Posts

Posted on

the rest of the story

In Sunday’s blog there was one embedded comment that is perhaps relevant in most — maybe all — of the events we examine.  It’s arguably applicable in each of our opinions.  And it’s probably the one aspect that’s hardest for us to admit, especially when our emotions are enflamed.

 

As previously stated:  “None of us know everything; we continually make judgments and build perspective based on limited information.”

 

We continually make judgments based on limited information — although we assume we either know it all — or at least enough to form (and adhere to) an opinion.

 

That means from where we stand, we can’t tell what Paula Deen did or did not say…

We can’t discern the guilt — or innocence — of either George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin…

We can’t tell if the administration lied about Benghazi… or if the previous administration lied about known weapons of mass destruction…

We truly don’t know if the unfair targeting of conservative groups by the IRS generated from Washington or anywhere near the White House…

We don’t know with certainty if LeBron James is an arrogant or humble winner…

We have no idea if the Justice Dept. is telling the truth — or lying — regarding their motive for identifying reporters as potential criminals in order to secretly spy on them…

We don’t know if the current immigration legislation being crafted is all good or all not (… granted, those senators voting on it would know a little more if they’d actually read the proposed bill)…

 

We don’t know; our information is limited.  That should alter the passion prompting our perspective.

 

Years ago I was involved in a professional situation in which most all who articulated an opinion were seduced by the limited-information lure.  An angry hotel employee of mine had alerted the local papers and television stations, that our staff had unfairly discriminated against him because he was gay.  He told the awaiting microphones that we wanted to fire him because of his sexual preference/orientation.

 

The tapes were rolling; there was much to record.  “Discrimination!” was uttered in some of the shouts.  The employee was passionate and articulate.  He seemed to have a believable story, as yes, it was true that he was gay and also that we planned on terminating his employment.  However believable, it was also incomplete.

 

The information he chose not to share with the media that morn is that in an elegant setting, he began publicly cooking breakfast for our hotel guests wearing Spandex shorts and flip flops, while smoking a cigarette.  When he was asked to exit and don an appropriate uniform, he refused — and instead locked himself in a hotel room.  It was from that room in which he called the local media.

 

Friends, I never felt free to disclose all aspects of that scenario.  While the employee chose not to share the “rest of the story,” so-to-speak, neither did I.  We never made our case to the media.  We never gave them complete information.  Hence, all conclusions made in regard to the fate of our former breakfast cook were based on limited information.

 

What don’t we know?  … about Paula Deen?  Benghazi?  … the IRS, Justice Dept., George Zimmerman, and more?

 

In each of the above — no matter whether we passionately believe or doubt the account shared — our passion is based solely on limited information.  We will most likely never “know the rest of the story.”

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

oh my

Infamous, celebrity butter connoisseur, Paula Deen — the Paula Deen of the millions of dollars Deen cooking empire — acknowledged the previous use of a racial slur.  On Friday, Deen apologized for “the wrong that I’ve done,” following this week’s admission that she said the “N-word” years ago.  Almost immediately, the Food Network fired her.  The Emmy-winning chef has worked for the Food Network for the past 14 years.

 

Allow us to begin with a few caveats and statements of fact.  First and foremost, none of us know everything; we continually make judgments and build perspective based on limited information.  Second, the name calling was not (at least admitted to be) in public.  And third, the “N-word” is a racial slur that many of all skin colors still reserve the right to say for some reason.  That said…

 

I wonder… (as you knew I would…)

 

How forgiving of a society are we?

When exactly does a person “cross the line”?

When has their debt or wrong choice gone too far?

70 times 7?  When do we legitimately choose to forgive… or to not?

 

Please don’t equate consequence with forgiveness.  Such is a separate topic; there are consequences for poor choices.  Today my question centers around forgiveness… especially as we hear the “aghast’s,” “oh my’s,” and “she should pay” in regard to a Paula Deen.

 

Can we extend forgiveness that far?

 

For many we say they don’t deserve to be forgiven…

 

I’m reminded of the historical king’s account who decided to forgive the monetary debts of his servants.  As he got under way in the squaring up process, one servant was brought before him who had run up a debt of a hundred thousand dollars.  He couldn’t pay up, so the king ordered the man, along with his wife, children, and goods, to be auctioned off at the slave market.  Yes, an awful fate.

 

The poor wretch threw himself at the king’s feet and begged, “Give me a chance and I’ll pay it all back.”  Touched by his plea, the king let him off, actually erasing the debt.

