Month: October 2022

The Intramuralist loves questions! That’s no secret. It’s the only punctuation piece that invites a response. So for the month of October, we wrote down every news-oriented question from every site visited (capped after hitting 150). 65 sites are included — left, right and center. Note that not all sites utilize the approach; our objective response isn’t always invited. Hence, condensed are the questions news sites have asked this month:

1. After Leftist Threats, a Leak, and an Assassin, Will the Supreme Court Have the Guts to Follow the Constitution?
2. All that nuclear talk: Is the unthinkable suddenly possible?
3. Am I allowed to drop off a ballot for someone else?
4. An Epidemic of Cognitive Impairment?
5. Are Californians fleeing en masse to Texas?
6. Are Deficits Actually Going Down?
7. Are Democrats Heading For Another Disappointment In North Carolina?
8. Are Hurricanes Getting Worse?
9. Are Republicans Still Clear Favorites to Win Back the House?
10. Are the polls about to sandbag Democrats — again?
11. Are We Heading Towards a Global Recession?
12. Are We in a Recession?
13. Are We in a Recession?
14. Are We Seeing an End to the Age of AOC?
15. Biden’s destroying the economy. Is it intentional?
16. Biden’s economy: Are Latinos about to hand the GOP wins in AZ and NV?
17. Biden says he was “sort of” raised in the Puerto Rican community in Delaware and… what?
18. Bring Back Boris?
19. Can Democrats Talk About Inflation?
20. Can Diplomacy End the Ukraine War?
21. Can Focusing On Climate Change Help Win Elections?
22. Can the US Take on China, Iran, and Russia All at Once?
23. Can three SEC teams make the CFP?
24. Can Walker Survive the Implosion of His Heroic Image? 
25. Could Pot Be Decriminalized Before Biden Leaves Office?
26. Dear Elon Musk, Can You Buy PayPal, too?
27. Democrats losing ground with black voters?
28. Democrats Spent Loads Boosting Republicans They Thought Were Less Electable. Will It Pay Off?
29. Did Saudi Arabia Just Hand the Midterms to the GOP?
30. Did Stacey Abrams Suggest Abortions Can Ease Inflation?
31. Do Americans Actually Get Fed Up And Move To Canada?
32. Do the Lingering Protests in Iran Reveal Cracks in the Country’s Leadership?
33. Do Voters Care About John Fetterman’s Stroke?
34. Does America Need More Religion?
35. Drag for 2 year olds?
36. FAU poll: So much for Florida’s swing-state status, eh?
37. Harry Reid’s political machine is failing, can Obama save Nevada Democrats?
38. Has the Biden Admin ‘Not Stopped Or Slowed’ US Oil Production?
39. Have you applied for Biden’s student loan forgiveness?
40. Hey, Wasn’t Biden Supposed to Be the Democrats’ ‘Top Campaigner’ Right about Now?
41. How about a Noem/Gabbard ticket in 2024?
42. How do states ensure dead people’s ballots aren’t counted?
43. How Far Would a Republican Majority Go?
44. How Have The Georgia Polls Moved Since Herschel Walker’s Abortion Controversy?
45. How Is the Bobulinski Story Not on Every Front Page and Leading Every News Broadcast?
46. How Long Did The Great Recession Last In 2008?
47. How low can the Herschel Walker campaign go?
48. How popular is Joe Biden?
49. How unpopular is Joe Biden?
50. How Will President Biden’s Weed Pardons Impact Federal Drug Laws?
51. How’s Biden Doing? What about the GOP?
52. Hurricane Season: Is It Worse This Year?
53. Inflation is near a four-decade high. So why aren’t health care costs significantly higher?
54. Is AP a news organization any more?
55. Is it homophobic to not go see the gay romcom Bros?
56. Is ‘population collapse’ a bigger threat than climate change?
57. Is the Bottom Falling Out for Democrats?
58. Is the J6 Committee Decision to Subpoena Trump About to Backfire?
59. Is the Left Losing the Left?
60. Is the Midterms’ Republican Wave Back On?
61. Is the Red Wave Back?
62. Is the US economy in a recession and taking the world with it?
63. Is There a Future for Late-Night Talk Shows?
64. Is This the Condition Fetterman Is Trying to Hide From Pennsylvania Voters?
65. Isn’t it past time for America to have a female president?
66. Jim Crow 2.0?
67. Just how unpopular is Joe Biden?
68. Just how worried should you be about nuclear war?
69. Living paycheck to paycheck on $350,000 a year?
70. Liz Cheney: Right-wing icon, Trump critic… private citizen?
71. Liz Truss: How could the prime minister be replaced?
