Current Event – Page 56 – intramuralist ™

11/04/201811/04/2018

voting guide

In light of Tuesday’s coming election day, we thought it wise to offer a concise resource in regard to our decision-making for the day.

Oh. Wait. If by chance, you are expecting the Intramuralist to tell you how to vote this day, you may have been misdirected. We will willingly offer opinion, with a desire to entertain and encourage respectful dialogue. However, we will tell no one how they should vote; in fact, we believe no one is capable of such. Hence, instead…

“THE DO’S & DON’TS OF VOTING”

D&D #1

No one can nor should tell you how to vote.

Contrary to unfortunately popular belief, there is not one right way to vote. We are each divinely wired and uniquely gifted, with varied experience and expertise. This results in varied passion and perspective. Let the variance refrain from fostering judgment.

D&D #2

Voting is your right.

Multiple constitutional amendments have established suffrage (specifically, the 12th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th). We encourage you to take advantage of it.

D&D #3

Your vote matters.

How many times have we heard this defeated retort? Granted, there are many old wives’ tales that exist, seemingly to create a false sense of urgency (i.e. one vote bringing Texas into the Union, making English the official U.S. language, or giving Hitler control of Nazi Germany). There do exist times in which a single vote has been significant, but they are far less dramatic. The bottom line is that voting helps your voice be heard, and all voices are valuable even when not in the majority.

D&D #4

Consider voting for members of more than one party.

No party has cornered the market on integrity. In fact, perhaps one of the most disturbing trends is that partisan loyalists often overlook or minimize unscrupulous behavior in their own party, perceiving it as the necessary means to an end or the “lesser” of two evils. Last I looked, “evil” still meant “evil.”

D&D #5

Study the issues.

In addition to the people we elect, at the state level, there are actually 155 ballot measures that will be voted on in 37 states this Tuesday. For example, 7 measures in 5 states with wrestle with the legalization of medical and/or recreational marijuana. 8 measures in 6 states are considering some kind of limitation on taxes. Need more info? Go to www.ballotpedia.org. Find your state. Look up the issue. Look, too, at who supports, opposes, and is funding the initiative. As best as possible, attempt to discern what multiple motives may be in play.

D&D #6

Beware of bandwagons.

Let’s quote “Urban Dictionary.” The definition of a bandwagon: “when someone adopts a popular point of view for the primary purpose of recognition and/or acceptance by others.” Popularity has never been equated with wisdom. Beware of those attempting to rile you up, emotionally luring you into joining their “tribe,” not recognizing the sharpening available via varied perspective.

D&D #7

Know that voting is incapable of legislating morality.

If there was one “Do & Don’t” we continually find the masses falling prey to, it is perhaps this. Well-intentioned persons hailing from both the left and right seem to desire to dictate the behavior of another. Call me naïve, but whether we attempt to impose a moral authority upon another in the name of God or omitting his omniscient name, none of us are capable of being the convictor of truth in another.

D&D #8

Engage the different.

Want to learn? Want to grow? Want to learn to love your neighbor well and not just the tribal likeminded? Get to know them. Ask them how they think. Take the time to say, “You don’t have to share with me your vote, but it sounds like you and I don’t think always alike. Help me. Can you share why you feel that way?” Then listen more than speak. Always.

D&D #9

Respect the results.

Each election cycle this seems to get worse… “He’s not my _______.” Fill in the blank. The reality is that whether we voted for a person or not, if we live in his/her jurisdiction, that person represents us. Do they represent our individual beliefs well? Maybe not. But be active. Let your voice be reverently heard. And again, engage with the different. Respectfully.

D&D #10

Be prepared for the next election cycle.

The reality is on Wednesday, the day after, in our fast-paced society, the next election cycle will begin. Be ready for the immediate formation of exploratory committees. Be ready for partisan calls to obstruct, resist or blindly follow. Be ready. For years I’ve wished we all had a little more respect for who’s in office when they’re there.

As for me, I’ll, too, be ready… to observe… contemplate and converse … also off to buy some Advil.

Respectfully…

10/31/201810/31/2018

incomprehensible

On Saturday morning, a man entered the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and shot and killed 11 innocent people. The single suspect reportedly targeted the victims solely because they were Jewish.

