Many of President Obama's haters critics are created from (and energized by) the belief that his life is just too damned charmed: perfect wife, perfect kids, perfect job, even a perfect dog; it's all enough to activate a perfectly strong gag reflex, right? Some of these same haters critics have even speculated that he uses his marriage (and Michelle's extremely high approval ratings) as a shield when the political heat gets turned up and he doesn't want to leave the metaphoric kitchen. Some of his critics may have half a point there, and they may be pleased at what they find if they looked closer at the "perfect" Obamas.
In the midst of the controversial health care reform negotiations in Congress (just one of the many projects the Obama Administration is presently working on), out comes the recently published New York Times article that gives us an extensive peek inside the Obamas' self-admitted "imperfect" marriage. In the article, Michelle describes some of the couple's more "bumpy" patches, including then-Senator Obama spending so much time away from their Chicago home to handle U.S. Senator business in D.C. (this is the couple's first time living together full-time since 1996!); having to negotiate (and re-negotiate) the division of the household chores and childrearing duties, etc. So...all of the common issues that most married couples have to face?:
(“The bumps happen to everybody all the time, and they are continuous,” the first lady told me in a let’s-get-real voice, discussing the lowest point in her marriage.)
But this isn't a normal marriage, which is highlighted by President Obama's major beef: how his political opponents try to score points using his marriage as a dartboard:
“I would say the one time during our stay here in the White House so far that has. . . .” He paused so long in choosing his words that Michelle Obama, sitting alongside him, prompted him. “Has what?”
“Annoyed me,” the president answered.
“Don’t say it!” the first lady mock-warned. “Uh-oh.”
“Was when I took Michelle to New York and people made it into a political issue,” he continued, recalling the evening last spring when they flew to New York for dinner and a show, eliciting Republican gibes for spending federal money on their own entertainment.
The author focuses on the uncomfortable changes that the presidency has brought to the marriage:
Like every other modern presidential couple, the Obamas have watched their world contract to one building and a narrow zone beyond, and yet their partnership expand to encompass a staff and two wings of the White House. And while the presidency tends to bring couples closer, historians say, it also tends to thrust them back to more traditionbound behavior.
For all of their ease in public, the Obamas do not seem entirely comfortable with the bargain. As they talked about their marriage, they seemed both game and cautious, the president more introspective about their relationship, the first lady often playing the big sister dispensing advice to younger couples.
Then I asked how any couple can have a truly equal partnership when one member is president.
Good question.
While Barack Obama was running for president of the United States, I read a few old interviews with the Obamas (some even dating back to very early on in their marriage in the mid-90's) where they discussed Bachelor Barack's habit of arguing whether marriage is still a viable institution (even after a few years of dating Michelle). At the time, that went against everything that I knew about the present-day family man, but made perfect sense to me after considering his nomadic childhood and his mother's two failed marriages.
As a fellow child of divorce, I relate to Bachelor Barack's point of view. Regardless of how romantic or idealistic children of divorce (and especially children of parents that were never even married in the first place) may be, somewhere in the back of our minds we doubt that happily-ever-afters really exist. We're experts on how to break up, though. Some of us remain eternal commitment-phobes while others over-compensate for our parents ditching their relationship by hanging onto our relationships way past their healthy expiration dates - just so we won't be relationship-deserters like our parents. While all of us become experts at dissolving relationships, the more fortunate of us have learned how to dissolve a relationship peacefully (e.g., my father acted as the attorney for my parents' divorce and my parents remain close friends. I blame them for my insane unrealistic expectation of unemotional breakups.).
As of today, approximately 50% of all American marriages end in divorce (and no telling how many more want to get divorced but don't for whatever reason) so this issue isn't an uncommon one. There are plenty of grown-up children of divorce walking around grasping at whatever positive role models for marriage that we can find to validate the institution's necessity.
Enter the Obamas.
As much as I'm tracking the daily happenings of the Obama Administration (gotta keep an eye on my investment, ya know), I'm also closely watching how the Obamas build bridges over troubled marriage waters. I truly appreciate them allowing us glimpses inside of a political marriage when they may be tempted to present a facade of perfection that so many other public couples attempt to maintain for our sake.
Although I'm a previously undercover romantic idealist, I'm no longer veering wildly between the two extremes of yearning for a perfect union and expecting a relationship to fail from the start. Because of the Obamas, I can now envision a marriage that remains strong and loving while also withstanding the toughest of adversities (minus the deal-breakers of abuse and disrespect). In other words, I now have a picture of a thus-far (excuse me, my skeptical inner child of divorce grabbed the keyboard for a second) successful, realistic marriage.
The Obamas do more than just confess they have experienced tough times (as many married couples have told me). They provide a healthy blueprint for me whenever they appear together in public or speak of each other separately. Every time President Obama unconsciously touches Michelle, my mind registers that it's ok to reveal one's heart in public. Every time Michelle gives an honest yet respectful answer about her husband in an interview, I learn how to be protective of my mate's ego...even when annoyed (I'm learning this one behavior is extremely underrated when dealing with a man!). With every intimate glance exchanged between the President and the First Lady, I learn how to watch for what my mom always calls "the twinkle" - that look from a man that tells me how he feels about me regardless of what his mouth (or other body parts) says (or doesn't say). Every time President Obama points out Michelle's contribution to his career and, most of all, to his physical, emotional, spiritual well-being, I learn how a secure man treats his mate as an equal partner in the relationship - regardless of his status in the world. Every time I see Malia and Sasha joyfully interacting with each other and their parents, I'm consciously and unconsciously reminded of how a well-functioning family looks and acts.