72. Kanye West keeps moving further and further to the right. Why?
73. Kill the babies to curb inflation?
74. NBC “News” host Mitchell to Pelosi: Why don’t voters appreciate all of the accomplishments of you and Biden?
75. Nevada Or Georgia … Which Senate Race Is Most Important?
76. NY Gov: Why won’t Joe Biden take ownership of the migrant crisis?
77. OPEC to Biden: Joe Who?
78. Red tsunami in the Midwest?
79. Should tech companies have immunity over problematic user content?
80. Should the West Seek an Off-Ramp in Ukraine?
81. The campaign ads are vicious, but do midterm candidates really hate each other?
82. The free world needs American energy. Will President Biden meet the moment?
83. The Kroger-Albertsons merger raises one big question: Why now?
84. The Supreme Court Is Broken. Where’s Biden?
85. Think Joe: Isn’t There a Better Way Out of Ukraine War Than Armageddon?
86. Three Out of Four Florida Looters Are Illegal Immigrants? Say What?
87. Time To Outlaw Counting by Race?
88. Waiting for a better time to buy a car?
89. Was DeSantis Shipping Migrants to Martha’s Vineyard a Crime?
90. What? Did You Think The Biden Administration Wasn’t Racist?
91. What caused Russia’s war in Ukraine?
92. What do experts get wrong about Latino voters?
93. What do you want for the holidays? How about a recession, CEOs say
94. What Does A Recession Mean For The Average Person?
95. What happened with Liz Truss in Britain? 
96. What happened with the L.A. city council president and racist remarks?
97. What happens if Putin decides to cut his losses in Ukraine?
98. What happens when public schools lose students?
99. What is martial law, and why did Putin impose it in Ukrainian areas?
100. What is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
101. What on Earth Is Kanye West Doing?
102. What Role Should Race Play in Admissions? 
103. What Should We Do About COVID-19 Fraud?
104. What Was That Badge Herschel Walker Flashed in His Debate?
105. What will a GOP majority actually do?
106. What Will Happen in Georgia?
107. What’s Really Going On With the Crime Rate?
108. What’s Putin Thinking?
109. When Is “Inflation Reduction Act” Going To Start Reducing Inflation?
110. When Will Prices Stop Going Up?
111. Where’s the outrage over Biden’s quid pro quo?
112. Who Denies Election Results?
113. Who Is James Biden?
114. Who Lost Saudi Arabia? 
115. Who might succeed Liz Truss as UK prime minister?
116. Who Sabotaged the Nord Stream Pipelines?
117. Who Will Control the House and Senate After the 2022 Elections?
118. Who’s Contending — And Pretending — Among The NFL’s Top Teams?
119. Who’s to Blame for Rising Energy Costs?
120. Who’s to Blame for the NFL’s Tua Tagovailoa Disaster?
121. Who’s to Blame for 2022’s Record-High Inflation?
122. Why are Dem leaders AWOL from the campaign trail?
123. Why Are Pollsters Disagreeing About the 2022 Midterms?
124. Why Are ‘Ten Million Jobs’ So Incendiary?
125. Why Do Blue States Keep Prioritizing Lawyers Over Low-Income Americans?
126. Why do labs keep making dangerous viruses?
127. Why Do Standing Ovations Now Seem Obligatory?
128. Why Does the ‘Strong Dollar’ Matter?
129. Why has Biden been delaying offshore oil permits? 
130. Why Have a Constitution If You Just Ignore It?
131. Why Have U.S. Natural Gas Prices Soared Since 2020?
132. Why Is High Inflation Proving So Persistent?
133. Why Is John Fetterman’s Campaign Telling Us about His High-School Football Days?
134. Why Is Putin’s Army Inept?
135. Why Won’t Dems Pass Ban on Lawmakers Trading Stocks?
136. Will Abortion Be Enough To Save Dems in November?
137. Will Asian Americans Swing Republican in Nevada Senate Race? 
138. Will China invade Taiwan?
139. Will Democrats Lose the West?
140. Will Election Deniers Deny Their Own Defeats?
141. Will Gas Prices Tank Electoral Prospects for Democrats?
142. Will GOP Call for Calm and Peace on Election Day?
143. Will New COVID-19 Subvariants Cause a Winter Surge?
144. Will Scandal-Scarred Hunter Biden Only Get a Wrist Slap?
145. Will the January 6 Committee’s Latest Hearing Have an Impact?
146. Will Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN Succeed?
147. Will your tax bracket change?
148. Would Biden Run in 2024 Without Kamala Harris?
149. Would Putin Roll the Nuclear Dice?
150. Would Republicans really cut off Ukraine?