A former FBI agent who leads Pittsburgh’s department of public safety described the crime scene as “horrific.” Said Wendell Hissrich, “It’s one of the worst that I’ve seen, and I’ve been on some plane crashes. It’s — it’s very bad.”

The U.S. District Attorney involved has since stated that he is working toward soliciting approval to pursue the death penalty in this case.

(Deep breath…)

This is hard, friends…

As is often the case, I find myself sitting with silence… shocked… with more questions than answers, and somehow, simultaneously, feeling both abhorred and appalled…

How could someone do such a thing?

I ask more questions…

First, in regard to the victims’ families… so hard to grasp… I cannot imagine the gut-wrenching grief…

How will the families’ faith change in response?

Will it prompt them to rely on God even more?

How do you forgive for such a heinous act?

Is forgiveness healthy?

What does it change within us?

…

Then, in regard to the shooter… what an awful thing to do…

What’s the appropriate consequence?

Is the death penalty ever ok?

Is it ok to take a life because someone else took a life?

Does the horror of the crime scene matter?

Do we treat consequence differently because of the who’s involved and why they did it?

…

And lastly, questions perhaps to all of us, living amidst a society that struggles to love all people well…

Why do some hate the religious faithful?

Why do some hate others simply because they’re different?

How do we contribute to the hate?

Do we recognize when we fuel hatred?

And do we ever attempt to dress up our own anger, rage, or hatred as something more virtuous than it really is?

…

I wish this was an easy post today; it is not. I keep coming back to the historic psalmist who wrote “such knowledge is too wonderful for me” — with “wonderful” equating to “incomprehensible”… meaning simply unable to be understood.

Hate is incomprehensible; it’s awful. Sadly, there seem to exist pockets of hate all over the place. May it never be celebrated. May we never fuel it. May we each have more respect for what others believe.

Sadly this day…

10/24/201810/24/2018

the current immigrant caravan

Sometimes, friends, I don’t know the right answer. Wait. Let me correct that. Many times I don’t know the right answer. Sure, we each have opinions, and those opinions are based on info, insight, experience, research and more. But that doesn’t make us right. I’m thinking we need to remember that a little more, as it might affect the way we interact with one another. (Maybe…)

As I wrestle with not knowing what’s right, no less, the Intramuralist, like many, is watching the immigrants move toward America.

First, what we know…

Thousands of Central American immigrants are walking toward the southern U.S. border. We cannot tell who exactly makes up the crowd. Were they organized by someone intentionally? … three weeks before the election? Are there criminals in the crowd? None of this we know with certainty, although pundits and media seem to suggest an “all or nothing” approach, pending partisan leaning.

The group originated in Honduras and is now growing in Mexico. According to Time Magazine, the immigrants said they “gave up trying to enter Mexico legally because the asylum application process was too slow.” So they entered illegally.

Pres. Trump is tweeting about the situation (shocking).

According to State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert, “The Mexican Government is fully engaged in finding a solution that encourages safe, secure, and orderly migration, and both the United States and Mexico continue to work with Central American governments to address the economic, security, and governance drivers of illegal immigration.”

Assuming, therefore, that the immigrants’ intent is to flood the border with masses — gaining access to the United States and making it more difficult to send back to their home country — this immigration approach is illegal.

So what’s the right thing to do?

Friends, I wish I could hide behind some easy answer, but frankly, I find the political talking points too extreme, interfering, and too intentionally crafted in order to divide us more. Too many are utilize ways and words with the upcoming election in mind, and too many of us adopt those divisive answers. Let’s get rid of those. Instead, let’s ask…

What’s the right thing to do?

Where do compassion and illegality meet?

Open borders doesn’t seem the answer, as that ignores the very real threat of terrorists and drug cartels.

Abolishing ICE doesn’t seem the answer, as dismantling the border enforcement agency also ignores those with the intent to destroy us.

Rejecting all immigrants seems not the answer either, as such is inconsistent with our admired, historical acceptance of the tired and poor, yearning to be free.

And so we ask…

How can we craft an approach that is efficient, compassionate, and wise?

