Does anyone else find it depressing when you stop and realize that our civilization will one day be considered incredibly primitive?
I still find myself momentarily thrown off-track when I go somewhere like McDonalds or a hotel and the service folks actually speak unaccented English. It's as if I'm mentally prepared to not be able to understand them, and yet I can. I don't think this makes me racist- I think it means Southern California has a problem.
When I see fat people at the gym, I find myself fighting conflicting opinions. On one hand, I'm thrilled they decided to do something to become more healthy. On the other, I'm frustrated because I go to the gym for a specific purpose and I know exactly what I need to do and how to do it. They often don't. When you see a woman who is clearly over 250lbs just laying on the ground in the only sit up station listening to her iPod (and she stays there for 20 minutes) or an overweight guy just sits on the only leg extension machine for 15 minutes reading a book it's hard to feel anything but frustration. This is not your couch, nor is this your bed or your foyer. Don't socialize while sitting on a machine. Don't read a book when someone is clearly waiting to use what you're hogging. Don't just lay there like a whale. Be productive and you'd be amazed at the results.
Additionally, why do fat people work non-problematic areas? I understand the need for variety, but when an overweight person walks into the weight room, does curls, and then leaves, what good is that doing them? They're (hopefully) at the gym to lose weight, to tone down, or to increase their health. What good are 5lb curls going to do for your 40in waist, your man boobs, or your poor cardiovascular condition?
I hate people who think "workout" means just cardio. I've seen Colonels who talk constantly about their workouts and how much they exercise, yet have embarrassing form when doing bodyweight squats and wheeze after 10 push ups. You can tell who the officers are in the weight room because they're the ones with scrawny legs, tiny arms, short shorts, and some random shirt from some marathon or 5K that they once ran. I do believe in cardio, but I believe more in the well rounded person. That means cardio AND weight training. I wouldn't trust some 130lb distance runner in full gear to drag my 210lb butt (also assumedly in full gear) out of a firefight.
As someone who will find something interesting and then research it to death, I refuse to learn anything about classical music, opera, or jazz. Every time I watch the Catholic Channel or a documentary on religion, I immediately start analyzing it. Every time I watch someone perform a lift or an exercise, I mentally critique or dissect their form. But every time I hear the notes of an orchestra or the voice of an operatic singer I marvel at the beauty and the emotionality of the music. To remain ignorant of the genre pains me a little, but to lose the wonder and awe I feel every time I listen would be a price I'm not willing to pay. My mortal fear is one day finding myself in a jazz lounge or at an after-opera dinner and not being able to keep up with the conversations.
It's a pity you can't train hamsters. Sometimes I wish they'd just sit still and watch TV with you.
To me, alcohol tastes like turpentine. All beer has the flavor of carbonation and bitter plants. White wine has a dry taste with hints of oil and acetone...red wine is just as dry but more often bitter. I will patiently and politely listen to what you have to say about the wonders and types of alcohol, because I want to learn about the subject too, but I'll never believe you when you say "There's a wine/beer/liquor out there for everyone. You just have to find it." I've tried over 4 dozen types of beer and 2 dozen types of wine, and I've hated every single one.
Sometimes when you're feeling depressed, it's not that you're looking at life wrong. You're just looking at the wrong parts of life.
If I'm going to pay $15 for a military barber to butcher my hair, I might as well go to a civilian shop. At least there the staff is young and friendly (usually) and they know more than just "Skin on the sides, short on top".
I find three types of standards in the military: standards of performance (doing your job, showing up on time, being trained and proficient, etc), standards of professionalism (wearing a uniform, using the right terminology, following orders, etc), and standards of preference (shirt tucked/untucked when exercising, what kind of socks you can wear, the color and style du jour of the allowed backpacks, etc). I firmly believe in the first two. The third one is completely contingent on the moods and personal opinions of leadership, and I say that kind can shove off. It changes so often, why should I bother with it?
I am probably the most cynical, low key, casual officer I know (or one of them, at any rate). That being said, I worked my ass off for 5 years to earn a commission as an officer and a gentleman by an act of our Congress. While I don't usually enforce customs and courtesies as much as I should, it genuinely irritates me that when I enter a base belonging to the Armed Forces of the United States the best I expect to get is a wave through from a hired security guard. A commissioned officer entering a federal installation, and the civilian rent-a-cop just waves me in. That shouldn't be acceptable.