Respectfully…

AR

[Editorial Note: Sites referenced include AlJazeera, AllSides, AMAC, American Greatness, The American Prospect, The American Spectator, Associated Press, The Atlantic, BBC, Bloomberg, The Boston Globe, Chicks on the Right, Christian Science Monitor, Citizen Connect, CNET, CNN, Commentary, Daily Kos, Dallas Morning News, Deseret News, The Dispatch, DNYUZ, ESPN, FiveThirtyEight, Forbes, Fortune, Fox News, The Grio, The Guardian, The Hill, HotAir, Huffington Post, Intelligencer, Investing News Network, John Kass News, The Korea Times, Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, The Nation, National Review, NBC News, New York Post, New York Times, The New Yorker, Newsweek, NPR, NY Magazine, OilPrice.com, PJ Media, Project Syndicate, Quartz, Rasmussen Reports, RealClearPolitics, Salon, Slate, Thirteen, Time, Townhall, US News & World Report, USA Today, Vox, Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Washington Post, and The Week.]

In a recent post I referenced this idea that we pick and choose what we care about. If it affects me, I care. But if it doesn’t directly affect me, it’s a little bit out of sight, out of mind, so-to-speak. I’m thinking that’s not always the wisest approach.

But I’m sensing we oft entertain an equally unwise approach.

Let’s get there. But first, allow us to acknowledge what pollster persons are suggesting we currently, collectively care most about now that election season is in full (sometimes a little even annoying) throttle. According to multiple polling outlets (including those sponsored by left, right, and center-leaning sites, such as the New York Times, Rasmussen Reports, and Reuters), the most important issues to Americans in order of priority are currently as follows: 

1. The economy
2. Inflation

Or…

1. Inflation
2. The economy

Those two issues are consistently, currently dominant.

Issues of significant, collective concern to voters across the country also include violent crime, immigration, foreign policy, the state of democracy, abortion laws, climate approach, and increased political polarization; however, each of these issues statistically pales in comparison to the above 1 and 2.

According to the most recently released analysis from Pew Research Center, only 17% of U.S. adults say the economy is in excellent or good shape. Reports Pew, “As has been the case all year, the economy is clearly the top issue for voters; fully 79% say it will be very important to their voting decisions — the highest share among 18 issues included on the survey.”

It’s tough out there right now, friends. Only 21% of us say our personal finances are stronger than they were a year ago. 

But let us be respectful of all in different situations than self. Always. Which, therefore, leads us to the second, perceived equally unwise approach…

Not only do we tend to care most about the issues/law/legislation that directly affect us on a daily basis, we also get lured into this imperious idea that we know best what everyone else should most care about, too. For example…

Because my student debt is now forgiven, you should care about that, too.

Because I have a kid in Taiwan, you should care about that, too.

And not only should you care about it, you should care about it as much as I do!

Friends, I think we’re making an understandable, but unmindful mistake. And it’s a mistake that’s hurting us far more than perhaps we know. We keep falling prey to this perspective that we know best what another should care about… that we know best what another should care about most… that we can determine that for another!

Something seems so wrong in that to me. Something so shortsighted… non-empathetic… maybe ignorant, too.

No judgment, friends — we’ve all been guilty. But I’m thinking this side of eternity none of us are so discerning and capable to dictate what should be most important to another. A wiser approach would be to refrain from judgment, respect via empathy, and give each person — self included — the grace and space to be fully convinced and satisfied in their own mind.

Respectfully…

AR

As we near the 2022 midterm elections, some of our long-fueled societal weaknesses are becoming increasingly visible. For example, for the past half dozen years, the Intramuralist has been disappointed in our overall choice of candidates. It seems we oft have to choose between the lesser of two evils, so-to-speak. Allow me to gently assert that the “lesser of two” would still equate to evil. That’s not something I can authentically support. Sorry, friends, but as one who desires to promote what is good and right and true, I don’t believe either character or competency need be sacrificed. There are people running right now — from both parties — who are hoping we overlook one or the other.

But lest we digress, the new phenomena that seems to be surging as we approach November 8th is what is currently classified as something like the following:

“To Debate or Not Debate: That Is the Question”

We’re seeing it across the country. Candidates of all political persuasions are pondering the point. Granted, the last train wreck known as a presidential debate did no one any favors. I learned years ago, no less, as the leader of my high school speech team, that debate is to be a discussion or structured contest in which support and opposition of resolutions are respectfully articulated. My strong sense is that the words “discussion” and “respectfully” are absent from most candidates’ approach.

Nonetheless, allow me to suggest that the idea “to debate or not debate” is not really the question. It’s not the bottom line. And it’s not really what’s plaguing the candidate who chooses to refrain.

The more transparent question would seem to be this:

“How will I do in an environment I can’t control?”