So thank you President and First Lady Obama for helping me reframe my marriage ideal and showing me that my version of perfection - with all of its perfect imperfections - does exist beyond my imagination. The Obama marriage is like medicine for my severe case of commitment-phobia.
I know I'm not alone. I see others also watching this marriage to see how to find that sweet spot of work-life-love balance. Then each of us can answer marriage questions for ourselves: is marriage still a viable institution? Is it still necessary in our society? Or has the ideal/expectation of marriage outlived its usefulness?
To me, this picture symbolizes the idealized version of marriage that most of us have in our minds: straight posture, fresh boutonniere, perfect makeup & hair, and happy smiles for the camera...This is the picture that gets sent in the thank you card to all of the wedding guests...
Meanwhile, this picture illustrates the reality of marriage: after the party's over and the guests are gone, shoes are kicked off, slumped postures, but the contentment and love shines through. President Obama has stated that this is his favorite picture of him and Michelle. He keeps this portrait on his desk in the Oval Office.
I'm not gonna pretend to know why or how the first Halloween was celebrated. Over the years, I've heard something about devil-worshipping but I don't care. I certainly didn't care about worshipping evil spirits when my dad refused to let me celebrate as a kid. Then, all I wanted to do was rot my teeth out with every piece of candy I could get my hands on. As an adult, Halloween is for letting loose and doing whatever we find pleasurable. For some, it's indulging in that extra slice of pumpkin pie. For others, it's dressing up as Slutty [Insert Any Noun Here] or catching a free peep show. For me? Some of my original plans for today have changed, but that's another disappointment story. I'm starting the day off with being lazy: catching up on blogs while laying in bed, brunch with some friends and then capping the day off with disappointing my dentist and my father - preferably at the same time. I'll be attending a Halloween Party as a Birthday Suit. [Insert dirty thoughts here] and you would be far from the truth. Then again...today is Hedonist's Day and nothing is more hedonistic than being naked - both literally and figuratively. :)
I saw "Michael Jackson's This Is It last night!! Words...I...try.
*inhale, exhale*
Even though I thought I bought my ticket a month ago (stay tuned for that side-story), I had reservations about seeing this film for a few reasons:
1. I'm still in mourning over Mijac's death.
2. I wasn't sure if I could keep from crying long enough to actually enjoy the footage.
3. I was wary of seeing Mijac's 2009 face on a fifty-foot screen (what? someone has to say it).
But I'm so glad that I don't listen to my worried self 100% of the time.
First, This Is It (the film) was amazing! Kenny Ortega (a Palo Alto, CA homie!) managed to create one of the best concert films of all time...without showing us the real concert. Michael has done several performance films (including Moonwalker,Captain Eo, Ghosts,Live in Bucharest: Dangerous), but this is his Truth Or Dare mixed with some Purple Rain. However, unlike his fellow 80's icons' concert films, This Is It doesn't feature "reality" or "semi-autobiographical" scripts. We all know Michael the performer, but what makes this film extra special is how it invites us backstage to meet the behind-the-scenes Michael - the workaholic, the perfectionist, the human percussionist, the gifted technician (that illustrates his musical genius), the inspirational leader (and extremely patient boss!), the humanitarian, the jokester (his comedic timing is impeccable!) and so much more. (Btw, my fears about seeing MJ's 2009 face went away after I noticed how skillfully the director avoids showing close-ups. Also, MJ helped out by wearing shades most of the time.)
Second, judging from just the rehearsal footage, This Is It (the tour) would have been the best concert tour of all time (Kanye West agrees with me). I don't want to give too much away for those who haven't seen the film yet, but...it's the next best thing to seeing Michael live. And he seemed to be intent on going out with his best work ever - from the elaborate stage set design, innovative incorporation of video with the stage (I know other artists do this but, trust me, it's not the same), background singers with voices full of collard greens & hamhocks soul, dancers that match Mijac move for move (well, as much as they can match a dancing legend)....the list just goes on and on...
Best of all, This Is It (the film and the tour) commemorates Mijac for what he should be remembered for the most - his music.
I'm going to see it again today with my mama and anyone else who wants to see it!
Have you seen This Is It, yet? If yes, what'd you think? What is your favorite part(s)? If no, what are you waiting for? :-P
Annnd...time for the side-story mentioned above:
Michael Jackson almost destroyed a 14+-year friendship. On September 28, 2009, I attempted to buy my This Is It pre-sale ticket on Fandango.com. While making my purchase, I texted my friend (and fellow MJ-fanatic) to tell her about the pre-sale (at this point, I was planning on attending by myself because...I don't like to be a blubbering mess cry in front of people, especially people I know). She asked me to buy both of our tix at the same time for the same showing. Ok...cool. So I pressed "back" on my browser a couple times and...the website froze up on me. To say that I felt panicked would be an understatement. At this time, the hype was that This Is It would only be showing for two weeks and you better get your ticket now or else you'll be waiting for the DVD release. So...after harassing contacting Fandango's customer service department several times to receive absolutely no help whatsoever, I texted my friend to tell her about my freeze-up and asked her to buy our tickets for us. She texted back "okay....got em". I breathed a big sigh of MJ-fanatic relief.