For all the heavy and technical reading that I find myself doing, I greatly enjoy poetry from time to time. I personally like Langston Hughes for his dramatic imagery and the power of his short verses. I detest E.E. Cummings for his "creative" inability to grasp basic sentence and grammatical structure. Above all though, my favorite author is Emily Dickinson. Why? Because she rhymes.
I need to learn to write shorter posts so your eyes don't give out reading what I publish. That was my goal for this one- short and simple.
Maybe next time I'll just post a picture without commentary. I hear those are worth a thousand words.
Friday, October 15, 2010
What Comeback?
I'm not a fan of the movie 'Patton'. I think George C. Scott played the general magnificently, but I find the film hard to enjoy and the main character harder to respect. That being said, one of my all-time favorite quotes actually comes from his performance. When the general is watching the battle rage below he laughs to himself and yells that perfect one-liner on strategy-
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"
If you ever want to know how or what someone else thinks, and this someone else is in any way your opponent or opposite, don't read material written by your friends, compatriots, or allies for you. Instead, take a serious look at material by or for your opponent. Listen to what they listen to. Watch what they watch. Don't fall into the habit of becoming part of the choir that gets preached to- get out and spend some time in the other side's shoes.
I've noticed over the years that conservatives and liberals tend to treat each other differently when they butt heads. Conservatives tend to treat liberals as if they were stupid. Spend a good amount of time on sites like Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Right Brothers and you'll see article after article referencing figures, quotations, interviews, ideas, sources, and other generally useful information one would load an argument with if one views his or her opponent as being ignorant of the facts. Go watch Glenn Beck and see how many dozen books, articles, interviews, speeches, web pages, blogs, and phone calls he quotes and cites per episode. It's like watching a 400 level political science course on the "news".
Conversely, liberals tend to treat conservatives as if they were evil (here's a column by Charles Krauthammer explaining the evil vs stupid comparison). Instead of Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Fox News, spend any amount of time watching Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman, or read The Huffington Post or blogs like Gus DiZerega's and you'll see vilification of folks who don't agree with the liberal strand of thought. Mr. DiZerega especially likes ad-hominems and demonization. Anyone who blatantly refers to conservatives as "evil" and Christians as "Sauronic demon worshippers" falls squarely in the camp that views opponents as more than just ignorant. Now, I'm not saying conservatives don't slander and liberals don't use facts; I'm just pointing out an observation that each side tends to favor one tactic over the other.
It's easy to compete against someone who thinks you're stupid. Come armed to a discussion (or be quick on your feet) with facts, figures, and quotes and be able to synthesize information as it flows through the discussion while thinking critically and you'll not only hold your own, you'll probably win.
But how do you handle someone who is so quick to use character attacks, especially unfounded ones, and has no qualms about name calling and baseless demonization?
I got into a debate/argument with an acquaintance the other day over Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). I posed 5 hypothetical scenarios/questions that the military would face, in a specific setting, if it were to revoke DADT. The 5 questions all dealt with close quarters living.
The woman with whom I was debating (quite the liberal) asked me why I was afraid of gay people. When I responded that I said no such thing, she quoted my own questions back to me and then accused me of "gay fear mongering".
My jaw actually dropped. That doesn't happen often.
She then went on to play the female/ethnic minority card and made a few more comments about people like me who engage in spreading the unfounded fears. I was shocked. My questions were not only not intended to offend, they were genuine scenarios I bring up in every DADT conversation I have because I'd like to know how they would be handled. Instead of giving me logical answers, this woman labeled me as someone who engages in said fear mongering because I was clearly "afraid" of gay people.
Look at bumper stickers before California's Proposition 8 went to ballot (and even after). Stickers for the proposition (against gay marriage) had a picture of a stick man man and stick woman and read "Yes on 8" or "Vote for 8". Stickers against the proposition read "Stop the H8" or "NO H8"...a slogan so poignantly referenced in images of people whose mouths have been taped shut (these people are clearly the epitome of kind, caring individuals). Even here the conservatives stickers were simply saying vote yes, and the liberal stickers were labeling conservatives as people who were guilty of discrimination. Are you for traditional marriage? Then you're a hater. Are you for progressive redefinition of marriage? Then you're a tolerant free-thinker. Makes sense, right?
Why bother persuading either your opponent or your audience? Just vilify. It's a much more desirable option to make your opponent hated than it is to make your position attractive. Why? Because it's easier to fuel anger than it is to logically get behind something.
