The myth of Memorial Day

There is the erroneous belief, often portrayed as (incorrect) knowledge that a myth is simply a made-up story. Not every fictional story is a myth. Kurt Vonnegut's Slapstick, or Lonesome No More is not a myth, it is a novel. Joseph Heller's Catch-22 is not a myth, it is also a novel. Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is not a myth, it's a novella. And Earnest Hemmingway's The Old Man and the Sea, is a long short-story, but it is not a myth. I have chosen to use American examples because for any number of reasons, Americans are more prone to myth-making and myth-believing that other folks. What is more, the size of the tale has nothing to do with whether a story is a myth, or even mythical, hence my inclusion of varying sized works.

For my purposes here, let me tell you what I mean when I use the word "myth". It is this: a myth is most often, but not necessarily always) a story whose design and intent is to point to something bigger than itself. The elements of the story may, or may not, be true; that is, they may, or may not, correspond and conform to the reality of actual events that once took place. They may simply be stories based on certain events that occurred or alleged to have occurred. But it doesn't matter. Most importantly, however, all myths start out well-intentioned to impress, inspire, or perhaps explain; most myths are harmless (because they have become ineffective ... they are no longer "believed"); but, in the end, all myths become destructive, especially when they are believed after having been exposed as untrue stories that point to no reality greater than themselves.

One of the worst, if not the worst, myths ever perpetrated is the Myth of Progress. This is the story that tells us that things, and by that the teller always means "the world in which we live" is getting better. It implies that there is a utopian, paradisiacal end to human (primarily, technological) development, but it's never had it's own story, rather it has always been presented as an obvious truth enclothed in a different set of "facts" each time it is told. A lot depends on who is telling the story and which point the teller is trying to make. It's such a shoddy myth, though, because it was never really true. Oh, don't get me wrong, we have things today that we never had before and some of them can be used for the betterment of all: things like soap and water-pumps and flush toilets, but most people in the world don't have these things and the people that have them aren't ready to share them with those who don't, so while they have made the world a better place for some, they haven't made the world a better place, so I have trouble seeing where the "progress" part comes in. But that's a whole other story.

No, my focus here are myths as we generally understand them: those stories that point to things greater than themselves and which we then believe to be true, even though they aren't. In fact, we tend to believe these stories all the more, the more we find out they're really "just myths"; that is, well-intentioned, made-up stories that simply shouldn't be believed anymore, because they have become, as all myths eventually do, destructive. They end up making things worse instead of better.

The reason this whole idea of myths and untruth and destructiveness are on my mind is because this is Memorial-Day weekend in the United States, and having originally hailed from there, I still have a connection to the place even though I left there so long ago. What is more, over this weekend, I will be, literally, bombarded by social-media memes all expressing the same mythical sappiness that every American who ever donned a uniform is a hero (or heroine) who did his (or her) part to ensure that all those meme-spreaders have the freedom to annoy the rest of the world with their own rather limited and, too often, self-serving worldview that they are somehow role models for the rest of us. Yes, what I hear so often from my fellow countrypeople, either directly or indirectly, implicitly or explicitly, is that if the rest of the world would just be like America and acknowledge that America is the greatest country in the world, well, the world would be a much better place. I know my fellow countrypeople are for the most part lovingly well-intentioned, but with loving well-intentionedness, cluelessness often goes hand in hand. Yeah, ya gotta love 'em, even if they are so annoying. Yet there's a dark side to this apparent harmlessness that needs to be acknowledged as well.

Don't get me wrong, I would be the last person to maintain that what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan started in the middle of the last century was a good thing. There was, as they say, a mass of evil afoot. Even as much against war that I am, it's hard for me to think that "issue" could have been resolved peacefully. Still, it was a prime opportunity for myth-building, and that we did.

