Although I got to sleep in a little today, I had a meeting with a U.S. Military LNO (liaison officer) at the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone. In my continuing effort to facilitate synchronization between construction efforts throughout this theater, I wanted to make contact with embassy officials who could then point me to their local counterparts in the GIRoA (Grand Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) Ministries. After passing through an extensive security screening process I was let into the main building and escorted by the LNO back to his office for the meeting. I explained my purpose and intentions for setting up the meeting and what I had hoped to get out of it. He being as new into theater as I was thought this was a great idea, but didn't think a list had yet been compiled.
In all honesty I've never thought of my self as that diplomatic, so I decided that instead of trying to "cold call" each Embassy organizational department I would seek the advice of the LNO first. The last thing I want to do is to disrespect someone by going around or over their head. I explained to the LNO that at the risk of sounding like I was tasking him with doing this job, I was willing to do all the leg work if he could just point me to the right individuals to make contacts. I must have made such a persuasive argument that he said he wanted to do this because he saw how much value it could add to both of our organizations. I had no idea I could be so persuasive...
After we concluded our meeting and I took a short tour of the Embassy compound, complete with longing gaze at the pool, I returned back to my small compound to start my desk job work. I was told that my section director had been looking for me, so I knocked on his door. I explained to him the progress I had made at the Embassy and he seemed genuinely pleased, so I then asked what he had needed to see me for. He told me that General Allen, the four star who recently took over for Gen Petreus, was looking for someone to become his aide de camp (General's Aide, or personal assistant) for the next year, and my director wanted to nominate me. I was taken aback by this since, for one, I was a Reservist and not Active Duty, and secondly, I had never seen myself as enough of a political "hob-nobber" or ladder climber. I'm certainly not diplomatic enough to work that high up, but I suppose my director saw something in me that I don't personally recognize.
Changing directions a little, I've noticed over the last decade a lack of civility when discussing opposing ideas. You can see it predominately on the "news", which has been boiled down to a number of inflammatory pundits who tell a person what to think without actually discussing the core issues at hand and throwing around hot-button buzz words to inflame the masses. I'm probably not much better, myself. After years of holding my tongue and listening to schoolmates and co-workers step all over my beliefs and the tenets in life that I hold dear, I finally decided that I wasn't going to be politically silent any longer. My main vehicle now for promotion of my ideas is Facebook.
For the better part of my life, and especially while in college, it was expected that you acted and thought a certain way to fit in. After many years and soul searching, I've realized that my personal morals and ethics and religious beliefs are more important that the opinion of those I'm around. Facebook has been a good vehicle to keep in contact with my real friends, whom I made after my life in school had finished. However, at the urging of a few of my old college acquaintances, I've reluctantly reconnected with people I knew in school. Not that we communicate much if at all even after we reconnected.
Getting back to the point, over the past year I have begun posting articles and basic "propaganda" aimed more at my friends in order to educate them on political candidates and what they appear to stand for. Some of my old contacts from school apparently take offense at that, so much so that they have taken to trolling my Facebook page to tell me that I'm wrong. Now, to be fair I have been accused of being a tyrant with what gets posted on my personal Facebook page, and this would be a fair assessment. My opinion is that this page is like my home. I don't allow people to come into my home and disrespect me or what I have on display, and I won't allow it online either. In extreme cases, I just unfriend/block the offended individual who seems hell-bent on making their point and flying off, much like a bird who dirties up a shiny/clean car. Is it too much to expect that if I am to be debated that it be in a private form? Not once has anyone contacted me via private message to discuss what I've posted and share their own opinions. Apparently it must all be done in public, again, on my personal page.
The way I see things (and I'm entitled to enforce it since it is my page), Facebook is a place for positive affirmation from friends. This is why there is a "Like" button and not a "DISLike" button. When adding a person as a contact, there is the option to not view someone's news feed. If the things someone posts on their Facebook wall are that upsetting, then the feed can be turned off. Or better yet, unfriend that person and preemptively stop the aggravation. Rudely commending or attempting to discredit someone's wall post or anything they feel like sharing is akin to going into their yard and criticizing any signs or other things they have out on display. That is just plain tacky and not polite in civil society.