I wonder…

Do we need to first note the difference between migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers? Are they the same? And truly, who are those in the current crowd?

While the words are often used interchangeably in regard to the current crisis, the three terms have distinct meanings, albeit with some overlap — overlap that may influence both our compassion and approach.

A “migrant” is simply one who moves from one place to another in order to live in another country for more than a year. Often termed an “economic migrant,” this is typically one who seeks work or a “better life,” but this could also be an international student. It could be a mixture of many factors.

A “refugee” is one who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster, and is considered in need of international protection because circumstances in their home country are considered too dangerous to return at this time.

An “asylum seeker” is one who crosses into another country due to fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, social group, or political opinion, hoping to be granted refugee status.

So who are those that are currently caravanning north? Is it a mixed group? Are they fearing for their lives? Those answers matter.

As I said at the onset of this post, the Intramuralist does not know the exact right thing to do. But it would seem both logical and compassionate — and let’s be clear — compassion means to consider both those who wish to enter and those who already live here — to incorporate the following:

Recognize the reality of terrorists and drug cartels and thus the dangers of a porous border.

Evaluate the economic affects and who can and should pay for what — corporately and individually. What is appropriate and possible? Both questions are priority.

Discern the difference between a migrant, refugee, and asylum seeker, and thus how compassion is made manifest with each.

And to the media, pundits, politicians, any current caravan organizers, and political side pickers, know that each life matters — immigrants and American citizens. Hence, let’s not use any life as an election tool, but instead respectfully work to solve both the short term problem and long term issue.

Respectfully…

10/21/2018

the post about nothing

There is no subject the Intramuralist feels a need to steer clear of. I believe that any issue, hard as it is, can be discussed well (meaning solution kept in mind) as long as we are always respectful of those who disagree with our assessment or approach. We need to listen. We need to consider and sincerely weigh what another is saying — as opposed to merely utilizing the time in which another is speaking to think of what we will say next.

Truth is, no less, there are times when such is still exhausting. There’s too much pouncing on opinion. And one person’s commitment to respectful dialogue may not be matched by another. Also unfortunately, social media has only magnified the disrespect. In a forum that otherwise looks like opportunity for a respectful give-and-take, sometimes the respect is severely lacking.

There’s too much “I’m-mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-any-more” combined with “so-if-you-are-really-my-friend-you-can-handle-it”… combine that with the “don’t-wait—you’ll-soon-realize-I’m-the-right-one”… and then we begin questioning who our friends actually are. It’s a sad reality some days. Too many days.

So yes, while I am a full, firm believer in respectful dialogue, sometimes it’s challenging when witnessing all the disrespectful communication otherwise intelligent people justify.

Sometimes, some things are more fun to discuss… like “Seinfeld,” for example. Loyal viewers will never forget “The Pitch” episode, which first aired in September of 1992, delivering an infamous exchange between comedian Jerry Seinfeld and the slow-witted, often neurotic George Costanza. Pitching a sit-com to NBC, part of the exchange went as follows:

Jerry: “You want to go with me to NBC?”

George: “Yeah. I think we really go something here.”

Jerry: “What do we got?”

George: “An idea.”

Jerry: “What idea?”

George: “An idea for the show.”

Jerry: “I still don’t know what the idea is.”

George: “It’s about nothing.”

Jerry: “Right.”

George: “Everybody’s doing something; we’ll do nothing.”

Jerry: “So, we go into NBC, we tell them we’ve got an idea for a show about nothing.”

George: “Exactly.”

Jerry: “They say, ‘What’s your show about?’ I say, ‘Nothing.’ “

George: “There you go.”

Hence, with all the infighting, arrogance, and social media disgraces — sometimes actually talking about so-called “nothing” prompts a grin previously absent from my day.

Respectfully… with still a little tongue in that cheek…
AR

10/17/201810/17/2018

tough but true

I’m really unsure of how the following is relevant. Maybe it’s not. Please know it is not meant to be disrespectful of anyone — nor is my experience meant to equate to anyone else’s truth. We have that problem these days… equating individual experience with everyone else’s truth.