We Americans like to think we won that war, and some nasty tongues maintain that we haven't won a war since. Truth be told, like it's predecessor, World War I (the war to make the world safe for democracy, which also didn't work apparently), the Americans were extremely reluctant to even join in. There was a lot of mental calisthenics being performed and a lot of whining about "Europe" and "their problems" and all, but in the end, there were severe economic downturns that just weren't turning around, so it seemed like a good idea at the time to find a reason to get involved. If it weren't for the Japanese attacking its Pacific fleet -- which was stationed somewhere the Americans claimed belonged to them (though they really couldn't prove that they did) – we may not have gotten involved at all. But we got in right as things started going bad for the bad guys, and by 1945 we were on the winning side, so even thought primarily the Soviets (which we called the Russians and their ilk in those days) kicked Hitler's butt, with some help from the Brits (who had been kicked off the continent) and the French (who though already defeated organized some significant resistance). Of course, the Soviets, whom we generally didn't like then, liked even less later, and continue to dislike in the guise of Russians today, really took a beating in beating the Germans, so we, who suffered the least, who contributed more supplies and money than actual troops, and who had far fewer dead than anybody else, proudly stepped forward to accept the awards and accolades for victory. Americans have never been shy about accepting awards, even if they don't really deserve them.

But, be that all as it may, it was good that evil was stopped. Of course, given the fact that other than Hawaii, which not everybody thinks counts, nobody was invading America or fighting in its streets, or razing its cities to the ground with artillery and bombs, or setting fire to it with incendiaries, or starving its citizens to death in obscene and insane sieges. It was really not suffering all that much at all compared to everybody else, so when it was finally all over, the only country which had much infrastructure and production facilities in tact was, well, the United States. They also had an intact military and one that really wasn't weary of fighting yet. After all, they only got involved at the tail end of the whole affair. They were still fresh and idealistic and, if needed be, raring to go. The last man standing, so to speak, the one who had just showed up, declared himself the world's first superpower and all anybody else had to say was a tired and mumbled "whatever". And that's when America really did what it has always done best: it stepped in and showed everyone else just how easy it is to make money out of misery. We were now going to show the world how things really get done.

No, this isn't the version we read about in our history books, and it's not the version our parents or grandparents told us. It's a jaundiced recounting, however, of the real story. All the other stories we were told were, well you guessed it myths. The stories we were told about this were designed and intended to (a) make Americans feel good about themselves, even if they had not made the biggest contribution, (b) let everyone else know that it was America's duty – if not right – to take charge on the world stage, and (c) keep the door open for other, future, most likely unexpected opportunities to stay in charge.

No, I'm not saying that any of this was evil, or nefarious, or even bad. Americans tend to be a naïve breed, and I really think that more than anything else the United States simply wanted a relatively peaceful world in which to hawk their wares and make oodles of money. They stepped right in and organized the world monetary system, set up institutions to ensure these would endure (like the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund – and notice two of three deal with money), and made a sound effort to make the rules of the game such that everybody would get something in the deal, all properly allocated, of course, in terms conducive to the rule-makers.

But, things didn't stay that way. The next thing you know, America found itself embroiled in one armed conflict after the other. First there was Korea, which was such a mess that to this day everyone wants to forget about it. Then there was Southeast Asia, which the Brits had mucked up, then the French had mucked up (but what can you expect, really, look at how they ended up in WW2 before we "saved their bacon", as we like to say), so now it was our turn ... and we mucked up. History, unkind or not, makes the use of the words "lost" and "war" in the same sentence unavoidable. And, I have to admit, my fellow countrypeople, on the whole, have been having a bit of crisis of confidence since.

But, they push on in spite of themselves: the bloody suppression of so-called "revolutions" in South and Central America, the overthrow of democratically elected governments that were somehow deemed "unworthy", as it Iran, Chile, and even Greece, the over-the-top interventions in the Middle East – Gulf I, II, and Iraq – and now the so-called global war on terror (GWOT) which, as we all know, creates far more terrorists than it ever has or ever will ever eliminate. And each and every time we perpetuated an outdated myth or recast an old one in new garb or turned up the marketing of those elaborate and pompous stories we created about our good will, our humanitarian goals, our fervent desire to bring liberty and freedom to oppressed peoples, our moral obligation to a higher purpose. And each and every time we sent – no, we sacrificed, on the altar of power and profit – our best and brightest and bravest and – truth be told, poorest – so that the few could have even more than they already do and the rest of us could be left holding the bag (of death and misery and destruction and war crimes).

We all know, in the meantime, that some few people were getting filthy rich of all these schemes, that more often than not natural resources were the real motivators for our involvement (since we were willing to put into place and maintain in power some of the most oppressive and ruthless dictators known to the 20th century in order to ensure our "interests" were well represented), that yellow and then brown people were simply not fit for all that liberty, freedom and self-governance that we held in such high esteem and so more guns and more bullets and more bombs and more death and more destruction and more overt, physical intervention would be necessary to make the world safe for ... and here is where most of the non-American world simply draws a blank: just what is it that they were (and apparently are) so bent on doing. I wish I knew. When I look at it all, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. What am I missing?

