I have always been flummoxed when (at least fairly) intelligent people say outrageous things. Politicians and religious leaders come to mind; all of us, however, have probably come into contact with people who make ridiculous claims about themselves, a far too common disorder that goes by the name of narcissism. I am especially interested in those in positions of power and influence who say things that are patently absurd. I ask myself, do they really believe it? Maybe they do. Another possibility is they are suppressing their doubts, doing their best to convince themselves of an absurdity, especially in cases where more power and more money are gained thereby. In other words, maybe they half believe the things they are saying. The third possibility is, of course, that they're lying through their teeth in order to maintain or increase their influence.
We can never be completely sure which one of these possibilities is paramount, especially in cases of public figures we don't know personally. But it is both fun and informative to make educated guesses, using logic and our consciences as our guides. So let's play a game called Do They Really Believe It? The first example is from a recent encounter of mine; I will subsequently quote two politicians, one religious leader and end with a quote from that incomparable political commentator, Sarah Palin. (Note:Among the politicians, we will hear from a Republican and a Democrat; this article has no political agenda. I must admit, though, that my conscience informs me that the most outrageous political statements these days are from Republicans.) In each case I will give my educated guess whether they're lying, half lying, or whether they believe what they said.
You are invited to play along using the comment section at the end of this blog. Let's begin.
Case Number One: An Unidentified Texan
My wife and I, along with four other friends, recently took a cruise up the Rhine. At Nuremberg, our tour guide took us to a garish monstrosity, an imitation of the Colosseum that only a fascist could love. Hitler was having it built to stage rallies until the invasion of Poland called for even more horrible priorities.; it was left unfinished. When the inevitable question arose about how the Germans could have followed such an evil leader, we were told that the extreme economic woes of the country helped radicalize it. A member of our group, a tall elderly Texan wearing cargo pants, exclaimed, without a shred of irony, that he understood perfectly. "The same thing happened in our country. That's why we elected Obama." Yes, he was really comparing Obama to Hitler. (If you don't think this is outrageous, please read some other blog.) Did he really believe it?
Hint one: The next day he was sitting on the bus when his wife boarded. For some reason, she suggested that they sit somewhere else. He screamed at her. GO SIT ANY DAMN PLACE YOU WANT. I'M STAYING HERE. Yes, he really yelled. The bus was filled with older tourists who spoke in hushed tones if they spoke at all. It woke us all up. This guy was obviously a nasty man.
Hint two: During a bus trip to Prague, he informed our young tour guide that America was different. We're not socialists like you. We believe in freedom and the Contsituiton. In America, when somebody fails they start over again. We're on our own and like it that way. If we provide more help to the poor, it will make government stronger and destroy our freedom.
Did he really believe Obama is like Hitler?
My answer: You betcha..
Case Number Two: Ted Cruz
After the Sandy Hook elementary school slaughter in 2012, President Obama proposed some gun control legislation. Here is Ted Cruz's response: "I think it's really sad to see the president of the United States exploiting the murder of children to push his own extreme anti-gun agenda." Did he really believe it?
On December 12, 2012, Adam Lanza, a deranged young man, entered an elementary school in Connecticut and proceeded to murder 20 children and six adults. He was armed with semiautomatic weapons, at least one of which was equipped with a 30-round magazine. If he hadn't had this capability, he would have been forced to load more frequently, increasing the likelihood that he would have been stopped before killing all 26 people. President Oaoma's modest proposal for gun control legislation is to increase background checks, ban semiautomatic weapons and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. That's it. Such legislation would help ensure that a similar tragedy would at lest be limited. There would be no control over all other types of guns. Hardly an "extreme anti-gun agenda." Cruz's statement is obviously outrageously inaccurate. Did he really believe it?
There are some factors that might indicate he was not telling the truth. He is extremely ambitious; many of the people in his power base are fanatics regarding gun control He might have said that to get more votes. But I doubt it. He sees himself as a crusader and often takes extreme positions. I think he's fanatic enough to really believe that President Obama is trying to seriously undermine basic freedoms, such as "the right to bear arms." He might be the blind leading the blind, but he seems to be convinced that his vision is second to none.
Does he really believe President Obama has an extreme anti-gun agenda?
My answer: Yes.