Fast forward to 8:45pm on October 27, 2009 at Century 25 Theatres. My friend and I are at the ticket podium giggling and holding our MJ memorabilia magazines (shut it). When my friend hands over the print-out tickets, the manager (because this is an important special release?) scans the barcode and then turns to me with his hand out: "Where's your ticket?". Imagine my shock at learning that "my friend" only bought HERThis Is It ticket. To say that I experienced an overwhelming feeling of shock and borderline rage would be a huge understatement. Deep breaths...inhale...exhale...
Me: "Soooo when I texted that my PC was freezing up and wasn't able to purchase our tickets, you...bought just your ticket?"
Damn-near-ex-friend: "Well, I thought you already bought yours, so I just bought mine."
Me: *clenched teeth* "Ok...." *walking over to the ticket counter and praying for my Damn-near-ex-friend's sake that the first showing was not sold-out*
Luckily for her, I was able to purchase a ticket for $10.75 - minus the Fandango.com convenience fee (thanks karma) - and we were on a merry way inside.
And that, Random Readers, is the story of how someone almost got her a** beat (and someone else taken to jail) over Michael Jackson. (For new readers, I'm semi-joking about the rage and a**-beating.)
The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a powerful and secretive elite of globalists is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign nation-states and other checks and balances in international power struggles.
In international relations theory, the term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual states to solve.
There actually was a New World Order agenda recently in place that supports the conspiracy theory above (see "Related Articles") which demands:
U.S. world dominance (by authoritarian force)
Rebuild America's defenses (code for invest all money into military and/or our own wallets)
Regime change in Iraq both pre-9/11 and post-9/11
Pre-9/11:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
defend the American homeland;
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
In other words: stage some fake wars and win them so that American citizens will get on board with dominating the world through brute force. It was actually stated in this agreement that America needed a catastrophic event on the level of a Pearl Harbor in order to "shock and awe" the American people enough to rally around going to war. Written in early 2001, pre-9/11...
Post 9/11:
"...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
In other words: Invent a link between Iraq and 9/11 as justification for a fake war in order to rob America blind.
Fortunately for us, the founders of the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) Agreement are very blatant about their intentions (perhaps they know that Americans dislike reading/researching??). Some of those founders have been in past U.S. Presidential Administrations. I do believe there's some shadiness involving top-level governmental officials dating all the way back to Nixon Administration and earlier. However, I don't believe the Obama Administration is co-signing this agreement. There are many reasons why I don't believe this but some of them include:
Candidate Obama had to fight very hard to win the presidential election (including fighting and winning court cases across the nation (e.g. Ohio) against conservatives trying to throw registered voters off the rolls, rigged electronic voting machine software, etc.). Who fights that hard to win an election against their co-conspirators? Al Gore and John Kerry certainly didn't. It can't be all for show since most of these fights occurred out of the limelight because major news organizations weren't carrying these stories.
The Obama Administration includes many whistle-blowers from the previous Bush Administration. Liberal media sources like to sarcastically complain about how this constitutes no "change we can believe in" but...what's the best way to find where the bones are buried? You enlist help from the dogs that buried them.
Check out the financial situation of the Carlyle Group, full of Daddy Bush's business cronies that profit off of every single "New World Order" venture, including this trumped up Iraq War. The people involved in the Carlyle group also reads like a Who's Who of politics and world trade (many of whom benefited from the destruction of the World Trade Center's Building 7 in the 9/11 attacks - where all of the SEC archives were held...while the Carlyle Group members were being investigated. 2+2 = 4) .
Meanwhile, President Obama says no more tax credits to U.S. companies for creating jobs overseas - tax credits that were introduced and increased under Dubya, which companies like Haliburton (former V.P. Dick Cheney's baby) took advantage of when they upped and moved to Dubai. So...the Middle East is a horrible place except when you're relocating your business there. Got it. And American taxpayers are footing the bill via Haliburton's military contracts. So the Bushies were screwing the American public from both ends.
It shouldn't take a conspiracy theorist to connect these dots...And anyone who can connect these dots should also be able to see how our current president is unraveling these plans knot by knot.
The New World Order agenda lives on...Which one do you believe in?
Related sources: PNAC Agreement - Signatories include Dick Cheney (former U.S. Vice President under George W. Bush), Jeb Bush (former FL Gov, brother of George W. Bush), Steve Forbes, Donald Rumsfield (former Sec of Defense under George W. Bush), Dan Quayle (former U.S. Vice President under George H. W. Bush)...and those are just some of the more well-known names. The entire list reads like a Who's Who of government and business crooks.
Ending an argument is just as easy as starting one. Unfortunately, our popular culture thrives on controversy, so we have many more role models for how to start an argument than we do for how to end one. I understand that not everyone has access to tools to become better communicators (e.g., classes, therapists, practice conversing with many people who have opposing viewpoints in a civil manner), so consider this my public service announcement to create more peaceful exchanges of information and opinions.
Hopefully, you've already read this post's companion piece: 5 Foolproof Ways to Start An Argument. If not, STOP reading this post and click here.
...So now that you know how to start an argument, let's explore the "5 Foolproof Ways to End An Argument":
1. Stop Talking/Writing - Make like a brick wall and stop responding. It's the hardest step, but is the most important one in ending an argument. For an argument to occur, there has to be opposing views and resistance.If only one person is talking/writing, there is no longer an argument. It's now a sermon.
2. Listen - What can you learn from what the other person is communicating? Here's your chance to find out. While the other person continues to speak/write, you can use this opportunity to truly understand their point, figure out that person's strengths and weaknesses (to be used later), run out the clock (especially useful if you must deal with this person. e.g., in the workplace), or simply daydream until the person stops speaking/writing.
3. Find Points of Agreement - Now that you've listened to the other person's points, ask yourself are there any points of agreement between you two? If so, great! Focus on those. Feel free to chime in about them. The other person will immediately stop being so offensive because you've been successfully "persuaded". If not, then....
4. Agree to Disagree - We've all heard this one before. Because it's excellent advice. If you just cannot agree with the other person about anything, it's time to move on to another topic. In those situations that you must deal with the other person (e.g., colleague, spouse, relative), it's now time to compromise. Unfortunately, compromising is painful. No one wants to do it, but it must be done. This is when the art of negotiation comes in handy. If you're not a natural diplomat, then study at the feet of someone who is one because negotiation is an invaluable social skill to master.
5. Stop Talking/Writing - Yep, we're right back where we started. Once you have agreed to disagree (or finished negotiations), you must enforce this agreement by ending communications about this matter (or end the relationship with the person if the level of disagreement is high and the benefits of relating are few to none).Bringing up the topic again will surely restart the same argument, so don't do it.
If you haven't yet seen "The Great Debaters" (2007), I highly recommend you check it out. This is a great film that illustrates debate as a mental sport. It's based on the true story of how the Wiley College debate team became the first U.S. debate team from a historically black college to beat a white college debate team. The film is set in the 1930's, produced by Oprah Winfrey, and directed by Denzel Washington (who also stars as Wiley College's debate coach, Melvin B. Tolson ). Co-stars Forest Whitaker, Kimberly Elise, Nate Parker, Denzel Whitaker, Gina Ravera, and Jurnee Smollett.
Examples of Informal & Formal Debates:
Social commentator Sean Hannity informally debates civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton (part 2 of 2).
@ 4:19, after Rev. Al Sharpton practices #1 and #2, note what he says to Sean Hannity at @ 4:19: "The reason we cannot get to common ground is after I cited to you and offered to you that I will provide information to you, you still turned around and said I said what I said I didn't say." In other words, Rev. Sharpton is saying they can't successfully complete #3: Find Points of Agreement, which is usually the sticking point in an argument. And when someone refuses to practice #3, that is a clear sign that the person has no interest in ending the argument. When that's the case, it's time to skip to #5.
Barack Obama formally debates Alan Keyes in 2004 for the U.S. Senate Illinois seat (part 1 of 6).
@ 3:24 Notice how Obama begins by skipping straight to #3 Find Points of Agreement. This immediately disarms the other party. (Side note: His answer to the question re: Iraq War and Afghanistan is exactly the same stance he has taken as U.S. President five years later, and his administration is carrying out his plan stated here. Also notice that he's bordering on using appeals to authority by asserting that this isn't just his estimation, but is also that of many war-mongering authorities Republicans.)
Socio-political commentator and Professor Melissa Harris Lacewell informally debates feminist Gloria Steinem re: race, gender, democratic politics and the 2008 presidential election.
This is an excellent example of how to have a civil debate. Although Melissa completely owns Gloria by aggressively using indisputable facts, Gloria is the one who ends the debate on a pleasant note by adeptly working through steps 1-5 of the "5 FoolProof Ways to End An Argument". Amy Goodman from NPR hosts this debate. In general, she's very skilled at moderating discussions between opposing views on controversial topics and keeping the conversations civil. I wish more hosts were like her.
One of my joys in life is having a stimulating conversation with someone. However, some of life's headaches result from conversations gone wrong. I don't mind passionate debate, but I quickly lose interest in a conversation once it deteriorates into a full-scale argument complete with raised voices, creative gesturing, personal attacks and the ultimate no-no: laying on of the hands. After participating in (and observing) hundreds of thousands of conversations with (and among) thousands of people, I can now spot the point of no return in a debate before it rounds the corner.
Let's explore the best ways to turn a pleasurable conversation into a headache-inducing debate.
