reality?

bree-bigelow-204694

For 18 years, the host began by asking the primarily female audience, “Would you like to be queen for a day?” And for the next 30/45 minutes, “Queen for a Day” ran on radio, then NBC Television, and on ABC Television, beginning in 1945.

Host Jack Bailey would engage with multiple contestants, as they shared the uniqueness of their individual circumstances, publicly sharing their financial and emotional plight. The more dramatic and dire the straits, the more intense and sustaining was the audience applause meter. The audience applause meter would then lead to the chosen “queen.”

Donned with a crown, robe, and throne, with roses an apt gifted decor and “Pomp and Circumstance” played in the background, the winner’s typical tears were drowned out seemingly only by the announcement of a plethora of prizes. To quote the host in his trademark sign-off: “This is Jack Bailey, wishing we could make every woman a queen, for every single day!”

Friends, welcome to the onset of reality TV.

“Reality TV” is the television genre featuring real-life situations and supposedly real-life people — not actors (… ok… one can decide for themselves if any of the Kardashian’s mimic real life…). What takes place is arguably unscripted (… granted, any regular reality viewer will acknowledge a key suspicion of some moments that are far too uncanny to be totally authentic).

While “Queen for a Day” may have been the beginning of this unique, far-cheaper-to-produce format, reality TV gained steam in the early 90’s in Europe, and then in the U.S. in the late 90’s, as MTV’s “The Real World,” CBS’s “Survivor,” and all the musical “Idols,” biggest somethings, etc. spurred the format on. A whole new genre became accepted television viewing.

My sense is there is no issue in the format being acceptable; the issue is in the acceptance of the television being reality.

It makes this current events, cultural observer wonder…

Are there places we are unknowingly mistaking circumstances, reactions, and relationships as something other than they actually are? Are we thinking something is real that is not?

“Fear Factor” used to seemingly pride itself in creating the most grotesque eating challenge possible. FOX’s “Temptation Island” used to divide actual couples into two locales, filling them each with multiple persons willing to aid in their potential, adulterous stray.

If we accept each somehow as “reality,” does that mean it’s acceptable and honorable human behavior?

Even as a semi-frequent viewer, “Survivor” sometimes reminds me of those grade school kickball days, where there was that punch-in-the-gut feeling for the unpicked kid left standing on the sidelines. And “Big Brother” — geepers — I really don’t need to watch any person 24/7… and if I do, I’m ok if they have a little more clothes on.

My point this day is not to knock reality television. Truth told, my household tends to find many such series quite entertaining. My concern instead is where are these pockets and places where we confuse what’s on TV with reality? Because it’s not… TV’s not… TV’s not always good and true and right… much less even acceptable. My sense, therefore, is that reality TV is totally, completely, unfortunately, inaccurately named.

Last night, by the way, was the conclusion of ABC’s “The Bachelor.” This was their 21st season, of one man — or one woman — choosing between seemingly three zillion, desiring others. Which one would be their soulmate? Which one could he/she propose to? “Real love” is the pursuit… real love is the answer… real love.

Noted, veteran contestant Nick selected beautiful Vanessa to be the one… she wins!! And Nick proposed! They’re in love!!

I’m so happy! It was so sweet, so wonderful… no doubt they’ll make it! I love reality!

(… ok… so I hope it is…)

Respectfully…
AR

walking out the door

clem-onojeghuo-127163

Have you heard of “Amazon Fresh”?

“Welcome to Amazon Fresh. Skip the trip to the grocery store and spend more time doing the things you love with AmazonFresh grocery delivery service…

We’ve made shopping for groceries simple. Here’s how: Shop our great selection… Reserve a delivery time… Get it fast and fresh…”

Amazon Fresh is the innovative idea from its like-named parent company that delivers fresh groceries to your house. Currently only in specific, targeted areas of the country, for an annual fee ($299) and a few clicks on your computer, Amazon Fresh will cater to all your grocery needs, bringing beets, beer, meat, nuts, seafood, bread, etc. all straight to your front door… so you never have to exit your front door.