Nonetheless, I’ve remembered this often. It is true…

As longtime readers of the Intramuralist will attest, throughout my life I’ve been a pretty good athlete. My knees are a little slower now… perhaps also my eye in striking the ball as forcefully… but as close friends will acknowledge, one may still have met their match in me on the Top Golf, Wii bowling, or backyard-any-sport circuit. Thank God for the smaller backyard-any-sport circuit. Those competitive juices remain.

In college, arguably, I hit my prime. In fact, as inspired the mantra for this blog, you’ll note I used to enter pretty much each and every intramural competition. And I’d do great! … that is, until I met the one who had played that particular sport their entire (doggone it) life…

Weightlifting, racquetball, tennis…

Ping pong or a semi-friendly game of H-O-R-S-E…

And badminton. Yes, badminton.

I was an excellent badminton player.

I know, I know… some still think it’s the backyard game of birdies, barbecue, and those tiny little shuttlecocks. But to me it was so much more. I kid you not…

In my distinguished D1 school, I took one P.E. class each semester; it was a physical outlet — my relief — often in the midst of a demanding academic course load. One semester I took badminton. Friends, I was really, really good.

One of my dear friends at the time was a young man who grew up in Southeast Asia. The son of a prominent politician, Erwin was afforded multiple, far-reaching opportunities. One of those was growing up playing the equivalent of AAU (the Amateur Athletic Union) on the select, badminton, Asia-Pacific circuit. Erwin was excellent at what he did.

Thus, as close and competitive as we were, in between classes and conversations and doing life together, he mandated I meet him on the badminton court.

Timelessly, he would say, “Ann, hit it here!” … and we would not leave the court until twenty times in a row, I could hit that frickin’, feeble little shuttlecock into a 0.76m x 0.46m space in the midst of a competitive match. Twenty times in a row.

Erwin drove me crazy.

He also made me good.

During our actual class, the course cumulated in an end-of-semester tournament. It was a co-ed, single elimination, best of 3 games tournament. Per the official rules, “Each game is played to 21 points, with players scoring a point whenever they win a rally regardless of whether they served. A match is the best of three games.” The tournament was a series of those three games.

I sailed through my side of the bracket. On the other side, there was a young man named “Brent,” who equally sailed through his. Brent was on scholarship; he played on our university tennis team — playing men’s singles #1 or #2. So the showdown was set… the finals… Brent vs. me.

Oh, my… what a wonderful match that it was… back and forth… back and forth. The more we played, the more the crowd paid attention. It was a fierce, well-played, competitive match. I was giving everything I had. So was he!

I won game 1. He won game 2. I won…

Well, therein lies the problem… well, sort of a problem.

This badminton match was one of the best sporting events I have ever been involved in — certainly the best individually. I played great. He played great. It was back-and-forth and totally competitive…

For years I have sincerely shared this story, telling of one of my most awesome wins.

But here’s the God-honest truth…

I actually can’t remember if I won or not. I know I played great. I know he played great. I remember the looks on the faces of those around us, astonished by what transpired… here this scholarshipped tennis player… and me, this seemingly athletic nobody.

I can’t actually recount this story and scenario in all accuracy. I can only, authentically share how I felt. I remember how I felt.

For me, it was awesome.

This was 30 years ago. It was a wonderful, incredible day. My point is that sometimes feelings are more prominent than details. Tough story. I get it. But true.

Respectfully…

09/26/2018

a sobering but important read…

On August 5, 2010, Elena Kagan was confirmed as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. She was nominated by Pres. Obama, after previously serving in both his and Pres. Clinton’s administrations. Kagan was the first nominee with no experience as a judge since William Rehnquist in 1972. Ideologically, she is considered to be liberal. (She also hired current nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh when dean of Harvard Law School.)

In her confirmation process, a letter from Miguel Estrada was shared. Estrada commended Kagan for possessing a “formidable intellect” and “exemplary temperament.” Ideologically, Estrada is considered to be conservative. Estrada still believed a President has the prerogative to nominate judges who share his/her governing philosophies. Hence, different as they are, Estrada felt Kagan was “an impeccably qualified nominee.”

Move to today’s Supreme Court squabble, where many have referenced the former controversy surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas. Allow me to humbly suggest we should also look at what happened to Miguel Estrada — and to his family. He, too, was once nominated…

Having received a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, Estrada was nominated in 2001 by Pres. George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [According to Wikipedia] “Senate Democrats, claiming Estrada was a conservative ideologue with no experience as a judge, and unable to block his nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the Senate in 2002, used a filibuster to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote by the full Senate.”

a few more words on Kavanaugh & Ford

So allow me to humbly offer a few more words…

What I appreciate in the current #MeToo moment is the breakthrough of speaking truth to power, giving women an honored voice where for too long there has been a consistent none.

What concerns me in this moment is the breakdown of some key societal norms that have long been considered wise, such as being innocent until proven guilty and truth not discerned via gender, ethnicity, or other demographic.

Unfortunately, I feel we’ve lost our way somewhat. Our emotions have clouded our perspective.

How we feel is dictating our truth.

We have become biased. And most of us can’t see it in ourselves — only in others.

Every accuser deserves to be heard, friends. But every accuser does not deserve to be believed.

Again, allow me to reiterate my desire to humbly address this heartache; this is indeed a tough, multi-faceted subject. For those I’ve walked with who have severely struggled to recover from such trauma, I have grieved and cried with them… too often, gut-wrenchingly for years.

I have also walked and grieved and cried with numerous others — with no judgment whatsoever — who have lied.

I’m not really comfortable with the word “lied” in that sentence; sorry — it actually pains me to post it. In my experience, it hasn’t always been a boldface lie, but more a distortion of truth. Some women and men do distort truth… often sincerely, albeit knowingly or unknowingly. Having experienced that multiple times, it affects my current perspective.

The reality is that we often gauge our perception on whether a specific accuser is telling the truth based on our own experience.

Friends, with all due respect, that is an inaccurate gauge.

We can’t tell whether Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh is telling the truth based on their gender or our experience. We can’t tell without any sworn testimony or collaborating evidence. I am sorry we can’t immediately tell; no doubt that is currently a most inconvenient truth for a watching nation with far too constant, breaking news. But what we know is not enough. We don’t know enough to base a belief on fact; we only know enough to base a belief on bias.

What we also know — that also greatly disheartens me — is that many of our elect are politically motivated. That’s on the left and right, friends. And if Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are each sincere in their perspective — which is quite possible — our elected politicians are doing a disservice not only to us, but also, greatly to them. I am highly disappointed with the political motivations that are obviously in play… and also, by our narrow vision that only allows us to see those unscrupulous motivations on one side…

Of course, the Democrats want to delay this.

Of course, the Republicans want to be done with it.

Both parties are clearly, politically motivated.

And so I find myself not trying to find compromise, so-to-speak, but rather, attempting to best discern what here is good and right and true.

That’s hard. Really hard.

I get tempted to base my perception of truth on how I feel…

… on my own experience…

… on my political leanings…

… on my sobering frustration with the entire Senate Judiciary Committee…

But that is not enough to discern truth.

Hence, with this situation seemingly only feeding the divisiveness that partisans on both sides continue to fuel, the only wise thing I know is for each of us to pause, humble ourselves, and pray. Pray for truth to be revealed.

Join me.

Will you?

Respectfully…

09/19/201809/19/2018

Kavanaugh questions

With the latest developments in the Supreme Court confirmation process of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Senate leaders called for a public hearing next Monday. At the time of this posting, accuser Christine Blasey Ford has not accepted the Senate’s invitation; hence, the hearing may not happen.

But assuming it does, according to Senate rules, the question-asking of those testifying before a committee can be assigned to any individual. Recognizing that unpretentious, respectful, truth-seeking questions are most necessary, the Intramuralist has been assigned to the task before us. Under oath, I’d sincerely like to ask the following…

To the accuser…

Is this true?
Is any part of this exaggerated?
Why do you remember specifically what happened but do not remember where you where, when you were there, and why you were there?
Why did you edit your social media accounts to remove previously posted progressive ties?

To the accused…

Is this true?
Is there any angle or aspect which is partially true?
How well have you known your accuser?
Did any of your friends have a relationship with her?
How have you grown or changed emotionally and spiritually since high school?

