Debate’s Death Rattle

A friend of mine was saying how we are witnessing the death of debate in this country, and that all either side of any argument cares about is winning, or rather, making sure the other side loses.  Things like persuasion and convincing are just happy coincidences, rather than pointed goals.  In the healthcare “debate” that has taken a hold of the public discourse over the past few months, there has been a lot of talk about the evils of Socialism and who’s a Socialist and what’s American and big government and public options…and rightly so.  We have a responsibility to air out these concerns and educate ourselves, but we also have a responsibility to ask questions from all points of view…and there are some things I haven’t heard being asked.  First, nobody asks people if they really know what “Socialism” is and means (a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people/government and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles).  Most people have broadened the definition to simply mean “government take over of a private industry.”  Secondly, nobody asks if people realize how stupid they sound when they start throwing that term around.

To be clear, I am not an advocate of Socialism.  I don’t think it’s a good idea for government, and I don’t believe it is a viable form of governing.  What bothers me about the “Socialism” argument against public healthcare is that it is claimed that people don’t want government involved with their personal life, personal issues, or spending their tax money caring for others’ irresponsible lifestyles.  Ummmm….yes you do. In fact, you’re completely ok with it.  Seatbelt laws, income taxes, Medicare, car registration fees, laws banning gay marriage, and the American public education system (just to name a few) are all examples of government intervention in personal lives and personal decisions, some of which stem from individuals’ inability to act and behave responsibly.  Why aren’t the people who are ranting against public healthcare spending their lives ranting against these things too?  If these people really wanted government out of their personal lives, wouldn’t these things, which have been laws for YEARS, have been targeted already?  Wouldn’t discussions in both federal and state legislatures revolve around how seatbelt laws and drinking ages and publicly funded Armed Forces are eroding the Great American Ethic of freedom?  Shouldn’t these people who claim government is invading their personal lives also be the first and loudest defenders of a gay couple’s right to marry?  Then why do they also tend to be those most vocal against it?  The reason is because the freedom argument is not about right vs. wrong, it’s not about good vs. bad, and it’s not about self-determination…it’s just about winning.  Or more accurately, it’s just about making sure the other guys lose.

Anymore, political discussion has become more about “our side is right, and their side is wrong.”  Does the left really believe that the right is always wrong?  And does the right really not see any good in the left?

The reason that things like national defense and public education systems are publicly funded is because they serve and benefit everybody.  A strong national defense is vital to the security of the nation, and it should be strong – even if there are people who don’t agree with its use, even when our leaders misuse it.  A good and strong education system is equally in the country’s best interest, and benefits all of us.  Its strength and efficacy have a direct connection to the place and power the American workforce will have on the world market in the future. To be certain, the national state of health also affects everyone, and an overall healthy nation is in everyone’s best interest; not only because a healthier workforce will be a more productive one, but also because a healthy populous will cost less in the long run, and not be a drain on American resources.  This becomes more of an issue when seen through the lens of national security, and we realize that a future attack on the US is less likely to be a nuclear weapon than it is chemical or biological.  Nationwide access to healthcare and a cohesive infrastructure suddenly has a new gravitas.

If the government was trying to “socialize” all scientific research, or the press, or religion, I think there would be a great many valid arguments against doing so; but that’s not what’s being proposed here.  What IS being proposed is changing the way health insurance is accessed, including making it available through a government program in addition to – not INSTEAD of – the already-existing means.  This, to me, doesn’t smack of government socialism run amok; it sounds to me like an attempt at widening the door of access to healthcare to more Americans than have it now.

Now, with all that being said, it still might end up being a bad bill that gets proposed.  Any number of things can turn this attempt to increase healthcare access from something controversial and divisive to something convoluted and clumsy to something ineffective and inefficient.  You know the saying about the road paved with good intentions.  In any personal or ideological journey, however, where you end up usually matters less than how you got there, and for now, I think there is far too little debate on the road…wherever it ultimately leads.

Do you agree?  Do you disagree?  Great…leave a comment, make an argument, try to persuade.

