future of the Nazi program. 

Eichmann had a gift for logistics, for organizing.  The Nazi effort to deport Jews in the 1930s was slow because those who wanted to get out had to get authorizations from many agencies.  Eichmann brought all of the organizations necessary into one large building and processed Jews for deportation in days instead of months.  

In that process, Eichmann took the property of the Jews: emptied their bank accounts and left them with just enough to get to their destination.  Thousands of those Eichmann processed got to British Palestine, some got to Spain and to other countries the Nazis never conquered.  Although they lost all of their possessions, the Jews Eichmann deported got away from the Holocaust. 

When the war began, deportation stopped.  For more than two years, Eichmann and his fellow Nazis who were deporting Jews waited for a decision about the fate of the Jews and their next mission. During this period millions of Jews were murdered singly and en masse by shooting, but the killings were mostly done where the Jews lived. No need for transportation.

In January 1942, the Nazis decided to kill all Jews within their territories.  The skills Eichmann had sharpened in organizing the deporting of Jews outside the Reich were used to transport Jews to Auschwitz and other death camps.   

Eichmann refined his methods until in 1944 in Budapest, with the cooperation of Jewish leaders, he deported nearly half a million Jews to their death in just three months.  

Eichmann was not a supervillain. He was a skilled organizer of transport and paperwork with years of experience.  When the Nazi policy was deportation, Eichmann got Jews out of Germany.  When the policy was mass murder, Eichmann filled train cars with victims. He was an amoral functionary who obeyed orders to the point of transporting three million Jews to Death Camps.  

When the war ended with Nazi defeat, Eichmann hid in Austria until the Rat Line organized by Catholic Bishop Alois Hudal got Eichmann to Argentina. The pro-Nazi Pope Pius XII was still in power as Nazis slid to South America. In Argentina, Eichmann bragged about his crimes. He was kidnapped by Israeli agents and put on trial on Jerusalem. 

Eichmann was executed for his crimes in Israel. 

I have read and reread Hannah Arendt's report on the Eichmann trial. She had many critics ofher work during her lifetime and still does fifty years later.  then as now, most ofher critics have not actually read her book.

I can recommend all of Hannah Arendt's books, which I did  in brief summaries here. Her book The Origins of Totalitarianism is the most important of her books in understanding the horror of the Holocaust. 




 

Monday, May 5, 2025

Potholes in Panama City, Panama


In 10 days I will end my nine-month stay in Panama City, Panama. I loved many things about my stay here and met many great people.  But riding here was always tense and difficult. 

Today I rode about 20 miles and created a new facebook group to share pictures of Potholes in Panama City.  Sometimes my bike is in the picture. Sometimes just the pothole.  

I ride here because I ride everywhere, but between narrow roads and deep potholes and no shoulders, I will be glad to be home in Pennsylvania.  

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3523199161309187 




Some of my other posts about riding in Panama:

Buying a bike.

First flat in a pothole.

First riding post.

Riding in western Panama.



Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Trump Fan Suddenly Worried About Liberty: Rod Dreher Realizes Trump Could Threaten White Christians Too!!

Rod Dreher

 I wrote this essay/review after reading The Benedict Option by Rod Dreher in 2017. This tireless exponent of Christian Nationalism is suddenly worried about liberty in America. Or maybe his bank account. It was the worst book I read that year.

When you want to say the nation is going to Hell, you first need a villain. Then you need to say how that villain is going to ruin everyone’s lives. The central theme of The Benedict Option is Dreher predicting the end of Christian culture in America through gay rights and the gay agenda. Dreher is sure that Christian hegemony in America is over. The only option is to withdraw from life in corrupt America into intentional communities of those committed to real goodness. 

The first question I have is, ‘Why will the gay agenda ruin our nation after it flourished with a long history of slavery, Jim Crow and betrayal of Native Americans?’ Is a nation really blessed by slavery and genocide and cursed by gay marriage?

