We should learn from tragedy, but somehow we can't

Very early on while learning to write, I was given some sage advice and learned a valuable lesson: don't write about something if you're too emotionally involved. You should know I'm not heeding that advice right now.

What happened in Nice two days ago was a shocking, horrific, abhorrent, gruesome, atrocious, and terrible act, but it was not an act of terror, try as we might to make it one.

Terror, for those of you who may have forgotten, is the use of excessive, random violence for political ends. And as things stand at the moment, there is no political connection to be found, regardless of how badly the authorities and media want us to believe there is.

A foreign-born, but French, petty criminal with more personal and family problems than most of us can begin to imagine takes a truck and drives amok into a family event, wreaking unimaginable harm, injury and death upon everyday men, women, and children -- families and friends who wanted no more than a bit of joy in their lives. This is a tragedy. You can't know how deeply I grieve for victims, their families and their friends. France was not attacked. Families were attacked. And you can't believe how irate I am that this tragedy is being instrumentalized for other, much less honorable, purposes.

The perpetrator is dead. He can never tell us what motivated him to commit such a brutally horrendous act. There is no mention of the situation in the socially volatile and disadvantaged hot spots in most large French cities. It doesn't matter that we've imposed an economic system that is more exclusionary than capable of meeting even the most basic human needs. And what is more, there are questions about the level and types of security being provided for the event, especially in light of the fact that France is essentially living under marshal law. But all of that is merely brushed aside.

The French prime minister has already declared an Islamistic connection, without offering even the merest shred of evidence. Without claiming responsibility, Daesh is thrilled with the result. Why is that surprising but how is that even newsworthy? The media has been abuzz with one special report after another parading out an endless stream terrorism experts in blatant disregard for the known facts of the case. Even Hollande promised in his initial remarks to increase military retaliation in Syria, and civilian deaths that will result will be the consequence of real, not imagined, terror.

Are we ever going to learn anything? I have my doubts.

When people snap mentally, they go on killing sprees, be it when they used to "go postal" as we referred to it America (because it seemed to happen more often to postal employees than others) and shot up their co-workers or be it when they drive a truck into a crowd of people out for a celebration. Until 9/11 no such event would have labeled as terrorism, but since then there is no killing spree that is not.

9/11 didn't change everything. We changed. We became frightened and fearful and allowed our rights and civil protections to be taken away because of an unavoidable event. We packed it up in the package of terrorism and we've been terrorized ever since. We've dug ourselves in so deeply that we can't see anything anymore without it having a terrorist tint. And if it doesn't have one, we're more than willing to give it one. We're so concerned with what might possibly, perhaps, unexpectedly happen to ourselves that we don't have it in us, it would seem, to stop and mourn for those who need it.

We're in the process of making this about us, when it has to be about those who have been killed and those who have been left to suffer.

Listen! Enough is enough, and enough is too much

Sometimes enough is just too much.

Sometimes you just can't find the words.

I don't know about you, but life even as a dispassionate, detached observer is getting hard to take. It makes you wonder. Well, it makes me wonder, I can tell you that.

Back in my carefree days, I studied literature and was amused by the Theatre of the Absurd. It was crazy, but insightful, purposefully not making sense to entertain. OK, I was young, naive, and a good portion stupid, I'll admit: Beckett and Pynchon weren't writing to entertain, they were rubbing our noses in our own stuff; they weren't just insightful, they were brutally honest; they weren't crazy, we are.

Most of you, dear readers, didn't even stumble over the "carefree" in that last paragraph. You all knew what I meant and most of you smiled inwardly and waxed nostalgic about those days. Truth be told, the vast majority of human beings on this planet never had a carefree day (let alone years) in their lives, but we're too sheltered, too pampered, to out-of-touch to know that. All right, add ignorant to my list of non-virtues.

One day, you (possibly) wake up (and I think most of us have) and you realize this isn't some silly play on the stage that you're watching: damn! Shakespeare was right, all the world is a stage, and every last one of us is a player. Are we just screwing up our parts, or are we really playing our roles? And therein lies the rub, as Bill would also say.

Falcon Heights, Baton Rouge, Dallas -- just the popper on a long, long bullwhip of absurdity. Thoughtless, needless, senseless, feckless, heartless murders, every one of them, and all I can see and hear are tongues wagging, fingers pointing, and knees jerking. We'd might as well face it: we can't fix it. No, it's not because the situation is so broken it can't be fixed. No, it's not because "they" are to blame. No, it's not that "we" are to blame. The reason we can't fix it is simple: we don't want to. All the yelling, screaming, and wailing is just as thoughtless, needless, senseless, feckless and heartless as the murders. There is so much hot air and heated passions being projected into the world that we may die of heat exhaustion before we gun each other down.