Expletive Evolution (Updated – 8 October 2009)

One of the things I like best about language and words is that they change and evolve.  One of the things I like LEAST about language and words is that they change and evolve.  I like it best because I like to think of language as a living, breathing thing that is never as singularly identifiable as it is equipping its users to forge brand new human thought and expression.  One of my absolute favorite thinkers ever, Michel Foucault, said that without language, there can be no knowledge; so simple, yet so brilliant.  Language maps and reflects the people using it at any given time…and it is here that it drives me crazy.  In the mouths of elitists, idiots, students, politicians, clergy, grocery store clerks, seamstresses and New Englanders, language thrives and dies, leaps and falls, and metamorphoses into new, and not always better things.  A friend and I have an unofficial list of words that should never have been allowed to come into existence.  For example, moist??  Oy.  Typing that word alone makes me uneasy.  Also, words like tasty, snacks, and phlegm.  They all give me the willies.  Oh, willies is another one.

Lately, I’ve been wondering about how the uses of some words are changing beyond their traditional, accepted meanings to something else, and it occurred to me that slowly but surely, we are witnessing the advent of a brand new English expletive.  What began as a real, usable word has, over the last 20 years or so, transposed itself in the vernacular from a novel, southern California colloquialism of the valley girl excess subculture in the 80s, to a fully co-opted, one-word slogan for a generation uninterested in anything but its own entitlement.  It’s got all the trappings of any great swear word: it’s irreverent, usable in any number of scenarios, and demonstrates a total lack of respect or caring.  In fact, you probably say it more than you’d like to admit.

The newest expletive of the 21^st century:  Whatever.

Think about how smarmy and dismissive it is when someone – especially a teenager – rolls their eyes at you and clicks their tongue before letting one loose.  Think about an argument you’ve had when either you or your fellow arguer let a ‘whatever’ fly as way of saying everything from “I don’t care,” to “I don’t have a valid argument, but I’m not going to admit my own shortcoming, so I’ll say something just to get under your skin.”

It’s also a great candidate for being a new expletive because it can be said in SO many different ways:

• Shake your head slightly with a distant look of disappointment in your eyes and whisper, whatever.
• Affect an expression of complete disgust, like you just smelled something really bad, and exclaim it, putting the emphasis on the “EV” syllable: what-EV-er!
• Put on a really great fake smile and raise your eyebrows; when you say it, make it a little sing-songy: whateverrrrr!

You get the idea.  Also, it’s got a great mouth-feel for a swear.  All the best expletives have strong and cutting sounds to express the white-hot something behind it: “f,” “sh,” “ammit.”  The art in whatever is in that adjustable pause between the “what” and the “ever,” and in how pronounced you make the “t.”  If you stop on it and really make a “t” sound, the word takes on a whole new feeling.

So there it is.  In another 20 years or so, I think it’ll be right up there with the rest.  It’s one of the words that just makes me want to claw my ears off when I hear it.  Not because it gives me the willies (cringe), but because of what a terribly lazy, cop-out, meaningless, and vapid response it is.  In other words, the perfect swear.

Do you have any suggestions for new millennium expletives?  How do YOU use whatever?  Oh, and what words in general can you just not stand? I want to hear from you!

Or not…

Whatever.

*   *   *

UPDATE (8 October 2009): Well, it’s officially happening.  Today, BBC News reported on a research study that dubbed “whatever” the most annoying word, thus positioning it to take on full expletive status…most likely well before my 20 year prediction.  You can read the article by clicking here.

The Code-Name Name Code

Among the myriad issues my clients bring to me on a daily basis is the fascinating and all-important personal life of the American teenager.  It’s not that hard to remember a time when our own teenage self-importance convinced us that not only had no one ever gone through or experienced what we were experiencing with our flavor of the month, but the RESULT of the drama was likely to change the course of human events…and maybe the very nature of the universe.  Therefore, when a 15-year-old is lamenting about his/her lot in pubescent life, I try to keep a relatively straight face and affect the feigned gravitas they would be looking for in me if any of them knew what gravitas meant.  What I have culled, however, from these all-too-interesting tales, is a somewhat disturbing pattern relating guys’ names and their success in being a boyfriend.  I’ve put together a completely unscientific system of how to predict if a guy is going to be a d-bag, knowing nothing about him except for his name.  That’s right.  Here today, I bestow unto you the Rosetta Stone primer of successful relationship likelihood.  Now remember, this isn’t scientific, and there are obviously exceptions to every rule, so if you or someone you love fits into one of these categories, I mean no offense.  I’m sure he is the one guy with a name on the list who doesn’t fit into the “look out!” category.  Also, these little nuggets have thus far applied to my college-aged students too, but I have far less anecdotal evidence to say they apply to older daters outright.  (You know they do, but I just can’t say it yet.)