Listen to a few testimonials…

“After just 2 weeks, I don’t know how I ever lived without Amazon Fresh…They have such a huge variety, everything you’d find at a regular grocery store and much more. So many organic produce options. I haven’t had to go to the grocery store in weeks!”

“… The only reason it gets 4 stars instead of 5 is that if some of your items will not be available for several days, it does not allow you to split your order… it still beats the heck out of going to the grocery store on Saturday morning!”

“I just used this service for the first time this past weekend and am already spreading the word to my friends and family. Online ordering was so convenient and efficient!… I may never step foot in a supermarket again! Thank you Amazon.”

First, a couple thoughts before I get to my main point this day…

One, I love all things Amazon. At Christmas time especially, they make shopping more efficient and convenient while still being cost-effective.

Two, when I think of young moms attempting to cram multiple kids into the mini-van, trekking off to the grocery store for a seemingly too long, chaotic adventure of the day, I get it. That’s tough. Amazon Fresh is indeed a breath of fresh air.

But something within the progression of the online grocery delivery service got me thinking, as this is not solely the mindset of Amazon. Kroger, Walmart, Safeway, etc. are each also targeting specific test markets.

I was thinking of the stated benefits… this idea that I never have to leave my house… I don’t have to mess with the hustle and bustle of the store… I don’t have to deal with the kids and the crud and the crowds and other perceived annoyances of life.

I don’t have to deal with other people.

And then I look at the vitriol which continues to digress in social media. On some days, it seems we are headed to some sort of evil, awful civil war, as we increasingly justify the lack of listening to others. Our patience has grown thin. We want nothing to do with another.

Why? Because they aren’t like us.

They don’t look, act, think or do something like us.

Maybe the first step in civil, wise, interactive discussion is being again willing to walk out our front door… and deal with the kids and the crud and the crowds… walking along and in step with others. The more we isolate instead — intentionally avoiding the perceived annoyances that come with unlike others — the more our communication deteriorates as well.

Respectfully…
AR

25 Q’s

pete-nowicki-52585

It is no secret that the Intramuralist loves the question mark. It’s the only punctuation piece that invites an answer (… and we wonder why we keep conversationally shutting down one another…).

With a search spanning the pages of Facebook, Forbes, Readers’ Digest, and my own, etc. — recognizing that some of life’s questions are oft related to the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat — I found myself pondering the following…

… especially in regard to the current socio-political climate that is less than conversational… less than respectful… less than inviting… less than good…

(… yes… less than good…)

  1. What are the questions we each must answer?
  2. What am I pretending not to know?
  3. What are my values and am I being true to them?
  4. What — or who — am I living for?
  5. In what ways am I being perceived, that I’m not aware of?
  6. In what ways am I being deceived, that I’m not aware of?
  7. Do I honor the authorities in my life? Am I actually willing to acknowledge authority?
  8. Where are my blindspots?
  9. What is wrong with the world?
  10. How can what’s wrong be made right?
  11. Is money the root of all evil?
  12. What is the definition of evil?
  13. Where am I less than patient?
  14. Where am I withholding grace? From whom am I withholding grace?
  15. What don’t I know, that I don’t know?
  16. Would I be focusing on the same things today if I knew I was dying tomorrow?
  17. How would my role models act and carry themselves?
  18. Who is God and what does he ask of me?
  19. Is there anything within my control that I need to change today?
  20. Where have I been unkind?
  21. Where have I been discriminatory?
  22. Where have I been awful to the person who doesn’t think like me?
  23. Who has the right — and the ability — to judge?
  24. Where am I being judgmental? … and…
  25. What did I learn today?

