Beneath the Surface

Posted on July 12, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

I believe our society’s sliding scale for rewarding temperament is slanted too far in the direction of extroversion.   Outgoing, attention-hoarding, aggressive people are more respected, followed, and listened to than shy or introverted people.  A rational inquiry would tell you that this occurs because extrovert’s ideas are the ones that are heard.  These are the people who eagerly raise their hands to answer a question in class, jump to the leadership role in a group, and constantly talk about themselves when they can find someone to listen.  The problem I have with this is that their ideas are not necessarily better than their shy counterparts, and in reality, can be worse.  But these are the people who get the jobs; the people who get the promotions; the people who get the accolades; the people who have abundant choices in partners.

An analogy that works perfectly for this situation is one of long distance running versus bodybuilding.  It accurately illustrates how two disparate activities (or states of being), which cannot inherently be sequenced based on value or importance, undergo exactly that from an outsider’s assessment.  Just as one cannot say that red is better than blue or spring is better than fall, I believe one cannot say that being extroverted or outgoing is better than being introverted or shy—they’re just different.  It almost goes without saying that for the purposes of this analogy, introversion lines up with long distance running, while extroversion lines up with bodybuilding.

The point here is that one group is unfairly easier to take notice of and praise—that being the extroverts/bodybuilders.  You don’t have to know someone to gather that he is charismatic, outgoing, and affable.  You can see it from across the room.  In the first five minutes of an interview, he’s everybody’s best friend.  Similarly, you can spot a bodybuilder and respect the work he puts into his physique without even having to meet the person.

On the other side of the spectrum, you can have pure geniuses, brilliant intelligentsia, saints, and Olympian caliber athletes, the human pinnacles of physical achievement, walking around.  Can you spot them from across the room? Nope.  You have to sit down with a quiet genius or read some of her works to realize what she brings to the table.  These people can go through an entire interview leaving the interviewer thinking they were a dud, lacked a personality, or had no leadership initiative.  When in reality, this person could be the pioneer of the next scientific breakthrough or the author of the next world-changing novel.  Likewise, long distance runners don’t stick out as anything special because they’re usually just skinny.  They would have to tell you they run 120 miles a week and are going to the Olympics in the 5000 meter run. Their physical level of achievement could be miles ahead of the casual bodybuilder, but the bodybuilder will get the initial admiration.  Just as the extrovert will get the initial respect and opportunity even though the introvert could be light-years ahead of the extrovert on capability.

Focus has been directed on this conundrum in the media.  Along with other stories I’ve read recently about the benefits of being introverted, a February 2012 Time magazine issue titled “The Power of Shyness” was dedicated to the subject.  In it, author Bryan Walsh makes similar arguments to the ones in this piece.  He claims that being extroverted is overrated but favored in America.  And points out that extroverts can have trouble identifying risks and internalizing criticism, which are qualities needed in a good leader—qualities introverts are more likely to possess.  Some of the leaders and famous people identified as introverts really support this claim: Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, Charles Darwin, Mother Teresa, Warren Buffett, and Mohandas Gandhi, to name a few.  Imagine that group of people being overlooked simply because they didn’t ostentatiously jump out from the get-go.  The world would look quite different—and not in a good way.

Philosophy

Tender Tears

Posted on March 5, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

I did something today I haven’t done in awhile: I cried.  Not the eyes-filling-with-water variety, but full-on drops down the cheek style.  And it wasn’t about me.  But something struck me.  A couple of days ago there was a random high school shooting in Ohio—a lone gunman indiscriminately fired on classmates, killing three of them.  Now, I’m an avid consumer of news.  I hear and read about things like this all the time.  Rarely do they elicit any kind of emotion out of me.  The 24-hour news cycle has definitely desensitized me to violence.  So when I first heard about this, I just thought to myself, that sucks. But today, as there was nothing on TV, I stumbled onto Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, which was covering the story, and I watched.

