Those of you who are old enough to remember the dawn of the computer age, somewhere in the early '70's, will remember this phrase: Garbage In- Garbage Out. As the first shards of light began to break over the horizon of the cyber-world we now live in, computers were already creating frustrations with the first pioneers in the business world to experiment with their everyday use. The early code writers and programmers found they encountered quite a bit of criticism from folks who sometimes blamed their own mistakes on those "damned new computers". The programmers had a simple and unfailingly correct answer to the early nay-sayers, "garbage in- garbage out". And, they were right! Their point was this; the machine cannot discern the bad information and data from good information that's loaded into it. So, if you put in bad data and bad information, don't blame the computer- it's only reporting the crap you gave it. By the end of the '70,s this simple phrase had spread to the cultural lexicon of the times and people used it to explain a whole host of issues in which bad input can only get you bad outcomes.
I was thinking about that phrase, Garbage In- Garbage Out, as I was reflecting on the political scene surrounding the Presidential contests as they heat up just ahead of the actual election year. I know it seems that we've been at this so long now, and we haven't even gotten to the year when it really happens- but that's what we get for allowing ourselves to far too many 24- hour news networks and a thriving system of social media where these two behemoths feed off of each other. Nonetheless, I confess to being hopelessly hooked on a news addiction myself. In my reflections I thought this phrase is such an apt analogy for the non-sense we've all seen since last winter. Normally I would have been writing and thinking about the sad state of the body politic a lot, but each time I had a thought where there might be a temptation to write a few lines, I thought of the over-all silliness and just said, "nah.."
But in this essay I've finally come to some words that sum up the totality of the silliness into one old phrase form the '70's. I think just about everyone over the last couple of weeks, for various reasons, have come to see our political processes, and thus our future leadership issues, as just plain broken. Of course once we recognize a problem the next instinct is to blame it on someone else. The most blatant example I've seen of this time-honored tradition (of blaming someone else) is the Republican Party's efforts to blame CNBC for the disastrous debate that took place this week- as they did Fox News the first time. I've watched all three Republican debates (because of my sick addiction) and this one by far was the craziest of the three. All three were crazy- but this one was not only crazy, it wasn't even entertaining. The CNBC moderators, like the Fox moderators were horrible. They asked stupid, childish questions, they did not hold anybody to the facts, and they lost control of the format-without ever addressing the major issues. Horrible on every level! The candidates have now banded together to demand a new debate platform. Even the RNC has called the debates shameful, and they are group who set them up. All three debates featured non-sense and childishness from start to finish.
Watching the news this morning and seeing the Republican effort to change the game I began to wonder if the field of candidates and the positions they have staked out for their respective campaigns has more to do with the quality of the debate than the networks and the moderators. Could it be that the Party and the Candidates are the ones ultimately responsible for the stupidity of the questions and the nonsense answers we have been seeing? Could this be a perfect example of Garbage In- Garbage Out? I think it is.
I don't know what the Party and the public should expect when they have elevated Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina to the top tier of their party. To be even more explicit, the questions asked at the debates can clearly be traced straight back the candidates themselves. Let's take Trump for example. He began his campaign by referring to Mexicans as criminals and rapists; he insulted Lindsey Graham personally and displayed his phone number publicly as a form of schoolyard bullying; he made fun of Rick Perry's eye glasses; made derogatory remarks about Scott Walker's and Carly Fiorina's facial appearance; made comments about rand Paul's hair in the most ironic moment ever; and called Jeb Bush a low-energy loser. He openly brags about his wealth, lies about his campaign donations, and flaunts his four corporate bankruptcies as being smart business moves (with no regard to the creditors he left hanging with his debt). The Christian right loves him because he now carries around a Bible even though he has led the most un-Christian of lives and is now on this third trophy-wife. He "loves" women but talks about them like they his possessions to be taken out, polished up and "cherished" every so often. His policy positions are pure silliness. He says he will export 11 million people and when asked how? says, "humanely". He said he will build a "tremendous wall" with a "beautiful door"- but never says how, how much it will cost, or how it will be operated, AND says he will get Mexico to pay for it. That is so stupid it doesn't even require a response, but he gets to say it everyday on TV or in these debates. Every economist from every political stripe has called his $10 trillion tax cut utter non-sense. He will not address race, violence or education in any cogent way. And his economic growth plan is just to let him make the deals because he so wonderful at doing it. In all, there is not one serious thing to talk to this man about- This constitutes Garbage In.
Dr. Carson and Carly Fiorina and more soft-spoken or even more articulate than "the Donald", but no less crazy with their ideas for America. Carson became famous (politically) by going to a National Prayer Breakfast a few years ago and calling the Affordable Care Act " the worst thing since slavery", which clearly means be doesn't understand the ACA or slavery. He has no economic plan but promised big tax cuts that cannot stand the test of simple mathematics according to a wide range of economists. He is a scientist (physician) but denies scientific data on the climate; has said he would only preserve the Dept. Of Education to monitor and control "liberal" talk on college campuses; he is a doctor but cannot make any coherent policy statements on health care; and the list goes on and on. Ms. Forina has only one claim to fame, and that is her corporate executive career that ended in flames when she was fired for horrible missteps that nearly put Hewlitt-Packard out of business. Since then not one corporation on the planet has even approached her to acquire her "talents". Yet she will go to the debates and tell us that everything that happened in her career was actually great for H-P- and that is the kind of leadership the nation and the world needs, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Carson, Fiorina, and Trump all have exactly no experience with government, except how to degrade it or defeat it. So, of course they see themselves as experts on government. Would you hire a carpenter to build your house if they showed up and said "I can build you the best house ever even though I've never done anything like this before"? All see themselves as the savior of system they do not understand and could not operate effectively in. Trump even admits all of his government experience is tied up in buying (read: bribing) politicians to help his business. None of them have devoted a single moment on foreign policy other than to espouse international bullying, without giving the slightest nod to diplomacy. These folks have become the elite of the Republican field. The rest of the very large field of Republicans are a hodge-podge of old political hacks who can't seem to muster much more than 5% from the party voters. Not one of the others has come out with a unified plan for anything. The entire race is about being against Obama and Clinton and for Jesus, with no "program" to do anything other than give tax breaks to rich guys, continue to expand the world's (already) largest military, and get us into more unwinnable wars in the middle-east. Add it all together and you have truck load of Garbage In.
Given the total volume of Garbage in, how can we expect to get anything but Garbage out when this bunch shows up on the national stage. The moderators of these events could certainly do better, but it would sure be easier for them if the candidates gave them something better to work with. If the candidates only talk non-sense on the campaign trail, that is all they will asked about. The candidates owe them and us reasonable solutions to serious problems. This Republican cycle is a clown show in much the same way as it was in 2012. That fact that Trump, Carson and Fiorina are appealing as the "outsiders" tells us only one thing: people are so frustrated and so whipped up by an irresponsible right wing media establishment in talk-radio and Fox News they don't know the difference between those who shout foolishness and those who can actually lead.
This situation reminds me of a scene from the movie, The American President written by Aaron Sorkin. In the scene a close advisor to the President is admonishing the President to stand up to his political opposition who have spread lies and falsehoods. He tells the President that the American people are thirsty for leadership. He says they need it so badly that they would crawl across the dessert and chase a mirage- and when they find no water, they will drink the sand because they were so thirsty. The President becomes somber, stares down his young advisor and says, "They don't drink the sand because they are thirsty, Louis- they drink the sand because they don't know the difference".
I had honestly hoped that this time around the Republicans would have tried to provide the People with a reasonable choice, embodied in serious candidates, making a thoughtful case to the American people. The emergence of these Garbage In candidates shows me that won't happen. This is a function of a Republican party with policies that can no longer create a national appeal, but it is also a function of an electorate that simply hasn't demanded it. If so many people can accept the nonsense of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and Fox News, Republicans will remain out of the national driver's seat. And, that is not good for the country. I don't support today's Republican policies, but a reasonable Republican Party could play an important role in national leadership. The thoughtful exchange of ideas can actually bring people together and will always create a much better result. But as things stand now, there it's only Garbage In- Garbage Out from the Republicans, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
Thanks for looking in.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Sunday, May 24, 2015
I'm Trying to Think Better
It's been more than a couple of months since I've written anything in this space. I have several really good excuses for my failure to write- a real sin in my personal list of life offences. First and foremost I just haven't found anything that moved me to write. That's not to say that there haven't been some events worthy of thought and debate. There most certainly have been. The police violence and rioting in Baltimore, the so-called military exploits of ISIS in Iraq- and constant Obama bashing over it, the growing herd of Republican Presidential candidates jumping in the clown car, the never-ending Benghazi/Email/Clinton Foundation/Chipotle.. made-up Hillary scandals all come to mind. But in the end I found the public discourse on these subjects both silly and tiring, and I had no desire to weigh in. It all began to be noise and I just didn't want to make any more of it.
I also have the great excuse of traveling quite a bit over the last month or so. Through my work at Goodwill, I was able to travel to Washington DC where I took part in national advocacy events with members of Congress and their staff. I had been to DC before, but this was the first time roaming the halls of Senate and House Office Buildings where the real work (?) is done. Talking to Senators and House Members and their staff people left me with enough impressions to keep me writing essays for months- but I won't go into the specifics just now. Sufficed to say, it's fairly obvious why things are a mess in our national government these days. But it was an interesting experience and I learned a lot. Another great opportunity came right on the heels of the Washington trip, and that was our national convention in Colorado Springs. It was interesting to meet people from all over the country and compare notes on common issues- aside from the pure pleasure of meeting new people. I always find meeting new people be a great experience. Diversity does not abound in my town- so this is a great way to experience people who think and see things differently from me, most especially from differing racial perspectives. For instance, I had breakfast with several people from Baltimore the morning following the riots and I got to see their sadness and worry very closely and personally. It's the kind of thing one normally doesn't get on the news. I'm thankful for that experience.
My final good excuse is that I spent more time reading. I'm not one to spend a lot of time with books. My preferred method to get information about the world I live in is to scan over lots of material from different sources and media, but long hours on airplanes and the chance to relax a bit gave me the opportunity to read a few things. I was particularly pleased to read a couple of books by Fareed Zakaria. The two books of his I read were The Future of Freedom and In Defense of a Liberal Education. I particularly enjoy his perspective because he has an outstanding understanding of this country- yet he brings an interesting point-of-view from a person not raised in the U.S. His name might suggest he is from a middle-eastern country but he was actually raised in India. I also read the Elizabeth Warren book, A Fighting Chance. I was well aware of her point-of-view on economic issues, but I enjoyed the story of her upbringing and how those experiences informed her academic and political careers.
Well, those are my excuses. Good or bad I'm sticking to them. But, the lesson from all this travel, new people, new ideas, and new thoughts is that I should make a conscience effort to think better. How easy it is to get caught in the web of seeing events and experiencing the world from the same old sources and from the same old people.
I had wanted to read Zakaria's book on a liberal arts education since I first noticed it some weeks earlier. I'm a big believer in a strong liberal arts education. Over the last decade or more I have been disheartened to see so many young people tailor their education only towards the technical aspects of the jobs they hope to get, and ignore the benefits of a broader and more expansive education that favors arts and literature along with job-specific learning. I can't help but think that this phenomenon has been bolstered by the economic conditions wherein the middle class wages have remained low- placing more emphasis on "just making a living". The sad byproduct of this thinking is that a new generation of the workforce does not have "thinking skills" (let's call it critical thinking skills) those college educated people had a generation or two ago. Now, as a person who does a lot of hiring, I can see the deficits in people I hire. Even people coming to me for jobs and possessing a college degree are unable to write a coherent paragraph and use basic rules of the English language.
For me, the ability to write and use language well is a critical skill. It is critical to professional success for two reasons. The first is that so much of professional behavior in this age of "compliance and accountability" is the act of documenting one's work. The ability to accurately record thoughts and actions in our professional life is more important than ever- mostly because we have come to rely on data so heavily. Data is not always defined as numbers- but is more broadly defined as "information" and information must have words attached to it on some level. The second, and most important reason is that writing, according to Zakaria, teaches you how to think. He writes," the central virtue of a liberal education is that it teaches you to write, and writing makes you think. Whatever you do in life, the ability to write clearly, cleanly, and reasonably quickly will prove to be an invaluable skill."
"The second great advantage of a liberal education is that it teaches you how to speak. The Yale-NUS report states that the college wants to make 'articulate communication' central to its intellectual experience. That involves writing, of course, but also involves the ability to give compelling verbal explanations...At the deepest level, articulate communication helps you to speak your mind. This doesn't mean spouting anything and everything you're thinking at any given moment. It means learning to understand your own mind, to filter out under-developed ideas, and then to express to the outside world your thoughts, arranged in some logical order." Well said Fareed!
These notions about education and thought have always been important to me. At the risk of sounding snobbish about a liberal education (and please note that the use of the word "liberal" in this context is NOT political) I remain convinced of the old adage that an educated person is one who doesn't necessarily possess the most information- but is the person who possess the best ability to locate and process information. In other words, it is knowing how to think. I'm also convinced that this is not a quality that once achieved, can be relied upon thereafter and always. Like any other ability it must be exercised- it must be taken out and given a good workout on a regular basis. Writing these essays is my workout for thinking.
When I started this blog a few years ago I did it for very selfish reasons. I knew that what I may think about any particular topic would be largely unimportant to anyone else. But I wanted to create some forum to give myself exercise in both thinking and writing. I was creating a small rebellion in my own head against a world that had come to see writing as the expression of thoughts in 140 characters or less- a typical tweet. So much for the rebellion- more people than ever are "tweeting" and I'm still writing essays almost nobody reads. Nonetheless, I'll keep doing this and encourage others to read, and write, and think more- because I know it will make me think better- and I considerate trying to think better a worthy pursuit.
We are all facing a challenge over the next year and a half that will call upon us all to think better. President Obama called election time the "silly season" in 2008, and I can't think of a more apt name for our process of electing Presidents. The ability to think better is important for all of us no matter what our political leanings. My fear is that we have become victims of a culture that actually encourages the opposite of better thinking. The media and the talk-radio culture we now live in has served to dumb-down big portions of the country. I don't advocate silencing these purveyors of nonsense, and reasoning that can be summed up in a few hateful phrases meant for simpletons to repeat in famous "ditto-head" fashion. The Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Riley's, and other Fox News types have reduced our ability the think better. And they did it, not on the strength of the message, but by the constant and unrelenting volume of it. They make us reject analytical thinking and brow-beat us into giving up on our own efforts to think. What else could explain the emergence of Sarah Palin? I know some of the same criticism applies to the other side- but the shear amount and degree of non-sense coming from the Fox News Republicans make them too rich an example of doing damage to our minds to ignore. There was a time when journalism was sacred and not part of a media money machine. There was a time when conservatives made intellectual arguments and wrote eloquently in support of their ideas. There was a time when the public had the privilege of seeing both sides make honest arguments and the voting public had a better chance of casting more informed votes. These are not those days.
Given that important issues need to be resolved we must all make a commitment to think better. We have to understand the science behind climate change and quit calling people "arrogant" (Jeb Bush) for looking at evidence. We have to think about, and understand the intellectual truth of human rights and equal rights among them- and not be asked to suspend basic humanity because of religious dogma. We have to expect that our politicians give us more than slogans to explain the complex problems of the world because we think better and we now expect them to think better- write better- and speak better. I will always endeavor to think better and hope more of us will do the same.
Thanks for looking in.
I also have the great excuse of traveling quite a bit over the last month or so. Through my work at Goodwill, I was able to travel to Washington DC where I took part in national advocacy events with members of Congress and their staff. I had been to DC before, but this was the first time roaming the halls of Senate and House Office Buildings where the real work (?) is done. Talking to Senators and House Members and their staff people left me with enough impressions to keep me writing essays for months- but I won't go into the specifics just now. Sufficed to say, it's fairly obvious why things are a mess in our national government these days. But it was an interesting experience and I learned a lot. Another great opportunity came right on the heels of the Washington trip, and that was our national convention in Colorado Springs. It was interesting to meet people from all over the country and compare notes on common issues- aside from the pure pleasure of meeting new people. I always find meeting new people be a great experience. Diversity does not abound in my town- so this is a great way to experience people who think and see things differently from me, most especially from differing racial perspectives. For instance, I had breakfast with several people from Baltimore the morning following the riots and I got to see their sadness and worry very closely and personally. It's the kind of thing one normally doesn't get on the news. I'm thankful for that experience.
My final good excuse is that I spent more time reading. I'm not one to spend a lot of time with books. My preferred method to get information about the world I live in is to scan over lots of material from different sources and media, but long hours on airplanes and the chance to relax a bit gave me the opportunity to read a few things. I was particularly pleased to read a couple of books by Fareed Zakaria. The two books of his I read were The Future of Freedom and In Defense of a Liberal Education. I particularly enjoy his perspective because he has an outstanding understanding of this country- yet he brings an interesting point-of-view from a person not raised in the U.S. His name might suggest he is from a middle-eastern country but he was actually raised in India. I also read the Elizabeth Warren book, A Fighting Chance. I was well aware of her point-of-view on economic issues, but I enjoyed the story of her upbringing and how those experiences informed her academic and political careers.
Well, those are my excuses. Good or bad I'm sticking to them. But, the lesson from all this travel, new people, new ideas, and new thoughts is that I should make a conscience effort to think better. How easy it is to get caught in the web of seeing events and experiencing the world from the same old sources and from the same old people.
I had wanted to read Zakaria's book on a liberal arts education since I first noticed it some weeks earlier. I'm a big believer in a strong liberal arts education. Over the last decade or more I have been disheartened to see so many young people tailor their education only towards the technical aspects of the jobs they hope to get, and ignore the benefits of a broader and more expansive education that favors arts and literature along with job-specific learning. I can't help but think that this phenomenon has been bolstered by the economic conditions wherein the middle class wages have remained low- placing more emphasis on "just making a living". The sad byproduct of this thinking is that a new generation of the workforce does not have "thinking skills" (let's call it critical thinking skills) those college educated people had a generation or two ago. Now, as a person who does a lot of hiring, I can see the deficits in people I hire. Even people coming to me for jobs and possessing a college degree are unable to write a coherent paragraph and use basic rules of the English language.
For me, the ability to write and use language well is a critical skill. It is critical to professional success for two reasons. The first is that so much of professional behavior in this age of "compliance and accountability" is the act of documenting one's work. The ability to accurately record thoughts and actions in our professional life is more important than ever- mostly because we have come to rely on data so heavily. Data is not always defined as numbers- but is more broadly defined as "information" and information must have words attached to it on some level. The second, and most important reason is that writing, according to Zakaria, teaches you how to think. He writes," the central virtue of a liberal education is that it teaches you to write, and writing makes you think. Whatever you do in life, the ability to write clearly, cleanly, and reasonably quickly will prove to be an invaluable skill."
"The second great advantage of a liberal education is that it teaches you how to speak. The Yale-NUS report states that the college wants to make 'articulate communication' central to its intellectual experience. That involves writing, of course, but also involves the ability to give compelling verbal explanations...At the deepest level, articulate communication helps you to speak your mind. This doesn't mean spouting anything and everything you're thinking at any given moment. It means learning to understand your own mind, to filter out under-developed ideas, and then to express to the outside world your thoughts, arranged in some logical order." Well said Fareed!
These notions about education and thought have always been important to me. At the risk of sounding snobbish about a liberal education (and please note that the use of the word "liberal" in this context is NOT political) I remain convinced of the old adage that an educated person is one who doesn't necessarily possess the most information- but is the person who possess the best ability to locate and process information. In other words, it is knowing how to think. I'm also convinced that this is not a quality that once achieved, can be relied upon thereafter and always. Like any other ability it must be exercised- it must be taken out and given a good workout on a regular basis. Writing these essays is my workout for thinking.
When I started this blog a few years ago I did it for very selfish reasons. I knew that what I may think about any particular topic would be largely unimportant to anyone else. But I wanted to create some forum to give myself exercise in both thinking and writing. I was creating a small rebellion in my own head against a world that had come to see writing as the expression of thoughts in 140 characters or less- a typical tweet. So much for the rebellion- more people than ever are "tweeting" and I'm still writing essays almost nobody reads. Nonetheless, I'll keep doing this and encourage others to read, and write, and think more- because I know it will make me think better- and I considerate trying to think better a worthy pursuit.
We are all facing a challenge over the next year and a half that will call upon us all to think better. President Obama called election time the "silly season" in 2008, and I can't think of a more apt name for our process of electing Presidents. The ability to think better is important for all of us no matter what our political leanings. My fear is that we have become victims of a culture that actually encourages the opposite of better thinking. The media and the talk-radio culture we now live in has served to dumb-down big portions of the country. I don't advocate silencing these purveyors of nonsense, and reasoning that can be summed up in a few hateful phrases meant for simpletons to repeat in famous "ditto-head" fashion. The Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Riley's, and other Fox News types have reduced our ability the think better. And they did it, not on the strength of the message, but by the constant and unrelenting volume of it. They make us reject analytical thinking and brow-beat us into giving up on our own efforts to think. What else could explain the emergence of Sarah Palin? I know some of the same criticism applies to the other side- but the shear amount and degree of non-sense coming from the Fox News Republicans make them too rich an example of doing damage to our minds to ignore. There was a time when journalism was sacred and not part of a media money machine. There was a time when conservatives made intellectual arguments and wrote eloquently in support of their ideas. There was a time when the public had the privilege of seeing both sides make honest arguments and the voting public had a better chance of casting more informed votes. These are not those days.
Given that important issues need to be resolved we must all make a commitment to think better. We have to understand the science behind climate change and quit calling people "arrogant" (Jeb Bush) for looking at evidence. We have to think about, and understand the intellectual truth of human rights and equal rights among them- and not be asked to suspend basic humanity because of religious dogma. We have to expect that our politicians give us more than slogans to explain the complex problems of the world because we think better and we now expect them to think better- write better- and speak better. I will always endeavor to think better and hope more of us will do the same.
Thanks for looking in.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Beliefs
I began to notice an unmistakable trend in how we have been experiencing in the world around us of late. As I observed events and listened to the people who spoke about them I began to develop some clarity in my own weird thought process about how we have come to confuse beliefs with knowledge. In a day when nearly everyone can send our thoughts out into the world, or even effectively spread them around with just the use of our own social networks, the ease with which the difference between knowledge and beliefs becomes muddy and confused, is remarkable. In my observations there are quite a few people out there who see no difference at all between knowledge and beliefs. It has even become an accepted practice with some folks to conflate the two on purpose so as to make the impression that what we believe is factual reality-a most dangerous condition.
I hate to fall back on the old devise of resorting to a dictionary to gain clarity- but is seems necessary in a time when so many around us have loss the simple meaning of words. Again, I'm reminded of the power of words, so it's good to go back to the basics when we find people who throw them around so carelessly. Let's just start with the word: Beliefs. The trusty dictionary defines beliefs as; 1. something believed, 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, 3. confidence-faith-trust; 4. a religious tenet or tenets- religious creed or faith. I think those are apt definitions of "beliefs". Now let's try Knowledge: 1. The facts, feelings or experiences known by a person or group of people, 2. the state of knowing, 3. awareness- consciousness- or familiarity gained by experience or learning. 4. erudition or informed learning, 5. specific information about a subject. Comparing these definitions it's easy to discern thoughts that are beliefs from those that form real knowledge. I know why some people purposefully use beliefs in the place of knowledge- but I cannot understand why so many of us let them get away with it. These are not hard concepts to grasp, but perhaps we have just been beaten down by the steady drip-drip-drip of nonsense in our media and among the people in our "networks" that it's too much trouble to call bullshit on the tons of it slung our way each day.
I could only shake my head in disgust when I heard the total nonsense coming out of old mayor Rudy Giuliani's mouth last week. He "hated to say it" (of course, he really loved saying it) but he "believed" the President doesn't love America. Now, I'm not sure why anyone cares what Rudy believes- but his belief system started a firestorm of reaction. If you followed the media and it's self-serving need to fan the flame, then you surely saw the multitude of comments start again about how President Obama is a Muslim- how he hates America- how he is a socialist- how he became a communist (at age nine according to Rudy)- about how he is secretly plotting to purposely destroy the country. This is truly the stuff of Belief-land- not at all founded in facts or established knowledge. We know this because it so clearly fits that definition. The comments by Giuliani and those who jump on this bandwagon have dived headfirst into the pool of "... truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof." Then over the weekend this week's GOP front runner Scott Walker was asked if he believed the President is a Christian. Being the coward he has shown himself to be when asked pointed questions, he said he "didn't know". Here we go again, dog paddling in the pool of beliefs and uninformed innuendo, instead of knowledge. The shame of it is that this passes for news.
When we turn back to the world of knowledge we come to understand that these gutless politicians have knowledge- they just don't want to use it because a belief system, however inaccurate, works better for them politically. The facts are that the President cares deeply for our country- as every President does. He has told his personal story too many times, saying that only America would have allowed a person like him to be President. The right-wing whack jobs may disagree with his policies, but this man was elected easily two times. He has delivered health care to 12 million more Americans than had it before; and because of that my premiums haven't risen like they did when all those uninsured sick people went to the ER on my dime. He got us out of a war everyone wanted out of in 2008, and his work prevented us from going to another Great Depression with nearly five years of steady job growth. I would also contend that any President who has suffered the inexhaustible and calculated disrespect this President has, yet still comes to work each day without throwing hatred back at that who mistreat him, must surely love his country. These are facts. Knowledge tells me what I need to know about this President- not what Mr. Giuliani believes. And as for Scott Walker and the "truthers" - they know he was born in the USA because we have a birth certificate and we know he is a Christian- (even though that is not supposed to be a test for public service in this country). We know because he told us, he showed us, and the evidence is there. They know it too. They sure used that against him when the criticism was all about the time he spent in Reverend Wright's Christian congregation. But let's not let facts get in the way. When it comes to this President the opposition has a whole narrative based on beliefs, and not on facts. Sadly I am convinced by the evidence those narratives are rooted in racism, and the innate fear of "the other" that Mr. Obama represents to the small minded.
I suppose it can fun to let belief systems worm their way into the silliness of politics occasionally. But the problems really start when the "silly season" of politics morphs into the serious time of policies and actions. This is the time when beliefs can be very dangerous and the consequences deadly. Take the case of Oklahoma US Senator Jim Inhofe. Here's an Inhofe quotation from the Congressional Record: "well, actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that 'as long as the earth remains there will be a springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night. My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous". Now, the scary part- Senator Inhofe is Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. I find it troubling that a man with enormous power to shape public policy on the environment uses his religious belief system instead of established scientific knowledge to guide actions that will have dire consequences for the future of the planet. I find it equally troubling that we allow this to happen. (An interesting side note on Senator Inhofe is that his profound religious convictions about God's plan for the earth are accompanied by $1,352,523 in personal political contributions to him from the oil and gas industry.) Public policy should be guided by knowledge. Our scientific knowledge and understanding of our world is growing at a tremendous rate. It is inexcusable to be governed by beliefs while leaving knowledge on the sidelines.
I won't go into the mountain of evidence and record keeping to support the idea that the climate is changing rapidly due to man's influence on it through the use of fossil fuels. The evidence and accumulated knowledge of mankind on this subject is overwhelming. So, I won't dignify the "deniers" (many of whom are lining their pockets foisting this nonsense on conspiracy nuts and people with a financial or political agendas). If you don't believe it, do your homework- the scientific information is out there. And don't just Google climate change to read political opinion pieces- read the scholarly data. Likewise I won't dignify the folks who make outrageous claims about the President- his birthplace- his religion- his love of country, etc. etc. The facts of his Presidency will be borne out by the facts in the history books- not the ramblings of obstructionist and hacks. I only suggest that our challenge in the next few critical years as an informed electorate, is to wisely chose how we think about things that matter.
Ironically I worry, that in this age of knowledge, we have allowed ourselves to be dumb-downed by the current culture. I worry that our schools have been hijacked by those who believe academic success is measured by the numbers who pass standardized tests instead of judging education systems by the quality and content of an actual education. I note that this downward trend can be traced back to the politics of conservatives who worry too much about the cost of education instead of the long-term costs of a having an uneducated populace. From 1981 until 2009 (28 years) we had twenty (20) years of Republican Presidents who didn't "believe" in high standards and made teachers and their unions the fall guys. We are seeing the results. (coincidentally- this was the same period that marked the decline of the middle-class) When you combine that phenomenon with the proliferation of social networking's promiscuous spreading of bad information based on beliefs, and the failure of the press to pursue truth, the line between knowledge and beliefs has grown ever narrower. Our ability to process the huge amounts of information this new age provides has surely exceeded our ability and wisdom to know the difference between beliefs and knowledge.
The remedy has two parts. One, we must be willing to examine our own thoughts and scrutinize what we see and hear- be willing to challenge everything against the measuring stick of knowledge vs. beliefs. That takes energy and effort- but it can also provide an exciting awakening by looking at the world in new ways; and perhaps make us feel a little less like the sheep the politicians and media play us to be. Two, we need to take responsibility for our children's ability to think properly. Insist that schools return to the days of teaching the lost art of critical thinking-insist that schools teach civics and teach history lessons that tell the whole truth about who we are (warts and all). You may have noticed the latest trends in Boards of Education around the country to eliminate facts in the history books that do not support the political belief systems of conservatives. Those are disturbing events. If schools won't do it then we parents and grandparents must take the time to show our children the value of knowledge and the legitimate ways to find it. Faith and beliefs may have their place, but knowledge will always mark our progress as a people- and must mark the path to our future.
Thanks for looking in.
I hate to fall back on the old devise of resorting to a dictionary to gain clarity- but is seems necessary in a time when so many around us have loss the simple meaning of words. Again, I'm reminded of the power of words, so it's good to go back to the basics when we find people who throw them around so carelessly. Let's just start with the word: Beliefs. The trusty dictionary defines beliefs as; 1. something believed, 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, 3. confidence-faith-trust; 4. a religious tenet or tenets- religious creed or faith. I think those are apt definitions of "beliefs". Now let's try Knowledge: 1. The facts, feelings or experiences known by a person or group of people, 2. the state of knowing, 3. awareness- consciousness- or familiarity gained by experience or learning. 4. erudition or informed learning, 5. specific information about a subject. Comparing these definitions it's easy to discern thoughts that are beliefs from those that form real knowledge. I know why some people purposefully use beliefs in the place of knowledge- but I cannot understand why so many of us let them get away with it. These are not hard concepts to grasp, but perhaps we have just been beaten down by the steady drip-drip-drip of nonsense in our media and among the people in our "networks" that it's too much trouble to call bullshit on the tons of it slung our way each day.
I could only shake my head in disgust when I heard the total nonsense coming out of old mayor Rudy Giuliani's mouth last week. He "hated to say it" (of course, he really loved saying it) but he "believed" the President doesn't love America. Now, I'm not sure why anyone cares what Rudy believes- but his belief system started a firestorm of reaction. If you followed the media and it's self-serving need to fan the flame, then you surely saw the multitude of comments start again about how President Obama is a Muslim- how he hates America- how he is a socialist- how he became a communist (at age nine according to Rudy)- about how he is secretly plotting to purposely destroy the country. This is truly the stuff of Belief-land- not at all founded in facts or established knowledge. We know this because it so clearly fits that definition. The comments by Giuliani and those who jump on this bandwagon have dived headfirst into the pool of "... truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof." Then over the weekend this week's GOP front runner Scott Walker was asked if he believed the President is a Christian. Being the coward he has shown himself to be when asked pointed questions, he said he "didn't know". Here we go again, dog paddling in the pool of beliefs and uninformed innuendo, instead of knowledge. The shame of it is that this passes for news.
When we turn back to the world of knowledge we come to understand that these gutless politicians have knowledge- they just don't want to use it because a belief system, however inaccurate, works better for them politically. The facts are that the President cares deeply for our country- as every President does. He has told his personal story too many times, saying that only America would have allowed a person like him to be President. The right-wing whack jobs may disagree with his policies, but this man was elected easily two times. He has delivered health care to 12 million more Americans than had it before; and because of that my premiums haven't risen like they did when all those uninsured sick people went to the ER on my dime. He got us out of a war everyone wanted out of in 2008, and his work prevented us from going to another Great Depression with nearly five years of steady job growth. I would also contend that any President who has suffered the inexhaustible and calculated disrespect this President has, yet still comes to work each day without throwing hatred back at that who mistreat him, must surely love his country. These are facts. Knowledge tells me what I need to know about this President- not what Mr. Giuliani believes. And as for Scott Walker and the "truthers" - they know he was born in the USA because we have a birth certificate and we know he is a Christian- (even though that is not supposed to be a test for public service in this country). We know because he told us, he showed us, and the evidence is there. They know it too. They sure used that against him when the criticism was all about the time he spent in Reverend Wright's Christian congregation. But let's not let facts get in the way. When it comes to this President the opposition has a whole narrative based on beliefs, and not on facts. Sadly I am convinced by the evidence those narratives are rooted in racism, and the innate fear of "the other" that Mr. Obama represents to the small minded.
I suppose it can fun to let belief systems worm their way into the silliness of politics occasionally. But the problems really start when the "silly season" of politics morphs into the serious time of policies and actions. This is the time when beliefs can be very dangerous and the consequences deadly. Take the case of Oklahoma US Senator Jim Inhofe. Here's an Inhofe quotation from the Congressional Record: "well, actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that 'as long as the earth remains there will be a springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night. My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous". Now, the scary part- Senator Inhofe is Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. I find it troubling that a man with enormous power to shape public policy on the environment uses his religious belief system instead of established scientific knowledge to guide actions that will have dire consequences for the future of the planet. I find it equally troubling that we allow this to happen. (An interesting side note on Senator Inhofe is that his profound religious convictions about God's plan for the earth are accompanied by $1,352,523 in personal political contributions to him from the oil and gas industry.) Public policy should be guided by knowledge. Our scientific knowledge and understanding of our world is growing at a tremendous rate. It is inexcusable to be governed by beliefs while leaving knowledge on the sidelines.
I won't go into the mountain of evidence and record keeping to support the idea that the climate is changing rapidly due to man's influence on it through the use of fossil fuels. The evidence and accumulated knowledge of mankind on this subject is overwhelming. So, I won't dignify the "deniers" (many of whom are lining their pockets foisting this nonsense on conspiracy nuts and people with a financial or political agendas). If you don't believe it, do your homework- the scientific information is out there. And don't just Google climate change to read political opinion pieces- read the scholarly data. Likewise I won't dignify the folks who make outrageous claims about the President- his birthplace- his religion- his love of country, etc. etc. The facts of his Presidency will be borne out by the facts in the history books- not the ramblings of obstructionist and hacks. I only suggest that our challenge in the next few critical years as an informed electorate, is to wisely chose how we think about things that matter.
Ironically I worry, that in this age of knowledge, we have allowed ourselves to be dumb-downed by the current culture. I worry that our schools have been hijacked by those who believe academic success is measured by the numbers who pass standardized tests instead of judging education systems by the quality and content of an actual education. I note that this downward trend can be traced back to the politics of conservatives who worry too much about the cost of education instead of the long-term costs of a having an uneducated populace. From 1981 until 2009 (28 years) we had twenty (20) years of Republican Presidents who didn't "believe" in high standards and made teachers and their unions the fall guys. We are seeing the results. (coincidentally- this was the same period that marked the decline of the middle-class) When you combine that phenomenon with the proliferation of social networking's promiscuous spreading of bad information based on beliefs, and the failure of the press to pursue truth, the line between knowledge and beliefs has grown ever narrower. Our ability to process the huge amounts of information this new age provides has surely exceeded our ability and wisdom to know the difference between beliefs and knowledge.
The remedy has two parts. One, we must be willing to examine our own thoughts and scrutinize what we see and hear- be willing to challenge everything against the measuring stick of knowledge vs. beliefs. That takes energy and effort- but it can also provide an exciting awakening by looking at the world in new ways; and perhaps make us feel a little less like the sheep the politicians and media play us to be. Two, we need to take responsibility for our children's ability to think properly. Insist that schools return to the days of teaching the lost art of critical thinking-insist that schools teach civics and teach history lessons that tell the whole truth about who we are (warts and all). You may have noticed the latest trends in Boards of Education around the country to eliminate facts in the history books that do not support the political belief systems of conservatives. Those are disturbing events. If schools won't do it then we parents and grandparents must take the time to show our children the value of knowledge and the legitimate ways to find it. Faith and beliefs may have their place, but knowledge will always mark our progress as a people- and must mark the path to our future.
Thanks for looking in.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
"American Sniper"- It's Complicated
I have avoided joining the partisan and polarized fray in reacting to the Clint Eastwood film that has generated so much interest in the film itself, and passion in the reactions to it. My avoidance up to now was based in part on my own responses to the film, and the other reading I've done on the life of Chris Kyle. I guess it has taken me a while sort out what I really think about this matter- and I'm still not sure I'm done with that process. This essay is about the two Chris Kyle's- one from the film, and the other I encountered in the research; and the other part is about my observations of the public reactions. But what follows are my different thoughts about this phenomenon. In sorting through my own thoughts I kept coming back to the phrase you find on the Facebook page where it asks us to describe your "relationship" status and it gives the option: It's Complicated. Well, this one is complicated.
What really spurred my thinking about this essay was a radio talk-show I was listening to on the way home from work this week. I tuned in well after the show started to hear this local commentator discussing the reactions to the comments made about Chris Kyle. Being a "right-wing" commentator this guy was all over some of the unfortunate comments made by Michael Moore and others who made very negative comments about the movie and the man. So the radio host posed the question to his conservative audience: Is Chris Kyle a hero or a coward?( knowing full well what the responses would be.) Hearing that, I'm immediately yelling to myself about what a horrible question that is -and it occurred to me that this is the very reason we don't seem to have civil discussions anymore about our politics or our culture. Christ, does Chris Kyle have be only one or the other? Can't Chris Kyle (or anyone who has done that horrible job) be a little of both? or neither one? or any combination thereof on any given day? To my way of thinking all of the above possibilities would be far more likely than identifying the American Sniper as just a hero -or just a coward. But nearly all forms of public discourse now is phased in "either/or" terms that are polarizing by their nature. When I left the movie- and it was a powerful movie- I didn't feel one way or the other. For me, it's complicated.
Delving into my own thoughts a little more, I came to several touch-points in how I view what has now become such a huge controversy. The first point is: It's a movie! I would remind my friends that this a theatrical release of a feature film. It is not a documentary. Clint Eastwood is not a journalist documenting the unvarnished facts of a man's life. He made a film, which is an art form. As such Eastwood is free to portray his art from his own perspective and tell this story as he wishes. Of course there is a good deal of truth about Chris Kyle in the film- and some fiction too I suspect. But we have to remember what this piece is, and see it for what it is. There is no conceivable way that any filmmaker could capture all the nuance of a complicated life in a two-hour movie, so the storyteller is editing the story by the very nature of the vehicle he uses to express it. What I found so interesting is the reactions to the movie follow the predispositions of the viewers. In other words, reactions are largely based the way you expected to feel, even before you see it. For those who wanted a gung-ho war flick, that's what they saw. For those who expected to see the human damage of war, that's what they saw. I can't decide if that is a strength or a failing of the film- but I'm convinced from the reactions its working that way.
Another touch point for me is the way this movie has become a metaphor for patriotism. I suppose that reactions to war or impending war as it relates to patriotism is common in this country. I grew up and into adulthood during the Vietnam era. Back then the response to those who did not support the war in Vietnam (in its early stages) got the phrase: America- Love it or leave it; which is another way to say that if you can't back the government position on the war you are not a real American so just get out, again eliminating the possibility of a middle ground. Of course the eventual outcome in the Vietnam era was that the protests began to resonate with many Americans and the war lost favor. Remember that the war was being fought by draftees- not volunteers like today. In Nixon's '68 campaign he argued that he would end the war. He didn't of course, and he actually expanded the war. By the time '72 rolled around and reelection was at stake,they had a "sudden breakthrough in negotiations with the North" and the pull back began. He was reelected. It looks like war and the representations of war (like this movie) tends to divide us today as it always has. If you favored the war in Iraq American Sniper represented righteous American patriotism. If you're against it -disliking the movie was somehow cowardly and un-American. President Bush got a lot of Democrats to support the war in Iraq precisely for that reason. Many regretted it in 2008 when they wanted to be the next President. We don't even like it when other countries question our war stance; Freedom Fries, anyone? Perhaps it is in our unique American nature to support war and denigrate those who don't - when it may be that real patriotism could be represented by means other than war and violence. At least we should make room for that possibility. We need to learn that in spite of what the politicians will tell us- not every war we fight is for our freedom- but we buy that line every time. Turns out war is complicated.
The last point is that American Sniper is very different from a number of other war movies in that it hardly even references the war itself. We see a brief scene where Kyle and his wife are watching the 9-11 attack on TV- then it's full out warrior stuff, as if the only reasonable response to 9-11 is war with nothing in between. And all during the numerous war scenes in the movie the purpose or greater mission of the war is never addressed. His purpose is clear. He is there to protect fellow warriors by killing anyone who is perceived as threat to his comrades. Perhaps that is the real legacy of this war- and possibly Kyle himself. We were lied into it- so there is no great purpose. This group of men and women can never be "the greatest generation" as Brokaw called the GIs of WWII- because the cause can never match the deeds. That raises the question of whether we can judge the warriors by the war. We made a terrible mistake in the Vietnam era by disrespecting and disregarding the warriors returning from Vietnam because the war was so unpopular by its end. The pendulum may have swung to the other extreme of the spectrum in the Middle East wars based on our enthusiasm to "support our troops" and not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam. That is, we are being ask to support the war as a sign of gratitude and respect for those who fought it. Neither position is feels very satisfying.
None of the "Hero or Coward" talk seems fair to the movie or the real Chris Kyle. Clearly (real life)Chris Kyle had some serious flaws and he had moments of real valor. His life appeared to be full of conflict and irony in spite of the portrayal of his "straight ahead" approach in the movie. He seemed motivated by his love of country but could not bring himself to be in the country he loved when the lure of action or dedication to fellow warriors called him away from his home and family. Was it sacrifice or compulsion? He mastered the use of firearms beyond the imaginable- but was killed by the errant use of a gun by a damaged Vet back home. He is the quintessential example of Jesus' warning to Simon Peter at Gethsemane that those who live by the sword will perish by the sword- and I don't think Jesus meant that as a good thing. But war is a reality and the damage to those who fight in them is a real thing too. No movie can do justice to that reality. We know that there was far more to Chris Kyle than was told in American Sniper. Eastwood hints at it, but never tells us of some of the more documented bizarre claims Kyle made about killing people in his civilian life. One thing Eastwood does in the movie, is portray every returned Vet as damaged in some way (physically or emotionally)- even Kyle's own brother who appeared before "The Legend" as dazed, shell-shocked and traumatized.
I'm happy to see that this movie and Chris Kyle's life has started this conversation. And, isn't that what art is supposed to do? So, for that reason American Sniper has performed a service. How we see wars and how we view and care for those who fight in them is an important discussion. It should be an on-going discussion. Being a warrior is not the only qualification for participating in that discussion- it should be a discussion for all of us in this democracy. So even though I'm glad to see the discussion happening, I'm disappointed at how quickly it devolves into good guys vs. bad guys; heroes vs. cowards; patriots vs. America-haters and so on. Life is more nuanced and complicated than that. Everything about the movie and the man were more complicated than that. My best wish is that it will encourage smarter and more in-depth discussions- honest discussions- and better outcomes for the country and those who serve it. Even though these matters can seem simple (and politicians want us to think they are simple)- they aren't. They always turn out to be gut-wrenchingly difficult and complex. In other words- It's complicated.
Thanks for looking in.
What really spurred my thinking about this essay was a radio talk-show I was listening to on the way home from work this week. I tuned in well after the show started to hear this local commentator discussing the reactions to the comments made about Chris Kyle. Being a "right-wing" commentator this guy was all over some of the unfortunate comments made by Michael Moore and others who made very negative comments about the movie and the man. So the radio host posed the question to his conservative audience: Is Chris Kyle a hero or a coward?( knowing full well what the responses would be.) Hearing that, I'm immediately yelling to myself about what a horrible question that is -and it occurred to me that this is the very reason we don't seem to have civil discussions anymore about our politics or our culture. Christ, does Chris Kyle have be only one or the other? Can't Chris Kyle (or anyone who has done that horrible job) be a little of both? or neither one? or any combination thereof on any given day? To my way of thinking all of the above possibilities would be far more likely than identifying the American Sniper as just a hero -or just a coward. But nearly all forms of public discourse now is phased in "either/or" terms that are polarizing by their nature. When I left the movie- and it was a powerful movie- I didn't feel one way or the other. For me, it's complicated.
Delving into my own thoughts a little more, I came to several touch-points in how I view what has now become such a huge controversy. The first point is: It's a movie! I would remind my friends that this a theatrical release of a feature film. It is not a documentary. Clint Eastwood is not a journalist documenting the unvarnished facts of a man's life. He made a film, which is an art form. As such Eastwood is free to portray his art from his own perspective and tell this story as he wishes. Of course there is a good deal of truth about Chris Kyle in the film- and some fiction too I suspect. But we have to remember what this piece is, and see it for what it is. There is no conceivable way that any filmmaker could capture all the nuance of a complicated life in a two-hour movie, so the storyteller is editing the story by the very nature of the vehicle he uses to express it. What I found so interesting is the reactions to the movie follow the predispositions of the viewers. In other words, reactions are largely based the way you expected to feel, even before you see it. For those who wanted a gung-ho war flick, that's what they saw. For those who expected to see the human damage of war, that's what they saw. I can't decide if that is a strength or a failing of the film- but I'm convinced from the reactions its working that way.
Another touch point for me is the way this movie has become a metaphor for patriotism. I suppose that reactions to war or impending war as it relates to patriotism is common in this country. I grew up and into adulthood during the Vietnam era. Back then the response to those who did not support the war in Vietnam (in its early stages) got the phrase: America- Love it or leave it; which is another way to say that if you can't back the government position on the war you are not a real American so just get out, again eliminating the possibility of a middle ground. Of course the eventual outcome in the Vietnam era was that the protests began to resonate with many Americans and the war lost favor. Remember that the war was being fought by draftees- not volunteers like today. In Nixon's '68 campaign he argued that he would end the war. He didn't of course, and he actually expanded the war. By the time '72 rolled around and reelection was at stake,they had a "sudden breakthrough in negotiations with the North" and the pull back began. He was reelected. It looks like war and the representations of war (like this movie) tends to divide us today as it always has. If you favored the war in Iraq American Sniper represented righteous American patriotism. If you're against it -disliking the movie was somehow cowardly and un-American. President Bush got a lot of Democrats to support the war in Iraq precisely for that reason. Many regretted it in 2008 when they wanted to be the next President. We don't even like it when other countries question our war stance; Freedom Fries, anyone? Perhaps it is in our unique American nature to support war and denigrate those who don't - when it may be that real patriotism could be represented by means other than war and violence. At least we should make room for that possibility. We need to learn that in spite of what the politicians will tell us- not every war we fight is for our freedom- but we buy that line every time. Turns out war is complicated.
The last point is that American Sniper is very different from a number of other war movies in that it hardly even references the war itself. We see a brief scene where Kyle and his wife are watching the 9-11 attack on TV- then it's full out warrior stuff, as if the only reasonable response to 9-11 is war with nothing in between. And all during the numerous war scenes in the movie the purpose or greater mission of the war is never addressed. His purpose is clear. He is there to protect fellow warriors by killing anyone who is perceived as threat to his comrades. Perhaps that is the real legacy of this war- and possibly Kyle himself. We were lied into it- so there is no great purpose. This group of men and women can never be "the greatest generation" as Brokaw called the GIs of WWII- because the cause can never match the deeds. That raises the question of whether we can judge the warriors by the war. We made a terrible mistake in the Vietnam era by disrespecting and disregarding the warriors returning from Vietnam because the war was so unpopular by its end. The pendulum may have swung to the other extreme of the spectrum in the Middle East wars based on our enthusiasm to "support our troops" and not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam. That is, we are being ask to support the war as a sign of gratitude and respect for those who fought it. Neither position is feels very satisfying.
None of the "Hero or Coward" talk seems fair to the movie or the real Chris Kyle. Clearly (real life)Chris Kyle had some serious flaws and he had moments of real valor. His life appeared to be full of conflict and irony in spite of the portrayal of his "straight ahead" approach in the movie. He seemed motivated by his love of country but could not bring himself to be in the country he loved when the lure of action or dedication to fellow warriors called him away from his home and family. Was it sacrifice or compulsion? He mastered the use of firearms beyond the imaginable- but was killed by the errant use of a gun by a damaged Vet back home. He is the quintessential example of Jesus' warning to Simon Peter at Gethsemane that those who live by the sword will perish by the sword- and I don't think Jesus meant that as a good thing. But war is a reality and the damage to those who fight in them is a real thing too. No movie can do justice to that reality. We know that there was far more to Chris Kyle than was told in American Sniper. Eastwood hints at it, but never tells us of some of the more documented bizarre claims Kyle made about killing people in his civilian life. One thing Eastwood does in the movie, is portray every returned Vet as damaged in some way (physically or emotionally)- even Kyle's own brother who appeared before "The Legend" as dazed, shell-shocked and traumatized.
I'm happy to see that this movie and Chris Kyle's life has started this conversation. And, isn't that what art is supposed to do? So, for that reason American Sniper has performed a service. How we see wars and how we view and care for those who fight in them is an important discussion. It should be an on-going discussion. Being a warrior is not the only qualification for participating in that discussion- it should be a discussion for all of us in this democracy. So even though I'm glad to see the discussion happening, I'm disappointed at how quickly it devolves into good guys vs. bad guys; heroes vs. cowards; patriots vs. America-haters and so on. Life is more nuanced and complicated than that. Everything about the movie and the man were more complicated than that. My best wish is that it will encourage smarter and more in-depth discussions- honest discussions- and better outcomes for the country and those who serve it. Even though these matters can seem simple (and politicians want us to think they are simple)- they aren't. They always turn out to be gut-wrenchingly difficult and complex. In other words- It's complicated.
Thanks for looking in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)