For the record -- not as if it will matter -- the vast majority of cops are honest, hard-working, dedicated people who are just trying to make their communities safe. We shouldn't condemn them all for the actions of a few. The vast majority of our fellow black citizens are decent, hard-working, dedicated people who are trying to make the best of their lives in the situation in which they find themselves. We shouldn't condemn them all for the actions of a few. The vast majority of protesters are honest, concerned and active citizens who are trying to make those who are still unaware of some of the issues involved more aware. We shouldn't condemn them all for the actions of a few. But that's precisely what we do in all cases. The rotten apples spoil the barrel, and the few give the many a bad name, but it never occurs to us that what we decry in others 9 times out of 10 is merely what we ourselves do all the time. It takes one to know one.

One thing is for sure: this most recent absurdity is truly American. it's American because it's happening in America, not everywhere else; it's being perpetrated by Americans, not some vague foreign agents. No, the problem's as homegrown as you get; you're simply reaping what you have sown, and you're going to keeping on reaping till you own up to the fact that you've got no one to blame but yourselves, collectively, of course, but personally as well.

Yes, we're all to blame, and it's time that we all just face up to it. Did it ever occur to you that you are never part of the problem, it's always"them", or at least someone else. Did it never occur to you that you are always right and "they" (or at least someone else) never is. My Facebook and Twitter feeds have been overflowing with one-breath analyses, one-line conclusions and zero solutions. I don't know what is more absurd, to tell the truth: what's going down or what's being said about it.

But, in all the din of accusations, counter-accusations, blame-fixing no one is listening.

That's the biggest problem of all: no one is listening.

Of course, there are two other problems that play in here that we cannot afford to ignore: The first is America's race problem. It's there, and it's deep-seated, that's for sure. Very deep-seated. It's so much a part of the culture that not a thing is going to change until we own up to it. This isn't a matter of artificially construed and inappropriately applied statistics. Having a race problem, is all the more absurd, of course, now that we know there is no such thing as race, but the label used is the right one because it's the one we can connect with. It was apparent in the fake debate about the flying of the Confederate flag. It's to be found in the the voter restriction laws being passed. It's in the simple, fact that in the year 2016 the KKK is making a comeback. How can that even be? It's time to own up to the fact that no where on earth do people of color have so much working against them as in America. Oh, I know the excuses; I was brought up with them. The ideal is a land of equal opportunity but the reality is an unequal as you can get. The ideal is equal rights under and before the law, but the reality is anything but. Stop screaming, accusing, blaming and start talking ... openly (for a change), honestly (maybe for the first time), directly ... but more than anything else, start listening.

The other problem is the violence problem: There are more murders, more violent crimes committed in American than just about anywhere on earth, and this doesn't take into consideration how many actual deaths were caused, for example, by the wrecking of the economy by capitalist speculators. Ball-point pens can be as deadly as any gun. Just this week we saw murders committed by those within and those outside the law. Americans, it would seem, are more willing to accept all sorts of violence as legitimate, but there is no such thing. There is legalized violence, as when the state allow itself to execute those it deems undesirable, but legitimate violence doesn't exist. It should always be the last resort, not the first one, as we are seeing.

And by the way, this isn't a gun issue, folks. Guns are a red herring. The absurdity we're dealing with is a simple, fundamental and deep-seated acceptance, if not love, of violence. Guns are tools, nothing more. They complicate the matter, but they don't define it. Yet physical violence, while the most obvious, is probably the least of the problem: the everyday psychological violence perpetuated on the populace, both collectively and individually, is mind-boggling to say the least: the unbridled, gloves-off brutality of business competition, the cold, calculating oppression of social-service recipients, the wielding of debt as weapon of suppression, be you a home-owner down on your luck or a student trying to make a better life for yourself. Get on the wrong side of the system and you'll be crushed, mercilessly. There is no mercy for losers. Fear is the prime motivator and threats the weapon of choice. But of course if that doesn't work, there's always physical violence as a last resort. It's just around the corner ... or in your face. You see it in its favorite sports, you see it in political campaigns, you see it in the rapaciousness of casino capitalism, you see it in its foreign policy, and you hear it in everyday language. It's time to start listening to what's really being said.

It's enough already. Really. It's time to stop accepting this absurdity as the way things are. None of this has to be the way it is. Things are as they are because we have either made them this way or allowed them to become that way. And while you personally may never have been shot at, while you personally may not have suffered injustice, it is time to wake up to the fact that there are too many who have and too many who do. When are we going to get it? When are we going to see that we are involved whether we like it or not? When is this absurdity going to stop? Well, it can't stop until you do everything you can do to make it stop. It's your move.

What if ...

