News & Articles

Every so (as in too) often I have to endure someone’s conversation. Most times human interaction is pleasantly routine. There are exceptions. 

If you’ve ever answered the door only to be confronted by a door-to-door religious seller you know. Fire-in-the-eye zealots are not limited to deity delusion. They are as often political in nature or are attached to some life-altering cause. Is a health healer zealot heralding longer (not now, please) life with pink veggie pills more to be desired than a messenger of miracle efficient energy or the absolute latest pinnacle of socially environmentally engineered people progress? 

The glint in the eye of the new-cast fixer upper of civilization is the old familiar ocular color of earlier versions of the well known “church lady” type. See the type coming your way? Best advice, run. 

 I’ll get to the sack of rice, but before that I just want to point out the ease with which many of us turn the personal into the universal. 

A simple, hopefully easy to follow example is ketchup (catsup). I am prejudiced-biased against use of ketchup in a milk shake or with fries. Over my life I might have bought one bottle. I’m not a catsup guy. 

My personal like-dislike rests with me and is understood as limited to my tastes. It’s OK to like or dislike ketchup. 

But pause a moment to reflect on how often we see (or express) a personal bias as somehow being worthy of wide or even universal acceptance. 

Sales pitch journalism ensures we get daily doses of private judgment coming at us from “experts,” from “everyone,” from this “community” or that and even from huge global areas. I’ll bet anything that Africa or Asia has not held a meeting to take a stance on anything. Such consideration doesn’t stop truth hawkers from touting their minor personal conclusion as representative of everyone-experts-community-continental consensus. 

It is the church lady type run free-range wild, the same “Gonna show them” glint in the beady-angry eye. Run! 

 Part of our common human dilemma is assuming the universal or general when we have only the partial or idiosyncratic individual portion. Now guess what. A level of higher education (think of it as advanced limited knowledge) makes the concern worse because (be level now) what expert authority gets points for saying “Don’t know” when they can be quoted as an ego satisfying definitive source? 

I’ll not try to rouse the troops with a battle strategy to overcome overreaching. Due to its appeal and rewards, we likely can’t be cured of the attraction of deep water. But we can, I hope and suggest, numbers of us can be savvier to the allure and misuse of playing the expert. A credential taken too seriously or puffed to oversize importance is worth no more than falsehood.  

 A way to look at important issues is through argument. That does not mean yelling. It is, instead, one of the four forms of formal discourse, a thing (believe or not) once taught students right here in northern MN classrooms. (That was before promoting self-esteem of the ignorant was sold among us as enlightened education.) 

Now that I’ve stropped my razor I’ll get on to a short exposition on the topic. 

In argument a person argues (advocates) for or against something. To argue well for either position you need to be as solidly versed as possible otherwise an opponent will use holes in your knowledge against you. (Not as true in politic where wearing Party Pants grants automatic immunity and approval, “Here-here!”) 

Nother words teaching argument required students to search for facts, evidence and consequences that connect to any-all propositions. Bombast (good word) and insult or slyness didn’t use to be enough to carry a formal argument to victory. 

But that, of course, (another razor strop on the way) was before enlightened (in my view easy) education promoted the value of readymade conclusion over the slower, unpredictable route of public debate. 

The worst, in my view, aspect of politics is its habit of putting the conclusion it favors ahead of the process and denouncing as incompetent or evil any who stand (as they see it) in the way of glorious progress. 

 Consider this way. Say in your work there’s someone who always puts sand in the gears saying “what about this” or forms some other objection. 

In the same work there’s another who will cheerlead for any position based on its potential for popular appeal. 

Which of the two, the griper or the cheerleader, is more useful for staying on track? 

I’ll put that another way. Which helps keep the enterprise from becoming an Acme Storm Door and Submarine Company? 

Wandering off track is easily done. Is something an innovation or a stumble? Time will tell. The gripes will prove valid or innovations become future’s wave. Following a process will lead to a conclusion rather than, as the easygoing way prefers it, put the conclusion first and then celebrate genius with fine promotions. 

Funny, but seems to boil down to a simple distinction. How much will a person put themselves and their individual wellbeing on the line for the sake of a better outcome? 

 This is where the sack of rice enters (finally, huh). Some among us will at least attempt to set aside personal ambition and reward or acclaim when promoting a cause or policy. I’ll bet they are not the ones sending out public service flyers with their pictures. See? 

Right there that tactic says a lot about where the advocate is going and why. To them (who disdain the sack of rice subject) their sacrifice is a long-suffering absence of praise and adulation of their forbearance having been skipped over as a high school queen or athletic captain. 

Venal personalities like to inflate their normal struggles into historic sacrifice, a habit those who have truly sacrificed seem to lack, inflated accomplishment being better suited to politics. 

 Weakening the process of argument reduces the usefulness of the result. Remember, there are few things more dangerous than a weak leader, except when they’re in your camp.