But, the myth machine is still running full blast, cranking out stories to make all those sacrifices look like heroic deeds done for heroic purposes to achieve heroic ends. No one wants to think that all those young American men (and more recently, women) died in vain. I don't want to think it, I can assure you, but they can only not die in vain if the myth is true. We know in the meantime that the myth is not true, and the frenetic rushing about and patting of vets on the back and thanking them for their service is, I know, well-intended, but it's nothing more than the doomed-to-failure attempt to appease one's own deceived conscience.

This weekend, we should take time and make every effort to embrace all of those, living and dead, who were misused and abused by the myths. We should tell them all just how sorry we are that we allowed them to suffer for false honor and false glory. We should locate every single living vet who has been made homeless and see that s/he gets a home. We should find every vet who is suffering from whatever service-induced or even remotely-related physical or mental ailments and see that s/he gets proper treatment. We should stand up and let them, and every current service member know that we're no longer putting up with this crap: of allowing young people to be utterly destroyed for no other reason than silly stories that aren't even true. That means, of course, that we all have to take a stand for truth and actually do something. My bet is the silly stories will be retold as the barbeques get fired up and the beer chills on ice.

Happy Memorial Day.

True courage

Anybody can start a fight. Just about anybody can get into a fight without really trying: sometimes the wrong place at the wrong time or the wrong facial expression in the wrong situation. There are lots of ways to get into a fight.

If you're really smart or if you are lucky enough to have the gift of gab and can talk your way out of it, you are one of the very fortunate few. For the rest of us, it's fisticuffs. And that, dear reader, is one of the sad facts of life even in the 21st century.

What's worse, this logic applies regardless of whether it is only individuals involved. It could just as well be gangs, football fans, political parties, demonstrators, or even countries. The logic is the same, regardless of the size or the seriousness of the parties involved.

And so, you stand your ground, blow up your chest, you "act like a man", take your knocks, and save your face (more figuratively than literally, of course), but you've preserved your honor. Of course, it really could be countries involved and it could be that there is collateral damage running into millions of lives, or the whole world -- what the hell -- what's important in the end is that I've saved face, I've shown you what I'm made of, I've demonstrated my courage ... or have I?

Truth be told, you're just another one of those sorry, ever-adolescents who either can't or refuse to grow up. You're just another one of those faux bravehearts who think that a black eye and a bloody nose are some kind of badge of honor. They're not. They're mere indications that you'd rather be an actual coward than be called one.
And that's where we are these days: image is much more important than substance (or as the Germans would say, "Schein ist wichtiger als Sein"); appearances are more important than reality and what you think of me is much more important than what I think of myself or what I stand for.

Turn it around. Get out of the mirror. Face up to the fact that it takes way more courage to take a punch in the nose than to give one, that it takes way more courage to say what you think than to say what others want to hear, that it takes way more courage to stand up for what you believe in -- in light of, not in spite of, the consequences -- than just saying something's important to you.

The world as we know it honors violence. The world that we desire will honor courage.

Apocalypse soon ...

... at least that's what a lot of people think. I can't blame them. As the last two series on "responsibility" and (shared) "myths" have shown, we're not in very good shape. We don't want things the way they are, but we're reluctant to do anything about it. That's not a good combination. But, as the old saying goes, if you don't decide for yourself, someone else will decide for you.

It could be someone, or, maybe, something else, though. The options on the "people" side aren't all the inspiring. We've got a hooligan-leaning group with too much power, too many weapons, of which too many are deadly, no, downright destructive who are dead set on having a little guy with a massive ego and a deep-seated rejection complex pushing back for all he's worth. There's no sign at the moment that either side is willing to back down, and so we find our long-dead, almost forgotten Cold War suddenly heating up again. And, speaking of which, we've got way too many people -- too many of them in positions of authority and some power -- who not only deny the planet as a whole is warming, but that their own limited, ignorant view of the world needs to be imposed on everyone else. And, on the imposition front, we've got two huge, fundamentalist, religious blocs squaring off, whereby it is not the religions per se that are threating each other, it is a loud-enough minority of blind-faithers on both sides who aren't willing to compromise because they insanely believe they all have get-out-of-hell-free cards and are going to go to heaven, regardless of how much bloody death and destruction they unleash. And finally, we have a small elite of insatiably greedy gluttons who would rather the whole world implode before they share anything they think they've "earned", when in fact, they're little more than pesky, life-threatening parasites sucking the life out of everyone else.