• the world made sense;
• we actually cared about one another;
• we understood the stupidity of violence;
• "love thy neighbor" wasn't just something we say;
• money weren't power;
• the love of money weren't the root of all evil;
• respect had to be earned and deference was a result;
• both Newton and Einstein were right, in their own ways;
• we were aware of the actual impact of our own opinions;
• we could empathize;
• truth were relative, but Truth abolute;
• even half of us knew what we were actually saying when we speak;
• a minimum of effort produced a maximum of results;
• we were aware of the consequences of our intentions;
• what we believed made sense to someone we hated;
• our bitterest enemy agreed with us;
• what I thought became a reality for everyone else;
• gaining salvation meant admitting you were wrong;
• wanting to be good was more important than wanting to be right;
• we realized that power is impotent, without the power we give it;
• time didn't really exist;
• the everyday person realized there are worlds beyond the everyday;
• peace prevailed on Earth;
• the contestants in the Battle for Heaven were getting tired of fighting;
• reality consisted solely of possibilities;
• you had absolutely no idea;
• everything you believed to be true turned out to be false;
• nothing is at it appears?

And who has the slightest idea why there are as many questions as there are?

Paradox paradise

When choosing the lesser of any number of evils, aren't you are still choosing evil?

If "by their fruits you will know them", why is so much emphasis placed upon credos?

Can good guys be allowed (or even expected) to do bad things and still be good guys?

If G-d is the ultimate judge, why do so many of His followers spend so much time judging?

Why do alleged lovers of freedom coddle ruthless leaders who suppresses those in their power?

If you are sanctioned for exercising your rights, do you even have rights at all?

Did I miss a memo or since when is there such a thing as "good" (or even "moderate") terrorists?

Is stealing someone's heart a crime?

If gamblers are looked down on, why are speculators looked up to?

Why does Justice act like she can see even though we're all equal in the eyes of the law?

If truth is arguably relative, why do we argue about it at all?

How is it that might make right but right can never make might?

If knowledge is power, why are so many stupid things done in our name?

Given that certain truths are self-evident, why must laws be made to enforce them?

If actions speak louder than words, why do we put so much faith in what people say?

Simple wisdom

There's an old Zen saying: "Those who speak do not know; those who know, do not speak."

I stumbled across that one many, many moons ago, and I can assure you it's every bit as true now as it was then. We've got more than our share of purveyors of "truth" (or what they believe to be true or whatever), but, let's face it, most people talking have very little to say.

And, before you get the wrong impression, I'm one of those talking. I know that, and at a literal level, one could maintain that I have no idea what I'm talking about. However ... there is a difference between speaking and "speaking". Regardless of what my detractors might think, I don't claim to know what's what or what we should or should not think or believe or not believe. I don't think, believe, or even feel, that I have all the answers. Hell, I'm not even claiming that I have any answers. My "job", if that's how anyone might like to see it, is simply "to draw your attention to". No more, no less.

It's impossible for me to tell you what's right, wrong, good, bad, worthwhile or not worth even thinking about. That's something that each of us has to decide for him or herself. And that's what you need to do. You have to decide what you want to believe or what you actually believe. You have to decide what is fact and what is fiction. You need to discern and differentiate between what is real and what is illusion, what has substance and what does not.

All I want to do is nothing more than perhaps make you aware of something that you might have not thought about before. I'm not telling you what "is", I'm merely pointing out that this, that, or the other might not be exactly how you thought it might be, that not everything you're being told is being conveyed with good intentions, that a small dose of skepticism is very often very much in order, that just because something feels right doesn't mean it is right.

A buddy of mine once told me that the reason we have to learn from others' mistakes is because we don't have time to make them all ourselves. He was right. The flip side of that coin is that we need to listen to and learn from others because we don't have time to find out everything for ourselves either. When we're all sincere about pointing out and sharing, about communicating, we can all benefit. True, there are those who would abuse this process for their own advantage. We all know that as well and for that reason it is important that, well, we keep a bit of a skeptical attitude until we can corroborate, confirm or, when necessary, deny what we're hearing.

It's really not a difficult nor dangerous nor risky undertaking. It means taking things perhaps a bit more slowly, perhaps stopping to think from time to time, and maybe evening thinking first and believing later.

So, while I may be "speaking", in a sense, I'm not laying claim to knowing. Sure, I want to know, but first I've got to figure it all out.

And just who am I?

Too much is too little ... too little is never enough ... less is more ... how much is enough? We live in confusing times. We're somehow caught between overexposure and invisibility. Not everybody needs to know everything, but where does one draw the line? Where can you draw the line? Facebook. Linked-in. But I need the loan. And then there's the telephone company, the insurance company, my healthcare provider, my doctor, when does my employer get involved? Yep, there we are -- all of us -- right there, between a rock and hard place.