Anderson was interviewing the mother of one of the dead students.  The student’s name was Daniel Parmertor, but he went by Danny, like me.  He was sixteen-years-old.  360 was showing pictures of Danny while the mother answered Anderson’s questions.  Danny was a good-looking, young dude.  One picture showed him smiling in a dress shirt and slacks.  Another showed him on a vacation yelling towards the sky with his arms spread out.  And another showed him on a raft floating down river, turned back towards the camera with a beaming smile.  That was enough evidence to know Danny was charismatic, well-liked, and full of life.

But the kickers were Anderson’s questions.  It was the follow-up questions to the answers of the standard ones that made me feel a rush of emotion about to boil over.  When the mother stated that Danny had just started a new job—his first job—and had not even received a paycheck yet (as if that’s not sad enough), Anderson asked her what he would have spent his money on.  The mother said he was going to save for his first car and that he wanted an IPhone 4.  She also said that he was going to visit Ohio State next week.  Man, too much to handle!  Talk like that personalized it so much and pulled vivid reminiscences of my own life from the depths of my memory—nostalgic ones, sweet ones. It reached the meridian, surged to the top: I cried—sat there in front of my TV, in the dark, alone, crying.  That’s where my life started.  That’s where the fun begins.  Sixteen-years-old is when the series of firsts begin: the coming-of-age ones that are the highlights of life; the subjects of myriad books and movies; the ones nobody ever forgets: getting your license and first car, thinking about college (or what you’ll do after high school), girls, a sense of your own style, making your own money, the physical abilities of entering the early stages of your prime, and ultimately, the realization of an impending adulthood.  Where I consider my life beginning, at the same point, his ended.  Over.  It was ripped from him.

It made me realize how much I had experienced from the ages of sixteen to twenty-eight— and what he will not.  It all abundantly rushed forward.  Beginning from the same age his life ended, I graduated high school, completed college and grad school, studied awesome subjects, met life-long friends, partied hearty, traveled to new places, had serious girlfriends, witnessed wars and presidential elections, pushed my body to its physical limits, read tons of classic literature and watched hours of classic movies, experienced the advent of wireless internet and the IPhone, watched my parents age beautifully and grandparents pass away, and reached the point of being a grown-ass man, where adults have no choice but to respect my opinion.  Danny’s life was over before he really knew who he was.  He gets to experience none of that.  He gets laid to rest at the age of sixteen.

And for the first time in my life, I didn’t give a damn about the shooter—COULD NOT CARE LESS.  Usually I’m way more concerned about the perpetrator.  My psycho-analytic mind wants to know about his life: What was his motivation? What was he trying to accomplish? What’s his personal story?  Was it predictable? Not this time.  When Anderson Cooper 360 shifted the coverage to the gunman, I turned the channel.  I will never research or care to know this perpetrator’s story.  The victims are way more important; their lives should be celebrated.  Rest in Peace, Danny Parmertor.

Uncategorized

Jesus, What Do You Think?

Posted on February 18, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

There have been plenty of articles written on this topic.  I don’t care.  Nonetheless, they ask the same question: if Jesus was alive today, politically, would he be a Democrat or a Republican?  Ironically, more of these articles come from the “Godless Left,” claiming that Jesus would be a liberal or progressive.  But as we all know, the Right tries to monopolize religion, Jesus, and traditional values.  For the purposes of this writing, I don’t want to enter the culture wars.  I want to focus on issues that cut to the core of justice and fairness.  That the economy is sagging and people are struggling to stay afloat or get ahead, the distribution of resources, and  fiscal policy, is what truly matters to everyone right now, not abortion, gay marriage, or the censorship of adult entertainment—despite what right-wing pundits would have you believe.  Can we agree on that? No doubt a poll question asking people what’s more of a concern to them, gay people getting married or their ability to find a job (assuming they’re unemployed or severely underemployed), would elicit far more selections for the latter.  That is why I’ll focus on the pillar of fiscal policy, not social policy.