 

The servant was no sooner out of the room when he came upon one of his own peers who owed him only ten dollars.  The servant seized him by the throat and demanded, “Pay up.  Now!”

 

This poor wretch threw himself down and begged, “Give me a chance and I’ll pay it all back,” but he wouldn’t do it.  The original servant had him arrested and put in jail until his debt was paid.  When the other servants saw this going on, they were outraged and brought a detailed report to the king.

 

The king summoned the man and said, “You evil servant!  I forgave your entire debt when you begged me for mercy.  Shouldn’t you be compelled to be merciful to your fellow servant who asked for mercy?”

 

Isn’t that seemingly half our problem?  Even if it’s a poor choice we have also made, we still often hold others to a higher standard than ourselves.  We ask for mercy; yet at the same time, we often withhold it from others.  We withhold mercy.  We refrain from freely offering forgiveness.  “They don’t deserve it!” we are tempted to adamantly reply.  Paula Deen obviously made a poor choice, but the reality is that many among us — including those at the Food Network — have most likely said the exact same thing or something comparable or even worse.  And yet, there is no forgiveness.  There is sadly, seemingly, only more “aghast’s,” “oh my’s,” and “she should pay.”

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

hospital visits

Yesterday was our annual trek to Children’s Hospital.  While there exist few things I would say everyone should do, regular visits to Children’s would be one of them.  A simple stroll through the hallways quickly puts life in perspective.  As we saw yesterday…

 

Obesity and undernutrition and the inability to walk.

One little girl’s legs who were thinner than my largest toes.

Casts.  IV’s.  Legs, arms, heads… all wrapped up.

Wheelchairs… lots of wheel chairs.

Multiple disabilities… including one adolescent, stationary in her chair, who couldn’t seem to hold her head up… in fact, no limbs looked able to be lifted.

A young boy — maybe 3, 4 — only crying in pain in the hallway.

A new mom, with an obvious desperate countenance — cradling her bundled babe, who seemed too young to don both a face mask an IV…

 

Yes, one trek to Children’s puts life in perspective.  It saps our arrogance.  It erases any thoughts of “why me” or “woe is me.”  It quickly shocks us out of our selfish states and moves us instead to a genuine thoughtfulness of other people…  a genuine compassion — not to be confused with the one who believes they are compassionate, but somehow still justifies disrespect or awful, arrogant rhetoric with the holder of an opposition voice or perspective.  Perhaps my family’s extended time at Children’s Hospital years ago solidified those roots of respect previously sewn.  After all, the Intramuralist comes from an ancestry of strong personalities, including a pastor and a bartender in recent generations.  Hence, we talk about all things — and we talk about them compassionately and respectfully.

 

Several years ago, my youngest son almost lost his life.  We spent 3 weeks in Children’s cardiac ICU ward.  For most of that time, a machine breathed the breaths our son could not.  Josh was born missing a wall in his heart.

 

While I would wish that experience on no one, I also wouldn’t trade it for the world.  It’s times like that — that are so deep, so piercing, and so knowingly out of our control — when you figure out what life’s about.  I remember one nurse who lingered one morn, shortly after Josh’s vitals had significantly deteriorated.  She waited ‘til all others were gone, and then she humbly yet boldly asked, “I don’t get it.  How can you be so calm?”

 

I smiled weakly, with the seemingly few ounces of energy and adrenaline left in my body during those continued days of sleepless nights, responding, “There’s a reason I have the faith that I do.  If I’m not going to hold onto it now, why have it?”  In the weeks that followed, that faith only strengthened, as I have little doubt my family and I had front row seats to one outstanding miracle.  Josh is a healthy, vibrant, incredible young man today.

 

Each year we go back for our annual visit, checking the heart chambers, evaluating any changes in the leakage that will forever be with him.  Once again, yesterday, we were blessed with a positive report.

 

As we were stopped along one hallway, an older teen pulled up near Josh in his motorized chair.  His face and limbs were slightly disfigured, but typical of my Josh, he saw none of that.  Josh simply looked at him, smiled, and enthusiastically said, “Hi!”

 

The teen, who was diligently typing with one finger on the keyboard on his lap — through that amplified keyboard — slowly said, “Can’t complain.  How are you?”  Josh said, “Awesomeness!”  Then Josh asked his name.  With a deliberate reply and an awkward but very cool fist bump, Josh turned and yelled, “Hey, Dad!  Meet Brad.  He can type!”

