a respectful reaction

First, some wise teaching…

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven R. Covey:

  • Be Proactive.
  • Begin with the End in Mind.
  • First Things First.
  • Think Win-Win.
  • Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood.
  • Synergize!
  • Sharpen the Saw; Growth.

How to Win Friends & Influence People by Dale Carnegie:

  • Don’t Criticize, Condemn or Complain.
  • Give Honest, Sincere, Appreciation.
  • Arouse In The Other Person An Eager Want.
  • Become Genuinely Interested In Other People.
  • Smile.
  • Remember That A Person’s Name Is To That Person The Sweetest And Most Important Sound In Any Language.
  • Be A Good Listener. Encourage Others To Talk About Themselves.
  • Talk In Terms Of The Other Person’s Interests. 
  • Make The Other Person Feel Important – And Do It Sincerely. 
  • The Only Way To Get The Best Of An Argument Is To Avoid It.
  • Show Respect For The Other Person’s Opinion. Never Say, “You’re Wrong.”
  • If You Are Wrong Admit It Quickly And Emphatically.
  • Begin In A Friendly Manner.
  • Get The Other Person Saying “Yes, Yes.”
  • Let The Other Person Do A Great Deal Of The Talking.
  • Let The Other Person Feel That The Idea Is His Or Hers.
  • Try Honestly To See Things From The Other Person’s Point Of View.
  • Be Sympathetic With The Other Person’s Ideas And Desires.
  • Appeal To The Nobler Motives.
  • Dramatize Your Ideas.
  • Throw Down A Challenge.
  • Begin With Praise And Honest Appreciation.
  • Call Attention To People’s Mistakes Indirectly.
  • Talk About Your Own Mistakes Before Criticizing The Other Person.
  • Ask Questions Instead Of Giving Direct Orders.
  • Let The Other Person Save Face.
  • Praise The Slightest Improvement And Praise Every Improvement. Be “Hearty In Your Approbation And Lavish In Your Praise.”
  • Give The Other Person A Fine Reputation To Live Up To.
  • Use Encouragement. Make The Fault Seem Easy To Correct.
  • Make The Other Person Happy About Doing The Thing You Suggest.

In the Book of Philippians by the Apostle Paul:

“Are your hearts tender and compassionate? Then make me truly happy by agreeing wholeheartedly with each other, loving one another, and working together with one mind and purpose. Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves. Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too.”

And then one comment about last night’s presidential debate:

I didn’t see any of the above.

Friends, I’m not concerned about Nov. 3rd. I’m concerned about what comes after and what our leaders model.

I’m concerned about how we treat each other.

Respectfully… always…


our collective deficiency

Iron. Calcium. Vitamin D.

We are deficient of all sorts of nutrients.

To be clear, a nutrient is defined as “a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.”

Allow me, therefore, to suppose this day that we have a more significant, collective deficiency than any of the above…  

We have a trust deficiency.

Trust is vital. Believing in the reliability, ability, or strength of another is crucial to how we thrive and survive as a society. It’s “essential for growth and the maintenance of life.”

Said management expert, Stephen Covey: “Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.”

It’s the foundational principle that holds together all relationships, institutions, and entities.

Without it, relationships, institutions, and entities fall apart.

But understand that trust isn’t defined by like thought, look, or behavior. To believe we can only trust another who thinks, looks, or behaves like self would equate to having fallen prey to a hollow and deceptive philosophy. Contrastingly true, to believe that simply because another thinks, looks, or behaves like self makes them trustworthy is also deceptive.

The challenge, no less, with the existence of a trust deficiency is that trust is one of the only healthy on-ramps to conflict. And let’s face it: we live in a time of seemingly unprecedented conflict. We live in a season of rampant strife, division, and uncertainty. The 24 hour news cycle is disconcerting. People are fighting; and social media is a verbal landmine field. Conflict reigns.

Hear me clearly, no less. I do not believe that conflict is inherently negative. In fact, I would contend it’s necessary, as good things come from conflict. That is, good things come from conflict when the dissension is not mean-spirited, belittling, or contemptuous. 