So what kind of fiscal policy would Jesus favor?  In the US there are two distinct groups, explained by differing views on the role of government and what separates winners and losers (See my article “I can, You Can”).  Proponents on the right favor a Trickle-down economic theory—low taxes and minimal regulations on high-income earners and businesses, with the belief that this will spur innovation, create jobs, and provide more opportunity for the less fortunate.  “A rising tide lifts all boats” is often the quote of choice to describe the perceived result of this policy direction.  Over on the left, progressive tax policies are favored: higher taxes on the rich, with the extra revenue used for redistribution to the less fortunate in the way of entitlement programs, the welfare safety net, and inexpensive or free education and healthcare.  The goal here is more equity and fairness.  My argument is that Jesus would doubtless choose the left side of the spectrum in fiscal policy.

We gain most of our understanding about Jesus and his teachings from the New Testament in the Bible.  What is the crux of the argument in that document?  To dramatically simplify it, heaven is there for the poor and downtrodden.  To whom much is given, much is required.  It’s harder for rich people to enter the Kingdom of God.  Treat sickly, poor, and unsightly people as if they are Jesus.  And so on.  I know people counter-argue these messages by stating that there is a separation of church and state, that the requirement is for individuals and charity, not the government, and that the Old Testament says to give ten percent of your income (but Old Testament, though, like before Jesus).  I’m not arguing the merits of these arguments.  I’m simply saying that if Jesus was down here on Earth, at this moment, and he had to choose a side (based solely on fiscal policy), he would choose the Left.

My argument for that is simple.  Listen to the rhetoric coming from each camp.  I honestly can’t see how Jesus would side with the Right on this one.  Things you hear from the Right: if you’re poor, it’s your own fault; pull yourself up by your bootstraps; poor people are lazy and didn’t try hard enough; don’t take my hard-earned money and give it to some poor person; all welfare and unemployment do is make people lazy and dependent; and I’m doing just fine in this recession, what’s your problem?  Do these statements sound like something that would come out of Jesus’ mouth?  Really?!  No way! Or with Trickle-down theory you hear the argument that (duh!) low taxes on rich people leads to increased spending on private jets, mansions, vacations, and expensive restaurants.  This, in turn, creates jobs for people who get to build these items or work in service for these industries.  Does that sound like an economy that would be setup with only an understanding of Jesus’ teachings? Allow unfettered income acquisition by an elite plutocracy, where the goal is for them to spend rampant amounts of money so that the rest of society gets the pleasure to serve them.  I hardly think so.

Let’s look at common rhetoric from the Left: life is not fair; some people have difficult life situations by not fault of their own; welfare and entitlement programs help people get back up on their feet or stay afloat; everybody should pay their fair share; we’re all in this together; and housing, healthcare, and education are rights, not privileges.  Sound a lot more congruent with the New Testament? How could you argue otherwise?  Jesus was unarguably a proponent of focusing resources, time, and energy on the poor and suffering.  I doubt he’d be concerned with griping from the top one percent about seeing their income taxes increase from 35% to 39%.

Before you call me ignorant, I know Jesus was not laying out a blueprint for the best political-economic system we could use for our society.  Our politics are not based on the Bible.  My point is that, given a choice in the current setup of our government, fiscally, Jesus would favor left-leaning policies.  Even given an astute, knowledgeable Jesus on the inefficiencies of modern government spending, I cannot see how he could favor the policies of the Right, which blatantly favor the rich and place more of a burden on the poor, based on principle alone.

Politics

I Can, You Can

Posted on February 3, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

With the Republican presidential primary season underway, the topic of the role of government inevitably enters the roundtable.  Much of this discussion originates from ideas about what separates the winners and losers in our society.  Is everyone personally responsible for their own position in life?  Is the level of your success directly related to the amount of work you’ve put in? Or have some people incurred difficult life situations by no fault of their own?  It’s no secret that the right side of the political spectrum gravitates towards personal responsibility and rugged individualism.  There are compelling arguments for this rationale.  After all, we do have free will.  But an argument I’ve heard thrown around I do not accept is the “I can do it so anyone can” argument.  It falls in line with the old “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” saying.  While the latter can be good advice, the former is a sly, dishonest way to bash people who are struggling to make it.