 

As I said, those visits to Children’s always put life in perspective.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

truth in advertising

Here’s the challenge…

 

No matter the merits…

No matter the goodness…

No matter the efficiency…

No matter the cost…

 

Instead of engaging in dialogue that encourages actual, objective analysis, we instead attempt to seduce audiences into thinking all is good or all is not.  In other words, we don’t fairly evaluate the merits of an issue, policy, or proposal.  We don’t examine efficiency.  We instead spend more effort and energy into “talking people into things.”

 

This summer “Organizing for Action” — the organizational successor to Pres. Obama’s campaign arm — began advertising their perceived positives regarding Obamacare…

 

“The truth is, Americans are already seeing the benefits…

Better coverage and lower costs.  That’s what Obamacare means for them.”

 

Are the above statements true?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But “Organizing for Action” is spending over a million dollars on their current cable television ad buy in order to appeal to us emotionally — and thus convince us such is true.

 

As one who has watched the healthcare debate closely and carefully studied the legislation, my sense is that the above claims cannot be made with certainty.  However, such misses the point of today’s post.  This is not an analysis of the merits of the newly imposed Patient Affordable Care Act.

 

The point is that many (on multiple issues) encourage little to no honest dialogue.  There are seemingly few attempts to forthrightly decipher what is good and what is not… what will work and what will not… and what works for one person but for another will absolutely not…

 

Instead of objective analysis, far too often our goal seems to manipulate the audience — bypassing any unbiased examination — bypassing total truth in advertising — and emotionally convince others that our perspective is entirely accurate and good.  In other words, once again, we stink at dialogue.  Actually, we don’t stink; we simply skip the step.

 

Let’s instead ask better questions.  Let’s work to inform, discuss, and help all affected comprehend.  Let’s understand the positives and pitfalls together — as both exist and both are relevant.

 

Let’s do that instead of spending massive money on emotional appeal.

 

True, the current ad buy is only an approximate million dollars by a political action committee.  That number, however, can be added to the federal government’s previous tens of millions of dollars — taxpayer dollars — spent hiring PR firms to promote the law.  Something tells me that such can’t be all good either.

 

Dialogue would be better.  By far.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the bro code

All these codes…  the man code, girl code, girlfriend code, baby code, even the traditional zip and area codes.  Last week this parent of teenagers unexpectedly stumbled against THE BRO CODE.  Do a little colloquial research.  This so-called “code” is a loosely unwritten, relational guide as to how manly young men are to interact with one another.

 

For example, “Bros do not make eye contact at urinals“… or… “a Bro doesn’t date another’s sloppy second” (note:  “a sloppy second” is the former girl of another)… “Bros never wear a Fanny Pack”… or my personal favorite… “when a Bro wants to do something stupid, first you try to talk the Bro out of it; if they still want to do it, you film it.”

 

Last week a situation existed in which one of my boy’s “Bro’s” had made a poor — albeit fairly minor — decision.  Interestingly, while my relationships with both son and “Bro” are solid, my son refused to divulge any more detailed information.  “You just don’t do that.  No true Bro snitches on another.”  Ah… THE BRO CODE.

 

And then it dawned on me…

 

When one Bro snitches on another Bro, the snitched-on Bro is then technically allowed to escape any questioning concerning their decision-making because they have now been wronged.  They become seemingly rightfully indignant.  They are then masterfully able to deflect attention from their behavior to the other’s snitching, thereby never having to wrestle with the appropriateness of what was actually snitched upon.

 

Notice last week’s arguably most newsworthy event…

 

Former CIA contractor, Edward Snowden, revealed confidential secrets about the US government’s spying programs.  Having fled to Hong Kong, Snowden revealed the classified information via interviews with the British press.  Among the revelations — and directly contradicting previous, recent CIA congressional testimony — Snowden shared that the American government is spying on its own people; they are collecting our phone records and monitoring our online activity.

 

To some, Snowden is an incredibly brave hero, selflessly willing to salvage himself for the sake of the greater good; to others he is a narcissistic traitor, threatening American security by now making enemy targeting easier.  Fascinatingly, Snowden has profoundly bridged the partisan divide, as claims of traitor or hero hail from both parties.

 

The US is saying little.  As increased reports detail the depth of the spying, we hear little denial; we do hear, however, that they intend to track down Edward Snowden.  Why?  Because Snowden snitched.  No true Bro snitches on another.

 

The Intramuralist still doesn’t have a clear cut conclusion in regard to the appropriateness of this so-called whistle-blowing.  I can conclude, no less, that when one snitches on another, the snitched-upon American government is now masterfully attempting to deflect attention from their behavior to Snowden’s snitching, thereby never having to wrestle with the appropriateness of what was actually snitched upon.

