I Live in a Crazy Place

                            By Harry E. Berndt

I have come to understand the terror those hapless people who have had to live confined in mental or penal institutions, and who have no way of ever escaping, must feel. To be trapped, with no way out, in a place that is frightening, a place in which you have no control causes feelings of panic. In a lesser way than those in such institutions, I live in such a place. Of course, I could escape, but the cost would be too great. I am trapped here because I have lived long, eighty-six years, and the human cost, and the financial cost, is too great to permit my leaving. I have children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, who are so dear to me that I could not leave without leaving all that is precious to me. The financial hardship would be too great to permit leaving, at a time when life's demands are so uncertain and one's abilities are so limited. Also, this is my place, this crazy place, a place I have always loved, with people I view as fine and wonderful, but who are being mislead. Where would I go? Could I go to a place more rational, more humane? Can one escape?

This place, in which I live, is dominated by those whose resources are such that they can create the myths that control the reasoning of others. The people here believe that this place is peace loving, and ignore that we are at war all of the time. Of course, to hold such irrational thoughts, we must believe that our wars do not really kill any but those who are evil. If our weapons cause deaths to those who are not evil, it is because we are forced to wage war to make the world the way God meant it to be. Because this place is Christian, it is necessary to maintain Christian values. Somehow, these values are made known to us by those who talk to God, and to whom God talks. It has always irked me that God never talks to me. I would probably be a better person, if that were to happen. Does God really talk to those who make the claim?

In this place in 2012, it is argued that in 1787 the founders knew that each person should have a gun to protect against all others. This is called the Second Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, and is so sacred that it can never be changed. The arguments for or against unlimited gun ownership revolve around the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall ;not be infringed." The National Rifle Association (NRA) convinced its supporters to interpret the Amendment to mean that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms without restrictions, while those favoring strict gun controls interpret the amendment as addressing the need for a well regulated Militia and the "people" being the collective body politic, as in "We the People". Shouldn't we think of the Second Amendment to our Constitution in terms related to the conditions that existed at the time of ratification? The founding fathers of this nation were not stupid, as they would have had to be if they could have been cognizant of the weapons available today, and determined that such weapons should be available to individuals without strict control. Those who control the NRA have made this place in which I live the most dangerous in the world, excepting those places at war. Who are they? Are they those who also profit from guns and ammunition?

In this place, the poor and powerless are at the mercy of the rich and powerful or at least those of the rich and powerful who determine the direction of the country. They need not hold public office but without doubt have inordinate influence over those who do. They also have the power to control, in subtle ways, most of the resources that shape the ideology that determines thought processes of the citizenry. This includes not only media, which most of us think about when thinking of propaganda, but also embraces education, think tanks, politics, and even most religious thought.

As a nation, this place in which I live is steeped in a mythology promoted by politicians and media, at the behest of those few who really control the society. It matters little that we vote, for the candidates are chosen by those who command the resources of the nation and can buy the loyalty of those chosen to run for public office. This is not to say that those running for office are corrupt, but rather that the exigencies of the system and its competitive nature demand conformance. Those who run for office must raise huge amounts of money, in order to compete with one another. Those who provide the money do so to gain access to the candidate and to the development of policy. The process is very subtle, but unmistakable. It is easy to discern by looking at who are invited, for instance, to state dinners. The five and ten dollar contributors are nowhere to be seen, but the large donors are evident. Is it difficult to understand why those in control reject national financing and short campaign periods, and claim that such changes would be an infringement on their First amendment rights? Whenever those in control seek to explain the very real disenfranchisement of the citizens, they turn to the constitution as proof that it is for the good of the country, laid down by the founding fathers. The Supreme Court has confirmed their claims by making corporations citizens, by permitting the Super Pacs to contribute as much money as they feel is necessary, and by defining money as free speech. All of these decisions strengthened the claims of the rich and powerful that they are the rightful rulers of the nation. Such claims are not voiced, but are nevertheless understood. The control of the nation by the rich and the powerful gains greater and greater strength, as the gap between the rich and poor widens, and the need for jobs becomes ever more virulent.

