Are you a Micro or Macro debater?

The other night a few of us were discussing the Montreal Canadiens and what possibly could happen for the upcoming season. As we presented (and pretended to be experts) our arguments and thoughts, I observed something: the cranberry-lemon muffins are dee-lish and that some fans (and this goes for any team in any sport) choose to look at things on a micro level and others on a macro level.

The micros are less concerned with the big picture. They consider analytical specifics. They don't mind debating with a certain amount of subjectivity. Why did the coach insert that guy there? Why is this player playing with that player? Why is the goalie looking sluggish? Why does the assistant coach prefer hamburgers to hot dogs? And so on. It's constant examination (nit picking to some) about the day to day operations and daily routines of the hockey club from top to bottom. The media tends to take this position because it breeds controversy. Or at least the more you report the more likely you will stumble on one. The rumour mill also goes into manufacturing overdrive. In a one-trick pony sports town like Montreal this strategy can work very well.

The micros can be a tad neurotic and live, die and identify with the club as if it is there own.

The macros look at the big picture. They are slightly removed from the club. This doesn't mean they lack passion but prefer some level of objectivity - if not realism. It doesn't really matter why a defensemen is being used sparingly. They are not involved in the decision making process. Fans don't know what the general manager, coach and players know. They are not privy to "inside" information (why engage in speculation which is a glorified form of gossip and is not trustworthy?) and perhaps they shouldn't be because it's not the job of citizens. Macros want to make sure the overall direction of the team and club is going in the right direction. After all, with management long gone the Montreal Canadiens will continue to live.

Macros may be the silent majority (or minority?) as they don't tend to (at least this is what I perceive) participate in call-in shows. On the other hand, micro conversations can be mind numbing at times and macro logic doesn't sell papers since it demands patience.

As far as I can tell, you can probably apply this to Iraq. Micros consider every single decision of a current administration and argue from this point forward. Macros are less concerned with this since people are not foreign policy experts. They don't expect the government to tell them everything - there are limits to freedom of information. For security reasons, it only make sense. However, they do trust that eventually time will provide some truths and answers.

Macros are willing to tolerate daily setbacks and successes as part of a process. Micros less so. Micros will point to a current situation and will unfold a path to the future accordingly. Macros will be detached from, say, body counts since it only skews the big picture.

Both are crucial to our understanding of a particular issue or subject.

Of course, they are many who manage to incorporate both but for the most part people do not. Mixed in all of this indeed is partisanship and we tend to let this guide our pessimism and optimism; cynicism and skepticism.

Whatever course politicians use, they will eventually be gone but their imprint can be everlasting or fleeting.

Personally, I tend to lean on the macro side of things.

Either way, the United States and Iraq will continue to move forward no matter who is in power.