Why beliefs trump reality

Before anyone gets the wrong impression (whereby I'm fairly sure that this plea comes a bit late), I would like to reiterate something I never tire of saying. I am not just beating up on my home country. I am merely using them as an example, for in many cases, the USA is simply the best example of what I'm talking about. The root causes, the root feelings, the root beliefs and the root reactions are evident across the entire world, both West and, mutatis mutandis, East. We're all human beings and no one is exempt. We all have similar moral potential, and we all have inherent weaknesses. That's what makes us human. But it is always easier to ignore than to acknowledge, let alone accept.

It just so happens that I agree with Einstein that patriotism is an infantile disease. We are born where we are born by virtue of an inexplicable cosmic accident. To use that as a basis for unquestionable allegiance to one's birthplace is, in my mind at least, just silly. We are made into unswerving loyalists, we weren't born that way, so when you place your own country, for example, above all others, it is not a fact, it is simply a belief that you have taken on for any number of reasons, some perhaps OK, others questionable.

The point I really want to make is that we buy into this belief because it makes us feel good, it makes us feel worthwhile and it makes us think we have a purpose. We want to believe we are the good guys, that what we do is good and right and proper and admirable. And, there is nothing essentially wrong with any of this, as far as it goes. The problem is, however, that it goes much farther and deeper.

When confronted with evidence that contradicts this most fundamental view of the world that we have, we become fearful and insecure. We simply don't want to believe that things are different than the way we want to think they are. We will do everything in our power not to look these facts and this possible evidence in the eyes. Why? I don't know for sure, but one reason is certainly because we think we will no longer be the person we once were. That may be true, but it's not bad. Sure, it may be unpleasant, even painful, but closing one's eyes to reality doesn't make it go away. No one ever said the truth would make us happy, but it is truly the case that it is the truth which sets you free.

FDR once noted that we really have nothing to fear but fear itself, and he had a point. Whether you like his politics or not, he still had a point. I believe that now, more than at any other time in my short life, we are being called upon to face our fears. We can't give in ... or can we? Fear is more often that than not the root cause of hate, and when you begin to hate on the basis of your beliefs, for whatever reason, you have removed yourself from the world of reason. Hate is a powerful emotion, one of the most powerful in fact, but it is destructive, not only for others but for oneself. Hate is a poison that destroys one from inside every bit as much as the actions it calls forth wreak destruction on everyone and everything toward which it is directed. And, I must say that it saddens me to see and hear as much hate being spread about as I do these days.

As cynical as I may be, I would still like to think that we're better than that.

What I do get, though

There are some of you who figure I'm just another Bush basher. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Sure, he was an awful president, but I can hardly remember a time when we had a good one. It's an impossible job, I suppose. I certainly wouldn't want it, but there are those who do, for any number of reasons. I don't particularly care what they are, because for as long as I can remember, none of them -- at least judging by their actions -- had much to do with me or you or any of us little folk. I can't help but feel that they really don't care all that much.

And for those short-term thinkers who think I'm playing the left-right card, I'll have to disappoint you there too. First of all, the political left and right was a creation of the 19th century, and that's where the idea belongs. We should be beyond that. After all, it is 2014. Even more poignant is the fact that the US doesn't know what left and right is. Politics there, when seen from the outside, where I am, is simply a matter of conservative and even more conservative. To be perfectly honest, America became a one-party system a long time ago: that one party may have two tiny wings, if you will, but truth be told, there's really not a dime's bit of difference between them when you get to looking closer.

No, it's all about power in the end. With Obama, it's not always obvious, only when he starts persecuting whistleblowers or droning innocent civilians. With Bush, it was easier. It was more obvious. His whole crew was about power, and violence, and they didn't hesitate to let everybody know. Clinton was truly slick enough to create enough diversions that we overlooked his deference to Wall Street and his commitment to US hegemony. Bush I was just a weak Reagan, and Reagan was an actor, pretending to be president but really just trampling over little people and waging fake wars for fake reasons, supporting wherever possible macho Central American dictators. Carter got the boot for not acting macho enough; Nixon and his henchman Kissinger were all about secret illegal wars in and around Vietnam. The top priority, in all cases? The common factor amongst them all? Image. An image of power. An image that scares others into doing your bidding. The unfortunate state of affairs is that really starting with Reagan, it has become more direct, more in-your-face, more violent, more aggressive, more intolerant, more ideological, and downright meaner.