While reading George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which was published in 1949, I couldn't help but think of the prescient nature of the novel in relation to today. War is described as being one of "limited aims between combatants unable to destroy one another" and who "have no material cause for fighting". Orwell describes war as a war of rape and pillage, which is considered normal and meritorious when committed by one's country; not by the enemy. It is a war fought by a very few specialists and is continuous, and for this reason it ceases to be dangerous.

This place in which I live has been at war more or less continuously during my eighty six years, and we often hear from our service men and women that they don't know what their war is all about. Almost daily, we learn that there has been collateral damage, and we are sorry about the civilian deaths. But that is what happens in war. Of course, the enemy kills many innocent women and children for absolutely no reason. Those we call atrocities.

Although we feel threatened, because we are constantly told that we must always be vigilant, most of us have little or no stake in the present conflicts. These wars are fought by about one percent of our people, and most are the very young, many of whom are also very poor. The rest of us make no real sacrifice, and for all of our chest beating we are removed from the suffering that comes when sons and daughters are killed or wounded. There is no draft, so the armed forces are made up of volunteers, accept for that part of the war that is privatized and managed by mercenaries. A dangerous precedent! And since the services are made up of volunteers, it is presumed that the decision to volunteer is freely chosen. But that is only partially true, because many have no other real alternative. The choice is often between living in poverty and volunteering.

As war becomes more impersonal and technologically advanced, it also becomes further removed from our lives and from our control. Much of the mayhem and killing by drones is triggered in the Nevada dessert or in Dayton, Ohio, many miles from the target somewhere in the Middle East. No longer does the killer see his victim, and no longer is he in danger of being killed or wounded. All of this impersonal killing, along with no real sacrifice by most of society, facilitates war forever. In addition, since so much of our society depends on the war industry, our representatives in government find it difficult to deny the Pentagon any request for additional funds for the development of new and more terrifying weapons. The industry that sells weapons to our government also depends on our government leaders to sell their products to other countries..

It isn't that the leaders of our nation seek ways to get involved in wars, and certainly it isn't the desire of the people to continue the pursuit of war. However, war has become an institution entrenched in both the corporate and military worlds, aptly named by President Eisenhower as our Military-Industrial complex. Eisenhower's warning of the dangers of the growth of the Military-Industrial complex went unheeded. It now seems impossible to extricate our nation from this wasteful drain on our economy and the terrible toll and sacrifice of our youth, who are serving our country.

Today the internet, television, radio, newspapers, magazines and a host of other sources, pour forth mountains of information 24 hours every day. So much information and so little time to digest it often can mean that nothing is really ever learned about anything. Charlatans, who flourish in our society, wink at lying for profit and manipulate people to accept positions that create societal myths and false perceptions of reality. For example, any social legislation designed to benefit the general population or the poor is referred to as socialism or liberalism, terms that have been demonized, and whose meanings have been distorted.

The current leadership malaise in government is reflected by the Republicans' and Democrats' failure to compromise on the recent fiscal crisis. The majority of Republicans who signed the Grover Norquist pledge never to increase taxes have abrogated their ability to govern, if they are to abide by their pledge. Their ability to address the pressing problems arising from poverty and the potential demands of warfare are rendered ineffectual. If politics is the art of compromise, how can the Republican legislators effectively act as co-partners in governance? The present economic crisis strongly indicates that they fail to recognize the need for compromise. On the other hand, the Democrats are more than willing to compromise, hoping to get the support of the independent voters. The decision on the part of the Republicans results from the fear of the Tea Party and their possible strength in the coming elections. The legislators of both parties are too concerned with getting reelected.

In the Republic, Plato discusses the civil degeneracy of types of government as compared to his ideal state. On democracy he mentions that the fiercest members of the masses speak and act out, while the rest follow and won't hear of any opposition. He states, "So long as men think that government is the art of obtaining office, and that it is the business of the ruler to follow the whims and ignorant opinions of the multitude; so long will society have no use for the philosopher." In the case of the present Tea Party and their followers, they have no use for science, or at least for that science not in agreement with their ideology.