 

Sounds like the federal government should study other aspects of THE BRO CODE… for example… “A Bro never leaves a Bro behind”… and… “When a Bro is in doubt, he shall consider the actions of Chuck Norris before making a decision.”

 

We could use a little more Chuck Norris in government.  He wouldn’t be a snitch.  He’d be tough but compassionate.  He’d mean what he says and say what he means.  He also wouldn’t deflect attention elsewhere.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

relevant?

You may have realized that the Intramuralist has a bit of a “nerdy side.”  Sorry, I’m pretty comfortable with it.  It’s the part of me that implored me to memorize each offensive stat for every Major League Baseball starter as a kid — and the same motive for committing each amendment in the Bill of Rights to a different (albeit creative and quite timely) tune.  Yes, my inner nerd remains alive and well.

 

The beautiful aspect of this nerdy self is that it’s prompted by a sincere quest for knowledge.  I want to know what actually is good and true and right.  I don’t just want to repeat that mantra because it sounds good.  Hence, as an adult, the pursuit has continued — although absent a few of the most current baseball statistics.

 

One of my keen pursuits is the annual reading of the bible.  Call me nerdy.  Call me nuts.  Ask me what kind of reading is that.  But the bottom line is that if this is a centuries old revering of wisdom, then I want to know what’s in it.  I don’t want to express concurrence nor contention without being fully aware of what’s in the book.  I also don’t want to simply pick and choose what to apply.  I want to know the book in its entirety.  I want to understand what has made this book so offensive to so many.  I want to get why still more have embraced it with their last, dying breath.  If this is a book of unparalleled wisdom, then I want to comprehend what I can — rather than rely on someone or something other than the source to filter what it says.

 

Let the record show — human as I am (and God, have a little grace on me, por favor) — that sometimes I’ve gotten a little bored.  There have been passages where I utter a “what” or  “what’s the big deal” or even an “ewwww.”   When I search through the kings’ annals and ancient building code accounts, I’ve even (sorry) been prone to dozing off.  As seemingly always, however, something strikes me.  Profoundly.  Something typically unexpected… but yet, amazingly, acutely, relevant.  Just as it did this morning…

 

Attention all…  God’s message…

There is no faithfulness, no love,
no acknowledgment of God in the land.

There is only cursing, lying and murder,
stealing and adultery;

There is violence everywhere —
one murder after another.

That is why your land is in mourning,
and everyone is wasting away.
Even the wild animals, the birds of the sky,
and the fish of the sea are disappearing.

Don’t point your finger at someone else
and try to pass the blame…

My people are being destroyed
because they don’t know me.

 

Know it’s with great sobriety that I share the above — aware of the violence in our land… the effect on our environment… the individual, corporate, and even government’s dishonorable behavior — and also a behavior often seemed ignored or even celebrated.  We all have at some time engaged in poor behavior, yet as I read the above, I’m struck with how it begins… with “no acknowledgement of God in the land.”

 

Are we freely allowed to acknowledge God in this land?

 

Or is that being squelched?  Is God’s name being removed?  From public places?  From public credit?

 

I wonder… “my people are being destroyed because they don’t know me.”  My inner nerd wants to comprehend how relevant that is today…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

out!

Listen closely to line #1:  this is not a sports post.  (Remember that…)

This past weekend, I couldn’t believe the judgment of the infield umpire!

 

Alex, who plays for our team — the good team, the right team, the wisest and best — was leading off on first.  The game was tight — a top team tournament; it was close; only the winner would advance.  Let’s just say the intensity seemingly increased with each and every pitch.  This was serious.  This was 13 year old baseball.

 

Unbeknownst to all fans in the stands, Alex discretely received the “steal” sign.  He takes off.  He is fast!  The ball soars from the catcher’s hands, streaming across the infield, straight to the shortstop, whose current primary goal is to tag our Alex out.

 

Man, I had an excellent view from the stands!  I was standing directly in line with the base path; and so when the catcher let it loose, I saw the ball sail 2 feet behind the runner.  There was no tag.  “Way to go, Alex,” I immediately thought.  The ball was no where close.

 

Then came the umpire’s emphatic call…  “You’re OUT!”

 

Excuse me?

 

In order to throw out an attempted base stealer, the runner must be tagged.  Alex had to be tagged.  The ball was nowhere close.  There was no possible way for our player to be out.