5 Foolproof Ways to Start An Argument
1. Don't Listen - The only way to start an argument is to disagree with someone. The quickest way to disagree with someone is to misunderstand the other person's point. Misunderstanding someone is easy! While they're talking, think of what you want to say next. Only tune in to the other person every 10 words or so. String the bits & pieces that you heard together and create a point for them that is easy for you to argue. Voila! You have now set the stage for a juicy debate.
I know what you're thinking: Cool! But I want to start an argument on social media networks like Twitter and Facebook! Isn't it harder to misunderstand what someone is writing?
Good question, Random Reader. It's actually just as easy to start an argument in written communications. How so? Read on...
2. Focus On Semantics- Focusing on semantics is a great way to get the argument ball rolling, prolong the argument and keep the other person in a defensive position. Neat, huh? The trick is to either 1.) completely ignore or 2.) excessively focus on semantics.
Example 1: Ignoring semantics
Person A writes:
"I believe children should be spanked."
How to respond:
Before giving this statement a second of thought, immediately accuse Person A of advocating for child abuse and/or murdering children. The more exaggerated the interpretation of the meaning of Person A's words, the better. When using this tactic, never ask the person to define "spank" because that could potentially lead to mutual understanding and even agreement. Remember: agreement is the death of an argument. Therefore, treat agreement as your enemy.
Example 2: Excessively focus on semantics
Person A writes:
"I believe children should be spanked."
How to respond:
Ask the person to define "spank". Whatever definition Person A gives, ask for further explanation of the definition. Then present a counterargument for each explanation provided. This will provide an almost endless amount of material for points of disagreement. If those avenues dry up, circle back around to Person A's original statement and demand definitions for "should", "children", "believe", "I" and "be". Regardless of the definitions given, incorrectly restate what Person A says or writes and then argue against that point . This tactic can extend an argument for hours - sometimes even days! Or until Person A tires out and gives up, whichever comes first. Be careful using this tactic, though. As with ignoring semantics, asking for clarification could possibly backfire on you if Person A is intelligent and articulate enough to boil complex concepts down to very simple, understandable points of commonality.
3. Mic-Jacking - This one is fun! After not listening to the other person and playing the semantics game, now you must continuously interrupt or talk over the other person. In effect, you must "jack (or snatch) the mic" from the other person's hand so that you can be heard while simultaneously drowning out the other person's voice or message (in written communications). Just remember to maintain a strong belief that what you have to communicate is more valuable than what the other person is communicating. Super easy, right? Well, not always. Sometimes it's hard to keep a steady stream of one-way communication going if the other person insists on retrieving their mic by raising their voice or frequently replying to your points in writing, which brings us to...
4. Firing Shots - In other words, get very personal very fast. At this point, you probably have attracted an avid audience, so you must make sure to secure control of the argument by persuading others to take your side on issue xyz. Remember, the winner of the argument is the one with the most allies at the end because allies will oftentimes jump in to fight your battles for you. In that case, you can sit back and enjoy the fruits of your argument-starting labor (see troll, birther, teabagger, or lobbyist for how to become a professional shit-starter).
The quickest way to gain allies is to hit the other person below the belt by exposing a flaw. If you can't find a flaw, then invent one. If you're a pro at firing shots, you most likely have already been collecting intel on your target to use at this very moment (if not, don't worry, you can always learn how to do this later). Now, it's time to select a firing-shots tactic: passive-aggressive (indirect, covert anger) or aggressive-aggressive (direct, overt anger). Choose your firing-shots tactic carefully because this is where your strategy has the biggest chances of backfiring on you. If your audience favors underdogs, go with the passive-aggressive approach by implying the other person is attacking you. Then hit 'em with your best uppercut and immediately hide your hand with a "no shots fired" just in case people think they saw your jabs (See most of Fox News, especially Glenn Beck on how to do this well). Do not go this route if your audience is wise enough to recognize (and therefore, not reward) passive-aggressive behavior. Go with the balls-to-the-wall, aggressive-aggressive choice if your audience favors dominant personalities (See Hardball with Chris Matthews or The O'Reilly Factor).
5.Use Flawed Logic - And last but not least, no pleasant conversation can turn into an argument without a healthy dose of flawed logic. Let's face it: two (or more) civil, intelligent human beings that always use reasonable logic will never be able to start a heated argument. So if you want to convert a perfectly enjoyable discussion to a knock-down, drag-out fight, you must learn how to use flagrant logical fallacies. There are many logical fallacies but here are some of the most commonly used ones to get you started (click on links for detailed explanations):
a. Appeal to Emotion - uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. Also this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process (Jara's note: I'd say this is the most common fallacy in debate/argument).
b. Appeal to Authority - where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative (Jara's note: Used during most political commentary shows). The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
c. Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. (Jara's note: This, along with appeal to emotion, is a Fox News favorite, and is the basis for many viewers' fear/distrust of the Obama Admin's policies.It's also an extremely popular fallacy used when someone knows they're losing an argument.)
Example: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. 3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed. Other popular fallacies:
Ad hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument (Jara's note: Bill O'Reilly's favorite).
Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is false, then the conclusion is also false.
Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true
Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability (Jara's note: this is a favorite among many tweeters).
Cherry picking: act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position (Jara's note: another favorite among tweeters.)
Fallacy of Accident - a generalization that disregards exceptions (Jara's note: another favorite on Twitter).