So with out further ado…what to watch out for:

1. If a guy’s GIVEN name is initials, run.  Run away.  (AJ, JT, PK, JB, etc..)
2. If a guy’s name is also a noun (person, place, thing)…nope.  Don’t do it.  (Taylor, Austin, Rider, Hunter, Phoenix, etc…)
3. If a guy PREFERS to be called by the diminutive of his name…uh-oh.  (His name is Peter, but he asks you to call him Petey; David likes to be called Davey; Michael wants you to call him Mikey…ugh.) *Note: if his friends call him that without his asking them, it’s fine; the trouble comes from the ones who WANT to be referred to his way.
4. Generally, guys whose names start with a C. (Chase, Cole, Colton, Chad, Cameron, etc….) *Note: Charles and Christopher are exempt from this (unless they go by Chucky or Chrissy…then see #3 above)
5. Guys whose names could also be girls’ names. (Addison, Ashley, Blaine, Bailey, Casey, Morgan, etc….)
6. Be super careful with any guy whose name fits in to several categories.  (His name is A.T. which stands for Austin Taylor; his name is Addison, but he prefers to be called Addey; his name is Casey – this one sounds like initials, is almost a noun, sounds like a diminutive, starts with a C, and could be a girl’s name…yikes.)

Again, not iron clad, but I bet if you think about your or your friends’ dating history, it’s pretty accurate.  Remember, this is not to say these aren’t good people, or even good friends – it’s just saying that if you’re dating someone whose name fits into one of these categories…well, you’ve been duly warned.

What about your experiences?  Do you have names or categories to add to the list?  Comment on this entry, and let us know.

Silver Bullet

At a time when the American public faces great potential change, we choose to protect one thing above all; at a time when we perceive our very way of life to be in transition and we are unsure to what that may lead, we make sure to hold on to a very specific aspect of ourselves.  It is not the flag, it isn’t democracy, it isn’t even freedom.

It’s our opinion.

Before and beyond caring about anything, we value our opinions most.  It is the rare person who, upon hearing an opinion opposite from their own, is engaged and interested in learning about the value and merit of that with which they disagree.  More often than not, the other point of view is initially tolerated, then chided, then belittled, then mocked, then relegated to sub-human status.  We’re so obsessed with being right, that whether or not we actually are is nothing compared to us believing we are.

I had a conversation with someone once about politics.

Oops.

I should have known better.  This person, upon learning of my particular political persuasion, proceeded to pontificate, at length, about how I had lost my way and how the only thing to be in this day and age…was like im/her.  Excited to have what I thought would be a lively and great dialogue about differing political ideologies in 21st century America, I talked with this person, asked and answered questions, and tried to gain a richer understanding of not only this person’s opinions, but mine as well.  Within minutes, however, I could see this was not going to happen.  As the discussion began, things quickly degraded: instead of an exchange of ideas and perspectives, instead of an exercise in persuasion or reification of beliefs, this person just decided to start insulting me, and anyone who didn’t agree with them.

Their statement referring to my stance:  “…a little information can be dangerous….”

Through this, it was implied that my opinions/perspectives came only as a result of knowing very little, and that if I knew what this person knew then I’d see that their point of view was the only valid one.  Instead of considering that my perspective was a result of careful thought and consideration, I was dismissed as ill informed because I didn’t have the same opinion as this person.  Maybe it’s true, a little information can be dangerous, but what’s also probably true is that NO information is even more dangerous.

It is this lack of information, this ignorance, which breeds so many of the dichotomous corners into which we paint ourselves.  We hold ourselves up to be moral, to be righteous, adhering to a code of religion and anyone who believes differently is wrong.  Religion can mean Christianity, Judaism, Islam, agnosticism, or even atheism; I’ve known some people whose religions were sports, food, business, fashion, their family or shopping.  This, in and of itself, isn’t necessarily wrong or bad.  The difficult part comes when these perspectives are a result of an ideological entrenchment as opposed to a conscious and deliberate choice.  In other words, if we believe what we believe because we always have, or that’s just the way it is, or because that’s how we were raised, then we’re adhering to an ideology out of empty habit, arrogant ignorance, or – and this is the worst – for no good reason.  This blind belief shows itself through bigotry, religious fanaticism, prejudice, elitism; and in their worst forms, war, famine, disease, death.  So what do we do?  What is the answer?  How do we fix it? What’s the silver bullet?

Education.