 

Are you kidding me?  What are you thinking?!  Are you stupid?  How smart are you?

 

Oh, wait… I see now…

 

Alex is white.  The umpire is black.  He’s African-American.  That’s it!!  He must have called Alex out due to the color of his skin!!

 

Nothing else explains this.  Nothing else explains the ump’s insistent opinion that is completely inconsistent with mine.  He must have called Alex out due to the color of his skin.

 

This is truly unexplainable.  Why else would a seemingly intelligent person do this?  The ball was nowhere close!  There was no tag.  ‘Racist’!  ‘Racist,’ I say!!

 

And so begins my search for something that will explain the unexplainable.  In other words, I seek an answer that will make sense to me.  I, of course, had the clearest, wisest. and least obstructed view.

 

Hence, when someone else makes a judgment call that is nothing less than unfathomable to me, I seek for a way to comprehend their opinion… typically a way that makes them look a little lesser — and me look a little more…

 

(… more what, we ask?)

 

We often conclude the rationale of another is due to the most visible factor — not necessarily the most likely factor — simply the most visible.  If we can’t explain something, we often look only at what’s easiest to see.  That’s perhaps why so many are so quick to utilize race and/or ethnicity to explain away analysis that would take far more effort, time, and selflessness to truly comprehend.

 

The reason the infield umpire called Alex out had zero to do with either’s skin color.  The ump called him out because his perspective was different than mine.

 

I can’t argue that.  I can’t call him ‘racist’ nor even accuse him of being stupid.  I can, however, in the future, encourage him to alter his perspective…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

actions louder than words

Let’s start with what we believe to be the facts:

 

The federal government has been secretly collecting information about the telephone records of millions of Americans for years.  In addition to phone calls, under a surveillance program code-named “Prism” — a covert collaboration between the NSA and FBI — online activity is also being monitored by the federal government, as they’ve had unprecedented access to citizens’ internet behavior via scouring the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple, etc.  While there exist claims of this being solely to prevent terrorism, the claims are ambiguous, as the reality is the federal government has been secretly spying on people for years.

 

Transparently speaking, I find myself with multiple instantaneous — sometimes even emotional — reactions…

 

“Hmmm… doesn’t sound good…  doesn’t sound healthy… sounds a little deceitful… dishonest… doesn’t sound like a practice that’s good and pure and right… sounds like it has way too much potential to be corrupted by those in power… how can it not be corrupted by those in power?…”

 

The Intramuralist hasn’t completely made a conclusion regarding the goodness of this practice.  One bottom line is that if bad people are up to bad things, then it would help us to know about it ahead of time.

 

However, there are still 2 things that bug me.  First, the glaring hypocrisy…

 

… the hypocrisy from Pres. Obama…

 

Confronting the public uproar, Obama only defended the vast collection of data.  He said that “modest encroachments on privacy” were “worth us doing.”  Yet as a one-time senator, Obama’s words were strikingly different.  He blasted Pres. Bush for the same activity, calling it “a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.”  He continued, “I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.”  (Note:  sometimes I think all persons running for president should realize that perhaps there are a few things they don’t really comprehend prior to assuming office…)

 

There also exists hypocrisy from those who want to make this an issue all about Obama…

 

True, the warrantless surveillance has expanded under Pres. Obama, but it was initiated under Pres. Bush.  Republicans and Democrats have advocated the covert cause.  Republicans and Democrats continue to support it now.  If it’s wrong for one, it’s wrong for both.  This is not a partisan issue; it’s an issue of individual liberty and potential government overreach.

 

More than the glaring hypocrisy, however, there is one aspect that bugs me more.  I believe the root cause of a government that believes it has the right to access our private data is one thing and one thing only:  government is too big.

 

Smaller government is more efficient.  Smaller government wastes less money.  Within smaller government, the actions are less covert; there’s more transparency — less secrecy — and we can actually discern what our elected officials are doing; there is valid reason to trust.  Within smaller government, there is increased humility; there is a realization that the elect actually serve the people.  There is less narcissism — less confusion with those who desire — and desire to be — a king.  There are fewer speeches primarily designed to sway public opinion — and more actions that truly speak louder than words.

 

Yes, actions always speak louder than words.  Such is why the fact that our government is secretly spying on its people speaks very loud indeed.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

higher education

As of yesterday, all 3 of my children advanced to a new grade level.  Education is important in our family.  Allow me to humbly share with you what I hope they learned…

 

If they learned to speak the languages of foreigners — but have not love for the foreigner — then the learning of language is pretty hollow.