In other words, if we were willing to eschew the mean-spiritedness, belittlement, and contempt, perhaps we could solve some of our current socio-political challenges. We could make progress on the role of government, how big it should be, what can and can’t be legislated…

We could talk about the hard stuff… how we can navigate wisely through the racial friction, what is true and what is not, what’s systemic and what is not…

We could discuss and respect the role of an individual’s faith or lack of it…  how it affects people, how it enters into their decision-making and treatment of others, avoiding fueling any antipathy for the orthodox or other.

Healthy conflict fosters solution.

(Note: if you’re attempting to discern the healthiness of a conflict, know that if at any point, you’re contemplating adding “you idiot” to the end of your sentence, chances are it would be a wise conversation to avoid.)

But all of the above starts with trust.

One of my great discouragements, I would humbly add, is the number of seemingly intelligent people all over the socio-political spectrum who encourage the exact opposite; they implore us not to trust. They are also then encouraging the crippling of our relationships, institutions, and entities.

So allow me to end with a not so neat-and-tidy question. Fair warning: it’s not convenient nor comfortable.

But as one who craves solution, may we each honestly answer this:

“Who do I trust enough to enter into conflict?”




As many are aware, my one resolution for 2020 was to read more books. I am grateful to share that (with an unfortunate shout out to the pandemic) the goal has been wildly reached and truly enjoyed.

It’s been fascinating and fun (and sometimes totally kicking my butt) to read from a variety of authors; from Marc Brackett to Jodi Picoult to Wladyslaw Szpilman, Shelby Steele, Latasha Morrison and Jojo Moyes, it’s been a profitable, diverse, eye-opening journey indeed. It helps to listen and learn from persons who don’t think just like “me.”

Take merely my notes from the current chapter I’m in, as written by Jon Tyson. He speaks of what it means to honor — to “recognize the value someone possesses and esteem that person rightly.” However, to honor means to resist contempt. And yet…

“… This culture is one of dishonor and contempt. A harsh one of both brutality and backlash. We show contempt for those who don’t agree with our political views, contempt for those with different religious views, contempt for the rich, contempt for the poor, contempt for those family members who always seem to be embarrassing and causing trouble…

Contempt is the feeling that someone else is beneath consideration, worthless, deserving scorn…

‘What  is left when honor is lost?’ Publilius Syrus, a writer in the first century BC, asked of his age.

Our age can provide the answer: contempt.

Many have talked about the anger in our culture, and there is evidence of that all around, but maybe we have misdiagnosed the kind of anger we are dealing with. All communities deal with conflict at various levels and disagreement about topics that range from human sexuality to urban planning. But what we are dealing with seems to be deeper than that…

Contempt is causing us to dismiss entire segments of society, and it is destroying the social fabric of our lives…

Sebastian Junger documented the grief that veterans often feel upon returning to America after serving in the military overseas. In ‘Tribe’ he wrote, ‘We live in a society that is basically at war with itself.

People speak with incredible contempt about—depending on their views—the rich, the poor, the foreign-born, the president, or the entire US government. It’s a level of contempt that is usually reserved for enemies in wartime, except that now it’s applied to our fellow citizens. Unlike criticism, contempt is particularly toxic because it assumes a moral superiority in the speaker…’

With the rise of contempt, the clock on respect and civility seems to be running out…

The toxic power of contempt lies in its devaluation of others…”

Tyson continues by parsing out the difference between resentment, anger, and contempt. Relying on the expertise of widely-quoted, University of Texas philosopher, Robert C. Solomon:

“Resentment is anger directed toward a higher-status individual. Anger is directed toward an equal-status individual. Contempt is anger directed toward a lower-status individual.

Contempt categorically devalues people and justifies its anger. This creates a dynamic of power and superiority from which most relationships never recover. Every exercise of power incorporates a faint, almost imperceptible, element of contempt for those over whom the power is exercised. One can dominate another human soul only if one despises the person one is subjugating. When contempt becomes the operating system of a society, disdain can become dangerous. All atrocities, including the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, started by lowering the value of others and justifying the right to dismiss and ultimately destroy them…”

Friends, I think this is tough. I also think this is incredibly relevant.