To the Senate Judiciary Committee…

Who leaked this story?
Why?
Sen. Feinstein, why did you wait 7 weeks before sharing this information?
Why didn’t you ask Kavanaugh about it in committee or in a private, closed door session?
Did you intentionally withhold this information for political reasons?
Sen. Grassley, why did you immediately suggest the vote would go on as planned and not take time to listen to the accuser?
Do you not believe that every accuser has a right to be heard?
Are you intentionally rushing hearings for political reasons?
Democrats, since many of you admitted you would not vote to confirm Kavanaugh even before meeting him and hearing his testimony, how much of this is:

an attempt to delay in hopes of getting closer or past the midterm elections, hoping to fan the flames of the #MeToo movement? Or…
an attempt to damage Kavanaugh’s credibility as a future justice?

Republicans, since many of you admitted you would vote to confirm Kavanaugh even before meeting him and hearing his testimony, how many of you are actually willing to sincerely listen to the accuser and consider her account as potentially true?
To all of you, what other motives are in play?
Do you recognize that your lack of objectivity is making many of us wish to support none of you?
And do you realize that your behavior is prompting many of us to lose respect for our government?

And to those of us watching…

Why do we allow our partisan leanings to sway our perception of truth?
Are tribal lines more important than truth?
Where have we not believed the accuser because we liked the person she accused?
Why do we respond differently to whether the accused is Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Keith Ellison or Kavanaugh?

And more…

In the #MeToo movement, should the accuser always be believed?
On whom rests the burden of proof?
Do we recognize that for the accuser who is telling the truth, it takes tremendous courage to speak up even after many years?
Is it possible that Ford is telling the truth, but got the person wrong?
Could Ford and Kavanaugh both be telling what they believe to be true?
Does evidence matter?
Do witnesses matter?
Does a non-criminal scenario this old matter?
And can we admit that the only two people in the entire world who have some semblance of the truth are Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh? … and that none of us… none of the rest of us… can specifically discern what happened?

We weren’t there.

(I’m not the question-asker either.)

Respectfully…

09/12/201809/12/2018

the Serena Williams experiment

So I ran a small, experiment this past weekend. Bear with me. It was a sincere, semi-intentional ploy, with no desire to manipulate, but to learn.

And learn I did.

Other than Intramuralist notifications, rarely do I post anything on my social media accounts other than an encouragement, expression of gratitude, or an especially clever comment by one of my kids. But as I was watching the U.S. Open women’s tennis final unfold, I decided to react.

Most are now aware of what happened Saturday night…

Tennis great Serena Williams had lost the first set to Naomi Osaka. Osaka was playing exceptional tennis. Early in the second set, Serena was beginning to rally, with the pro-Serena, New York crowd clearly rooting her on. Umpire Carlos Ramos then noticed a hand gesture from her coach, Patrick Mouratoglou, considered to be “coaching.” Under Grand Slam event rules, coaching is defined as “communication, advice or instruction of any kind by any means to a player.” It is not allowed. Hence, Williams was given a warning by the umpire. One of the controversies — as shared unanimously by the expert announcers — is that coaching violations are inconsistently applied.

Then after moving ahead in the second set, but dropping her serve to make it 3-2, Williams smashed her racket on the court in heated frustration. That is an automatic rules violation. Since it was Serena’s second code violation, she was penalized a point.

Not long thereafter, while sitting on the sidelines prior to the players changing ends, Williams continued to argue with the umpire. She passionately defended herself, saying she does not cheat, and that she was owed an apology. She was angry and loud. She accused Ramos of being a “thief,” having “stolen” the previously awarded point. Considered as verbal abuse, Ramos then assessed a third violation, resulting in an entire game penalty, putting Osaka up 5-3.

The arguing continued, with tournament officials even entering the court, with whom Williams would continue to plead her case. After an extended delay, play resumed with both players visibly shaken. Osaka would proceed to win, 6-2 6-4, but the umpire exited to a raucous chorus of boos, shared by fans obviously agitated with how Williams was treated. The boos continued during the award ceremony, silenced only when Serena asked the crowd to stop, wanting to ensure Osaka received her just acknowledgement and award.