Not just school – although it can be part.  Not just libraries – although they can be a part.  Not just the newspapers – although they are absolutely necessary.  Not just church or TV or movies or books or our neighbors or our friends, although they are absolutely a part.  All these components and many others can be a part of the process of being educated, but it must also include, must absolutely begin with, ourselves.  Before we can truly know or learn anything new, we must face and understand ourselves: what we believe, and above all else, WHY we believe it.

Education is the silver bullet.  It can create jobs and end wars; it can feed the world and save lives; it can be the answer to every social, political, and spiritual dilemma we face.  And if you’re not sure this is true, here’s your head start:  learn about Thomas Aquinas, Norman Borlaug, Carl Sagan, Michel Foucault, and Alice Paul.

Ultimately, the stances we take and the opinions we hold are made strong and valid when we choose them, as opposed to just blindly adopting them out of convenience, fear, or laziness.  Always keep questioning, continue seeking the meaning behind the things that are believed, make the deliberate choice to learn as many diverse points of view as possible, and allow this information and understanding to inform what, how, and why we believe what we believe.  If done, our opinions won’t be susceptible to any kind of threat, any kind of outside attack because they will be rooted in a conscious understanding of their place and effect on the world. Conservative, liberal, secular, religious, populist, isolationist, environmental, capitalist…all of them, none of them, whatever you decide…as long as you actually decide.

Then again, I could be wrong.

…Then Just Shut-Up.

“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you’re an idiot than it is to open it and remove any doubt.”

The part of ourselves we put out into the world most often is what we say and write.  On the phone, at school, at work, in emails, and in journals, our words represent us – for better or worse – to those around us.  How much time or energy we dedicate to crafting and sculpting what we put out there is, in all ways, our own personal art.  Art, however, can be a nebulous thing.  What may seem like a picture of fruit to one can be an emotional masterpiece to another.  What may seem like a waste of time to one, can represent a life’s commitment and dedication to another.  The art of language, on the other hand, does not simply reflect taste in different genres, it reflects the actual person speaking it.  Just as painting is meant to be seen and music is meant to be heard, language is meant to be spoken, and well-spoken language – oratory – can change everything.

Oratory, when in the hands of a master can lift and inspire and move.  It can alter perceptions and create opinions.  More important than walking upright or telescopic vision or opposable thumbs, we, unlike any other animal, have language.  Not just language to call for a mate or food or to alert danger, but language that can represent our thoughts, our desires, our wants, our needs; and not just one language, but literally hundreds of languages.  No other species that ever existed had contributers like Joyce, Chekov, Shakespeare, Thoreau, Emmerson, King, Hemingway, Trotsky, Angelou, Tzu, Voltaire, & Macchiavelli.  Language in their hands changed the world, and defined who they were.

The power to persuade lives in language.  The power to influence lives in language.  Language misused, however, strips away self and erodes the collective quality of communication we share.  And if you’re not able to speak well, not able to communicate clearly, not raising the bar…well, (see the title).

TOP 12 THINGS I HEAR MISUSED, MISSPOKEN, & MISTAKEN

1. Supposably isn’t a word – it’s Supposedly

2. The coffee drink is called an espresso, not an expresso

3. When someone cannot hear, they’re deaf, not death.

4. Nother isn’t a word.  ex. “I took a whole nother week to finish!”  The correct sentence: “I took another whole week to finish!”

5. To see something in the past is “saw,” not sawl.

When you create pictures with pens/pencils/etc., it’s to “draw,” not drawl. (The same goes for drawing and drawling.)

6. Orientate isn’t a word.  You go to orientation to orient yourself.

7. Conversate isn’t a word.  When you have a conversation with someone, you converse with them.

8. When something happens unexpectedly, it happens “all of a sudden,” not “all the sudden.”

9. Their refers to a 3rd person plural possessive. ex. That is their car.

They’re is a contraction for “they are.” ex. I like them because they’re funny.

There is pretty much used for all the other forms.  ex. Let’s go there.  There are a       lot of people.

10.  Your is used to show possession.  ex. Your scarf is pretty.

You’re is a contraction for “you are.”  ex. You’re funny.

11.  If you don’t care about something, then you have no care for it.  You can’t care less about it.  Don’t say “I could care less,” that means you DO care about it, and you could care less than you do.  What you mean is “I couldn’t care less.”