Yes, at times, it's almost as if you can hear the pounding of the hoofbeats of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse rising in the distance.

That's it folks. The outlook is anything but rosy. The crash, implosion, explosion, whatever you want to call it is not a mere possibility. It is a reality that is going to become more real than any of us desires, and it's going to happen sooner than later. It is no longer a matter of whether, it's merely a matter of when.

There are more than enough optimists in the world who are willing to believe and tell you that we can still turn back the doomsday clock. What should have become clear over the past few weeks is that the number of people who are willing to make that happen constitutes a disappearingly small minority. They get no media time, they get no attention, they get laughed at and abused, verbally and otherwise, and they're seen as weak, tree-hugging, trail-mix-eating, soy-milk-drinking hippies who have no clue. But, in the end, they're the only ones who have figured it out. They weren't always the way they were. They changed. They changed themselves. They stood up, gathered up all their courage and told themselves that when they went, at least they'd go with the knowledge that they did whatever they could, regardless of how little or seemingly ineffective, to make a difference, to make the world a better place.

Yes, you can think of them however you want, but in the end, it is they who are going to go out with integrity and dignity.

Chapeau.

We interrupt our regularly scheduled program ... for torture

This week, the Senate Committee's report on torture was released. I would have liked to have ignored it, but I can't. I would have liked not to feel compelled to say something, but I can't. I would have liked that it didn't turn out like it did, but it did.

Disclaimer: Unwillingly, I was a soldier in the United States Army on active duty between 1971 and 1975. My Military Occupational Specialty was Interrogator of Prisoners of War. In other words, there's a part of this post that is simply personal.

Two things, in particular, bother me. On the one hand, there are voices that say the report should never have been made public. I couldn't disagree more. While I know it's not true in reality, I still believe that a government should be the servant of the people, and the people have a right to know what those who are acting in their name are doing. I know from first-hand experience that far too much is classified and too often it is because we simply don't want others to know what we are doing. But we know anyhow. On the other hand, there are those who assert that the release of the report could tarnish America's image in the world. It is already tarnished, by its own actions. My mother told me that if I did something wrong, I should own up to it and take the consequences. I don't know why this wisdom would not apply to supposedly adult representatives of one of the most influential nations on earth.

And, oh, for all of you national-security paranoids who believe that the release of such information could be a threat to the safety and security of the nation: wake up, get real, and get a life. The United States has never been more threatened that it is right now, and this report had nothing to do with that. The people who authorized the actions that are the focus of the report bear the full responsibility for that threat.

There is a fairly strong consensus across what little there is of a political spectrum in the US that the actions which were investigated did in fact take place. It might have been the Nation or The American Conservative or the wire agencies or the mainstream press or so-called liberal news or journalistic services on the internet.

But the list wouldn't be complete without at least one voice that would like to play it off as nothing more than a partisan ploy by the Democrats to distract from the "real issues" facing our country. Oh yes, there's always one. How calloused and, well, ignorant does one have to be?.

I, for one, am appalled that it took this long to get this far. As an interrogator, I was trained not to torture for it was well-known in those circles that the only thing torture gets you is inaccurate intelligence. There were, I will admit, some heartless, nasty, immoral, and downright sadistic folks in the branch who looked for every excuse to satisfy their own dishonorable desires. Unfortunately, they weren't send home (or anywhere else where they might have got some help), and so they remained, and, as it appears, eventually gained the upper hand.

What the (the executive summary of the) report tells us is that we, as a nation, are guilty. We betrayed our own values in the name of expediency. We committed acts of inhumanity and violated the human rights of others for our own trivial ends. We might like to think we are the beacon of hope to all freedom-loving peoples of the earth, but we have shown our true face, the twisted, distorted grimace of power-addicted bully.

But, we still have a chance. We can own up to our actions and face the consequences, just like my mom once encouraged me. The perpetrators need to do the same, and if they are not willing to do so on their own, they need to be brought to justice by the rest of the world. If we, as America, fail to act, we forfeit every right we ever thought we had to the moral high ground of international politics.

Are we able to do the right thing? I can only hope so.

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.