The obvious cognitive dissonance of person A—who’s had it made—telling person B—who’s homeless—that he became a millionaire so she has no excuse not to, is too easy to debunk.  Where the rationale gets more compelling is when a person who has also been destitute, but has since found success, uses the logic on the down-and-out.  Because then it’s more than just saying, “Look, I made it,” but adds in, “I made it from your position.”  That’s logically sounder, but it still doesn’t work.  And that’s what I want to dissect.

People’s individual lives are like fingerprints: no two are exactly the same.  From a zoomed-out lens it’s easy to be intellectually lazy and look at people as black, homeless, homosexual, or wealthy, and then hit the start button on life—go!  What follows are neatly categorized tales: this guy was black and achieved this; this woman was homeless and achieved that.  You already see where this is going.  If this black man became a CEO, why can’t you Mr. Black Guy?  If this woman was homeless at one point, but is now a high-powered lawyer, why can’t you Ms. Homeless Lady?  That’s convenient, but it’s not how real life works.

Without getting too esoterically philosophical, each instance of everyday, each chance encounter, is unique to everyone.  Even though the odds of flipping heads on a coin are .5, it is possible to flip heads five times in a row.  And with chance encounters and random opportunities, all it takes is one to get the ball rolling.  If you painstakingly retraced every instance in someone’s life—like omniscient God, butterfly effect style—you could identify the specific origin of everything that shaped his life, no matter how insignificant.  The point is that even if you have two people who start from seemingly similar positions in life, there are too many variables to make blanket statements about them.  Some people are homeless before becoming millionaires, so what?  What was their family situation? Who gave them a job? Who gave them money?  Who inspired them? How attractive were they?  How was their health? Where did they live? How big was their social circle? How much education did they have?  What was their mental state? How genetically driven and intelligent were they?  Any variance in answers to such questions ends the discussion, as that could be the difference between one person making it and the other one continuing to struggle.

To take the logic of the if “I can do it so anyone can” argument into deeper water, look at extraordinary cases that obviously not anyone can do.  Barack Obama saying, “Hey, I became the first black president, start a campaign.”  Wilt Chamberlain saying, “Hey, I played Center in the NBA and scored 100 points in a game, get off the couch.”  For the latter, are you seven feet tall? No? End of argument.  But for the person saying similar things who came from nothing, somewhere in your life you got a break from somewhere, from something.  Somebody gave you a small loan, somebody put you on to a book, somebody gave you a chance.  Nobody is 100% self-sufficient.  And any one of those opportunities that you were on the receiving end of, someone else potentially did not get—and it only takes one; everybody’s lives are different. Spare me the self-righteous I-can-do-it-so-anyone-can drivel.  You did it because you were fortunate enough to be able to do it.

Philosophy, Politics

I Haven’t Arrived

Posted on February 3, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

An aricle I wrote a couple years ago.