In other words, as Liz Morrison, a leader of the highly respected No Labels organization, suggests, “One of the few things that unites politicians of both parties is the single factor they fear perhaps most of all: uncontrolled situations.”

And so what happens if a candidate is asked something they don’t have a sweet-sounding answer to? What happens if the words don’t flow smoothly off their tongue? What if they have to admit they actually don’t know the answer? What if people cheer for the other? What if they boo? What if they experience a major gaffe? What if they simply come off poorly? What if they’re even wrong?

The situation is out of their control.

Hence, what many candidates are showing us is only what they want us to see — not who they really are.

Because let’s face it; as a person wanting to represent us, we need to know who the candidates really are. We need to know what they are capable of. We need to know how they are when the situation is not controlled, as no leader gets the irrational privilege of determining ahead of time what they will face in their tenure. In fact, we could actually appropriately debate that the best leaders are those who thrive in environments out of their control.

I think of arguably the most attractive, influential moment of George W. Bush’s presidential term. It was three days following the unprecedented 9/11 attacks. Borrowing a bullhorn, standing atop the rubble, Bush addressed the rescue workers gathered at Ground Zero. It was perhaps the best speech of his career.

But it wasn’t scripted. It wasn’t written beforehand. And suffice it to say, the situation was totally out of his control. That’s when Bush led best.

Friends, we deserve to hear from those who wish to represent us. As Morrison states, “Debates are different than rallies, TV ads, and photo ops. They offer relatively frank and unpredictable forums that lead to the kind of dialogue we need to understand and evaluate those who seek to lead us and to get things done.” Debates help us know who the candidates are and what they really believe — not just the image their comms team has crafted and what they want us to think they believe.

If a candidate, therefore, cannot debate — if they are either unable or are unwilling — that’s insightful… not about the candidate’s opponent, but rather, about them… and about their potential future ability or inability to lead.

Respectfully…

AR

Hear it directly from them… from those who represent No Labels, an organization that refuses to fuel the anger and divisiveness that is ruining our politics. (Allow the Intramuralist to suggest it also erodes the individual heart; no one ever becomes better or wiser by being bitter.)

We’ve spoken of No Labels often. We shared in September a frank account written by popular New York Times columnist David Brooks, speaking of the organization’s in-process approach if the primary parties continue to give us a choice between morally and/or ideologically unacceptable candidates to the majority of the people; there’s a reason approval rates are so low.

But what is it about No Labels that’s picking up steam? Why are they so attractive? Who are they? What is No Labels?

“No Labels is about bringing people together to find solutions.” — Collin Berglund, Digital Advisor

“No Labels is a movement of citizens that want their leaders to work together to solve problems.” — Nancy Jacobson, Founder & CEO

“We have folks on the left. We have folks on the right. We have folks in the center.” — Peter Orvetti, Senior Political Analyst

“No Labels is America’s best chance for political sanity.” — Holly Page, Senior Advisor

So why, Collin, Nancy, Peter, Holly, and more, why do you work for No Labels?

“I fell in love with the organization and the mission.” — McKinley Mason Scholtz, Vice President

“I fell in love with the idea of bringing people together.” — Levi Mberego, Digital Manager

“This is the work that I feel strongly that I need to do. We’ve got to keep trying, right? Because there’s no Plan B.” — Liz Morrison, Co-Executive Director

“I want to be a part of something that changes the world.” — Sarah Vielot, Operations Manager

“If we don’t talk with one another, there’s no way that we are capable of working together.” — Ann Coughlin, Scheduler

So knowing that you’re working diligently to provide the American people with a choice in 2024 in which we don’t have to doubt either the compassion, competency or radicalness of all tickets, tell us, too, what are your goals? And better yet, are they achievable?

“People in congress need to work across the aisle to get common sense solutions done. It’s really what most voters are looking for. ” — Ryan Clancy, Chief Strategist

“We created something called the ‘Problem Solvers Caucus.’ Those relationships really started to turn into legislation, like the infrastructure bill or the bipartisan Covid relief bill.” — Jacobson

“Big things that wouldn’t have happened if our leaders didn’t come together and make it happen.” — Samantha Brooks, Regional Vice President  

So what happens next?

“It’s up to all of us. I mean, every person in this country, every citizen has a responsibility.” — Jacobson

“One individual really can make a difference, but lots of individuals can make a much bigger difference.” — Clancy

We’ll talk about this more, friends, especially as the divisiveness continues to sadly be encouraged from all sorts of angles. I find myself uniquely hopeful that a respectful, honest organization wants to ensure that the angriest voices quit dominating our politics. The angriest voices aren’t attractive. They don’t seem all that effective either.