 

If they unlocked great truths in history, social studies, or even in an advanced Lit class — comprehending all sorts of mysteries and knowledge — but know not how to apply that knowledge to a grace and peace for other people, then they really have learned very little.

 

If they learned about the faiths of the world — those invented by man and those backed up by historical documents and eyewitness accounts — but haven’t learned to transfer that learning from the head to the heart, then the learning is by no means complete.

 

If they learned about sacrifice — noting that sacrifice prompted by the individual heart as opposed to demanded en masse is one of life’s most beautiful, contagious examples — but yet give little away, then their intellect will have proved lesser.

 

If in chem lab they learn to build and blow up mountains — but have not concern for those impacted by the explosion and respect for the one who actually created the mountains — then in all reality, they still gain nothing.

 

If they scored incredibly well scholastically — surging to that top 10% — but care not about the 90% below them, then they will not have scored as they truly should have.

 

If they completely grasped both micro and macro econ, understanding supply and demand and economies of scale — but fail to have compassion on those the theories affect — then their economic education will be incomplete at best.

 

If they go further in economics, following economists who promote the politically-influenced theory — but spend with no specific, measurable means to repay — then their learning will omit the wisdom found in accountability.

 

If they have not learned love… if they have not embraced wisdom…

No matter the higher the education… it will be less…

 

If any of us have believed that only a school is responsible for that education, then we as parents and role models will also be less…

 

Love is patient and kind.  Love does not envy or boast.  It is never arrogant nor rude.  And it certainly does not insist on its own way.  It’s not irritable or resentful.

 

That means all these intelligent people… near us and in our neighborhoods… in our classrooms and communities… in Washington and in our work place… elected, appointed, or simply adjacent to us in some capacity… no matter their intelligence… no matter the loftiness of their rhetoric…

 

If they boast, are arrogant, or rude in their expression, whatever it is they actually have — from a Ph.D. to a Ph.Something — it is by all means lesser… it is less good.

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

tweeting

What are we teaching the younger generation?

What are we modeling for our kids?

 

… that appearance is everything?

… that sports stars and celebrities are life’s most admirable professions?

… that an ABC summer show entitled “Mistresses” is good television?

 

That’s the question:  what are we teaching them?

 

Are we teaching that Facebook status updates are authentic?  … that we’re truly, transparently representing who and how we are?  … that Facebook relationships are real relationships?

 

Or better yet — and where my head and heart have lined up this day — that Twitter & Co. count for legitimate dialogue?

 

As all Intramuralist readers know, communication is of utmost importance.  How we communicate makes all the difference in the world.  The Intramuralist believes that all subjects can be discussed — albeit not necessarily agreed upon — if the approach is respectful and prioritizes active listening.  That’s the mantra of this blog:  all opinions are welcome as long as the opinion expressed is respectful to those with whom you may disagree.  Only through respectful discussion, friends, is solution viable.

 

Yet continually in Washington and in our work place, we have very intelligent men and women who for some reason reserve the right to rhetorically slam their brother and sister when the moment is too tempting and ripe.  They arrogantly belittle and bemoan, forgoing even the feigning of listening.  One wonders why.  Why is this so hard to comprehend?  Why is this still so challenging for otherwise bright-minded people?

 

Look at what we’re teaching the younger generation.

 

As social media has exploded over the past half dozen years, we have allowed them to accept Twitter as a wise form of dialogue.  In fact, we have allowed them to believe that it even is dialogue.

 

Excuse me?

 

Dialogue is a conversation between 2 or more people.  To engage in dialogue means to converse or discuss in order to resolve a problem.

 

There is no dialogue on Twitter.  There is no conversation.  In fact, there is little conversation whatsoever in all of social media.

 

Twitter is simply a listing of one-liners where the Tweeter can tweet whatever he or she desires.  There is no eye contact.  There is no empathetic, compassionate, nor comprehending glance in that person’s direction.  There is no feeling; there is nothing warm nor cold.

 

Twitter is a list of comments — often snarky or satirical — in which one person attempts to manage the impression others have of them.  There is no respectful back-and-forth.  In fact, because it’s not actually dialogue, Twitter and the rest of social cyberspace often damage more relationships than they maintain or repair.

 

Friends, Twitter is not an evil within society.  Just like most things, a positive tool can be negatively employed.  The disservice we are allowing for the younger generation, however — as we tweet, too — is that social media is something it’s not… that Twitter and tweeting and even texting take the place of authentic, wise communication.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR