Borrowing a line from the film “A Few Good Men”, in one of the greatest American film quotes (according to Wikipedia) of all time, Jack Nicholson screams at the prosecutor in the courtroom, “You can’t handle the truth!” Speaking as his character, the bloviating Colonel and Commander of a Marine base, we are led to assume that Nicholson tacitly permitted a murder by “Code Red” to occur on his watch. His faulty reasoning for ordering the hazing of a young Marine was that it was a necessary, time-honored (albeit secretive and illegal) military ritual to restore discipline and unity amongst the men in his command, preparing them for battle “to protect the safety of us all”. Nicholson eventually admitted his involvement in the crime, but offered little remorse saying, “I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly imagine…..You don’t want the truth because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall….I did the job you sent me to do.”
Sounds like a speech used by politicians trying to explain themselves during a Congressional “I gotcha” hearing, doesn’t it? Face it folks, we value our freedom and safety from harm here and abroad, but as a general public, we don’t always want to know exactly how those goals are accomplished. We want to be protected from the horrors of “man’s inhumanity to man”, but we also want the luxury to use it as an excuse for our own inaction. We want others more qualified (we hope) to make the awful decisions we personally are unable to make, to get the desired result. When it comes right down to it, we want a war-time consigliore to lead our nation! In the absence of strong leadership in the White House, we want our military to do whatever is necessary when the time comes to act on our behalf. 
Although we say we want the bare truth “and nothing but the truth”, if the truth is too powerful, too incriminating or threatens our own version of the facts, our brains go into “fight” mode, or we “flight” and shut down (shock) and allow denial to set in to rationalize the atrocities committed.
We “categorize” behavior as a means to understand “religiously motivated” attacks on one another. We make a distinction between the “good Muslims” (those that promote peaceful coexistence) and “bad Muslims” (those that adopt radical ideals and terrorist behavior). Recently there is a third distinction between the good, bad and “complacent Muslims” (those that do not speak out or fight against their more radical brethren), which in theory, could also be bad Muslims because they seem to condone the bad behavior by their inaction, but we just aren’t sure yet, and can’t make up our minds! Perhaps we should wait to see how the rest of the world feels before passing our own judgment?
(In case you missed it that was me being sarcastic).
We sometimes attempt to “explain the unexplainable” carnage like 9-11, the attacks on journalists in Paris, the killing of a black youth in Ferguson, or the murder of the “American Sniper” (to name but a few) by trying to disguise our politics and hide our contempt and plausible bigotry. We use the overwhelming cruelty of the events to justify our reaction and over-reactions.
With little to no personal knowledge of the facts, we feel compelled to take sides for conversation sake, based on our preconceived notions of those involved in the carnage. Someone reading from a teleprompter or publishing partially-vetted information “gives” us our opinions, and we willingly accept them. Like sheep, we buy into “pass the bill, and then you can read it” school of thought because we are too lazy or overwhelmed by all the information thrown at us. Perhaps it was intended to be that way, so that those in charge stay that way to get what they want, not necessarily what is best overall for the masses?
You might say, “Hey, we do care about such things, honest we do, but we are too busy with our own lives to research everything that happens in the world. That’s why we have televisions, newspapers and internet, right?” Labeling and profiling others is a common process of identifying individuals and groups within groups of people based on color of their skin, gender, religion, occupation, etc. We kid ourselves that we are good judges of character, even when our judgments are primarily based on the observations and opinions of others.
Often the lines do get blurred, but rarely obscured. We know the basics of right and wrong from an early age, but still scratch our heads and wonder why bad things continue to get worse. It is difficult to see things in a different light, empathize or change our minds once an opinion or decision is formed. We tend to ignore what we see with our own eyes or what in our gut we know to be true because we cannot (or do not want to) handle the truth. To acknowledge the truth compels us to do something, anything.
Inactivity is incongruent with logic and common sense. Keep in mind that those individuals or groups that do harm to others, imposing their will and sovereignty on mankind while claiming credit to the religious or societal banner they hide behind are representative of the “radical” entity within almost every large organization, otherwise known as “the bad apples” (sounds less terrifying, doesn’t it?). Allowing compassion to be applied to the innocents is not inactivity, but rather the fine line we walk when reasonable justice is necessary to thwart evil intentions.
These days we seem to base our response to tyranny by being wary of “being fooled again”. We don’t want to reproduce painful and embarrassing past histories. Those we trusted, those leaders (foreign and domestic) we wanted to believe were worthy of our trust have proven to be untrustworthy, and it makes us feel stupid… and angry. Our response is to become even more fearful and overly-cautious. We’d rather do nothing at all than make another mistake. Better yet, let’s blame our current situation on something or someone else entirely, which makes us feel righteous, conciliatory and down right diplomatic!
Political parties are another good example to highlight our willingness to pass the buck and not take responsibility for ourselves. Democrats and Republicans, Independent, Libertarian, Tea Party, Socialist, etc…, are all wonderful organizations made up of intelligent, “Washington savvy” individuals whose very existence offers a false sense of security. We vote along party lines because we believe “minds greater than our own” have vetted individuals on our behalf . With a distorted sense of loyalty, we continue to vote blindly against the other party, even when deep down we suspect they might have the better candidate!
Why do you think we do that, and while you are being contemplative, explain to me what is it about us as a people (and the present world situation) that supports the notion that the “ends justify the means”? How many times do our elected officials have to commit prosecutable crimes, immoral offenses, and blatantly poor judgments before we hold them accountable and stop re-electing them to speak and act on our behalf!
Like many of you, I often get confused between the good guys and the bad guys when aberrant behavior is allowed to be “qualified and quantified” over and over again. There was a time when bad behavior was bad behavior. The culprits were chastised or punished according to the crime, and that was that. Is that how you remember it?
Today, we all try to be “politically correct”. We don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or step on anyone’s toes. Not a day passes by that someone fails to raise the question “Where and when do we draw the line? How horrible does the situation need to be, how many lives need to be loss (or lies needs to be told) before the American people say “Enough!” What will it take to hold people accountable for the crimes they commit over and over again?” I, personally, hear no common sense explanation attached to the answers given.
Do you believe there are circumstances happening today where preemptive strikes and reactive behavior might be appropriate? Perhaps we must convince ourselves of that possibility to sleep better at night. With all the known evil and corruption in the world, it makes me angry to think there just might be enough provocation to “go all Rambo” on radical groups who follow through with threats to do us harm. I find it unconscionable to consider any sort of concession to terrorist groups that behead young children and then video the carnage for the world to see. I take extreme umbrage to those who are given repeated free passes (prominent persons and politicians), who “get away with murder” because of their wealth and narcissism. I find it terrifying to think that all of this happens because we have become desensitized or apathetic to the truth.
Although no one questioned Mr. Nicholson’s character in the movie until the Marine died, the Colonel still argued during the trial that his behavior was justifiable and absolved him from all culpability because he was protecting freedom, following orders and getting the job done—a job few would do if asked. Once the death was deemed prosecutable in a court of law, the presiding judge and jury were forced to take a stand and pass judgment one way or another (I won’t spoil the end of the movie for those that haven’t seen it—it came out in 1992, so for heaven’s sake, get on it people!).
Biblical (and logical) candor proclaims that “the truth will set you free”, but as Woman’s Rights activist Gloria Steinem added, “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!” Perhaps that kind of anger is what is needed for the truly complacent and ignorant among us to wake up, smell the coffee and participate in reasonable dialogue and appropriate action toward justice and peace.
Even if we makes mistakes (and common sense guarantees we will), wouldn’t you want your children to base their formative opinions and world view from your loving, thoughtful perspective rather than from a five o’clock newscast?