12. When HAVE, HAS, or HAD comes before a verb, it sometimes changes the form of the verb itself called the perfect form.  These are called present and past participles.  Here are some examples:

have/has/had proven

He has always proven himself. CORRECT

The evidence had proved she was innocent.  WRONG

have/has/had chosen

I have already chosen my book. CORRECT

I had chose it 2 weeks ago. WRONG

have/has/had eaten

Have you eaten yet? CORRECT

John has ate 3 of them. WRONG

have/has/had written

He has written his paper.  CORRECT

She has not yet wrote it.  WRONG

have/has/had spoken

have/has/had seen

have/has/had given

have/has/had drunk

So these are my contributions…Please feel free to post your own lists of the things you hear most commonly misused!

Overly Underestimating

There’s a great urban legend that may or may not be true about a man named Charles Duell, the U.S. Patent Office commissioner in 1899.  He is rumored to have announced that the Patent Office would stop issuing patents because, in his words,

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.”

In 1899?

Mmmmm…not so much, no.

Now whether or not he actually said this is open for debate.  Some sources say yes and others say no way.  Regardless, it still demonstrates a pretty fundamental, and seemingly growing flaw in how we can tend to look at the places and problems in which we find ourselves:

If we don’t see the answer right away, then it must not exist.

If Charles Duell did actually say that, there may be no greater example of hubris mixed with laziness in turn-of-the-century America.  This man, of whatever level of life experience and education, decided that he, above all others, had clairvoyance enough to

divine that in the amount of time mankind had left on the earth, there was no possible way that anyone, anywhere, at any time could have an original, useful, or marketable idea.

That’s shockingly arrogant.

I love imagining this guy, sitting in his office, feet up on his desk, gazing out his window, his mind deep in thought, contemplating the very nature of man, maybe even chewing on the temples of his reading glasses.

“Let’s see, we’ve got the horse and buggy, the cotton gin, the printing press, the tin can, the locomotive, the sewing machine, the stapler, the vacuum cleaner, and the zipper.”

(pause)

“Hmmmmm….what else could we need.”

(pause)

“Nope, that’s it.  There’s nothing left.”

Spectacular arrogance.

Or spectacular laziness.

Or spectacular stupidity.

The breadth and width and depth of the things this guy couldn’t even begin to think of how to imagine is staggering.  Forget the iPhone (2007), this guy couldn’t even imagine crayons (invented in 1903 by Edward Binney & Harold Smith).

This, however, isn’t the kind of mentality that was limited to the late 19th century – it’s alive and well today.  One of the prices we have paid for a society of convenience is our collective lack of patience.  We live lifestyles of instant gratification: push-button, drive-through, I-want-it-when-I-want-it attitudes.  As technology has gotten better and better, we have gotten lazier and lazier.  This may seem like no big deal when it comes to making frozen pizza or downloading mp3s, but the ramifications of this inability/unwillingness to see beyond what is easily accessible are serious.  I hear complaints about math because it’s too hard, too long, and not pertinent to “real life.”

However, math skills do not just hold value in and of themselves, their other, and arguably more powerful value is that math skills teach problem solving, deductive reasoning, and logic: 3 of the most important skills to have in life.  We find ourselves in unpleasant work environments, unhealthy relationships, underachieving academic performance, & dead-end lives – all the while using phrases like “out of my control,” “people can’t change,” “I’m not a math person,” or “what could I do?”

Just because you can’t see the answer, doesn’t mean there’s not one to be found.

We are overly underestimating ourselves.  We have gotten so used to instant access, so used to not waiting for what we want, that we can’t find real answers when they require more than a few minutes, a few hours, a few days to find.  Some of our most important problems require years to be answered.  Some solutions need to be created instead of found.  Some solutions require experience, intelligence, wit, will, spontaneity, improvisation, courage, and confidence to be found.  Not all answers are on-line, not all solutions are instantly accessible, not everything is prepackaged.

Being attractive doesn’t make one good at life.  It makes them attractive.  Being great at computers doesn’t make one good at life.  It makes them great at computers.  Being old doesn’t make one good at life.  It makes them old.  There is something to learn from all of these, and many other kinds of people in order to GET good at life, but even being smart doesn’t make you good at life, it makes you smart.  Our minds have great capacity - capacity beyond what most of us have yet been able to access.  Don’t underestimate your ability to dig deeper, delve further, seek longer into your infinite capacity, even if it feels futile, even if it feels like it takes forever.

What does make you good at life?  What’s the answer to that?

I don’t know…the answer hasn’t been invented yet.