America perpetrated the worst slavery in the history of the world on Africans. They were kidnapped and brought here in chains to be slaves until death for generation after generation. America had slavery with no hope of buying oneself out or getting free. The center of that slavery was the New Orleans slave market.

Dreher grew up in Louisiana and returned there to withdraw from life in big cities.  He is in a state and a region with a horrible history of slavery, followed by 100 years of apartheid called Jim Crow. What could be worse than men who would buy and sell human beings, fight a war to keep their slaves, and then oppress their victims openly for a century after losing the war?

Every confederate battle flag represents unrepentant racism, slavery and murder.  And yet, Dreher says, it is gay rights that will kill Christian faith in a way that Pride, Murder, Rape and Greed could not. Dreher says at the end of the book historians will wonder how a 3% minority killed a great nation like ours.

If America can perpetuate slavery longer than every civilized nation, break uncountable treaties, slaughter Native-Americans, allow Jim Crow laws in the south for a century, and then put a racist sexual predator in the White House with the support of 81% of "Christian" America, can the Gay agenda really trump everything else we have done? Dreher has his enemy.

Dreher begins the book saying he was led to the idea of withdrawal from culture by thinking of his son’s future from the moment he was born.  The book has many instances of Dreher and other Christian parents making what he calls sacrifices for their children.  Dreher writes as if parenting were the central Christian ministry.  As a father of six, I would say parenting is one of the central delights and urges and vanities of the Human Condition.  Can any parent really say that spending their time and money toward the success of their children is a sacrifice?  Does working toward the success of my own children make me the equal of Mother Teresa caring for the poorest outcasts in a Calcutta gutter?  No, it doesn’t. My bright, successful, funny children are a delight, they are not a ministry.  And they in no way set me apart from the world.

I heard many idiots in focus groups and on the news say one proof that Trump was obviously a good guy because he is a good father whose children love him.  Saddam Hussein loved Uday and Qusay. The worst Roman emperors were the beloved, spoiled children of previous emperors.  Trump is, by his own words, a racist who is willing to grab other people’s children by the pussy. Parenting does not excuse pandering.

Dreher should know well that nothing ties a person to the world like having children.  No actual Benedictine has kids.  The withdrawal from the world with kids that Dreher posits is not a new monastic movement, but a gated community with spiritual decorations on the iron fence. 

Compared to, say, Coptic Christians in Cairo and other believers facing danger and death, the Benedict Option like a military video game, allowing the out-of-shape, pale player to pretend he is a combat soldier while in the comfort of mom’s basement away from the blood and bullets of battle.

I would have called it the book the Benedict Fiction.


Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Trust the Science: An Atom of Insight About What "Trusting Science" Means

 

The first thing to say about my lovely graphic is that John Dalton 
proposed his theory of atomism in 1803, not 1903.  
The rest of the dates are good. 

I trust science. But when I say that, I know I will be misunderstood by almost everyone. Science is an open, shared enterprise which is the best current understanding of the world around us shared by those trained in the field.

Which means the best science at any time and place could and has been wrong or incomplete and can be changed, refined and improved by the latest research.  But science, unlike religion and other beliefs, is self correcting.  When a scientific theory is wrong, subsequent discoveries will change it or make it obsolete.  Since the corrections are in the hands of people not deities, the discoveries happen slowly or rapidly. But when the change happens, the previous understanding is discarded.

The story of the discovery that atoms are the basic unit of matter shows how convoluted the path to knowledge can be.  

Atoms were first proposed as the fundamental unit of matter in Ancient Greece by Democritus and others.  But Aristotle did not believe in atoms, so reverence for Aristotle held kept alchemy in place as the central understanding of what is now chemistry for two millennia.

Then in 1803 after meticulous experiments John Dalton proposed that each chemical element was a unique particle, an atom. Molecules were compounds of different atoms in fixed ratios.  This understanding was refined and expanded for a century until science could begin to "see" inside atoms.  