Converse Fallacy of Accident - argues from a special case to a general rule (Jara's note: yet another favorite on Twitter.)
False compromise/middle ground: asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct (Jara's note: Many people who watch both Fox News programs and "lefty" shows end up using this one when they argue politics.)
False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
Irrelevant Conclusion - diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly. Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"
Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is good or right. (Jara's note: Often used by conservative Christians and fundamentalist Muslims to support their beliefs. E.g. "Homosexuality isn't natural, therefore it's a sin." Never mind the fact that homosexuality occurs frequently in nature from humans on down to insects.)
Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect. (Jara's note: President Obama's critics in the liberal media love to use this one, most notably with the Stimulus plan and the healthcare reform bill with public option.)
Slippery slope: argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact (Jara's note: This one is mostly used by people who want to prevent something from happening based on fear of "what's next?". Used often in political debate, esp re: U.S. slide into socialism/fascism/communism. Also used by parents with kids and especially teenagers. I like to call this the "worst-case scenario" argument. E.g. "First you start holding hands, and the next thing you know you'll show up pregnant!").
There are many, many more. And they are used every second of every day in most debates/arguments. For a fuller list, click here. Now that you are aware of these logical fallacies, use (and spot) them wisely to start and perpetuate an argument.
Chris Matthews Interviews a Birther (aka Rep. Campbell)
Before we even get to the video, the birthermovement itself is a negative proof fallacy because birthers argue that President Obama is a citizen of Kenya because he cannot prove that he's not a citizen of Kenya. However, their fallacy is challenged when presented with an authenticated Hawaiian birth certificate and an inauthentic Kenyan birth certificate. Does this change birthers' minds? No. Because they are already predisposed to disbelieve that Barack Obama is a legitimate U.S. citizen and, therefore, U.S. President.
@ 2:03, notice Rep. Campbell's unskillful Red Herring response to Chris Matthews' question: "What's going on in America that's allowing people to propose this crazy proposal about Pres. Obama's birth certificate?"
Remember, a Red Herring (aka "fallacy of relevance") occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument. A frequently-used debate tool by politicians.
@ 7:08 When confronted with Pres. Obama's authentic Hawaiian birth certificate, watch Rep. Campbell tapdance around the truth using appeal to ignorance (the fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test.") with "as far as I know".
Since this video, birthers have used the burden of proof fallacy (refers to the extent to which, or the level of rigour with which, it is necessary to establish, demonstrate or prove something for it to be accepted as true or reasonable to believe) when they placed the "burden of proof" back onto Pres. Obama to prove that his Hawaiian birth certificate is not a fake.
Joe Scarborough on Bill Maher Claims Christianity in America is Being Attacked
Joe uses a spotlight fallacy (when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media) in his example of Amazon's most popular books list to claim that Christianity is being attacked in this country - conveniently ignoring the reasonable possibility that just because they're not popular on Amazon doesn't mean that there aren't just as many (if not more) books in existence that promote Christianity. In fact, the Bible is one of the top best-selling books around the world - and has been for centuries. Also, Amazon's "most popular" book list is based strictly on sales. Amazon is reporting what is popular on its site, not promoting or attacking an idea.
Let's play "Spot the Fallacy" @ The Teabagger Party
This video is full of them but one of my favorites is @ 3:44, when a young teabagger mentions she's protesting her "freedom of speech" being taken away and someone (possibly her mother) off-camera chimes in with "do you see this on regular news channels?" As the teenage teabagger shakes her head with "Nope, it's biased", we can see a "regular news" van right behind her. *SMH*
How many fallacies can you spot and name?
Today, a Canadian tweeter asked me about my opinion on Afrocentric schools. Apparently, some of Toronto is in an uproar about getting their first alternative all-black school. Yes, in 2009. Some argued that all-black schools are segregation, while others argued that it will help to prevent the black dropout rate (40% by high school) from escalating. It's reverse segregation, I tell ya! [/sarcasm] I do find it interesting that a "segregated" school is a new experiment in Toronto. Meanwhile, American schools were segregated by law prior to the 60's (some southern schools are still segregated by school rules) and by practice today (e.g. segregated lunch tables and recreational areas). We're going in opposite social directions.
MANtality Hey, got a discussion leading presentation on Thurs. Wondering if you could help a brother out. What's your take on afrocentric schools?
MANtalityDo they aim to isolate blacks from western society or do they prepare them w/ the proper mentality & intellect as oppose to "white" schools?
My "short" Twitter response:
@MANtality Sup. I attended both kinds of schools: afrocentric & "white" schools (& diverse). I'd say it really depends on the teachers...about 14 hours ago
@MANtality & diff kids take-away diff experience/lessons from afrocentric schools. My best friend & I attended afrocentric school together but don't look at it the same...about 14 hours ago
@MANtality She prefers "white" public schools. I didn't. Our school helped develop my good study habits but DIDNT prepare me 4 culture shock of public schools about 14 hours ago
@MANtality I wasn't used to being around learn-for-test-only-then-forget mentality, racist systems, self-hating blacks, negativity, etc.about 14 hours ago
My longer answer:
Creating an all-black school is not "segregation", especially if there's no rule explicitly outlawing non-blacks to attend the school. This reminds me of when people complain about the need for BET (now fully owned by "The Man"), Miss Black America (now defunct since black women started winning the standard Miss America title with a higher frequency), Ebony, etc. Every subculture needs to create something of its own to address its special needs that aren't being addressed in the mainstream (oftentimes, this translates to "white" or "Eurocentric") culture. It's ridiculous that this is even a debate.
