Now that we can be described as living in the "age of spin" along with the "age of selfishness," and six or seven other descriptions of our sad condition, it is becoming harder and harder to tell the wheat from the chaff (or the stuff you step in unexpectedly in the grass). Friends send you email about the most preposterous things, claiming them truth, only to find out that the snopes.com website has them listed as hoaxes or worse, but few of us check there first before we send on some possibly-virus-loaded tidbit on to all the folks in our email address book.

We almost can't recognize a fact anymore. How is it possible that hundreds of scientist on one side say man is causing global warming and hundreds on the other side say that it's a natural phenomenon, and man can barely affect it no matter what changes are made in our lifestyles and habits? It's complicated, and depending on which areas are researched, the "truth" can vary. How is it possible that we can keep going deeper and deeper into National Debt, but we are assured that new spending will help?? How is it that "good Americans" disagree on endless numbers of issues, all in the name of patriotism? We should be able to find information to clarify these things one way or another, but we may have shot ourselves in the foot over the years. The powers that be have figured out that we don't really want the answers; we want sound bites and simple solutions and a side to throw our weight to, and not much else. We want to pick a cause, pick a side, declare it right, and blame the "other side" for whatever doesn't fit into our neat sound-bite categories.

Take immigration, for example. You would think that the best Americans are those who take to heart the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. All men are created equal. Send us your "huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" and all that. Yet in the name of being a good American, there are folks who would shoot anyone coming over the border, close the doors to freedom for anyone else (although we do that sort of thing a lot. I found a great place to live, now don't change it or let anyone else in....etc.), and ignore all those folks out there that the framers of the Constitution considered "Man" and "equal" and yearning for freedom. Can we stay free if we let others in? If we have the answer, should we force them to stay in countries with brutal dictators? If we have the answer, should we hoard it? If we open our borders, we can be hurt in any number of ways. It's complicated.

Or take legislation. Arguably, depending on which part of the political spectrum you reside in, there are huge numbers of bills that have been passed over the years that were no good, should have been drowned at birth, and should be repealed. Why aren't they? First of all, we can't agree on which ones need repealing. One side says this bill is good, the other says it's no good. Why can't we see what the realities are and decide on what to do? Can't we find some kind of reasonable solution to these things? Or do we just prefer to talk in sound bites, ignore any information or "data" from the other side, and form ranks to fight about it. It's complicated.

It's like the old story of the blind men and the elephant, except for one thing. We aren't physically blind and could see the entire elephant if we took the time (and maybe a ladder for the tall parts) to walk a few steps to the far end and see what the rest of the beast looks like, etc. to find out. Our blindness is psychological. We've been trained to certain ideologies that tell us what an elephant is, what it does, and how to respond to it, but we've never seen or dealt with a real one. But that's OK, we don't have the time anyway; that's what elected officials are for, to figure all this stuff out and tell us what to do.

Oops... Now there's part of the problem. That's NOT what elected officials are for. At least that's not what the folks who wrote the Constitution thought they were for. In their view government was a dangerous element. It had the responsibility to protect our rights (which they viewed as "inalienable" not given by law, but inherent in all mankind), more like a hired bodyguard than as a boss who will tell you what to do and how and why to do it. You give the bodyguard the weapons to protect you and pray that you understood clearly the nature of the person that you hired, so you can trust that those weapons won't be turned on you.

Elected officials were to be held back from the kinds of power wielded by monarchs, or dictators, because the framers had seen with their own eyes the abuses when power is too great, and the people's needs were ignored. Some of the early patriots had seen family killed over religion in the 30 years war, and wanted church and state separate to avoid new outbreaks of violence in the name of God. While they were very well educated, these choices for our future were not made because of book reading; they had family who left England because they were persecuted for their religion, they saw the French Revolution happen in their lifetime, and they saw an overarching colonial power draining their resources with ever increasing tax burdens so that it could live large. There was a philosophical understanding of "man" in the abstract, but it was seriously tempered by what they had seen mankind do in their own lives. They lived, as the old saying goes "in interesting times."

So do we, but we are not spending time to try to understand what's happening. We want someone to tell us how to think, and, oddly enough, we appear not to want the schools to teach critical thinking. We want quick answers to complicated questions, even those of great moral import (if killing a fetus is murder, why isn't killing an "enemy" in war? -- is life sacred or not?). We want quick solutions to economic issues (let's just print more money - not sure what that inflation thing is but we'll deal with it later), but we also want nothing to interfere with our living habits and perks. We want alternative energies that simply replace fossil fuels without understanding the environmental degradation caused by the production requirements of new batteries, wind towers, and solar cells. Or we'd rather have nuclear, without understanding how we can get rid of nuclear waste. Our times are complicated. Are they more complicated than those in the past? Probably not. The questions are different, but the complications remain the same.

Realities in life are messy. Real life does not lend itself to quick fixes and easy answers, yet that's what we want. It's one of the major reasons we feel ourselves stuck with "politicians" instead of having real "statesmen" (the latter being those folks who think of the common good in the long term, taking into consideration all of the factors, and coming to an intelligent way to proceed forward). We elect folks who tell us they can deliver what we want, with no mess, no fuss, and certainly, no complicated decisions to be made by us. We grouse that those (expletive deleted) Congressmen didn't do it right, but we did our part. Well, no we didn't.

Our "truths" are given to us by those we choose to listen to. And we choose to listen to them based on whether they are telling us what we want to hear. We like the ones who tell us there is a simple answer, all you have to do its give our side money and we'll get into power and make it all happen with no struggle at all. Trust us. Those who tell us life is complicated, there are a lot of moving parts, and doing it right takes time and thinking and resources are completely ignored. This certainly brings up the question of whether we want to know the truth at all.

There are certainly some things that we have to take "on faith," that people go into elected office with a true calling to serve, because they truly want to help to keep our society strong and healthy and that the Constitution that protects our rights, itself protected by the oath to protect and defend it which is given to every elected official and all those serving in the military, will always be there.

We do need to be wary, however. Our faith has been badly shaken by the event at Ft. Hood. Someone took the oath, yet attacked our troops. Warnings and suspicions were ignored, because trying to sort out who was telling the truth was complicated. It was easier to believe someone could not have been put into a position of authority by mistake. Careers could have been lost if accusations were made that turned out to be false. Where was the truth of who Major Hasan really was and who he served?? Those mysteries may or may not be cleared up. What remains, however, is the question of our cultural commitment to the truth. Is it only true if it's easy, if it's convenient, if we feel we can get an answer we can live with, or do we just want the "truths" that make us comfortable, and find someone else to blame when things go wrong?

We are vulnerable, not as much to enemies in the world, but to our unwillingness to take the hard road, deal with harsh realities, and find and cling to the truth, even when we don't really want to see it.