Case Three: George Pell, Cardinal of Sydney
I recently listened to a debate on YouTube between the evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, and the Cardinal of Sydney, George Pell. It was as I expected; the atheist Dawkins argued convincingly that a literal interpretation of scriptures is no longer compatible with critical thinking; the Cardinal, however, at least at the beginning, held his own. He did not deny evolution; he believed atheists could go to heaven, and that many stories of the Bible, while religiously significant, are not to be taken literally. I do not believe in an external God who intervenes in human history , yet I respected the cardinal for his integrity and intellect--even though he thought homo sapiens are descended from their cousins, the Neanderthals! Then came the shocker for me:. The Cardinal said, "I certainly believe that when the words of consecration are spoken, (the wafer) becomes the body of Christ." He went on to state that this transformation is to be taken literally, even though it can't be proven.
How can a man of reasonable intelligence believe such nonsense? Does he really believe in magic?
Once again I thought of possible mitigating circumstances. A literal belief in this transformation is indeed Catholic dogma. The Church is an authoritarian institution and does not permit dissent regarding Church teachings. Therefore, as a cardinal he could not deny the doctrine of transubstantiation publicly. However, if you saw the debate you realized that he seemed to be absolutely convinced that the wafer become Christ's body.
We might now ask how the Church can perpetuate a doctrine which the modern mind considers to be ridiculous. Once again, the desire for power and money is an unspoken motivation. Catholics are taught to believe that consuming the consecrated Host is very important for salvation. Well, how does this belief play out? You can't order a consecrated Host online and consume it after meditation. If you believe it becomes the body of Christ, you must attend mass. to Church. You thus come under the Church's control. (I am not denying that this might be a source of consolation for many.) The Cardinal has dedicated his life to the Church, and would never counter any of its teachings publicly. Deep down there , however, he may have his doubts.
Does he really believe it?
Answer: Probably.
Case 4: Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Ms. Schultz is a member of Congress from Florida. She was part of the panel on a recent Bill Maher show. Maher expressed what I consider to be a reasonable opinion: it might be time for the United States to rescind its boycott of Cuba. Ms Schultz was adamantly opposed, stating that the boycott should be continued exclusively on moral grounds. According to her, Cuba has gotten worse; she believes that there is more repression there now than ever. This is doubtful. Cuba is by no means a democracy, but dissidents are more tolerated in Cuba today. An example of improved human rights: Castro has apologized for past persecution of homosexuals; he has now accorded them civil rights. Russia, however--not to mention many African countries--is stepping up discrimination against homosexuals. Why don't we boycott them? What about human rights abuses in China? Doesn't she realize that considerations of American self-interests are involved here and not exclusively moral ones? Here and elsewhere, one of the most important factors is power. The U.S.wants to contain the spread of the Cuban form of government into neighboring countries. Also, unlike China and Russia, Cuba is a small and relatively weak country, thus making the imposition of a boycott much easier.
We mustn't forget that Ms. Schultz represents a region many inhabitants of which hate Castro with passion. Her own self-interest--like all politicians, she wants to be reelected--without a doubt heavily influenced her allegedly objective opinion . Ms. Schultz is very intelligent and must realize this.
Does she really believe it?
Answer: No.
I have written this essay to encourage readers to be skeptical of taking statements at face value, especially public statements of people in power. Follow the money, as they say; psychological factors might also apply. What do they really mean, we should ask ourselves, especially when they say outrageous things.
I will end the essay on a lighter note: Sarah Palin.
It is well known that she hates Obamacare, even though the core of the Affordable Care Act originated with Republicans. During a recent interview on a morning TV show, the interviewer pressed her several times to present a Republican alternative to Obamacare. After evading the question for some time, she gave the following garbled reply:
“The plan is to allow those things that had been proposed over many years to reform a health-care system in America that certainly does need more help so that there’s more competition, there’s less tort reform threat, there’s less trajectory of the cost increases, and those plans have been proposed over and over again. And what thwarts those plans? It’s the far left. It’s President Obama and his supporters who will not allow the Republicans to usher in free market, patient-centered, doctor-patient relationship links to reform health care."
The unregulated Free Market, mind you, got away with excluding coverage for pre-existing conditions, and with many other abuses. It was quite content to allow at least thirty million U.S. citizens to remain uninsured. It has been extremely inefficient, resulting in windfall profits for insurance companies while health outcomes remain poorer than in other nations which spend far less on health care. (About 17% of U.S. GDP goes to health care; in Germany it's half that.) Palin's assertion, as is most of the things she says, is indeed outrageous.