How do you counteract this? What comeback can you give someone who blindsides you or counters your argument with statements or slogans like this?
Here's a video of Bill O'Reilly on The View talking about 9/11. I've personally never seen the show- the thought of half a dozen loud, liberal women preaching to each other's choir is not my cup of tea.
When O'Reilly said he believes the Ground Zero Mosque would be a bad idea, due to insensitivity, he was asked why. He responded by saying that Muslims committed the 9/11 hijackings/attacks.
"This is bullshit!" Goldberg said. "Extremists did that!" She and Joy Behar then walked off stage a moment later. The other women then attacked O'Reilly for slandering an entire religion by making the factual statement that extremist Muslims committed the 9/11 suicide flights and proceeded to demand his apology for offending them.
I was again floored by this response. These women believed that Muslim extremists, not extremist Muslims, committed the attacks; and because the two words are in that order Islam had nothing to do with the killings.
Syntax is important here- if they were Muslim extremists, then they would be first and foremost extremists who happen to be Muslims. That is not the case. They were first and foremost Muslims, who did what they did BECAUSE they were extremists.
How do you answer such a statement? Someone minces words so finely, then argues something so absurd that perhaps the only possible way to counter would be to say something just as ridiculous- or, in the case of my DADT story, to come back with my own absurd ad-hominem.
No matter the case, you can't let yourself slip. Resist the urge to give in to the name calling, the personal slandering, the negative absurdities, or the emotional rhetoric. Not only will you walk away with your personal integrity and honor intact (assuming you had some to begin with) you'll be able to let history show that you relied more on reason than gut reactions and emotional hype to carry your message.
Does this mean you'll lose the argument? In some cases, from the standpoint of the audience, yes. Our society, and our generation, seem to favor catchy phrases, eloquent blurbs, and emotional speakers. What does it matter if you push the nation trillions of dollars in debt or create programs bound for failure that our children will have to pay for? As long as what you preach brings emotional comfort and is backed by the logic of morality, even if one uses twisted logic and twisted morals, people will follow you. With so much emphasis on data and so little push for true understanding, it's easier to feel than it is to think nowadays. Why should we actually take the time turn that data into information and that information into knowledge? It's quicker, less difficult, and more satisfying to attach an emotion to a snippet we heard somewhere and use that as the basis for our preferences and the foundations for our arguments.
And hey- if you lose face or lose ground, just make the opponent seem more dangerously full of bias or hate and less caring than you. It works, doesn't it?
If anybody can come up with a way to fight the down and dirty emotionality that people today are so apt to use, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I'll just sit quietly and hope that somewhere out there exist Americans who still think from their heads before they scream from their hearts.
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"
If you ever want to know how or what someone else thinks, and this someone else is in any way your opponent or opposite, don't read material written by your friends, compatriots, or allies for you. Instead, take a serious look at material by or for your opponent. Listen to what they listen to. Watch what they watch. Don't fall into the habit of becoming part of the choir that gets preached to- get out and spend some time in the other side's shoes.
I've noticed over the years that conservatives and liberals tend to treat each other differently when they butt heads. Conservatives tend to treat liberals as if they were stupid. Spend a good amount of time on sites like Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Right Brothers and you'll see article after article referencing figures, quotations, interviews, ideas, sources, and other generally useful information one would load an argument with if one views his or her opponent as being ignorant of the facts. Go watch Glenn Beck and see how many dozen books, articles, interviews, speeches, web pages, blogs, and phone calls he quotes and cites per episode. It's like watching a 400 level political science course on the "news".
Conversely, liberals tend to treat conservatives as if they were evil (here's a column by Charles Krauthammer explaining the evil vs stupid comparison). Instead of Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Fox News, spend any amount of time watching Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman, or read The Huffington Post or blogs like Gus DiZerega's and you'll see vilification of folks who don't agree with the liberal strand of thought. Mr. DiZerega especially likes ad-hominems and demonization. Anyone who blatantly refers to conservatives as "evil" and Christians as "Sauronic demon worshippers" falls squarely in the camp that views opponents as more than just ignorant. Now, I'm not saying conservatives don't slander and liberals don't use facts; I'm just pointing out an observation that each side tends to favor one tactic over the other.
It's easy to compete against someone who thinks you're stupid. Come armed to a discussion (or be quick on your feet) with facts, figures, and quotes and be able to synthesize information as it flows through the discussion while thinking critically and you'll not only hold your own, you'll probably win.