Allow me, therefore, to simply ask questions of “me,” so as not to implicate anyone else…

Who am I dismissing? 

Who am I looking down upon, acting as if I am somehow superior?

And one more… if I’m brave enough… 

Where have I allowed my anger to fester when the God-honest truth is, it’s really contempt?



the politics of oh no, they better not, and I would never

When first hearing the news of the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, my immediate response was a muted “oh, no.”

Being humbly transparent, my response wasn’t prompted by empathy for the Ginsburg family nor any potential shifts in the make up of the high court. My muffled exclamation resulted from the immediate awareness that the timing is one more thing for our country to fight about. And let’s face it. In the bifurcated culture we live in — let me change that — in the encouraged-by-many-and-media, bifurcated culture we live in, we are ready to fight.

But they better not…

Notice the subject of my sentence: “they.” It’s always about they… them… somebody other than me… Oh, how I wish as a people we realized there is no them; there is only us! But we don’t typically get that…

They wouldn’t dare play politics! They wouldn’t dare play that card! They wouldn’t dare resort to such shady, hypocritical efforts when we’re talking about the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America!

Right. We focus on “they.”

And then I think back to the nomination of Merrick Garland, who even though legitimately nominated for the Supreme Court 4 years ago, never received a hearing or vote because Senate leadership declared it wasn’t appropriate to fill the vacancy in an election year. Note: that was in March of 2016 — 8 months before the election.

I think, too, of the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, who even though legitimately nominated for the Supreme Court 2 years ago, faced an uncorroborated sexual assault accusation from high school amid 3 other claims, which were also uncorroborated or proved false. Note: there is more substantiation for the accusation against Joe Biden than there was for Kavanaugh.

Please don’t hear me suggest one or the other is right, wrong, ok, whatever. I’m simply making the point that we are lured into pointing at “they,” forgetting the justification of our own potential inconsistencies. Allow me to also point out that upon their nomination, both Garland and Kavanaugh received the highest, unanimous rating of “well-qualified” by the American Bar Association.

But I would never…

… I would never be inconsistent. I would never be so political. I would never focus on them… 

Yes, I’d like say that about me, too. But sometimes there are undoubtedly, probable places where each of us is at the very least, unknowingly inconsistent.

Perhaps we would best learn from the example of the honorable Justices Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. While each are respectively revered as ideological heroes of the political left and right, the two were fast friends.

They had served together on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals prior to becoming colleagues on the Supreme Court. Scalia would refer to Ginsburg as “the best of colleagues, as she is the best of friends.”

When Scalia passed in 2016, Ginsburg said, “It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend… We were best buddies.”

Perhaps their example is best articulated, no less, through the story of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Justice Jeffrey Sutton:

“During one of my last visits with Justice Scalia, I saw striking evidence of the Scalia-Ginsburg relationship. As I got up to leave his chambers, he pointed to two dozen roses on his table and noted that he needed to take them down to ‘Ruth’ for her birthday. ‘Wow,’ I said, ‘I doubt I have given a total of twenty-four roses to my wife in almost thirty years of marriage.’ ‘You ought to try it sometime,’ he retorted. Unwilling to give him the last word, I pushed back: ‘So what good have all these roses done for you? Name one five-four case of any significance where you got Justice Ginsburg’s vote.’ ‘Some things,’ he answered, ‘are more important than votes.’

I let him have the last word.”

God be with the family of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Rest in peace, RBG. You, too, Antonin Gregory Scalia. You have served us well.



current culture & the NFL

Slouched on the couch for the weekend slate of games, it was so good to see live, professional football again!

Alas, as you may have expected, we have a few random questions…

Is it weird to see Tom Brady no longer donning any blue in his uniform?

And Philip Rivers is a Colt?

But really, can Bill Belichick and Tom Brady win without each other?

How does not having fans in the stands affect the players and change the game?

Without the fans, is there such a thing as “home field advantage”?

With the on-field, promotional signs to “vote,” are we being encouraged to “vote” or to “vote a certain way?”

What? The Jaguars, Raiders, and Washington Football Team all won?

Were those boos during the moment of silence when the Chiefs and Texans stood arm and arm? Why?