I have a problem.  I’m here on this earth in Denver, CO.  I’m 26-years-old, in school, truckin’ through life.  But what’s my meaning or cause? I don’t have one.  I’ve had no existential adversity in my life (it’s been a mess in my head, but that’s a whole different topic).  My generation is not defined or characterized by a major occurrence or theme.  Yeah, there’s the War on Terror and other things.  But relatively, especially when compared to the World Wars or the Great Depression, that’s small stuff.  I feel like I stand for nothing in particular, like I represent what older generations would classify as indifferent, apathetic, and spineless.  I’ve had nothing to fight for, nothing to stand up to.  Maybe you could look at that as a good thing.  A tranquil life is what most people seem to desire.  But I don’t know. For me personally, lacking any sort of adversity as a kid makes me feel inadequate in a way.  People who’ve had rough childhoods seem to have an advantage.  It’s a weird proposition.  I’m not saying I wish I experienced a tough childhood, but at the same time, it’s beneficial to have had a rough childhood if you’ve escaped it sanely.  It makes you more grounded and strong-willed.  I say the same thing about war.  I’m not saying I wish I had gone through war, but again, if you’ve experienced war and made it out sanely, you have a definite advantage over your fainthearted, non-war citizens in the courage and accomplishment department.  I guess I want the advantages of adversity without experiencing adversity.  Wow! What does that say about me? Ha ha!  Who knows?  I’m only 26.  I read somewhere that Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin did not achieve anything meaningful until middle age.  In the mean time I’ll remain on autopilot, attempting to complete society’s requisite steps in this thing called life.

My Life

The Schizophrenic 20s

Posted on February 3, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

An article I wrote 4 years ago.  Still relevant, ha!

I want it, I don’t want it.  I am that, I’m not that.  I am Danny and I’m 24-years-old.  Those first two sentences about sum up my state of mind at any given point in time, both immediate and distant.  I’m only four years in, but I feel like four years is long enough to possess a hunch as to what is going on.  And it seems as though Schizophrenia is what is going on right now.  And no, I do not intend the psychiatric disorder interpretation of the word, but rather the offensive term variety for “contradictory or conflicting attitudes, behavior, or qualities,” as illustrated by the dictionary look-up feature on my computer.

But seriously, this is the twilight period, the period of true self-discovery.  Up to this point — speaking from an average middle-class status — your life has been scripted for the most part: you attend elementary, middle, and then high school, trying to achieve the best grades possible so you can get into college; apply to college with your above-average GPA, get in, decide on a major because you had to choose something, and then try to achieve the best grades possible to impress a future employer or get into grad school.

That’s where the yellow brick road ended for me.  Well, actually, I tried to keep it going.  I attended law school in an attempt to extend the false sense of security.  But law school is a serious endeavor, you have to want it; I didn’t, I was exposed, and I was out.  When you do what you’re supposed to do, you don’t have to answer questions or defend yourself.  When you go against the grain or start making left turns, you do.  The problem is, you can only hide under the facade of being in complete control of your life for so long before you’re spit out into the world, naked and cold.  That happened to me a smidgen over two years ago. And as of yet, I’ve managed to put on boxers and that’s about it.

Right now, the 20s, is the fulcrum of a teeter-totter.  Young behavior, as in freshman year of college, is appealing, but so also is mature behavior, as in, “hello, my name is Dr. Oliver.”

I want a career that is respectable and prestigious already, but I want to occasionally show up hung-over.  I want the respect I deserve, but I still want to act like a kid.  I want to take over all of my bills, but I like not paying my car insurance.  I want a serious girlfriend, then wife, for happiness and support, but did you just see that group of girls walk by?  I want to start watching my saturated fat intake, but did you say you wanted to get fourth meal at Taco Bell?  I want to be over the pathetic bar scene, but I want to see how drunk I can get first.  I want to stop cussing, but shit.  And so on.

There is no conclusion I can offer, seeing that I am still in the experiment. But I hope, and do believe, the conclusion is that the schizophrenic 20s is just that, the ending of the yellow brick road and the beginning of real life.  The journey is the end.  A necessary destination does not follow.  You’re not supposed to be on cruise control through this period of your life.  This is the period you hope to emerge from with an understanding of who you really are, following the script you wrote, not someone else.  I will say again, I hope, I don’t know.  Like I said, I’m still in the experiment.

Lighthearted, My Life

What is Greatness?

Posted on February 3, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

An article I wrote April 2008.