It used to be in civil society that one did not publicly criticize the President to the extent of off color name calling, and especially our Commander in Chief by Service Members. I've served under three POTUS, and I have never once publicly criticized any of them while in office no matter if I agreed with their policies or not. To many Service Members, they thumb their noses at potential UCMJ and criticized the last two administrations for policies they disagreed with. Just ask Gen Stanley McCrystal how that worked out after it caught up with him.
The absolute vitriolic anger that polarizes our nation has always amazed me. It's as if the very existence of an opposing opinion is an affront to their own being. While I don't agree with some political candidates stances on issues that are very important to me, I will not degrade those who follow them. I've been called un-American for not standing up and being counted with certain political views as a Military member, and I have also been called a coward for not entering into a public debate with someone who was obviously so misinformed about their party's platform that they had no logical arguments to put forth in the first place other than to deflect ignorance of the issue and name call.
In looking through the Internet for examples of civil discourse, I ran into a blog (now apparently dead) of a conservative blogger who made some very interesting points, that now in a new administration I see completely reversed but still relevant.
http://bloggers-for-civil-discourse.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-hate-arguing-with-liberals.html
What we must realize is that political ideology, if not absorbed by the desire to fit in with those around you, is based upon deep seated truths in an individual's life that have obviously affected them greatly. In order to get past this polarization based on emotion, we must first recognize, and then seek to understand the reasons why people align themselves the way they do to better engage in civil discourse. This concept was developed by The Williamsburg Charter on Civil Discourse, which was presented to the nation on June 25, 1988, the 200th anniversary of Virginia's call for the Bill of Rights. It holds just as true today as it did three decades ago.
http://afterall.net/quotes/490983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Williamsburg_Charter
But then again, I'm just a Soldier in a war zone with an opinion expressing his First Amendment rights within the confines of what UCMJ will allow. I might not agree with your political alignment, but I will not publicly degrade you for what you believe. I am not you, and by that same right, you have not walked a mile in my shoes. Think about that next time someone tells you to take a walk in their combat boots.
More to follow.
In all honesty I've never thought of my self as that diplomatic, so I decided that instead of trying to "cold call" each Embassy organizational department I would seek the advice of the LNO first. The last thing I want to do is to disrespect someone by going around or over their head. I explained to the LNO that at the risk of sounding like I was tasking him with doing this job, I was willing to do all the leg work if he could just point me to the right individuals to make contacts. I must have made such a persuasive argument that he said he wanted to do this because he saw how much value it could add to both of our organizations. I had no idea I could be so persuasive...
After we concluded our meeting and I took a short tour of the Embassy compound, complete with longing gaze at the pool, I returned back to my small compound to start my desk job work. I was told that my section director had been looking for me, so I knocked on his door. I explained to him the progress I had made at the Embassy and he seemed genuinely pleased, so I then asked what he had needed to see me for. He told me that General Allen, the four star who recently took over for Gen Petreus, was looking for someone to become his aide de camp (General's Aide, or personal assistant) for the next year, and my director wanted to nominate me. I was taken aback by this since, for one, I was a Reservist and not Active Duty, and secondly, I had never seen myself as enough of a political "hob-nobber" or ladder climber. I'm certainly not diplomatic enough to work that high up, but I suppose my director saw something in me that I don't personally recognize.
Changing directions a little, I've noticed over the last decade a lack of civility when discussing opposing ideas. You can see it predominately on the "news", which has been boiled down to a number of inflammatory pundits who tell a person what to think without actually discussing the core issues at hand and throwing around hot-button buzz words to inflame the masses. I'm probably not much better, myself. After years of holding my tongue and listening to schoolmates and co-workers step all over my beliefs and the tenets in life that I hold dear, I finally decided that I wasn't going to be politically silent any longer. My main vehicle now for promotion of my ideas is Facebook.