Would we be a wiser to seek understanding before judgment?

Why is Colin Kaepernick still not signed and playing? Is it a racist, economic, or performance decision? Is the decision that simple?

Are all athletes role models?

What determines who is a role model?

Could someone please get Kansas City coach, Andy Reid, a new, not-so-foggy mask?

How exciting is the talent of youthful quarterbacks such as Josh Allen, Joe Burrow, and Lamar Jackson?!

Could this finally be the year for — dare-I-say — the Buffalo Bills?

Do we really have to watch all these political ads? … and for another 49 days?

How do the announcers decide what they’ll say and what they won’t about our country’s current cultural issues? Is it a lose-lose situation, in the sense that they will never be able to appease all?

Is “silence equivalent to compliance” or is that me applying my behavioral standards to someone else? Is that ok?

When will Tua Tagovailoa get to play?

Is Cam Newton back?

Does kneeling matter? Or does it depend why one does it?

What efforts are creating unity and what are not?

Why are the ratings significantly down?

Will they keep playing?

What will happen next?

Until next week…

… when we slouch in the couch once more.



my #1 love/hate relationship

As one who’s long had a boundary of not turning on the television in the morning, my friend Cathy called me 19 years ago, imploring me to turn it on, moments before 9 a.m. Misbelieving my jaw could drop no farther, when plane #2 hit the South Tower at 9:02, I don’t know if still now I can assign words to my thought or emotion. In our ongoing, collective national processing, I’ve settled here… at least for now…

What happened on 9/11 is my #1 love/hate relationship.

Let me explain the hate first. After all, hate is always easier.

I hate that persons intentionally destroyed the Twin Towers.

I hate that these persons were terrorists.

I hate that 2,958 people died (note: if stated number appears different than factual records, the 19 hijackers have been removed from our listing, believing they don’t belong in the same breath).

I hate that the original planning of terror included 12 planes from both coasts, desiring to destroy the World Trade Center, Empire State Building, Pentagon, the Prudential Tower in Boston, the White House, U.S. Capitol, Chicago’s Willis (formerly Sears) Tower, the U.S. Bank (then Library) Tower in L.A., the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco, and the Columbia Center in Seattle.

I hate that the terrorists did this in the name of God. (To be clear, I don’t believe they knew what “the name of God” really means.)

Truthfully, our “hate” list could go on. As I met with a woman just this past spring who was originally scheduled to be on one of the planes and lost her fiancé in the attack, I’m poignantly reminded of how lives were forever changed that day… how the grief never fully goes away. There is much to hate. Again, hate is always easier.

But consistent with tragedy — not diminishing the pain and suffering in absolutely, any way — if we are willing to look for it, there is something good. There is something to love.

Enter 2020…

2020 is a crazy year. Call it “unprecedented.” Call it some “new normal.” Call it some other recently worn out phrase.

The reality is 2020 is a year marked by uncertainty. And uncertainty creates confusion and  controversy… not to mention discomfort and division. Sadly, our messy 2020 America seems incredibly divided.

I may be climbing out on some simplified, societal limb here, but my sense is our division is only enhanced when we forget what’s most important… when we prioritize something lesser. Allow me not to suggest that our individual passions are unimportant; my speculation is more that our passions are enflamed when we forget what means more.

For example — and back to 9/11 — in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, being a Democrat or Republican did not matter. Being black or white or Latinx did not matter. White collar/blue collar, gay/straight — none of it mattered.

Why? Because we found our identity in something bigger. 

It’s not that those other identities are unimportant. They are significant and have shaped our individual existence; we would also do well to honor one another by understanding those individual shapings better and more.

But what I love about 9/11 is that it reminds us of that something bigger. It reminds us that bigger than all of the above dichotomies, we are human. 

19 years ago, we came together… Democrat/Republican, black/white, gay/straight — we locked arms together. In fact, only 3 days after the attack, Congress passed a $40 billion, bipartisan anti-terrorism and victim aid measure; they worked together. We worked together. 

We worked together with the different. We worked and walked even with those who irritate or annoy us… who disagree with us.

What I love about 9/11 — as awful as that day was — is that it gives us an opportunity to remember what’s bigger…




what’s wrong with cancel culture?

One of the cultural ideologies that’s received ample contemporary airtime is this idea of “cancel culture.” As quoted here in early June, “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”

To be “cancelled” means to no longer pay attention to — and — via the group shaming response — to also declare that the person in question no longer deserves anyone else’s attention either.


In other words, something a person has said or done — maybe only one thing a person has said or done — means they no longer deserve to be heard from again. They no longer are allowed nor believed capable of a positive contribution to society.

Cancel culture, therefore, is not about what’s good and true and right.

Cancel culture is about control.

Note that both the current and most recent President actually agree on the ideology’s lack of virtue. Said Pres. Trump, “We want free and open debate, not speech codes and cancel culture. We embrace tolerance, not prejudice.” 

Said Pres. Obama, “That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.”

And even though the instances of desired application have seemingly gotten louder and the public and public officials’ acceptance seems lesser, it got me wondering what’s actually wrong with the whole idea… why it bothers me…

What’s wrong with cancel culture? …What’s wrong with ridding the world of the influence of someone who fails to conform to what I believe is right?

One, it misses the profound beauty of redemption.

No doubt we’ve each seen a lot of beautiful things in our lives… the birth of a child… the majesty of the mountains… the hawk that soars so high in the sky.

But for me there may be nothing more beautiful than the one who is redeemed — for whatever the reason. Maybe it’s a series of habitual errors or a life of dysfunction or some awful, despicable act, but at some point the person is broken enough to see the error of their ways, acknowledge their wrongdoing, and to make amends. They adopt a posture of humility and become generous in their forgiveness — in both the asking and extending. They become great givers of grace, sincerely and profoundly recognizing they may be the one who needs it most.

Because cancel culture is marked by a one-and-done mentality, it misses the profound beauty of redemption — not to mention its accompanying humility, forgiveness, and grace. 

And two, it assumes “I” am as smart as “I” ever need to be.

Follow me on this one…

I heard someone say recently, “I reserve the right to get smarter,” and I thought, “What a wise thing to say.” In other words, I hope I know more tomorrow than I know today… and I hope I will always be willing and wanting to say that.

When we judge another by their belief or behavior for failing to conform to what we believe is right — and let’s be clear, cancelling is an act of judgment — do we not realize that at some point we might be the one who errs? Do we not realize that what we believe to be right today, may not be right with someone else tomorrow?

I think of phrases that were at one time socially acceptable but today are not. Those persons did not know then what we know now. Hopefully, they’ve gotten smarter and changed their behavior. But what if they haven’t? And what if someday — God forbid — that person is “me”?

Because cancel culture believes in ridding the world of the influence of someone who fails to conform to “me,” it assumes there are people who are as smart as they ever need to be.

I will always be more attracted to the redeemed than to the one who thinks they know all they need to know. The un-cancelled, humble one — the one once broken and now generous in virtue — now that person, they have a story to share.



requiring an enemy

Years ago on the way to my weekly college work outs, I’d pump some motivating music through my then ultra-flashy Walkman headphones; we had beats without Beats back then.

One of my favorite songs to rile me up, get me going, and remind me of my exercise initiative was the infamous Bonnie Tyler “Footloose” classic…

“… I need a hero! I’m holding out for a hero ’til the end of the night…”

Something about the desiring and admiring of heroes was captivating, motivating and good.

And yet today, all these years later, we seem to have gotten that all wrong. Today, whether we say it or not, we instead hold out for an enemy.


enemy | ˈenəmē | – noun

a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.

(the enemy) [treated as singular or plural] a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.

• a thing that harms or weakens something else.


With all due respect, let’s insert an Intramuralist rephrase: an enemy is one perceived to be actively opposed or hostile to someone or something. An enemy is perceived to harm or weaken one.


The left has the right (and vice versa). The Yankees have the Red Sox. Black has white. Taylor Swift has Kanye. “Tastes great” has “less filling.” The vaxxers have the anti-vaxxers. The “woke” have the ignorant. And the Dallas Cowboys now even have the Washington Football Team.

There’s a part of me that wants to identify all of the above as mere opposites. There’s another part of me that hears one say, “C’mon, you can’t compare societal issues to sports.” And truthfully, I somewhat agree with said assessment.

Yet what emboldens today’s identification as enemies is the passion with which we justify supporting a singular side — and — the disdain that we have for the other. As long as I can hold onto my disdain (warning, here — no one’s going to like this), I can justify my hatred. 

After all, that’s what we do with our enemies — right? I mean, that’s ok — right?

We hate them.

Every time I hear the encouragement to “love my enemies,” it takes me back a little. The idea of actually loving them, doing good to them, and even praying for them seems a little — strike that — totally counterintuitive. They are harming me — remember?? Or at least harming someone. Maybe even lots of someones.

And yet here in a culture where the faithful, faithless, woke, ignorant, and all the other utter opposites agree that the social-political climate is divisive, tense and increasingly awful, I start to believe that maybe, truly, as said, we’ve gotten it all wrong.

We’ve justified creating enemies of the opposite. We’ve justified disdain of those who think differently. We’ve justified hate.

Perhaps in some conscious or unconscious way, the justification makes us feel better about ourselves. Perhaps insulating ourselves from the passion of the polar opposite allows us to never have to wrestle with the uncomfortable… that our opinion or passion might not be completely valid… or… that another’s might be equally valid… or… that even if another’s is inaccurate or perceived invalid, they are still deserving of love and respect.

totally counterintuitive…

Love your enemy. Let them bring out the best in us and not the worst.



a time for hope

So much has happened…

After taking our brief annual respite — and hearing from multiple articulate, insightful Guest Writers — we have much to discuss. What a fast moving month! Amid a backdrop of already established uncertainty, we witnessed an August full of momentous events…

  • The protests surrounding the tragic experiences of George Floyd and Jacob Blake…
  • Our response, heartache, assessment, and the new details that continue to emerge…
  • The destruction of Portland and Kenosha…
  • The violence, riots and unrest…
  • The political correctness/incorrectness/agenda/something that only allows us to use one word and maybe not another…
  • The massive explosion in Beirut, killing at least 190 persons, injuring thousands more…
  • Earthquakes — across the globe in Indonesia, the Philippines, and more  — and here at home near Sparta, North Carolina — the largest quake in the state since 1916…
  • Fires in California… “I’m essentially at a loss for words to describe the scope of the lightning-sparked fire outbreak that has rapidly evolved in Northern California — even in the context of the extraordinary fires of recent years. It’s truly astonishing,” said UCLA scientist, Daniel Swain…
  • Stormy, unwelcome visits from Isaias, Laura, and Marco…
  • The intentional stoppage of sports — for multiple reasons… 
  • “Cancel culture,” in full swing…
  • The party’s conventions…
  • The politics… meh… and the games people play… 
  • The election focus — only 62 days away — and the impending choice between two candidates — a choice unfortunately, with all due respect, which in only my semi-humble-perhaps-inaccurate opinion, seems between one who doesn’t know how to talk and one who talks too much…
  • The death of the talented American actor, Chadwick Boseman, known for portraying the Black Panther, James Brown, Jackie Robinson, and Thurgood Marshall (and whose family’s tweet announcing his death quickly became the most “liked” tweet in history)…
  • And all of the above occurring in this still unsettling pandemic, with no one seemingly knowing always, exactly the best way to respond.

Did I mention the uncertainty?

We will resist making the uncertain certain because we can’t.

Let me not be a depressor of your day. In fact, while much of the above has pierced our peace and been a source of significant concern, I contend this is a huge time for hope.

“Hope?” you say.

Indeed. But it matters what we’re hoping in. Are we hoping and finding our peace in something that’s constant? Or in something rather that changes routinely or depends most on who else adheres to like thinking?

We will discuss all that and more — and certainly much of the above — even amid these uncertain times.

So with one more sweet shout out to our awesome Guest Writers, it’s great to be back… let’s talk! Let’s continue on this journey together, as we’ve got stories to share, issues to unpack, pages to fill. But let us also resist culture’s ever-increasing lure to be disrespectful to the different… 

For the record, there’s no hope in that. No peace nor good either.