As regular Random Readers know, my educational background is rather...varied. In 30 years on this earth, I have attended 30+ schools: all white (minus me), all black, mostly black, racially diverse, private, public and home-schooled. The private schools include Afrocentric, Afrocentric-Christian, Muslim, Scientology, etc. After attending a pre-school where I was the only black child (the other black child was quickly pulled out by her parents) and reminded of that fact almost every day, I begged my mom to send me to a school with people who looked like me. So she sent me to a great private, Afrocentric school in East Palo Alto, CA.
The racial makeup of the school: Most students and teachers were African-American. A handful of the students were biracial and we had one family of Tongans. Some of the parents criticized the administrators for allowing non-blacks in the school. They didn't care that these Tongans were nice people who paid their bills on time (something that not all of the black parents could claim), volunteered with the school and were involved in community events, and were residents of the close-knit community in which the school was located. In other words, the parents that were bitching about the Uhilas were of the hate-anyone-who-isn't-black variety. My mom, who acted as school treasurer, quickly let them know that when they pay all of their bills on time, all the time like the Uhilas, maybe then they could have more of a say in who gets to attend the school. Although one parent did pull his children out of the school, that was the end of that backlash.
The irony of attending an Afrocentric school in America run by a Jamaican is that we learned about African history first, African-American history second, European history never. For example, more weight and time was given to people such as Amenhotep, Kwame Nkrumah, Shaka Zulu, Queen of Sheba, Cleopatra, Ahmed Sekou Toure, Haile Selassie and Marcus Garvey than Malcolm X or Sojourner Truth (I guess they figured we'd have plenty of time to learn about African-American icons during black history month). Just reading the class roll was a study of African history because most of my classmates were named after some great African leader/activist, Swahili or Arabic word, or Kwanzaa principle.
The focus was on instilling Afrikan (no "C" in Afrikan languages) pride in us. And our main administrator (the Jamaican) pretty much hated white people and blamed them collectively for all of the evils in the world. Whites were regularly called variations of "stringy-haired devils". But that was only him. All of the other teachers focused mainly on teaching us to be proud of our roots, that our history extended beyond American slavery, etc. We didn't learn ANY European history outside of how they "raped and pillaged" almost every country in the world.
Aside from the focus on African history and social/political activism (constant involvement in community projects), we learned how to learn. Instead of grades, we received "+" (excellent), "✔" (decent), "-" (do way better). We were taught that the only stupid question is the unasked question. When the teachers exhausted their patience answering our questions, we were handed over to the older students for more tutoring. Or if we understood our lessons quickly, we were expected to tutor the slower pupils. The lesson here was: "it takes a village to raise a child". We were all responsible for each other's learning. Sometimes, we were all given the grade of the person who scored the lowest in the class on a test. OR we weren't allowed to play until every last one of us understood the lesson for the day.
Tests were a formality. By the time we were given tests, all of us KNEW the material. It was just something to take home to our parents to show what we've learned and keep a record for ourselves (our notebooks, desks, and "cubby holes" were also graded on their level of organization/neatness/completeness). We were tested weekly on grammar, spelling, math, science and history. Most of our tests were oral. For example, we learned our multiplication tables by reciting them orally (1x2, 1x3, etc.). If we messed up on one, we'd be tested on the same series the next day until we recited all of them perfectly. After reciting x's perfectly, we'd be quizzed on them randomly instead of in order the way we memorized them - just to make sure we really know them. No cheating, no fake learning. As the math became more difficult, our tests involved solving problems on the blackboard...in front of everyone. If you have any sense of pride, you made sure not to be unprepared when you get called. Bragging rights did not go to the people who couldn't solve a problem. You might even be teased for being slow (if a teacher wasn't in earshot). And if pride and peer pressure didn't work, we were spanked with a ruler for "failing" too many tests or not doing homework (yea, there was LOADS of that!).
School was technically from 8:00am to 5:30pm but the last class was over at 4:00pm so we had an hour and a half of "free time" when we could choose to do what we wanted. Some of us (the "smarties") would finish our homework so we could ask the teachers or each other for help, while others chose to play. Obviously, the "smarties" did better in class and advanced faster. Our teachers provided us all with the same opportunities but we didn't all respond to those lessons the same way. And this reflected in each student's ability to transition to public school after graduating at 10 years old (at whatever academic level).
When I graduated, I tested into 7th grade...but I quickly learned I was waaay behind on learning about American history. E.g. Christopher Columbus "discovered" America. In my elementary school, I learned that Christopher Columbus accidentally sailed to America on his way to "India". So there was quite a bit of brainwashing I needed to catch up on after skipping grades 1-7 in U.S. mainstream schools.