Respectfully…

AR

I don’t remember when this happened. I was too young then. It was 1979. I don’t remember if I was aware or had any emotional reaction. I’m not even certain if I would have known if I would have been disturbed. If I’m honest — and I’m not in any way attempting to be callous — I don’t know if I would have cared. Sometimes, maybe, especially when we’re younger — maybe older, too — we pick and choose what we care about. If it affects me, I care. But if it’s out of sight, it’s oft also out of mind.

It was simply supposed to be for sightseeing. For wonder and fun.

257 people were on board — 237 paying passengers combined with 20 crew members. It was indeed a unique flight, having its own tour guide aboard, who utilized the aircraft’s public address system to point out the unprecedented beauty and landmarks below.

Note, too, it was rather expensive, costing the equivalent of $2,977 per individual if in operation today.

Air New Zealand Flight 901 was a routine flight that would leave Auckland International Airport at 8:00 am. They would lower their altitude, make multiple loops, thus enabling the eager sightseers to get a great, extended glimpse of Antarctica before returning to Auckland later in the evening. It was a way to see the world’s windiest, coldest and iciest continent without all the wind, cold and ice.

But on November 28, 1979, the unthinkable happened. The much-heralded tourist excursion, instead of gliding smoothly above the arctic waters and returning to New Zealand, crashed head-on into the side of Mount Erebus. Mount Erebus is the second-highest volcano in Antarctica — standing at 12,448 feet — and the southernmost active volcano on the planet.

Allow me to briefly share the reasons for the crash and then elaborate on why a 43 year old airplane disaster felt like wise and relevant content for our time here today.

Pilots Jim Collins and Greg Cassin had never flown to Antarctica before, but each were experienced pilots with unquestionable professional credentials. Days prior to departure, they were given a copy of the approved flight plan.

However, unbeknownst to the captain and crew, when the navigational coordinates of the flight plan were entered into the plane’s computer system, a typing error was made. It was a slight error — a mere few degrees off — but recognize that over the course of a some 2,819 mile journey, 1° makes an indeed significant difference.

Nearing the continent, the pilots flew two large loops through the clouds while bringing the plane down to approximately 2,000 feet. They assumed they were over the vast McMurdo Sound, the southernmost navigable body of water in the world. Instead, they were approximately 29.3 miles East. It is believed the clouds impeded their visibility. What the pilots believed to be ice and snow in the distance, was instead Mount Erebus, right in front of them. When the proximity alarms blared shortly before 1 pm that day, it was only 6 seconds later that the plane and people met their fateful end.

It’s a fascinating account. Chilling, too, no doubt, are the film and photos salvaged from the wreckage and still able to be developed — some taken only seconds before the crash.

I share this today, no less, with a thought that’s been stewing in me during my respite. Remember that Flight 901 was only 1° or 2° off…

And while 1° or 2° might not seem like much in a moment — “It’s only a small bit — that shouldn’t matter” — over an extended period of time or a long journey or over the course of several years or a even lifetime, that minute amount can make a huge difference.

Where are those places we’ve individually decided it’s ok to be off? … it’s ok to accept something lesser or act a wee bit less moral? Where are those places that we’ve convinced ourselves it’s ok to be judgmental, to treat a certain person or people group poorly, or that it’s ok not to take responsibility? Where are those places that we’ve concluded I’m right and they’re wrong and so there’s no need to prioritize relationship? Where, too, are those spots where I’ve convinced myself that I don’t need faith or God or other people right now? … “I’ll take care of that down the road sometime…”

And since it was such a small amount at first, as time goes by, we don’t have the slightest clue as to where we are or who we’ve become or maybe even how others see us; we don’t recognize how bitter or arrogant or judgmental we’ve become… unaware of how an uncorrected single degree can transform into a huge hole in our character.

Degrees off matter, friends. May we humbly find it before it swells.

Respectfully…

AR

Let me start by saying I sort of stole the title. But the reality is that it’s a question pondered by many. So let’s examine what we know and admit what we don’t. But first… can I ask a favor?

An odd request for a blogger, I suppose — and only a semi-humble one at that. But here’s the thing. I don’t find a lot of objectivity on this issue. I want to learn. I want to grow. I want to encourage each of us to do the same. But that’s really difficult when we aren’t willing to be objective. As Hurricane Ian ripped through my typically sunshiny state two weeks ago — with the eye coming almost directly over our house — let me be the first to admit my objectivity may be off. Such could also be said of my dear friends in southwest Florida; the devastation there is gut-wrenching! But in order to learn and grow, objectivity is a prerequisite.

Too many push their perspective seemingly inappropriately. For example, a consensus of climate change scientists will tell you that they evaluate trends, not individual incidents. Such didn’t stop CNN’s Don Lemon from asking National Hurricane Center Acting Director Jamie Rohme during Ian’s reign “what effect has climate change had on this phenomenon that is happening now.” Rohme calmly responded, “I don’t think you can link climate change to any one event. On the cumulative, climate change may be making storms worse, but to link it to any one event, I would caution against that.” 