(… hopefully something…)

Respectfully…
AR

civil discourse

jerry-kiesewetter-195442

As reported by The Hill:

“On Friday, Charles Murray, author of ‘Coming Apart’ and ‘The Bell Curve,’ was driven out of the McCullough Student Center at Middlebury College by a mob of angry students. He gave his talk via live stream from an ‘undisclosed location’ on campus.  The live stream was chanted over, the fire alarm pulled to cut power, and at the end of the talk Charles Murray’s car was surrounded and Professor Allison Stager, his interlocutor, was assaulted, her hair pulled and her neck injured.  

The protesters were successful. They drowned out freedom of speech, silenced those with whom they disagree, and attacked the defenders of democracy.

The words that carried the night were not Murray’s. And they were not the reasoned arguments of those who disagree with Murray. They were the chants of an angry mob who believed that disagreeing with Murray necessitated silencing both him and those who had asked him to speak: ‘Charles Murray go away,’ the students chanted, ‘Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay.’”

One can agree or disagree with the message of Murray. What I found myself pondering was the sincerity of the protestors.

Even though their tactics were disrespectful, deplorable, and/or “de-something,” my sense is the protestors were sincere. They do not want Murray’s message to be spread… because they obviously believe it to be absolutely wrong, incorrect, maybe even evil.

Via the wisdom of an articulate friend, it reminds me of the abortion protests in previous decades. While the anti-abortion movement remains an active voice, prior to the enacted buffer zone laws in recent decades, previous protests sometimes included the destruction of both property and people.

Noting that their tactics that were sometimes disrespectful, deplorable, and/or “de-something,” I again ponder the sincerity of the protestors.

It seems in both examples, regardless of our agreement or disagreement with the protestors or the issue at hand — and admittedly, this is a tough thought to swallow… but… the protestors may be potentially, fully sincere. While their tactics sometimes fall somewhere short of democratic — and even in some cases, criminal — my sense is the protestors may still be sincere.

Granted, sincerity remains not a justification for the “de-something” means… at least not in a democracy.

As The Hill article questions, even with sincere, passionate protests, civil discourse is a central tenet of democracy, so how within our democracy do we actually engage in it? How do we resist the need to shut opposing opinion down, even when we don’t agree with the opinion — or we believe it to be, maybe even evil? Shutting down opposing opinion means disallowing civil discourse.

As the The Hill states: “Democracy is based upon the principle that citizens can think for themselves, choose for themselves, and vote their conscience.  The tradition of free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly that we are so lucky to enjoy in America is meant to provide all Americans with the capacity to promote their views.  These liberties help to protect us from tyranny no matter its form — whether the despotic rule of one or the vulgar justice of a mob…

Protesters who silence others by angry chants presume their fellow citizens not capable of choice — unfit for self-government.”

So two questions:

One, who are we to declare entire groups of others as “unfit”, thus shutting down their opinion?

And two — perhaps most significantly — do we really believe in democracy?

Respectfully…
AR

limiting my own perspective

hannah-wei-84051

I’m thinking I won’t be venturing out on too much of a rhetorical limb here when I suggest current political discussions have become fairly difficult — at least difficult in navigating through via an interactive, respectful, honoring-of-all kind of way.

I witness such weekly within a few online groups I belong to, in which politics and various socio-economic issues are intentionally discussed.

We often struggle with respectful dialogue. We often also disagree as to why.

This week, for example, a respected friend started a conversation with the following:

“It remains amazing to me how there are millions of people that love this country and want what’s best for it. Yet somehow they are willing to simply shrug off the exploding volume of evidence…”

As the thread continued with multiple participants, it seemed amply one-sided, affirming the perspective of the conversation’s initiator. The opinions stated were also pretty strong. Please note: there is zero problem with that; many of us have strong opinions — and it’s ok to share them. There were also no insults, disparaging treatment or direct attacks, nor anyone believing it was ok to add “you idiot” at the end of their individual expression.

At one point, however, my friend asked where I was…

“AR… Nothing to say in response to the original post? Do you agree? Disagree?”

My friend sincerely wondered what I thought.

And so I chimed in…

“Your original post gave me the impression that you were starting a discussion from a point of telling everyone else how wrong they are, if they don’t have your perspective. With the far majority of persons sharing such strong opinions, that is where many of these threads seem to start… I find many of these threads not interested in interactive, varied, balanced, and respectful dialogue. Hence, it’s easier not to engage than be immediately told why I’m wrong and why there’s no validity behind my perspective.”

He then asked a brilliant question…

“As long as your mindset is as you described, and therefore you choose to avoid comment or participation, how can anyone even know what your perspective is or tell you that you are wrong?”

He was right. How can anyone know what we think if we choose not to tell them?

I added…

“That is an excellent question. And you’re right. No one can tell what my perspective is if I choose not to share it. My impression — and it may be wrong — is that most of us don’t listen long enough nor intently enough to truly understand why another person has the perspective that they do. And that’s a problem on all sides of the aisle… in Washington… on Facebook… here…”

Again, my friend sincerely wondered how I thought and desired my participation. Yet the interaction made me question the impression each of us offers to unspoken others — and how inviting we are to all. It made me wonder…

Are we allowing and promoting environments which clearly welcome diverse opinion?

Are we giving the impression that we will or will not listen intently to others?

And…

Are we limiting our own growth and perspective, by only listening intently to the likeminded?

Respectfully… always…
AR

best friends for a day…

suhyeon-choi-184100

[This is a tough day for the Intramuralist. But this post originally published in January of 2016 makes me feel a little better, as it’s one of my all time favorites. I apologize for the repeat; however, some stories are worth sharing far more than once…]

_____

A little less than a year ago, I had one of the best worst weeks of my life… as nothing prepares you for the passing of a loved one. Nothing. The only thing that makes the unbearable pain bearable is a faith that is grounded in wisdom and hope — and speaks of something greater than the circumstances at hand.

My younger sister passed away early that Monday morning. My family and I had long planned to fly to NYC on Thursday, as my teenage son and his talented show choir were set to dance on the prestigious, Lincoln Center stage on Friday. Hence, the celebration of Nicole’s life was moved to Sunday, which meant much travel (and even more emotion) packed into a few short days.

Unfortunately that Thursday morning, the undesired occurred again; in our midwest city of often sporadic weather, we were experiencing a blizzard-like storm that included over 9” of snow. Perhaps minor for our friends in Boston and Colorado Springs, 9” can be paralyzing in Cincinnati.

With the storm extending across the entire East coast, flights were being cancelled by the minute; one by one, we would hear disheartening news of another show choir family unable to make this once-in-a-lifetime trip. For some odd reason, our morning flight took off, relatively on time.

Save for my grieving heart, the flight itself was fairly smooth — that is, until we approached LaGuardia. We were immediately placed into an hour long holding pattern, as the airport had closed in order to plow the runways. Unbeknownst to us at the time, after that hour, the airport had actually reopened, but the first Delta flight attempting to land skidded right off the runway, crashed through a fence, and came to rest with the plane’s nose extending out over the adjacent bay of water. Thank God no life-threatening injuries occurred.

Needless to say, our Delta flight was then told the airport was closed. With the storm intensifying and more airports closing, we wondered if they would return us home. After more delay, we were told we would be landing at Bradley International — although most of us knew not where that was.

Once landed (in Hartford, CT, no less), we found ourselves in a sea of stranded others… so many questions and confusion. Airline reps attempted to be clear; maybe busses would come; maybe they could get us to our desired destination sometime today. There were too many “maybes.”

Yet there amidst the hundreds stranded, we were given a blessed gift. Three other show choir families were experiencing the same flight and plight: two sets of parents, one set of grandparents. We recognized one another, but previous to this moment, I did not know them well. We huddled, put our minds together, assessing our options.