And oh, by the way, this is not about government power either. Americans love their limited-government ideology, but oddly enough, those who are truly wielding the power can use that to distract most people from what is really going on. The shredding of the Constitution, the gutting of the Bill of Rights, the pervasive surveillance, are one side of the coin, but it's not because the government per se has something up its sleeve. No, as the old saying goes, "follow the money": the supremacy of property over human rights, the recent Supreme Court rulings on money as speech, the unjust legal system, the for-profit prison system, the privatization of the education system, and all the rest of these moves are put in place not so the government has more control, but rather that certain moneyed interests have more control ... of the government. When you take a step back, you realize quickly that what we normally think of as "the government" is merely a strawman for the real powers that be.

In keeping with theme that started this thread, I can only add, that going with this particular flow strongly reduces the likelihood that what you're doing is honorable.

Why don't I get it? (It must be beyond me)

When we get to the big things, we get to the heart of the matter.

Bush's big thing: quite obviously 9/11. This was a catastrophic disaster. Words can't describe it. The trauma it caused is incalculable. How one reacts, what one does in light of such an event, clearly reveals a person's values. And it was here -- I'll be perfectly honest -- that not only Mr. Bush, but most of the world let me down. Don't get me wrong, I understand how revenge works; I understand what motivates one's thoughts about getting even; I understand rage, and anger, and grief and pain and suffering and all that goes along with it. But the reaction under Mr. Bush's leadership unfortunately said more about him than anything he did before or thereafter. It was his -- by virtue of his position in the world at that time and that place -- defining moment. And what did he do?

He lied.

It was, and is, known that Bin Laden, his terrorist group, and his blindest followers were Saudis, not Iraqis. For as much as an evil tyrant Saddam Hussein may have been, for as much as he may have sympathized with the attackers, it was known that he was not behind the attacks, but Mr. Bush insisted he was. It was at this juncture, for whatever reasons -- and here I'll be forthright as well: I don't believe a one of them a good one -- Mr. Bush and his team made Iraq the focal point of our attention. He fixed the blame, not the problem; he channeled America's anger for his own (or his administration's) purposes; and he did no dishonestly.

He lied. He misled. He mocked and bullied anyone he could to get his way. And, in the end, he got his way and unjustifiably attacked a sovereign nation which had no real issue with the US, one which was not guilty of much more than being a nuisance for American corporate, military, and political interests. His lies led directly to the deaths of over 4,000 American and over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers. His lies led to the deaths of close to a million people in the end, when you consider the consequences and civilian collateral damage of that war. And then, on top of it all, it was his administration that not only authorized, but condoned, the use of torture -- a practice until then allegedly abhorrent to the American psyche -- without the slightest hesitation or remorse. That particular war, a war of blatant aggression, the way it was waged, and the treatment of its victims are all in direct violation of agreed standards of human rights, the rules of military engagement, and international law. It's at this point that this man's honor escapes me.

He was at the top. He was the person responsible for everyone down the chain of command. He was the Commander-in-Chief. So, if you argue, it was those below him over whom he did not have enough control, then he was a failure as a leader, a manager, and a human being, for I never heard him speak out against these people or anything they did. It all happened on his watch. It was the Bush presidency, more than any other since the 50s, that (re-)cultivated the idea of the Ugly American.

So where is the honor? What makes this man so honorable? That he went jogging with a disabled vet? I just don't get it.

And that's why the picture bothered me so much. Apparently, I failed to get something important, again. Apparently I missed something. Apparently some people find him and what he is responsible for honorable, but for me, as always, actions speak louder than words.

Why don't I get it? (Time to regroup)

There are some things on that list that I could care less about. Really. There are lots of spoiled rich kids who have parents with connections that get things handed to them that other either have to work for or will never, ever get, be they degrees or connections or businesses or jobs. That's called luck, no more no less. Some folks are born with silver spoons in their mouths, others with normal flatware, some folks without any eating utensils (or even enough to eat) at all. To my mind, why that is so is more worth thinking about than why some people end up with an inordinate share of the breaks. It's an odd culture that attributes respect to luck, don't you think?