No disrespect to Lemon. I’m sure other networks led with their varied bias as well. The point is that bias negates objectivity, and negated objectivity impedes truth. We want the truth: are hurricanes getting worse?

Let us combine the excellent insight and research shared then by The Atlantic’s Robinson Meyer and The Dispatch’s Price St. Clair. They concur on the undeniable key point: the link between climate change and hurricanes is nuanced and complicated. It is not the same as other weather events. In fact, as Robinson writes, it is “folly” to suggest otherwise. 

So here’s what scientists agree upon… 

“Hurricanes are getting wetter…  With higher temperatures, ‘you just have more water vapor going up and condensing in the clouds, so you have more rain coming down,’ Kerry Emanuel, a meteorologist at MIT, explained. ‘It’s really that simple.’ Such is significant in that ‘water is by far the biggest killer and source of damage in hurricanes.’”

“Hurricanes are (probably) getting more intense… Hurricanes get their energy from ‘fluxes of heat from the sea surface to the atmosphere’… The warmer the water, the higher the ‘speed limit’ and the faster the winds can get. According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ‘more than 90% of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean’ —which suggests that, in general, the hurricane speed limit has been ticking upward. Research tends to support that projection. A 2021 study led by Tom Knutson of NOAA found that storm intensity has increased over the past four decades and is expected to continue to do so under warming climate conditions. But Knutson and his coauthors noted that ‘it is not clear’ how much of the increase is due to human-caused climate change as opposed to ‘natural variability.’”

“Hurricane data is still spotty… Major storms are increasingly common in the North Atlantic—but there’s still a lot we don’t know. ‘If you look at the overall frequency of storms, it’s going to be completely dominated by weak storms that don’t do a lot of damage,’ Emanuel said. ‘So what you ought to be asking is how does the frequency of category 3, 4, and 5 storms change with climate?’ The number of ‘major’ hurricanes—categories 3, 4, and 5—has increased in the North Atlantic since the 1980s, but not because of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, some of our hurricane woes are a byproduct of having cleaned up the environment.”

That’s what we know. So back to what we don’t… 

“There’s essentially no agreement on what a warming climate will do to smaller hurricanes in the Category 1 or 2 range, Emanuel said. Historically, these less intense storms form far more often than major storms, and they dominate the raw numbers of hurricanes that form each year (although major hurricanes still cause by far the most damage). But ‘we just don’t know if the number of those smaller storms will be more or fewer or stay the same.’

Climatologists also don’t know what will happen to the diameter of hurricanes. The size of hurricanes is an overlooked but important aspect of a storm’s danger, Emanuel said. For instance, Hurricane Ian made landfall in almost the same place that Hurricane Charley did in 2004, but Ian is a much wider—and thus a much more destructive—storm. Charley, in fact, could almost fit entirely within Ian’s eye.” 

So in Ian’s wake, what do we know and what do we not?

Ian was really wet. It was big and intensified rapidly. It dumped a ton of rain on Florida.

And we have a whole lot more to learn.

Respectfully…

AR

These are the moments that make me shake my head. These are the moments my jaw drops, my eyes open wide, and my initial expression becomes some muddled utterance of… “really?” It also becomes a moment where I am most prone to being seduced by disrespect.

It was a mere fleeting moment. The TV network, in fact, didn’t even broadcast the incident, as we’ve gotten better in some parts that way; we try not to promote what’s not wise to be promoted. It occurred during one of my favorite activities, “Monday Night Football.”

The Rams were visiting the 49ers at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California last Monday. Shortly before halftime, a young man ran onto the field. (I had to chuckle; I thought I heard one of the play-by-play announcers initially identify the man as a streaker; he wasn’t, but it makes me snicker as to why we always assume the person running for his life on national TV is naked.) 

The non-streaker was identified as animal rights activist Alex Taylor. He ran onto the field, illegally, during play, disrupting the game, holding some sort of pink smoke flare, eluding officials, attempting to bring attention to himself, purportedly to bring more attention to the trial of two friends belonging to his same activist group, who allegedly stole a pair of piglets from a Utah pig farm five years ago. (For the record, most seem uncertain what he actually brought more attention to. C’est la vie, perhaps.)

Taylor ran across the field in a zig-zaggy, non-straight way, clearly desiring to have his 15 minutes of fame extend as long as possible. Multiple security officers were chasing him, unsuccessful in their immediate apprehension attempts. Hence, as he neared the Los Angeles bench, Rams linebacker Bobby Wagner stepped onto the playing field and treated the protester exactly as he would any perceived opponent sprinting down the sideline. Wagner flat out decked him. The man was then arrested and removed from the stadium.

(Said incident was perhaps best articulated by former ESPN — now NBC Sports Edge — writer/commentator Matthew Berry, who said: “Bobby Wagner destroying a smoke bomb-toting fan last week was hilarious. It was also the best (and only?) tackles anyone even slightly connected to the Seattle defense has made all season.) 

But none of the above was my… “really?”

Two days later the fan on the field filed a police report against Wagner. The claim is reportedly for “blatant assault.”

So let’s get this straight…

An adult man chooses to charge the field. He intentionally chooses to break the law. His behavior is knowingly illegal. I don’t care if he’s trying to bring attention to animal rights, states’ rights, or the right for everyone to read the Intramuralist. Taylor deliberately acted unlawfully. 

When we do something unlawfully — even if not deliberately — there are consequences. Taylor’s intentionality shows he knew he would face consequences.

But instead of taking individual responsibility, bearing those consequences, he instead has decided to blame someone else for what happened to him. Who does he think is responsible for his professed plight?

The “really?” comes at the audacity of an adult to blame someone other than self.

The “really?” comes at the immaturity of a grown man wanting to absolve himself of individual responsibility.

And the “really?” comes from the idea that a man who chose to act illegally is any kind of victim.

We have two choices when things go awry in our life, friends. One, is to play the role of victim… look around… find someone semi-convenient to blame.

Or two, we can own it… reflect… and ask what we did that contributed to the situation.

That would be unquestionably and immeasurably wiser.

Really.

Respectfully…

AR

One of the challenges Americans face is getting accurate news. One of the bigger challenges we face is our mistaken belief that we are actually getting accurate news… when we aren’t. Pew Research Center recently updated their analysis of where we get our news. 82% of us say we now “often” or “sometimes” get our news from a smartphone, computer or tablet. Intriguing still, half of us get news at least sometimes from social media, with Facebook and YouTube being the most popular sites, then Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. But question: what if Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, et al. are wrong? What if they are actually contributing to the above two challenges?

The Center for Humane Technology is a nonprofit working to “reframe the insidious effects of persuasive technology, expose the runaway systems beneath, and deepen the capacity of global decision-makers and everyday leaders to take wise action.” In other words, they are essentially addressing challenges one and two. Note what they insightfully observe and advise…

The world we see through social media is distorted, like looking into a funhouse mirror. These distortions are negative externalities of an advertising-driven, engagement-maximizing business model, which affects people and relationships in myriad ways. 8 Ways Social Media Distorts Reality:

The Extreme Emotion Distortion occurs as users have access to virtually unlimited amounts of personalized, emotional content, any user can find overwhelming evidence for their deeply held beliefs. This situation creates contradicting “evidence-based” views, resulting in animosity and fracturing of our collective sensemaking.

The Information Flooding Distortion happens as algorithms and bots flood or curate the information users see based on their likelihood to engage with it, resulting in users believing that what is popular (e.g., hashtags, comments, trends) is public consensus, when in fact it can also be manipulated distortion.

The Micro-Targeting Distortion happens as advertisers send personalized, emotionally resonant — and sometimes opposing — messages to distinct groups of people, resulting in individualized micro-realities that can generate social conflict.

The Moral Outrage Distortion occurs when engagement-maximizing algorithms amplify emotionally charged, moralizing content. This results in polarization, mischaracterizations of “the other side,” and the perception of more moral outrage around us than there really is.

The Engaging Content Distortion happens when social media platforms incentivize competition to create more viral content. This results in more frequent posting, more hyperbolic language, and more posting of extreme views, including conspiracy theories and out-of-context information.

The Anti-Journalism Distortion is created as social media platforms force reputable news organizations to compete in an environment that rewards clickbait headlines and polarizing rhetoric resulting in less thoughtful, less nuanced reporting.

The Disloyalty Distortion happens when users on public social media feeds try to understand or express compassion for the “other” side and are attacked by their “own” side for doing so.

The Othering Distortion occurs as algorithms amplify divisive, negative, out-of-context content about particular groups. This incentivizes “othering” content, causing us to dehumanize others and view them as unworthy of our understanding.

The Impact… These distortions don’t just affect individuals. Over time these distortions warp society’s perception of reality, breaking down our ability to find shared understanding. Shared understanding is needed for democratic functioning. It enables nuanced discussion, debate, and problem solving across party lines. Yet, today’s dominant social media platforms are breaking down these critical capabilities at an alarming pace. This is why social media as it operates today is a threat to open societies worldwide.