When scientists began to see inside atoms, when it became clear that atoms were composed of different particles with different charges, the picture of the inside of the atom evolved rapidly.  A century after Dalton, J.J. Thompson believed the atom had negative particles, electrons, embedded in a positively charged sphere.  

Seven years later Ernst Rutherford created the model of an atom with a positively charged nucleus and electrons orbiting: a tiny solar system.  Neils Bohr refined the model to fix levels or orbitals for the electrons circling the atom.  

In 1926 Erwin Schroedinger applied the new discoveries of quantum mechanics to the atom model which is now seen as a positive nucleus that usually includes neutral particles surrounded by a cloud of electrons. And with many small refinements, that is the current atomic model. 

For those who see science as fixed, this timeline shows that in the past three centuries atoms:

Did not exist (until 1803)

Were indivisible spheres (until 1904)

Were positively charged spheres with electrons inside (until 1911)

Were little solar systems held together by electrical forces (until 1926)

Are a nucleus of many types of particles surrounded by a cloud of electrons (1926 and following)

The leading edge of understanding in any field can always change. If something radical changes in the current understanding of atoms and molecules it will be particle physicists and theoretical chemists who find the new wrinkle in the fabric of the universe. And their colleagues around the world will challenge their insights.

The alternative is the chaos of people sharing ignorance on the internet and turning our understanding of the world into an opinion poll. Or worse, shutting down research by experts. 

The best book I have read on this consensus of science is The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth by Jonathan Rauch. I'm sure I will re-read it soon as we descend further into ignorance and chaos.





Friday, April 25, 2025

Visiting BioMuseo in Panama

Last weekend, I finally visited the Bimuseo on the Amador Causeway in Panama City.  It presents the amazing biodiversity of the newest part of North America. What is now Panama was a gap between the American continents then plate tectonics and volcanos made a narrow east-west bridge between what is now Columbia and Central America.  


Biodiversity followed the formation of the new land as animals and plants great and small made their way to and through the strip land between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  At the narrowest point in the middle of Panama (No surprise, the location of  the Panama Canal.) the country is less than 50 miles wide, spreading to more than 100 miles wide east and west of the canal.  


When a population is separated and isolated from each other and has different sources of food, new species can form.  In Panama this process formed, for example, two hundred species of bats within the borders of a country just four hundred miles long. Plants, insects, reptiles, birds and other creatures all evolved into new species inside the little country that connects the great continents.


On either side of Panama to the north and south marine species that once swam between the two oceans were separated and formed their own ecosystems in the oceans.  In this sense, the Panama Canal doesn't connect the two oceans. The canal rises from each ocean to Gatun Lake in the middle of the country 26 meters above sea level.  The lake is fed by the Chagres River which empties into the Atlantic Ocean on the north side of the canal.  

The water that fills the locks and floats the ships across the country flows down from Lake Gatun into the locks and out to sea. If the canal had been built at sea level through Nicaragua (one of the plans in the late 1800s) it might have been a path between the seas for marine creatures. But in Panama, the canal is a fresh-water path flowing out to the seas from the lake in the middle.


The biodiversity the Biomuseo presents is evident around me every day I live in this lush country. Animals, birds and plants unique to Panama are visible everywhere and, of course, many more are invisible.  






 

Saturday, April 19, 2025

Advocating for Ukraine: Telling Our Representatives That Ukraine is the Front Line of Freedom and Democracy

The Pennsylvania Delegation of the Ukraine Action Summit

At the beginning of April, I flew back to America to be part of the Ukraine Action Summit. The song that turned into an earworm was Hail Night of the Woeful Countenance from the musical Man of La Mancha.  In a Republican-controlled Congress, both the House and the Senate, and with a Putin-loving President, I felt I was tilting at windmills.  

I am an American and can tell my elected representatives how I feel about Ukraine. Which I did.  And have been doing since this terrible war started.  