And hey, I have also no trouble with draft dodgers, for example, being one myself, but in light of my situation at that time and place, I had to volunteer for military service in order to avoid going to Vietnam, but unlike Mr. Bush, I was there the whole time, did my tour of duty and have an unblemished record to show for it, for whatever that's worth. I'm not one of those proud, honor-me vets: I didn't want to be there, I didn't particularly enjoy how I got there, so I sucked it up, did what I had to and put it behind me. I don't consider his absences from duty a black mark per sé, but it is a clearly identifiable smudge. It does say something about one's integrity, especially when you consider how you handle it later.

What's more, it doesn't bother me that he was pretty much a failure as a businessman. Oh sure, he was playing in a different league than I ever did, but I never had his connections. If you know the right people, even if you don't quite manage to be successful in running the business, you can always make up for it when you get out. Again, it's also a matter of luck, not just skill, but when you can't do anything else, I suppose you sooner or realize that you can get into politics.

Whether the man was an honorable governor of Texas is for others to decide. I will make no bones about the fact that I find the death penalty reprehensible; always have, and that there's even still a discussion about it in the 21st century simply boggles my mind. As much as I have a problem with the death penalty itself, I have a particular problem with people who wear their religion on their sleeve and advocate it as well. Killing someone on average every nine days is a bit much for me, but, hey, I'm a wimp and I would like to sleep at night. My conscience would have a problem with that, but apparently not everyone does. If there is anything in my feelings about Mr. Bush that we could chalk up as purely personal, then I suppose this is it.

We apparently have very different understandings of what is means to be Christian, and as long as there are Bush-like individuals parading around taking the limelight on that, I'll just stay where I am, in the background, and respectfully decline being included in that particular club.

We should keep in mind, however, that be it how you get to college, whether you acknowledge the breaks Luck offered you, whether you fulfilled your patriotic obligations to your country or how you act while in a public office, there are a good number of people who have sound enough reasons to question whether Bush's actions qualify as honorable. To me, they're secondary. None of us is as consistent in the smaller things in life and I think most of us would agree, it is the big things that matter most. So what about Bush and big things?

Why don't I get it? (Second thoughts)

Now, I know that some of you out there are leaping to political conclusions. I would warn against that. This isn't a political issue, and it's not about anyone's policies. It's all about what people do and what effect those actions have on others.

To summarize from last time: the vet gets a bye; there is at least one honorable guy in the picture. The question is: is the caption justified? Well, it turns out we know a bit more about W. than we know about the vet. And what is it that we know?

In no particular prioritized order, we know that he

• was born into a family whose source of wealth is, at a minimum, questionable (in terms of honor)
• grew up as a spoiled rich kid whose parents had money and connections
• got an Ivy-League education on the basis of legacy, not merit
• managed to get into the premier business school in the country, even though he only had his Ivy-League's gentleman's C to his credit
• was a draft dodger
• has undocumented time during his National Guard Service
• unsuccessfully ran more than one business
• was anything but an outstanding governor of Texas before getting to the White House
• was declared the winner in the 2000 election, even though all the votes were never counted; that is, under questionable circumstances
• was president of the United States when the most horrendous attack since the Civil War was carried out on American soil
• blatantly lied to the American people -- and to the world -- about the situation in Iraq
• waged an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation
• authorized the use of torture by the US military and its contractors
• set up the closest thing to a concentration camp the US has ever had in a legal no-man's land in Cuba
• is directly responsible for the deaths of about 4,000 GIs and close to 1,000,000 Iraqis, most of whom were civilians, and
• got nothing but good press from the US media the entire time he was in office.

There is nothing in that list that is not documentable, so we needn't argue about its factuality. At any rate, the discussion is about what that list means.

Next time, I want to take a closer look at it to figure that out.

Why don't I get it? (First thoughts)

Not long ago, I was chastised -- again -- for being negative, for making other people feel like they were stupid, for not being interesting. I know, it's an odd combination, but I didn't make it up. I was on the receiving end. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I was aggravating others by telling them that what they thought was wrong. And all the while, I thought I was merely emphasizing that sometimes it does us all good to reflect on what we think. Sometimes, it just doesn't make sense to others.