You can do it if you put your mind to it.  If there’s a will there’s a way.  No, wrong.  You can’t do it and there is no way.  Well, maybe.  Yeah, people have achieved great things throughout history, but there are two reasons why.  One, they were born with the ability.  I’m not saying I believe in predestination, but no one born a slow runner became fast, no one born a bit mentally slow became quick witted, and no one born short became tall.  Two, somebody had to be it — right place, right time. We often look at coveted positions in society and marvel at the lucky S.O.B. that has the spot.  But think about it: the president of the United States, someone’s going to get elected; the star in the next movie, somebody’s gotta play it; the fastest man on earth, someone’s gotta be it — the list is almost infinite.  Is it the hard work and dedication of an individual that gets him into a prestigious position, or is it more the position that chooses him?

There is, of course, the argument that natural born talent alone cannot make you successful.  Even if you’re the smartest person in the world, you still have to go to law school to be a lawyer, and medical school to be a doctor.  True.  But what if, like eye color, your level of determination is also possessed from birth?  I recently read an article that proclaimed that the level of testosterone, which is genetic, affects the level of competitiveness in a person.  It would follow that some people may be born more determined than others.  There could be the real recipe for success: a person is born extremely talented in a activity, and born with the rigorous work ethic to take that talent places.  Just don’t die and be yourself, right?  Were Michael Jordan, Martin Luther King Jr., John Elway, Bill Gates, etc., being courageous in their accomplishments, or just being their programmed selves?  If the above makes any sense, in a context, a server at the local diner may have pushed herself harder than Tom Brady to be great, but to no avail.  To resemble reality a bit better, maybe the first two sentences should be replaced with the saying, “you either got it or you don’t.”  It’s just a thought.

Philosophy

A Day in the Life

Posted on February 3, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

Circa 2007.  A glimpse into my life at that time.

I got off work around two o’clock pm.  Got in, ate a can of tuna and a packet of top ramen noodles to ease the hunger, and then hopped on the internet to check my email and the new fantasy football rankings after the weekend.  I’m definitely glad I don’t have to drink again till at least probably Thursday.  After learning nothing too drastic happened since last night, I hit up the gym before peak time so I could actually get on a bench.  On the way I listened to my new sshhh… SA-RA, oh its nice!  I was bored, the game needed this — Afro Magnetic Electronic Spiritualism was bumpin out of my speakers.   Gym was nice, didn’t want to go, but got into it, there, and was glad I went — like every time.  Got home to my pad on the edge of the ghetto, like the Five Points divider, and chilled out for a little bit.  Hopped on the internet again to look for potentially good match ups in fantasy football for the coming week and checked Myspace and Facebook to confirm no one has written on my wall in three months.  Hunger resumed so I jumped on my fixie to grab some Qdoba and add another burrito toward another free one.  Always tasty!  Took the long way home on the fixie cause I didn’t want it to end.  I feel so free on it.  After dodgin’ a few bums I knew I was home.  Hopped on the internet hoping I would magically find my niche, my calling,  my purpose  in life… no luck, maybe next time!… later tonight or tomorrow.  My girl told my she was coming over; I like that for certain reasons, and more reasons.  I get to sharpen up my argumentative skills, and other skills, if you know what I mean — a  fun rollercoaster.  This whole day I’ve been meaning to read. I recently caught this classic literature bug, a new field to explore I guess.  I’m three-quarters done with The Catcher in the Rye.   I wanted to finish it today, but I read 3 pages and passed out.

Lighthearted, My Life

It’s Better to be Lucky than Good

Posted on February 3, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

An article from a few years ago.

There have been some surprising upsets this NFL post season.  It left me believing — along with many other events — that after achieving a certain level of being “good,” it’s better to be lucky.  This statement holds a firm truth in events that are a one-time, do-or-die occurrence: football, fighting, etc.  The Chargers just beat the Colts in Indianapolis; the Giants beat the Packers in Green Bay; Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson; and Matt Sera knocked out Georges St. Pierre.  No one ever wants to admit that the dirty word “luck“ was involved.  Success is always from the sweat of our own labor, from the grit of our character; never: “hey, we got lucky.”  In all of the above events, nine times out of ten the result is reversed.  In regards to talent, the Colts and Packers are better (especially at home) than the Chargers and Giants, and Tyson and St. Pierre far outweigh Douglas and Sera in raw talent.  Luck was the factor.