By the way, in case someone reading this hear Kremlin talking points from Tucker Carlson or Putin-loving minions: 

Russia invaded Ukraine.
Russia kidnaps Ukrainian children.
Russia targets homes and schools and civilians.
Russia betrays every agreement it makes.
Russia does not want peace and American negotiators are idiots.
 
I will keep advocating for Ukraine for as long as Ukraine keeps fighting back against the vile invaders of their land.  

As a veteran who enlisted during four different wars between 1972 and 2016,  the Cold War was the only win America had.  And the Trump Republicans have trampled on that victory and taken Putin's side in this fight.  

Nearly 200 years ago in his book Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville said the leading struggle in the 20th Century would be between Russia and America. He was right, as he was right about so much about America. And yet, that brilliant French writer would never have predicted that an American President would have the spine of a jellyfish and become the willing slave of the Russian President.  But here we are.     




Saturday, April 12, 2025

Has the Invasion Begun? No Ships at the South End of the Panama Canal

The view from the Amador Causeway. 
No ships at the south end of the Panama Canal.

Just after midnight today I returned to Panama after two weeks in the US, preceded by two weeks in Chile.  I rode to the Amador Causeway which is parallel to the south end of the Panama Canal.  

There were no ships going into or  coming out of the canal.

None.

I rode to the end of the Causeway, turned around and saw one completely empty container ship headed out into the Pacific Ocean.  

Then I went to a coffee shop across from the rail yards at the Balboa container port.  Some days I watch huge forklifts zooming along the tracks putting 40-foot containers on rail cars in one smooth move, or unloading a train from the Colon port.  

Today, the train sat unattended. Behind the rail yard I saw the huge container cranes of the port. In almost an hour I saw none of the move.   

After a month away, I wondered what I would see as I rode along the port.  

I saw the effects of the uncertainty of  tariffs.  Nothing moving. 

Is this the master plan for the Canal takeover?  Impose tariffs wildly, stop shipping and bankrupt the canal company? 

Not likely.  

It will be fun to watch how the tariffs affect global shipping, since I have a front-row seat.





 





Saturday, April 5, 2025

"You Can Tell Who Boozes by the Company He Chooses" Another of my Dad's Axioms

 

Lt.George Gussman in 1943

One of my Dad's favorite axioms for life is the phrase "You Can Tell Who Boozes by the Company He Chooses." He never used it specifically about someone who was drinking too much, at least in my hearing. He first used it to tell me he did not think my friends were good kids when I was in middle school. He was right. I would never have admitted it at the time.

Once we were standing on the loading dock at the warehouse where he worked full time and I worked summers and Saturdays. One of the truck drivers was talking to a guy who drove up in a gold Lincoln Continental with suicide doors.  


Dad said, "You can tell who boozes by the company he chooses." Then he turned and walked back into the warehouse saying nothing else. He liked Tony, the driver who was talking to the bookie, but Tony had a gambling problem.  Anyone who walked out to the Lincoln was headed for some sort of trouble.

I thought of Dad's phrase when Trump took office the first time.  A translation of the phrase is a person's character is evident in the people who are their closest friends and associates.  But the new administration is nothing but broken men and women whose only requirement for office is loyalty to Trump and the willingness to say the 2020 election was stolen. 

Trump's first nominee was Matt Gaetz, who bragged about having sex with underage girls. He was too toxic even for Trump worshippers.  But public drunk Pete Hegseth is Secretary of Defense. RFK Jr. is in charge of our nation's health. Putin lover and friend of the Syrian dictator Assad Tulsi Gabbard is in charge of intelligence.  Wrestling exec Linda McMahon is in charge of dismantling the Education Department.

These losers and many others show Trump's character. "You Can Tell Who Boozes by the Company He Chooses" should be on the wall in every Trump cabinet meeting.   








I Dumped T-Mobile Because of Their Extreme Roamer Policy

  I was a fan of T-Mobile even before I was a customer. Until this year I had very  reliable service fromT-Mobile.   Then I ran afoul of the...