The results of attending an Afrocentric school differed according to each student: some of us "skipped" grades, some graduated "on time", while others were held back. Some of us were able to assimilate into white or racially diverse schools easily, while others struggled to understand a place where whites were "superior" and blacks hated themselves and each other. But all of us left our school with racial pride and the knowledge that learning is power, fun or necessary. I wouldn't exchange my experience for anything in the world.
What say you? Do black children need their own schools? Is an "Africentric" (Toronto term) all-black school practicing segregation? What should be taught at these alternative all-black schools? Who should be in charge of these all-black schools? Should non-blacks be allowed to attend or teach at all-black schools? Would you let your child attend an alternative all-black school?
How do you think the school trustees voted in Toronto? Watch this short video and find out:
You've heard her on the hook of Kanye West's "All Falls Down". Her industry nickname is "The Voice". Her musical pedigree is impeccable (her father is R&B legend Syl Johnson). Her four-album deep discography qualifies her as more than a one-hit-wonder. Yet she's mostly slept on among R&B and Soul audiences. I have no clue why, either. In addition to her beautiful voice, she has a gorgeous face and King-worthy body, so she's made for regular BET, MTV & VH1 video rotation.
Can you tell today was a Syleena Johnson day? :)
If you're a fan, what's your favorite Syleena track?
My favorites are: I Believe In Love and "Bulls Eye" feat. Common.
A partial resume:
"I Am Your Woman" - her first single, written by R. "No Comment" Kelly:
Backstory: This was my first response. Now we share our most meaningful conversations by letter and verse. We write what we can't say. It's a nice tradition...
Last week, I began the republishing of my Breaking Up astrology series with "How to Break Up With a Water Sign". This week, it's all about the earth signs...
Disclaimer: This post is for humorous and educational purposes only (i.e. if you're an earth sign & this doesn't apply to you, laugh & learn anyway. fire & air signs coming soon!). Adhere to the following advice at your own risk.
If you've ever been in a relationship with a Taurus, Virgo or Capricorn, then you know how it feels to be with a partner who wants to be your biggest asset. But what happens when your earth sign mate has become a liability? Here's how to make a clean break with a tender Taurus, virtuous Virgo, or a committed Capricorn.
The Breakup Strategy
Taurus doesn't like change - even if the change is for the better. This quality is what makes breaking up with Taurus challenging, especially for signs that don't like change anymore than Taurus does (that means you, Cancer) or who would prefer that a problem solve itself (yes, I'm talking to you, Pisces). You want a quick way to break up with Taurus? It doesn't exist. When you entered into a relationship with Taurus, you made an agreement to be in it for the long haul and you must honor that agreement. This includes enduring a looong breakup. Begin by weaning Taurus out of your relationship by failing to cater to the Bull. Stop cooking all those great meals. Don't run any more bubble baths. No more late night massages! If this doesn't work, try introducing Taurus to someone who cooks better than you.
Breaking up with Virgo is actually very simple. Virgo is a mutable sign, which means that the Virgin easily adapts to new stimuli. In this case, the new stimuli would be you wanting to break up. Expect many questions about how you came to your decision. Although the chain of questions will seem endless, it's just Virgo's way of gathering more information for future reference. Not answering the questions only inspires more questions, so carve out some time to satiate Virgo's curiosity and you'll be home free!
Capricorns are usually the ones doing the dumping, so breaking up with them is relatively easy as long as you let them be the boss of the breakup. Present yourself as a loser without future earning potential or any interest in money or status whatsoever. No matter how many times the Goat introduces you to a great mentor in your career field, say you're not sure whether this is the right step for you. The Capricorn will fire you from the relationship for being an unsuitable mate (aka business partner). If you don't let Capricorn dump you, then look forward to changing jobs, bank accounts, and social security #'s in order to protect yourself from the Capricorn wanting to get revenge against you (especially if your goat has Venus in Scorpio).
Ex-files
Unless you broke a Taurean's trust, a Taurus ex will probably be in your life forever in some way or another (especially if you have kids together). If you married Taurus without a prenuptial agreement (how'd you manage that?), then be prepared for a long battle in court if you want to leave the marriage with anything Taurus wants to keep, like the car, the house, the kids, or YOU. If you're moving out of the home you've built with the Bull, make sure to clearly mark all of your belongings. It will make packing so much easier.
You will enjoy Virgo better after a breakup than you did during the relationship. Not only do you still get the constructive "advice", but Virgo might even help you reorganize your life after it falls apart due to Virgo's highly noticeable absence. If you share children with Virgo, you won't have to fight for joint custody, but you will have to endure Virgo frequently correcting and criticizing your parenting style.
The great thing about a (mature) Capricorn ex is that the Goat won't kiss and tell about your breakup. It will be as if you never existed at all! If your Capricorn ex is immature, then expect to rebuild your ruined public reputation (e.g., your boss probably likes your ex better than you).
How did your relationship with a Taurus, Virgo or Capricorn end? Did the end of your relationship with an earth sign leave you on shaky footing or solid ground? If you're a Taurus, Virgo or Capricorn, how do YOU like to break up?
Posts