Typically, when reacting to a controversial current event, I like to take some time and wrestle with all sorts of varied angles. I like to read and study and pray for discernment, seeking foremost to understand. I like to think things through… think who it affects… and think: “what am I missing?”

But in my small experiment, I did nothing of the sort. Instead…

I reacted. I intentionally omitted context. I only posted the following: “I’ve never seen a US Open like this. Way to still handle it with class, Serena.”

The reality is that I never have seen an Open like Saturday night. The crowd’s reaction seemed unprecedented.

And handling it with “class”? That was in reference to Serena silencing the crowd in order to honor Osaka. I was — and still am — amazed at how in the moment, Serena felt called to console her opponent.

But in order to allow my only comment to focus on how Serena honored Osaka and handled the crowd, I had to ignore how Serena berated the umpire. Our culture isn’t very good at respecting authority, and if that was my kid out there, I would be disappointed and dismayed.

What is equally true is if I only focused on how Serena berated the umpire, I would have had to ignore the fact that on the men’s circuit, many are known to be significantly more emotional and vulgar — and not necessarily receive a code violation.

In other words, in order to make my point — in order to believe that only one perspective was correct — I had to ignore another angle.

And so I learned… when we react, when we omit context… when we fail to take the time to sort through varied angles, read, study, and pray for that discernment — we are most tempted to ignore something significant… something that might broaden our perspective… and something that might give us more grace for one who thinks differently.

What are we missing, friends?

And how often should we be asking that question?

Respectfully…

09/09/2018

throwing the stone

“… They kept at him, badgering him. He straightened up and said, ‘The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone.’”

Like many, this semi-humble current events observer listened to much of the Senate confirmation hearings for current Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.

Like many, also, this semi-humble current events observer eventually turned the hearings off.

While there did exist moments which were seemingly productive, insightful and indicative of both sincere praise and authentic concern, too many moments were partisan, disrespectful, and disappointing.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) seemed to sense something similar. While she is one who has expressed valid concern with Kavanaugh sitting on the high court, after multiple interruptions and disruptions, her opening statement on Wednesday included an actual apology to the nominee, saying, “I’m sorry for the circumstances, but we’ll get through it.” She was then immediately mocked by many on Twitter… for having the audacity to apologize.

How disappointing.

The confirmation process has become partisan.

Attack ads begin immediately. Senators make up their minds before meeting the nominee. Parties hold closed-door strategy sessions, hoping to derail the process. They focus on ensuring their tribe sticks together, as opposed to sincerely vetting and evaluating a potential, future judge. Maybe the tribe can disrupt the process; better yet, perhaps they can discredit the candidate going forward. It’s evident with some of the harsher opposition to Kavanaugh now, just as it was evident in 2016, when Pres. Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland was ignored.

That’s just it. Both parties do it.

And what’s sadly unfortunate, is that many of us suggest it’s ok. Wait…

It’s ok for one of them.

Why?

Because they threw the stone first.

Question: since when did any stone throwing become acceptable behavior?

As the summer of 2018 came to a close, one of the most bittersweet, beautiful occurrences was the gathering to celebrate the life and faith of Sen. John McCain. It was amazing on so many levels… hearing from his family… hearing from both political rivals and friends… being inspired by both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

John McCain was a statesman. In fact, as I learned more from tuning into the multiple memorial services, few seemed as fierce as either friend or foe. But McCain still advocated for respect.

In some of the late Senator’s last words delivered on the Senate floor a year before his death, McCain shared the following: [emphasis mine]

“… Our deliberations today — not just our debates, but the exercise of all our responsibilities — authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them, exercising our advice and consent role — are often lively and interesting. They can be sincere and principled. But they are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than any other time I remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we’d all agree they haven’t been overburdened by greatness lately. And right now they aren’t producing much for the American people.

Both sides have let this happen. Let’s leave the history of who shot first to the historians. I suspect they’ll find we all conspired in our decline — either by deliberate actions or neglect. We’ve all played some role in it…”

Who shot first?

Who threw the first stone?

It doesn’t matter… we’ve all played some role in it.

We, my friends, can do better.

Respectfully…