Actions You Could Take… We can uphold open society values by enabling an information ecosystem that stewards our capacity for shared understanding rather than optimizing for engagement:

1. Curtail the causes through platform design changes that incentivize trust and understanding. For example, introducing friction to limit virality prevents ideas that trigger powerful emotions from spreading quickly and dominating public discourse. For a deep dive, we recommend reading Renee DiResta and Tobias Rose’s piece, “ How to Stop Misinformation Before It Gets Shared.”

2. Address the crises caused by the breakdown of shared understanding. For technology teams, this means identifying crises among both users and non-users, maintaining cross-team collaboration, and planning ahead for challenges. For instance, teams should consider implementing blackouts for features that may cause harm during certain periods (e.g., elections).

3. Heal the toxic state of our minds from years of being conditioned to see divisiveness as safe and compassion with the “other side” as risky.

• Approach mutual understanding as a skill to be developed. Search for Common Ground and The One America Movement provide powerful insight into how public education can cultivate intellectual humility and establish understanding.
• Rehumanize each other by connecting with shared values and sharing experiences in order to depolarize our communities. For a bit of inspiration, check out this video.
• Illustrate distortions in order to reveal perception gaps and “alternate” realities. For example, participate in a “reality swap” where you swap feeds with another person to see how the reality presented to them differs from the reality you see.

Notice the organization’s observation: social media is distorting our reality. That means, as painful and humbling as it may be to admit it, with most of us tuning in at least somewhat to social media for our news, some of what we believe is unknowingly wrong.

Respectfully…

AR

We’ve spoken often here of the perceived societal digression — an increase in crime, an erosion of values, and even the encouragement of division.

Somewhere embedded amidst that decline is this confounded notion that the admission of error equates to weakness. Let me state my opinion strongly: this couldn’t be further from the truth.

In one of my current roles, I have the sweet responsibility to oversee leadership development for a very talented group of young professionals, many in the early stages of careers in ministry. We are creative, intentional and consistent in investing in these current and no doubt future leaders. They are exceptional and have much to give, with great futures in front of them.

Last week we had an in depth, extensive conversation on the need to actually work on our leadership, as being a leader isn’t something you just are; it’s something you root, plant, water and grow; you prune it. You work on it. You never just arrive, so-to-speak.

We encourage and model the principles of integrity, kindness, faithfulness, and more. Honesty is part of the more.

Wise people are honest people. And honest people aren’t just honest about our successes; we’re honest about our failures, too. In fact, in last week’s conversation we actually spoke about the need to fail.

Let us be clear: failure is an opportunity. It’s an opportunity for all that rooting and planting and watering and growing. It builds resilience in self and makes us relatable to others. Hence, admission of our mistakes is necessary.

But somehow we as a society have missed this idea. We have equated any admission of failure with weakness, thereby missing out on the available resilience and relatability. This is especially true in our politics, as for some reason, all sides of the proverbial aisle have been somehow seduced into adopting governing, legislating, and public relations strategies which don’t allow for any admission of error. Democrats and Republicans are each cringe-worthy guilty.

Continuing with the cringe-worthy, note one of last week’s more notable gaffes (and let’s face it; the two most recent presidents have given us a lot of material)…

Pres. Biden was speaking at the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, and was acknowledging the bipartisan group of lawmakers who came together to make a difference in this area. He then attempted to acknowledge Indiana’s Rep. Jackie Walorski. 

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie? I think she wasn’t going to be here — to help make this a reality,” said the President.

The only problem is that Rep. Walorski died in a car accident at the beginning of August.

Let’s be grace givers, friends; we all make mistakes. But it wasn’t the gaffe that was the problem; it was the response.

When asked about the President’s obvious mistake that morning, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre actually defended the gaffe, suggesting that Biden “was naming the congressional champions on this issue and was acknowledging her incredible work” and that the deceased congresswoman “was of top of mind for the President,” which is not “unusual to have someone top of mind.”

Stunned by Jean-Pierre’s defense, multiple, varied politically-leaning media members tried to help her make it make at least a little more sense, asking if it was a teleprompter error. Jean-Pierre didn’t budge…

She refused to give any ammunition to any admission of error by the President, even though it was obvious Pres. Biden had forgotten that Rep. Walorski passed away. It no doubt would have been a far wiser, more tactful approach to simply say, “The President made a mistake. He apologizes to the family.” The conversation would then be done.

But let us not justify any lack of extension of grace to the White House Office of the Press Secretary. The reality is that politics are downstream from society, and society no longer sees an admission of failure or fault for the opportunity that it actually is. 

As author Roy T. Bennett penned, “It takes guts and humility to admit mistakes. Admitting we’re wrong is courage, not weakness.”

Not weakness.

That goes for us all.

Respectfully…

AR