During games or fights — especially when the match up is relatively even — there are always a plethora of plays or moves that can go either way.  That being said, when one team or person has more plays go its way (gets luckier) than the other one, it wins (you cannot tell me that a football that gets tipped in the air three times and lands in the opponents hands is not luck, or that a wide open all-pro receiver who drops the ball in the end zone isn‘t either).  What annoys me is when announcers and analysts then talk about how great the winner is, how it’s destined, and how the loser, even if more talented, is not that good and needs to reevaluate the situation.  If one play is the deciding factor — and it often is — it is not the difference between one team being great and the other team needing to go back to the drawing board.  The Giants’ defeat of the Packers by an overtime field goal does not make the Giants a better team than the Packers.  Matt Sera’s landing of a wild punch behind the ear of St. Pierre does not make him a better fighter.

Upsets are not as common when you look at events that are decided by a series: basketball, baseball, etc.  Why? Because luck would be extremely hard to repeat in a best-of-seven series.  The Nuggets beat the Spurs in Game One of the NBA playoffs.  Were they the better team?  No.  They lost the next four in a row.  For the first time in history, the eighth-seeded Warriors beat the one-seeded Mavericks in a best-of-seven series.  It’s hard not to say that they were the better team because they won four games.  Having things go your way (luck) isn’t going to get you through four victories in a row.

Football games and fights are exciting because that’s it, you lose, you’re done.  However, at the same time, the best team or person isn’t always going to win.  Sometimes things just don’t go your way on that one particular day.  As I’ve heard repeated many times: “that’s why they play the game.”  But I’d like to say that luck is what gives credence to that statement; without it, you already know who wins.

Philosophy

Level-Headedness

Posted on February 3, 2012 by dro1983 | Permalink 0

I wrote this October 2008.  Not much has changed four years later.

We need more level-headedness this political season.  Spin, half-truths, omissions, character assassinations, and a general mischaracterization of positions has contributed to a viciously divided, uninformed populace.  It’s sickening.  Not too long ago, both John McCain and Barack Obama promised positive campaigns that would not stoop to the negative aforementioned tactics.  What has transpired, however, is far from that.

In the world of the left, they would have you believe that McCain is a near-dead, senile, erratic, evil fascist warmonger that would reinstitute the draft and coddle the super-rich, leaving the majority of Americans homeless and helpless.  On the right,  Obama is portrayed as a radical, liberal communist with a secret Islamic-extremist, terrorist agenda, who will kill babies and steal every penny from the wealthy.  It’s ludicrous.

I cherish, absolutely cherish when I hear openly biased pundits cede points to the opposition, and heaven forbid, even admit victory points for the opposing team.  That’s real political discourse.  It gets lost with these political blowhards that spew hyper-partisan garbage and never admit that sometimes their side messed up or was wrong.   These pundits would have you believe their opposition is responsible for every trespass against humanity in the history of humankind.  Starting an argument by claiming that the other side is so incompetent, stupid, and irrational that you can’t even reason with those people is unproductive and pointless.  News flash: there are smart, capable and intelligent people on both sides of the political spectrum.

The central problem with this partisan hackery is that it fosters an environment of shear hate for the other side.  Obama supporters seem to genuinely despise McCain as if he is the second coming of Hitler.  And McCain supporters really seem to hate — really hate — Obama as if he is bin Laden’s sidekick.  This hatred is sad.  The truth is, both men have strengths and weaknesses, both men are highly skilled and successful, and both men truly believe they can lead America to better times — if not, they would not be where they are.  I really am confident that both men honestly believe they can effectively lead the country. Let’s cut the bogus distractions, questioning of one’s motives, and move to a level-headed, nuanced discussion about which policies are best for America at these precarious times.

Politics