Does she really believe it?
Answer: Who cares?
We can never be completely sure which one of these possibilities is paramount, especially in cases of public figures we don't know personally. But it is both fun and informative to make educated guesses, using logic and our consciences as our guides. So let's play a game called Do They Really Believe It? The first example is from a recent encounter of mine; I will subsequently quote two politicians, one religious leader and end with a quote from that incomparable political commentator, Sarah Palin. (Note:Among the politicians, we will hear from a Republican and a Democrat; this article has no political agenda. I must admit, though, that my conscience informs me that the most outrageous political statements these days are from Republicans.) In each case I will give my educated guess whether they're lying, half lying, or whether they believe what they said.
You are invited to play along using the comment section at the end of this blog. Let's begin.
Case Number One: An Unidentified Texan
My wife and I, along with four other friends, recently took a cruise up the Rhine. At Nuremberg, our tour guide took us to a garish monstrosity, an imitation of the Colosseum that only a fascist could love. Hitler was having it built to stage rallies until the invasion of Poland called for even more horrible priorities.; it was left unfinished. When the inevitable question arose about how the Germans could have followed such an evil leader, we were told that the extreme economic woes of the country helped radicalize it. A member of our group, a tall elderly Texan wearing cargo pants, exclaimed, without a shred of irony, that he understood perfectly. "The same thing happened in our country. That's why we elected Obama." Yes, he was really comparing Obama to Hitler. (If you don't think this is outrageous, please read some other blog.) Did he really believe it?
Hint one: The next day he was sitting on the bus when his wife boarded. For some reason, she suggested that they sit somewhere else. He screamed at her. GO SIT ANY DAMN PLACE YOU WANT. I'M STAYING HERE. Yes, he really yelled. The bus was filled with older tourists who spoke in hushed tones if they spoke at all. It woke us all up. This guy was obviously a nasty man.
Hint two: During a bus trip to Prague, he informed our young tour guide that America was different. We're not socialists like you. We believe in freedom and the Contsituiton. In America, when somebody fails they start over again. We're on our own and like it that way. If we provide more help to the poor, it will make government stronger and destroy our freedom.
Did he really believe Obama is like Hitler?
My answer: You betcha..
Case Number Two: Ted Cruz
After the Sandy Hook elementary school slaughter in 2012, President Obama proposed some gun control legislation. Here is Ted Cruz's response: "I think it's really sad to see the president of the United States exploiting the murder of children to push his own extreme anti-gun agenda." Did he really believe it?
On December 12, 2012, Adam Lanza, a deranged young man, entered an elementary school in Connecticut and proceeded to murder 20 children and six adults. He was armed with semiautomatic weapons, at least one of which was equipped with a 30-round magazine. If he hadn't had this capability, he would have been forced to load more frequently, increasing the likelihood that he would have been stopped before killing all 26 people. President Oaoma's modest proposal for gun control legislation is to increase background checks, ban semiautomatic weapons and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. That's it. Such legislation would help ensure that a similar tragedy would at lest be limited. There would be no control over all other types of guns. Hardly an "extreme anti-gun agenda." Cruz's statement is obviously outrageously inaccurate. Did he really believe it?
There are some factors that might indicate he was not telling the truth. He is extremely ambitious; many of the people in his power base are fanatics regarding gun control He might have said that to get more votes. But I doubt it. He sees himself as a crusader and often takes extreme positions. I think he's fanatic enough to really believe that President Obama is trying to seriously undermine basic freedoms, such as "the right to bear arms." He might be the blind leading the blind, but he seems to be convinced that his vision is second to none.
Does he really believe President Obama has an extreme anti-gun agenda?
My answer: Yes.
Case Three: George Pell, Cardinal of Sydney
I recently listened to a debate on YouTube between the evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, and the Cardinal of Sydney, George Pell. It was as I expected; the atheist Dawkins argued convincingly that a literal interpretation of scriptures is no longer compatible with critical thinking; the Cardinal, however, at least at the beginning, held his own. He did not deny evolution; he believed atheists could go to heaven, and that many stories of the Bible, while religiously significant, are not to be taken literally. I do not believe in an external God who intervenes in human history , yet I respected the cardinal for his integrity and intellect--even though he thought homo sapiens are descended from their cousins, the Neanderthals! Then came the shocker for me:. The Cardinal said, "I certainly believe that when the words of consecration are spoken, (the wafer) becomes the body of Christ." He went on to state that this transformation is to be taken literally, even though it can't be proven.