Deciding to take things into our own hands, we walked and talked. As a group, we shared all this unexpected, significant emotion… the challenge of being diverted… the fear of being stuck… the concern for our friends traveling alternate routes… the empathy for our friends no longer able to come… and the worry for our kids, who were separately en route. There was so much deep, dichotomous emotion — almost too much to handle.

“Too much to handle” for me was all this on top of what had happened earlier in my week. Thus, thrust together in Connecticut — feeling simultaneously totally overwhelmed and profoundly grateful — I couldn’t help but share the more prevalent feelings permeating my heart, that which happened before we ever took off. The way those men and women then reacted to the news of my sister’s death was beautiful… the tears in the women’s eyes… the immediate hugs… the questions, the sincerity, and the genuine concern… They loved this then semi-stranger in a way that was meaningful, authentic, and true. Any differences did not matter. They became, as I like to say, my best friends for a day.

Several hours later, we finally made it to Manhattan. The time included multiple phone calls, prayers, selfies in the abandoned baggage claim area, a drink in the pub, and then a two/three hour, at-times-treacherous but fun-filled van ride before pulling into Times Square near 5:30 p.m. As we each exited the van, saying “see you tomorrow,” we hugged one another, unspeakably aware of all the emotion the day entailed. Those friends will always be uniquely, deeply dear to me — what a beautiful role they serve… my “best friends for a day.”

Respectfully… with peace, joy… tears, too…
AR

state of the government ’17

maria-stiehler-2219

For the last several years, the Intramuralist has published our annual “State of the Government” analysis in conjunction with the president’s annual State of the Union Address. Technically, tonight is not a State of the Union Address.

Pres. Trump is not bucking tradition; SOTU speeches are typically not offered until a sitting president has been in office for at least one year. It is then billed as a reflection of what they’ve done and a look forward at what’s next to do. 

So while the President’s speech is instead being called an “address to a joint session” this evening, the Intramuralist would like to proceed with our annual State of the Government analysis…

As repeatedly opined for several years now, the state of our government is “too partisan, too influenced by money, too big, too financially imbalanced, and too far removed from the Constitution.” With a pulse, too, of our current culture, let’s again focus on one embedded angle in that analysis which has become increasingly pronounced. One may remember it’s the singular angle that Pres. Obama acknowledged in his final SOTU last January as a “regret” of his tenure. Obama shared, “The rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better.”

Exactly.

Too much rancor. Too much division. And too many fueling the division.

Part of the problem with the division seems to be that most of us like to blame anyone other than self. We are not very good at taking a tough look at ourselves, honestly reflecting upon how we individually contribute to the problem. Let’s be clear: the division is a problem… and we are far more comfortable pointing the finger elsewhere.

We point the finger at someone else’s…

  • Arrogance
  • Insults
  • Obstruction
  • Blindspots
  • Unwillingness to listen
  • And their lack of loving all people well.

We fail to look at our own…

  • Arrogance
  • Insults
  • Obstruction
  • Blindspots
  • Unwillingness to listen
  • And our lack of loving all people well.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… if we’re only loving and respecting the person who thinks like we do, then we are only loving and respecting some people well.

When we fail to love and respect all people, we are adding to the division.

In last year’s SOTG address, the Intramuralist shared our earnest, impractical desire to wave some unifying magic wand that could somehow end this growing, disturbing digression; that would no doubt be easiest. But perhaps the best place to start is not with any magic nor fictional tool or exercise that relies on something or someone else.

The best place to start is within each individual — putting away our pointing fingers and looking instead, inside of self.

How have I fueled the division?

Tough question. Tougher answer… albeit necessary.

Respectfully…
AR

freedom of the press infringement

natalia-ostashova-142764

In the polarized, political hot bed many seem to be lying in, the following story got the attention of many this weekend. As reported by Reuters:

“The White House excluded several major U.S. news organizations, including some it has openly criticized, from an off-camera briefing held by the White House press secretary on Friday, representatives of the organizations said.