Case in point: recently I saw a picture someone posted on Facebook (where else?) that just struck me as all kinds of wrong, and I didn't say anything, but I have no idea what is going on in the head of the person who posted it. I've tried, but I just don't get it. It was a picture of former President George W. Bush jogging with a guy with an artificial leg. The small print said that he (W.) had promised to work out with a vet, so I'm guessing that's who the other guy was. The big-print caption said "Honorable Men". I don't get it. Maybe it's the planet I'm from, because I'm beginning to suspect that I may not be from this one.

I don't know the vet. I'm going to give the phototaker the benefit of the doubt that the guy actually was a vet and lost his leg, I'm going to assume, in one of those needless, unnecessary wars that America is so dead-set on waging. Maybe he is an honorable person. I would like to think that his intentions in signing up for the military and maybe even pursuing a career there was motivated by some sense of duty and that he thought he could do something good by taking a post in our so-called first line of defense.

Anyone even in moderate touch with reality, however, knows that war is literally hell and more people are damaged by it than are killed in it. Too many otherwise upright, honest and honorable human beings are put into situations that are simply degrading, dishonest and horrific. When people are forced through that, when they do what they have to do to survive, does it tarnish their honor? I don't know, but judging by the number of vets who come back with PTSD, I'm guessing it does something to them that doesn't make them personally feel so honorable anymore. I think we need to do something about that, starting with not putting people in the position to get so screwed up in the first place, but when we do, I think we also have the responsibility to help these folks get back on their feet again. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

So, the vet gets a bye. I'm not here to project my own sentiments onto the poor guy. I feel bad that he had to lose a leg, to be sure. I'm glad to see that he is apparently trying to overcome the tragedy. I want to believe that his heart was and is in the right place, and that perhaps he even believes that he can set an example for others. I've got no qualms, no problem with any of that.

In short, I'm willing to concede, at this point, that there is (very likely) an honorable man in the picture.

But what about the other guy?

I know that this is going to be terribly unpopular with some people, but I would at least like the opportunity to explain why I'm having some doubts ... but that will have to wait for next time.

Till

It just wasn't possible to move on from the topic of "fools" without at least mentioning my favorite non-Shakespearean fool as well: Till Eulenspiegel. He is an institution at Carneval (or Fasching or Fassenacht, or whatever one chooses to call it), and he incorporates into a single figure, much that is simply classic in regard to fools.

There most likely was a person who embodied a lot of Till's characteristics and there is some evidence that there was a trickster who roamed through Northern Germany in the late Middle Ages around whom the stories and legends may have congealed. It doesn't matter really. He's a colorful and interesting character who, I believe, has a lot to say to us even today.

When we see him these days, he is most often dressed in a motley; that is a patchwork suit of diamonds or squares, very often in the colors red, blue and yellow (for example, see the Marseilles Tarot Deck) or red, green and blue. In other words, a jumble of contradictions, complements and oppositions. On his head he wears, of course, a fool's cap; that is to say, a cap or hood, often with drooping corners to which bells are attached. Most often these days, the cap as two curved drooping horns with bells at the end. Perhaps these are reminiscent of the devilish tricks he might play, but more often they refer to cuckoldry: a man who's wife is seduced by another, in local parlance, has been "horned". Most importantly, however, at least in my estimation, he carries with him an owl-shaped mirror (in German: an Eulenspiegel; Eule = owl, Spiegel = mirror). Owls, as we all known, are known for their wisdom; the mirror is what reveals us to ourselves. But we should recall that when we look into a mirror, we see everything reversed. And thus appareled, Till - an old Gothic and German name which means "ruler of the people", how appropriate - steps before us.

He is such an appropriate figure when you stop to think about it. His very presence, his dress, reminds of the vagaries of life. His cap reminds us we can all be so easily fooled. His mirror reflects not only on us, but if all is reversed in the mirror, could it be that the reversal of reality (that is, how we see the world) is how reality should be, that we've simply got it all backward? I sometimes think that it is so. And that's what I believe that the figure of Till is telling us.

The wisdom of fools

Yesterday was April Fool's Day (or All Fools' Day, or even April Fish Day (go figure) in some places). No one is really sure where it originated or why we really celebrate it (well, it's not a real holiday after all) or why it has any significance at all. But, little things like that have never stopped us before, and April Fool's is no exception.