How can a man of reasonable intelligence believe such nonsense? Does he really believe in magic?
Once again I thought of possible mitigating circumstances. A literal belief in this transformation is indeed Catholic dogma. The Church is an authoritarian institution and does not permit dissent regarding Church teachings. Therefore, as a cardinal he could not deny the doctrine of transubstantiation publicly. However, if you saw the debate you realized that he seemed to be absolutely convinced that the wafer become Christ's body.
We might now ask how the Church can perpetuate a doctrine which the modern mind considers to be ridiculous. Once again, the desire for power and money is an unspoken motivation. Catholics are taught to believe that consuming the consecrated Host is very important for salvation. Well, how does this belief play out? You can't order a consecrated Host online and consume it after meditation. If you believe it becomes the body of Christ, you must attend mass. to Church. You thus come under the Church's control. (I am not denying that this might be a source of consolation for many.) The Cardinal has dedicated his life to the Church, and would never counter any of its teachings publicly. Deep down there , however, he may have his doubts.
Does he really believe it?
Answer: Probably.
Case 4: Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Ms. Schultz is a member of Congress from Florida. She was part of the panel on a recent Bill Maher show. Maher expressed what I consider to be a reasonable opinion: it might be time for the United States to rescind its boycott of Cuba. Ms Schultz was adamantly opposed, stating that the boycott should be continued exclusively on moral grounds. According to her, Cuba has gotten worse; she believes that there is more repression there now than ever. This is doubtful. Cuba is by no means a democracy, but dissidents are more tolerated in Cuba today. An example of improved human rights: Castro has apologized for past persecution of homosexuals; he has now accorded them civil rights. Russia, however--not to mention many African countries--is stepping up discrimination against homosexuals. Why don't we boycott them? What about human rights abuses in China? Doesn't she realize that considerations of American self-interests are involved here and not exclusively moral ones? Here and elsewhere, one of the most important factors is power. The U.S.wants to contain the spread of the Cuban form of government into neighboring countries. Also, unlike China and Russia, Cuba is a small and relatively weak country, thus making the imposition of a boycott much easier.
We mustn't forget that Ms. Schultz represents a region many inhabitants of which hate Castro with passion. Her own self-interest--like all politicians, she wants to be reelected--without a doubt heavily influenced her allegedly objective opinion . Ms. Schultz is very intelligent and must realize this.
Does she really believe it?
Answer: No.
I have written this essay to encourage readers to be skeptical of taking statements at face value, especially public statements of people in power. Follow the money, as they say; psychological factors might also apply. What do they really mean, we should ask ourselves, especially when they say outrageous things.
I will end the essay on a lighter note: Sarah Palin.
It is well known that she hates Obamacare, even though the core of the Affordable Care Act originated with Republicans. During a recent interview on a morning TV show, the interviewer pressed her several times to present a Republican alternative to Obamacare. After evading the question for some time, she gave the following garbled reply:
“The plan is to allow those things that had been proposed over many years to reform a health-care system in America that certainly does need more help so that there’s more competition, there’s less tort reform threat, there’s less trajectory of the cost increases, and those plans have been proposed over and over again. And what thwarts those plans? It’s the far left. It’s President Obama and his supporters who will not allow the Republicans to usher in free market, patient-centered, doctor-patient relationship links to reform health care."
The unregulated Free Market, mind you, got away with excluding coverage for pre-existing conditions, and with many other abuses. It was quite content to allow at least thirty million U.S. citizens to remain uninsured. It has been extremely inefficient, resulting in windfall profits for insurance companies while health outcomes remain poorer than in other nations which spend far less on health care. (About 17% of U.S. GDP goes to health care; in Germany it's half that.) Palin's assertion, as is most of the things she says, is indeed outrageous.
Does she really believe it?
Answer: Who cares?
I think that Texan is the most genuine of all the people presented here. That is what is most frightening. The others may believe some of their outrageous comments but they are posturing on a public stage. The Texan is genuinely nasty and small minded and would act accordingly. Unfortunately there are many like him. They are like an army of ants eating away at our democratic ideals. Dan
ReplyDelete