For the better part of my life, and especially while in college, it was expected that you acted and thought a certain way to fit in. After many years and soul searching, I've realized that my personal morals and ethics and religious beliefs are more important that the opinion of those I'm around. Facebook has been a good vehicle to keep in contact with my real friends, whom I made after my life in school had finished. However, at the urging of a few of my old college acquaintances, I've reluctantly reconnected with people I knew in school. Not that we communicate much if at all even after we reconnected.
Getting back to the point, over the past year I have begun posting articles and basic "propaganda" aimed more at my friends in order to educate them on political candidates and what they appear to stand for. Some of my old contacts from school apparently take offense at that, so much so that they have taken to trolling my Facebook page to tell me that I'm wrong. Now, to be fair I have been accused of being a tyrant with what gets posted on my personal Facebook page, and this would be a fair assessment. My opinion is that this page is like my home. I don't allow people to come into my home and disrespect me or what I have on display, and I won't allow it online either. In extreme cases, I just unfriend/block the offended individual who seems hell-bent on making their point and flying off, much like a bird who dirties up a shiny/clean car. Is it too much to expect that if I am to be debated that it be in a private form? Not once has anyone contacted me via private message to discuss what I've posted and share their own opinions. Apparently it must all be done in public, again, on my personal page.
The way I see things (and I'm entitled to enforce it since it is my page), Facebook is a place for positive affirmation from friends. This is why there is a "Like" button and not a "DISLike" button. When adding a person as a contact, there is the option to not view someone's news feed. If the things someone posts on their Facebook wall are that upsetting, then the feed can be turned off. Or better yet, unfriend that person and preemptively stop the aggravation. Rudely commending or attempting to discredit someone's wall post or anything they feel like sharing is akin to going into their yard and criticizing any signs or other things they have out on display. That is just plain tacky and not polite in civil society.
It used to be in civil society that one did not publicly criticize the President to the extent of off color name calling, and especially our Commander in Chief by Service Members. I've served under three POTUS, and I have never once publicly criticized any of them while in office no matter if I agreed with their policies or not. To many Service Members, they thumb their noses at potential UCMJ and criticized the last two administrations for policies they disagreed with. Just ask Gen Stanley McCrystal how that worked out after it caught up with him.
The absolute vitriolic anger that polarizes our nation has always amazed me. It's as if the very existence of an opposing opinion is an affront to their own being. While I don't agree with some political candidates stances on issues that are very important to me, I will not degrade those who follow them. I've been called un-American for not standing up and being counted with certain political views as a Military member, and I have also been called a coward for not entering into a public debate with someone who was obviously so misinformed about their party's platform that they had no logical arguments to put forth in the first place other than to deflect ignorance of the issue and name call.
In looking through the Internet for examples of civil discourse, I ran into a blog (now apparently dead) of a conservative blogger who made some very interesting points, that now in a new administration I see completely reversed but still relevant.
http://bloggers-for-civil-discourse.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-hate-arguing-with-liberals.html
What we must realize is that political ideology, if not absorbed by the desire to fit in with those around you, is based upon deep seated truths in an individual's life that have obviously affected them greatly. In order to get past this polarization based on emotion, we must first recognize, and then seek to understand the reasons why people align themselves the way they do to better engage in civil discourse. This concept was developed by The Williamsburg Charter on Civil Discourse, which was presented to the nation on June 25, 1988, the 200th anniversary of Virginia's call for the Bill of Rights. It holds just as true today as it did three decades ago.
http://afterall.net/quotes/490983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Williamsburg_Charter
But then again, I'm just a Soldier in a war zone with an opinion expressing his First Amendment rights within the confines of what UCMJ will allow. I might not agree with your political alignment, but I will not publicly degrade you for what you believe. I am not you, and by that same right, you have not walked a mile in my shoes. Think about that next time someone tells you to take a walk in their combat boots.
More to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments will be logged and reviewed for appropriateness.