We all think we know a lot of fools, sometimes that we're surrounded by them in fact. I would contend, however, that true fools are few and far between.

Anyone who has read any Shakespeare will immediately know what I'm talking about. My favorite Shakespearean fool is in King Lear, and he is simply known as Fool. How appropriate. The fool is the one who knows truth from lies, right from wrong, the fool is the one with comprehension, insight, and ultimately wisdom. Lear is really a classic example of foolishness gone wrong. Our tragic hero, sovereign lord of the realm, descends into madness after foolishly dividing his kingdom among two of his three legitimate heirs, all of whom are daughters. How could that possibly work out for the best? I know, William nailed it all in this one.

Lear, of course, as so many who are in power, succumbs to flattery. So many of us who pretend or even strive to power fall prey to this as well. Flattery, of course, is a form of dishonesty, and we see again and again that the root of almost all power structures, in particular hierarchical ones (like we find in government, business, the church, etc.), are based on dishonesty. Oh, I know we like to think that these representatives are well-intended, upstanding and forthright, but we all know different. Lord Acton spoke truth when he noted that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The forms the lies take vary naturally: sometimes they are simple omissions, sometimes slight (to major) shifts of emphasis, and sometimes they are simply outlandish fabrications, but we like to think that the perpetrators are being driven by forces greater than themselves, but they are not. And this where the fool comes in.

Not only in Shakespeare, it is the fool who is honest. It is the fool who not only calls things as he sees them, he is the one who sees them for what they are. It is the fool who is aware of the foils, the weaknesses and shortcomings of those supposedly in power. By virtue of his position - the Fool - it is he who may speak the truth, who may say how things are, without fear of reprisal.

Yes, someone must be allowed to speak the truth, and if it be the fool, then so be it. We live in very dishonest times. We are confronted with crisis after crisis all of which were brought about by the same weakness: the dishonest striving for power. But who is there to "tell it like it is"? Who do we have today who can speak unhindered and unabridged? Who can point out to us the error of our ways? We're in need, again, of the Fool. Or are we simply not listening?

What? No, again?

Hmmm ... now how did that get in there? This isn't the first time that disturbing little word "no" has come up. In fact, I've talked about it several times in the past (see References below). Previously, the topic of discussion was "freedom", that is true, but it would seem to me that the ability to say "no" penetrates deeper into our psyches than we might like to admit.

Saying "no" can, in certain circumstances, provide us with a necessary degree of freedom, but we can need to be free to do some things, but we also need freedom not to do others. This little word is not only an assertion of our selves, it is also a means of defense against unwanted actions of others, especially, as we have seen, in commercial affairs.

Granted, simply saying "no" is not going to keep you from getting robbed at gunpoint, but let's face it, the chances of that happening to me here in Germany are far lower than were I living in the US. It's unfortunate that it is that way, but that's the way it is. If, however, my fellow Americans - even in the big cities - were more community oriented, more open, more social, it wouldn't be that way.

(And before you just shrug me off as completely whacked with idealism, take some time and seriously think that idea through, to the end ... stop for a moment and go back over what I've been saying for the last few posts ... give some serious thought about how little things can combine and accumulate into something significant. It's always been my contention that we simply give up too easily.)

What I'm talking about more than anything is, when you get right down to it, is awareness. We often think we're doing something, but in truth we're not. Sometimes we think we're being honest, but we're not being completely honest. Sometimes we think we're treating others as we would like to be treated, but we're not. And sometimes, we don't really think about anything at all: we're simply on auto-pilot, we're in default mode, we're just too tired, too stressed, too you-name-it to make that little extra effort. We need to make the effort though. We need to be more awake and more aware, and we need to simply try a little harder each and every day.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and we're not going to change the world overnight, but if we never start, we'll never achieve anything.

References

1. What Does It Take? (2012-01-16)
2. And What Happened Here? (2012-01-18)
3. Just A Story? (2012-01-20)
4. Should We Duck For Cover? (2012-01-22)
5. Really Free? (2012-01-26)
6. Getting To No (2012-08-01)
7. How Do You Get What You Don't Want? (2012-10-06)
8. Maybe We've Got It Backwards (2012-10-08)
9. Does He Mean Me? (2012-11-23)