But how do you handle someone who is so quick to use character attacks, especially unfounded ones, and has no qualms about name calling and baseless demonization?
I got into a debate/argument with an acquaintance the other day over Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). I posed 5 hypothetical scenarios/questions that the military would face, in a specific setting, if it were to revoke DADT. The 5 questions all dealt with close quarters living.
The woman with whom I was debating (quite the liberal) asked me why I was afraid of gay people. When I responded that I said no such thing, she quoted my own questions back to me and then accused me of "gay fear mongering".
My jaw actually dropped. That doesn't happen often.
She then went on to play the female/ethnic minority card and made a few more comments about people like me who engage in spreading the unfounded fears. I was shocked. My questions were not only not intended to offend, they were genuine scenarios I bring up in every DADT conversation I have because I'd like to know how they would be handled. Instead of giving me logical answers, this woman labeled me as someone who engages in said fear mongering because I was clearly "afraid" of gay people.
Look at bumper stickers before California's Proposition 8 went to ballot (and even after). Stickers for the proposition (against gay marriage) had a picture of a stick man man and stick woman and read "Yes on 8" or "Vote for 8". Stickers against the proposition read "Stop the H8" or "NO H8"...a slogan so poignantly referenced in images of people whose mouths have been taped shut (these people are clearly the epitome of kind, caring individuals). Even here the conservatives stickers were simply saying vote yes, and the liberal stickers were labeling conservatives as people who were guilty of discrimination. Are you for traditional marriage? Then you're a hater. Are you for progressive redefinition of marriage? Then you're a tolerant free-thinker. Makes sense, right?
Why bother persuading either your opponent or your audience? Just vilify. It's a much more desirable option to make your opponent hated than it is to make your position attractive. Why? Because it's easier to fuel anger than it is to logically get behind something.
How do you counteract this? What comeback can you give someone who blindsides you or counters your argument with statements or slogans like this?
Here's a video of Bill O'Reilly on The View talking about 9/11. I've personally never seen the show- the thought of half a dozen loud, liberal women preaching to each other's choir is not my cup of tea.
When O'Reilly said he believes the Ground Zero Mosque would be a bad idea, due to insensitivity, he was asked why. He responded by saying that Muslims committed the 9/11 hijackings/attacks.
"This is bullshit!" Goldberg said. "Extremists did that!" She and Joy Behar then walked off stage a moment later. The other women then attacked O'Reilly for slandering an entire religion by making the factual statement that extremist Muslims committed the 9/11 suicide flights and proceeded to demand his apology for offending them.
I was again floored by this response. These women believed that Muslim extremists, not extremist Muslims, committed the attacks; and because the two words are in that order Islam had nothing to do with the killings.
Syntax is important here- if they were Muslim extremists, then they would be first and foremost extremists who happen to be Muslims. That is not the case. They were first and foremost Muslims, who did what they did BECAUSE they were extremists.
How do you answer such a statement? Someone minces words so finely, then argues something so absurd that perhaps the only possible way to counter would be to say something just as ridiculous- or, in the case of my DADT story, to come back with my own absurd ad-hominem.
No matter the case, you can't let yourself slip. Resist the urge to give in to the name calling, the personal slandering, the negative absurdities, or the emotional rhetoric. Not only will you walk away with your personal integrity and honor intact (assuming you had some to begin with) you'll be able to let history show that you relied more on reason than gut reactions and emotional hype to carry your message.
Does this mean you'll lose the argument? In some cases, from the standpoint of the audience, yes. Our society, and our generation, seem to favor catchy phrases, eloquent blurbs, and emotional speakers. What does it matter if you push the nation trillions of dollars in debt or create programs bound for failure that our children will have to pay for? As long as what you preach brings emotional comfort and is backed by the logic of morality, even if one uses twisted logic and twisted morals, people will follow you. With so much emphasis on data and so little push for true understanding, it's easier to feel than it is to think nowadays. Why should we actually take the time turn that data into information and that information into knowledge? It's quicker, less difficult, and more satisfying to attach an emotion to a snippet we heard somewhere and use that as the basis for our preferences and the foundations for our arguments.
And hey- if you lose face or lose ground, just make the opponent seem more dangerously full of bias or hate and less caring than you. It works, doesn't it?
If anybody can come up with a way to fight the down and dirty emotionality that people today are so apt to use, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I'll just sit quietly and hope that somewhere out there exist Americans who still think from their heads before they scream from their hearts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)