Nobody's perfect. Nothing we make is perfect. No system is perfect. What's the difference between Jane Doe in Kansas and Jane Doe in New York? Well, obviously where they live. My Ms Doe in Kansas moved to New York City and shortly thereafter one Ms Doe moved to Kansas from New Mexico, to avoid the police, it turns out. And, as fate would have it, Ms Original-New-York Doe gets arrested because of a mix-up in the search algorithm. By the time she gets it sorted, her reputation is in the trash and she's unemployed. The true culprit is eventually brought to justice (Americans like happy ends), but the collateral damage is great and due to the publicity, Ms Original-Kansas Doe really can't go home anymore. Sure, none of us has anything to hide, but that may not matter.

What's the point? The same one I make time and time again: we need to be aware and we need to care. It's not just enough that we look out for ol' #1 and not worry about the rest. What can happen to Jane Doe can happen to me or you or anyone else. Mistakes are not only possible, they are made all the time. We need to be aware of who knows what about us and who we share our information with and what those individuals can and may do with that information once they have it. We need to be aware of what we let others know and when and how. We need to care about having rules in place to protect ourselves and others and we need to take care that those whom we entrust with providing us protection are doing their jobs.

Of course, if you live in a world of mistrust and suspicion, in a world where the greedy are free to take advantage of the needy, a world in which competition is fierce and winning makes all the difference, in a world of enforced conformity and toeing-the-line, well, you may have a bit of tough going over the mid-term. The horse may be gone and you may discover that your barn doesn't even have a door. What's worse, you may not even know you had a horse, or a barn for that matter. Sometimes it seems like others know more about you than you know about yourself. But that raises the question as to what do you really know about yourself to begin with?

Do you really know yourself or do you just know what you want to know about yourself? It's not a trick question ... it's a deadly serious one. And today, it's a more important one than it has ever been before.

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.

And that's a wrap

Well, tomorrow night -- at midnight -- things are going to change. It is then our turn to make a lot of noise bringing in our own new year. Yes, everybody gets to have one, and so do we. However, as is part of our own particular tradition, a moment's reflection on what has transpired over the last 360 or so days is most definitely in order.

2013 was a good year for bad reasons, but a bad year for the right bad reasons. We survived the year without a major international war; we had no serious economic disasters; there were no more than usual environmental catastrophes; and there were no large-scale armed revolutions. My question is why we should only be happy about what didn't happen. It seems like second-hand happiness. On the down side, we haven't resolved any of the ongoing armed international conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan, the list goes on); we know we're heading for another economic disaster because jobs aren't forthcoming and benefits are being cut, and the banks are acting every bit as recklessly as they were back in 2007, when nobody saw anything coming; though no Gulf-of-Mexico class oil spills, the Keystone Pipeline is producing daily disasters, and fracking has got it down to hourly ones, and the disease is spreading on this side of the Atlantic as well; and the only real armed-violence-at-home is coming from the government(s) to the people.

Yes, pretty much a pretty normal year. And I suppose that's why I'm particularly glad to leave this one behind. It wasn't one of those years that will stick out in memory for all its exciting and emotional events. On our shared-reality plane, it was just another year. But, maybe, it shouldn't have been ...

We all know that the absence of disaster does not mean things are great. We know that we are faced with a large number of very serious issues, including the use of armed aggression at home or abroad, the survival of the planet, the fate of the 99%, inequality of all flavors, persecution, racism, terrorism, or the fear of simply getting seriously ill. What did any of us do about any of these things this year? Yes, I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to such things.

Still, I think that both you and I know that we really can't afford to keep going on like this. We may not have had the disasters, but things didn't really get any better last year either. It just seems to me that if things are going to get better at all, in any way, then we really can't afford to just sit around and wait for someone else to make the first move. We all know that some kind of change is needed, and I am pretty sure that we all don't agree completely on what precisely and how or (more importantly, how soon. As I have been saying all along, though, talk always precedes action, and I don't hear us talking yet.

TPTB are being as loud and obnoxious as ever, but there's not a lot to drown out. Too many of us just keep our thoughts to ourselves, but we need to start expressing them and, most important of all, discussing them. Our lives are being dominated but the anonymous, removed, global, corporate Leviathan, but it need not be so. A beast that cannot be fought can be starved, and we take sustenance from that beast when we start sharing what we have with one another. Your house, your block, your neighborhood, your community ... is where we all need to start.

And, 2014 is as good a time as any to start as well. We missed our chance last year, so let's not miss it this time around. Starve the beast. Start sharing.

Just to set the record straight

In all that I've posted lately, I really hope you haven't come to the conclusion that Christmas doesn't matter. It does, probably more than ever. This time of year has traditionally been one of celebration and introspection, so while you're busy doing the former, you shouldn't forget about the latter.

To put it most directly: it doesn't matter so much why you do something, what matters is what the results of those actions are.

People of many different persuasions, cultures and backgrounds have found comfort, strength, and hope in what Jesus said, even if they never packed it all together into a single whole. I've always been inspired, I must say, by his insight, courage, and unflinching support for the underdog. If you ever get a chance to get your hands on one of those red-letter editions of the New Testament, I heartily suggest you sit down and just read the parts in red and nothing else. It won't take you long. We're looking at fewer than 2000 verses, or around half the total text. I can assure you, though, it is worth the effort. When you get rid of all the context, the confusion, the potential ideology or theology, you are just left with some very simple ideas that are, well, profoundly moving. And that's what has moved so many people in the past and continue moving people today.

Love whoever needs you, or your help, as you love yourself; don't do to others what you wouldn't done to you; feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, heal the sick and visit those who are incarcerated. I mean, just how complicated is that? And regardless of what you may personally derive from such actions (though those of you who have ever tried it know as well as I do that such things make you feel a whole lot better about yourself), there's not a bit of anything there that isn't just reasonable, if not downright common-sensical. The question that begs itself, of course, why so few people actually do this?

The holiday we just celebrated was -- originally -- in honor of the guy who advocated acting that particular way. We've come a long way from that, to be sure. You don't have to believe that guy was God, God's Son, the Saviour, the Messiah, or whatever else you want to call him. You don't even have to believe that the guy ever existed. It just so happens that in the greatest part of what we know as Western Civilization, the stories surrounding this guy play a central role in our societies, economies, and political structures. The principles which that guy advocates are those that would lead to a more social, humane, and equitable world, a world of less suffering, a world in which greed, violence, and hatred would be disdained, not revered, a world actually worth living in, a world that would not be suffering the wanton environmental destruction that ours is.

The people who follow that guy's suggestions, for whatever reason (for you will note that there is never a demand for having a particular motivation to act in such ways), have, at least in my mind, the right to be thought of as and to call themselves Christian. Whether they do or not, is completely up to them; there's no obligation. The folks who don't would do well to not draw such attention to themselves, especially if they're claiming to be Christian. It's not what you say that makes the difference, it's what you do. So, if you want to talk the talk, walk the walk, or just zip your lip and let the rest of us try to salvage what's left of the world.

It's time

Well, here we are. Whether we like it or not, we've come to the day that, regardless of belief, is the reason that there's any kind of celebration at all here in the Western World. Irrespective of gender, race or creed, this evening is the day we have set aside to celebrate the birth of the Christ Child.

It's odd in a way. Be we believers or not, the celebration is here. Oh sure, we can rationalize it all off to some pagan festival that we've long forgotten, or we can ignore everything below the surface and simply join in the fun. It doesn't matter (and how often have I said that in the past month?). Here we are and I am only suggesting that it would do us all good to stop and ask ourselves why.

In my own reflections, I'm forced, by virtue of time and place of birth (both of which were totally under my control, right?), to think about why we even have a holiday now and what it is we're supposed to be celebrating.

The short answer is we live in a(n) (alleged) Christian culture, and today, according to tradition, the saviour of humankind was born. In a stall in Bethlehem, an unmarried virgin gave birth to a baby boy, cared for and protected by her estranged husband. This humble situation was the beginning of the most powerful movement that has ever swept over humanity. Well, that's the story, at any rate ... granted, in very condensed form. For some, this baby is the Messiah; that is, the one whom God sent to redeem humankind. For others, this baby was to become a prophet who would pave the way for God's true prophet. For still others, the baby was simply a troublemaker. For the rest, well, they didn't care.

The question poses itself, naturally, who's right? The answer, whether you like it or not, it everybody ... and nobody. Yes, the real answer is the one we've heard about so much recently: it doesn't matter.

You see, while there may be a number of ways to look at this, from the tradition in which we Westerners were born, there are two ways that push themselves into the foreground. That is, when you get right down to it, there are two "Christianities" out there, regardless of what we think or what we see. There is what all the Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Fundamental, Pentecostal) "believe", and there is whatever it is that we have handed down to us as what the baby (later, a grown man), Jesus, had to say. They are, regardless of what anyone tells you, two very different things. The former ... the so-called "party line" -- is actually what the disciple Paul tells us (all the books of the New Testament between the Gospels and the Apocalypse); the latter is what Jesus said -- and more importantly, did -- as reported in the Gospels. You can twist and turn and force it anyway you like, but the two are, in truth, incompatible with each other.

At bottom then, this time of year is also a time of choice. If we choose to celebrate the holiday, we must choose whether we believe in what Jesus said and did, what Paul and his followers say is the only way to go, or we just want an excuse to party. The choice is yours.

Zeroing in

Let's face it. There is nothing radical or extremist about anything I have had to say recently. At the beginning of the season, I did intimate that what I had to say was not the "party line", but it should be clear by now that there may not even be such a thing. We all believe in something (or not) and we all want only the best for ourselves and those around us. So, I ask you, why is the world so screwed up? Really, none of you are ready to witness for the perfection of reality. Where are we going wrong?

You would be mistaken if you thought I knew. You would be correct, however, is guessing that I might have at least a suspicion. And here it is, a simply as I can state it: most of us are simply hypocrites. Sound harsh? Maybe it is, but I do believe it is accurate. Why am I so sure? Let me tell you.

How many of us like to make an objective and neutral impression, but are, in reality, pushing our own agenda? How many of us declare our tolerance but still have reservations about others who are not like us, including, but not restricted to, people of color, those of a different sexual persuasion or declaration? How many of us tell others that some of our best friends are , but never have them in our homes? How many of us declare our love of God or Jesus, yet blame welfare recipients for being lazy takers? How many of us declare our love of the environment yet drive to the corner store and advocate "dirty" energy? How many of us deny climate warming and simply go on consuming as before? How many of us believe we have worked hard, and therefore have earned, what we have, but refuse to admit how much circumstance and luck have played in our good fortune? How many of us think our country/culture got it right and why do all those others not realize that they haven't? How many of us apply the same measure to big companies and banks that we apply to other individuals not so different from ourselves? How many think responsibility is an important characteristic but don't think that corporations or countries should be held to the same standard? How many of us believe that violence is no solution but still possess firearms and use language that inflicts injury on others? How many of us think others are simply abnormal, because everyone knows what normal is? How many of us believe we are saved and are simply sorry that everyone who isn't simply has to go to hell?

Well, if you ask me, the answer in every case is the same: too many. I really don't know where any of us get off thinking we know what's what and why things are that way. I don't know how any of us can believe we've got that "wisdom thing" all wrapped up. I don't know how good, caring, loving individuals can hate, but you know and I know that we are not few. I don't know how we can realize that we're anything but perfect, yet expect perfection in others. I can't even begin to imagine what's going on in the heads of people who are in mosque/temple/church or elsewhere at least one day a week can act the rest of the week as if they didn't know what was said at the last service. I don't know how most of us can look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning considering how often on any given day we were one way with those we like and who are near to us and so very, very different with those we don't or aren't close to.

Yes, dear reader, we humans are anything but consistent. Which is fine as far as it goes. There is something to-be-expected about it. But what really makes us human, in the end, is that we can transcend what's only expected.

Beating around the (burning) bush

It's not what you say, but how you say it. It's not what you hear, but how you hear it. It's not what you read, but how you read it. Just a couple of simple axioms to start your day.

There are a lot of things we haven't figured out yet. There are a lot of things we just don't know; there are fewer things we know for sure. There are a lot of things we may never figure out. That's just how it is, and that's OK.

It seems to me that there are too many people who miss the point (whatever the point may be in the end) simply because they are all wrapped up in non-essential details. These might be the facts of science, the wording in a given Holy Book, or just some belief we have come to accept (either consciously or unconsciously). For those of you missing the point -- either consciously or unconsciously -- it's OK, you're in good company: most of us are with you.

As I have said, this time of year should be one of joy, hope, peace and light. Why? Because a lot of folks for a lot of time in our history have thought it isn't a bad idea, and even a minimum of reflection on that and what should be will tell you it's not a bad idea at all. Any time we can bring more joy, hope, peace and light into our lives and into the lives of those around us are, well, simply good times, memorable times, happy times. And there is not a human being on this planet who doesn't share that sentiment.

The leading cause of strife/tension/conflict/ is really due to misunderstanding or, more precisely, miscommunication. Different cultures and different languages use different images and metaphors and allusions to get their points across, and we don't always get what the speaker or writer is saying simply because we attach different values to pictures and metaphors they are using. The wonder of communication is not that we communicate, it is that we can communicate at all.

The same things can be said in many different ways. If we always simply listen with our own ears or read with our own eyes, chances are good that we're going to miss something important or just miss something period. We have to recognize that we may not understand; we must be aware that we probably will misunderstand; we must be patient with the speaker/writer for they are under extreme pressure to get it right (and probably won't); and we must suspend our own disbelief when we encounter something that doesn't make immediate sense to us. This is no mean task. This is anything but easy. This is the hardest thing we will ever have to do. And, everybody does it in their own way, whether they like it or not, whether they know it or not.

I happen to know -- and I believe it is good that you know -- that most of the images and metaphors I use come from what Christians call the Bible. The first part of that book, of course, is what the Jews call their Tanakh, and it is that same part that the Moslems hold sacred. Why? Because that is the primary source of pictures and metaphors in the culture in which I was raised and still live. In other words, to me, they are the most natural and familiar images I have at my disposal. They are, as well, the most natural and familiar images that most Western writers have at their disposal as well.

Does this mean they are the best images to use? No. They are simply the ones we can use most easily. And they are those images that will most likely be most familiar to most of those who hear or read what we have to say.

I must add, however, that this is an increasingly challenging task. Too many are becoming too unaware of too many things. My suspicion is that this does not bode well for us as a culture. I thought I would just throw that in.

The right to be wrong

Don't get me wrong: I've not been trying to say that anyone has their head where it does not belong nor that they are simply ignorant. All I'm saying is that their beliefs, in the end, are not on as firm a foundation as they would like. Given that this is the case, it would behoove them, I believe, to tone it down a little and not be so vociferous in telling others they are full of whatever.

And, don't get me wrong: this is supposed to be a happy time of year, so the last thing that I'm trying to do is sow the seed of discord. I'm merely pointing out that there are too many people who can find too many reasons to subvert making this a happy time of year. Me? I'm all for live-and-let-live. Really. It doesn't matter even a little bit what you believe or don't believe, or why. The only thing that matters -- that can matter -- to me is how you act in this world. To be perfectly honest, nothing else matters to me at all.

If you believe it is right to do good, help others, be non-violent and who knows what else because some little green creatures told you in a dream to act that way, then I've got no problem with that. If you believe it is right to heal the sick, free the oppressed, feed the hungry because your Holy Book tells you to act that way, then I've got no problem with that. If you believe it is right to succor the suffering, fight injustice and visit prisoners because it just seems like the right thing to do, then I've got no problem with that. If you believe it is right to not insult others, to show a bit of compassion for the less fortunate and to try to be happy as much as possible your favorite movie star said it would be a nice way to act, then I've got no problem with that either.

The long and short of it is: the motive, the motivation, the reason for your particular belief isn't as important as whether or not you act upon and in accordance with that belief.

If you believe that you should look after you and yourself first, or exercise violence on others; if you have the right disparage the sick, infirm, suffering, or hungry; if you believe you have the right to look down upon the less fortunate or oppress them, or if you believe you have the right to blame the victims of circumstance for their plight, well, I do have a problem with that, and I don't care what your reason is: little green creatures, Holy Book, or favorite person, or any other "reason".

My point is this: the "reason", the motivation, the impetus, the stimulus for what you do doesn't matter at all. What matters is what you do. How you act, regardless of what you believe or why, is really all that matters in the end. If the why is more important than the what in this case, then I can only say that you need to re-evaluate your priorities.

What you believe may (or may not) be "wrong", but it doesn't matter as long as what you do (or avoid doing) is "right".

The right to be right

When we take a look at what we may call the "religious landscape" of the world today, a couple of things become fairly obvious fairly quickly. As a quick review:

• There are about half-a-dozen, so-called world religions: Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
• There are more other "faiths" than can be counted: ranging from remote, tribal, probably never-seen-before systems to "alternative religions", like Wicca and its variations, to long-standing traditional ones like Baha'i and Taoism to far-out ones, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
• Even non-believers believe in something: atheists are simply those who don't believe in "God", but that doesn't mean they don't believe in anything, even if it is "only" science, for example.
• Of all known religious/belief systems, to my knowledge, there are only three which are exclusive (that is, it's-our-way-or-the-highway, we're-right-and-everybody-else-is-wrong/deluded), namely Islam, Christianity (in most, if not all its major flavors), and Atheism. (I know, for some of you that last one was a bit of a surprise.)

If you've ever taken the time to talk to other believers, you quickly realize that most of them (a) don't really want to talk about details, (b) are more than willing to let you believe whatever it is you do (or don't) believe, and (c) really aren't sure why you're asking the question about what they believe in the first place. With the "exclusionists", as I like to call them, the situation is reversed. They are more than willing to beat you over the head with the details, are quick to tell you how wrong you are in whatever it is that you believe, and finally glad that they found someone to brain-dump on. That's always struck me as odd.

So, here's my question: why do the exclusionists think (believe) they've got it right and everyone else has got it wrong?

Well, for the first two, the exclusionary religions, it's easy: their Holy Book tells them they are right and everyone else is wrong. At least that's what they'll tell you. For the last group, the absolute-non-believers, they'll tell you it's because there is no empirical evidence for anything you believe; that is, no proof, so you must be wrong.

The position of the first two is built on the fallacy of circular argumentation: the Book says so, therefore it is so, because the Book says so. The latter is based only on an assumption, namely if you can't access it through our five sense, it can't exist.

In other words, the claim to exclusivity is based on nothing that can be objectively and unequivocally verified in the end. Makes it all a bit shaky, don't you think?

A word to the unwise

If you've been following the last few posts, it should be slowly dawning on you that there is a bit of method to my madness. Legends, fairy tales, and myths are not acts of deception, they are reminders of what might be good to take notice of should we want to live better lives. All of us, regardless of our true convictions, play along with this. Let's face it, not only the Christians -- of all flavors, from Catholic to Orthodox to Fundamentalists -- are well into the Christmas Season, and even our other-believing friends -- the Atheists -- are getting festive, too. Truth be told, there are even some of other faiths who are going to put up a tree or have a special meal or exchange gifts because, well, that's what everyone else is doing, so why not join in the fun? Right. When we get into the spirit of celebration, we all feel better. And that's how it should be.

Now, for those of you out there who think there's a War on Christmas or that Christians are trying to shove their religion down your throat ... get over yourselves. Either breathe deeply into and out of a paper bag or take extra doses of your chill-out pills or simply partake a bit more of your favorite intoxicants. I don't care. Just be quiet and let the rest of us have our fun. You guys are downers, bummers, kill-joys or whatever else we can think of to accurately characterize who you are. Christmas and the Christmas Season (and the Hanukah Season for our Jewish friends) is about feeling good, feeling loved, caring and sharing.

As for me, I was born and raised (as I mentioned a couple of posts ago) in a Christian environment. Why? Because I was born there by the luck of the draw. I had as little say in where I was born as anyone else. This was part of the culture in which I was raised, and I understand, fairly well I think, how it functions. Over the years, I have learned that other peoples in other cultures have different (but often very similar) reasons for celebrating when they do, and I'm more than happy to join them in theirs. And they are, at least to me, more than welcome to share in mine. Where's the problem? Right. There is none, so don't make one out of any of it.

When someone greets me with a "Happy Holidays" or a "Happy Hanukah" or a "Merry Christmas", my first thought is, "Well, there's someone who's into the spirit of the season." That makes me happier, my day brighter, my burden lighter, and it encourages me to simply pass it on.

If you don't hear what you think you should be hearing, or if you suspect that Western Culture as we know it is about to collapse, or if you have the urge to set those jerks straight, or if you believe that the end of the world is probably near ... well, you probably need more help than all the rest of us can give you.

Lots of cultures throughout history have organized celebrations of sharing, hope, love, and light at this time of year. So, why not do something "traditional" for a change: get into the Spirit of the Season, and leave the mundane to itself. It will do you a world of good.

Do you believe in St. Nick?

It is really by chance that the topic of beliefs and faith should be on tap today. In some parts of the world (for example, the one in which I happen to live), today is St. Nicklaus Day. Ironically, it is everywhere there are Christians, even if most of the faith may not know it, however, in most places, it's not celebrated in any way. Last night, children put their shoes in front of the door, hoping he'd stop by and leave them some sweets, an orange or maybe even a small present. Well, only if they were good this year, of course; otherwise, it could be they end up with a lump of coal. My American friends should recognize elements that have been taken over and incorporated into our own Santa Claus. We well oh-so-enlightened moderns know there is neither St. Nick nor Santa Claus, but we still act in ways as if he did.

Even non-believing parents and certainly enlightened ones will still see that something gets in the shoes. Why? Well, it makes the kids happy. And if the kids are happy, well, chances are good that the parents are going to feel better, and maybe even the grandparents got into the act as well. For those enlightened souls who rob their children of all that magic and simply slam the chocolate bar down on the table will probably pass the day less satisfied. And I have to ask myself whether that is an appropriate price to pay for sacrificing a simple belief. No, I don't what to hear about how it's all a lie, how we are deceiving our children who need to be able to face the facts of life in determined and decisive ways. You should grow up before you expect your children to.

There really was a Nicklaus, who was later canonized, and his miracle had to do with seeing that children in need got help and even saving a few. Around this factual event, which is so obscured in the shadows of history, a number of stories grew, some of which became so firmly established that we understand them as legends. Legends, like fairy tales and any number of other fictional accounts, serve an important purpose, however: they remind us of what should be good and beneficial in life in spite of all the hardships and stumbling blocks we encounter. They are, by nature, not there to deceive us, but to give us a (or perhaps even the flimsiest of) reason(s) to make the world just a little bit better, even if only for a short while. I really don't see what's wrong with that. When we do these little things, we and everyone around us is just a little happier, a little more content, and feels just a little more loved than before. Again, I don't know what's wrong with that.

You see, it doesn't really matter whether there ever was a St. Nicklaus or not. It doesn't really matter whether he did any of the things it is claimed he did. It doesn't matter whether we believe in the stories or not. All that matters, in the end, is that we can be reminded to be better people and spread a little joy instead of grief. If we believe that acting so is a good thing (and I'm pretty sure most of you would agree), then that is why we should. It's really that simple.