Reporters for CNN, The New York Times, Politico, The Los Angeles Times and BuzzFeed were not allowed into the session in the office of press secretary Sean Spicer.

Spicer’s off-camera briefing, or ‘gaggle,’ replaced the usual televised daily news briefing on Friday in the White House briefing room. He did not say why those particular news organizations were excluded, a decision which drew strong protests…

Spicer’s decision drew a sharp response from some of the media outlets that were excluded.
‘Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties,’ Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, said in a statement.

‘We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organizations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest.’ “

The intentional omission of the press has troubling First Amendment implications. I feel that today. I felt it also in 2009…

As reported by Judicial Watch, eight years ago:

“Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Obama Department of Treasury showing that the Obama administration, contrary to its repeated denials, attempted to exclude the Fox News Channel (FNC) from a round of interviews with Treasury’s ‘Executive Pay Czar’ Kenneth Feinberg. The documents, which include email exchanges within the Department of the Treasury and between Treasury and White House staff, also provide colorful evidence of an anti-Fox News bias within the Obama White House.

The documents, obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to an October, 28, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, concern a series of interviews with Feinberg, who served as the Special Master for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Executive Compensation, on October 22, 2009, organized by the Treasury Department. According to press reports, the Fox News Channel was specifically excluded from joining the pool of reporters which precipitated a backlash among the networks and a reversal by the Obama Treasury Department…

Regarding general anti-FNC bias within the Obama White House in an October 23, 2009, email exchange between Jennifer Psaki, Deputy White House Communications Director and [Asst. Sec. for Public Affairs in the Treas. Dept., Jenni] LeCompte, Psaki writes, ‘I am putting some dead fish in the fox cubby – just cause’. In an email on the night of October 22, 2009, commenting on a report by Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier noting the exclusion of the network from the pool, Psaki writes to LeCompte and fellow White House colleagues, ‘…brett baier just did a stupid piece on it — but he is a lunatic’.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest bluntly described the White House’s position on Fox News Channel in an October 23, 2009, email to LeCompte: ‘We’ve demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews…’”

Personally, with all due respect, I believe the press should have equal access to our government officials, regardless of proven or perceived bias. I also believe our outrage (or lack of it) should be equal, regardless of administration.

Respectfully…
AR

ragamuffins, judgment, & searching for more

ragamuffin-gospel-450x369

He was born Richard Francis Xavier Manning, born in 1934, passing away almost four years ago.

According to his widely publicized obituary…

“Brennan was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. After attending St. John’s University for two years, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps, serving overseas as a sports writer for the U.S. Marine Corps newspaper. Upon his return, Brennan began a program in journalism at the University of Missouri. He departed after a semester, restlessly searching for something ‘more’ in life. ‘Maybe the something ‘more’ is God,’ an adviser suggested, triggering Brennan’s enrollment at Saint Francis Catholic seminary in Loretto, Pennsylvania.”

Manning — more commonly known as Brennan Manning to his loyal legions of followers and fans — seemed to find that “more.”

He left the Franciscans in the late sixties, joining the Little Brothers of Jesus of Charles de Foucauld, a religious order committed to an “uncloistered, meditative life among the poor.”

According to Wikipedia’s bio: “Manning transported water via donkey, worked as a mason’s assistant and a dishwasher in France, was imprisoned (by choice) in Switzerland, and spent six months in a remote cave somewhere in the Zaragoza desert. In the 1970s, Manning returned to the United States and began writing after confronting his alcoholism.”

By all accounts, Manning was a humbled, faithful man. He began writing… and writing.

He wrote many books, with his most popular being the bestselling The Ragamuffin Gospel, originally published in 1990.

There’s so much in The Ragamuffin Gospel that appealed to me then… and so much I find relevant still now…

“The Ragamuffin Gospel: Good News for the Bedraggled, Beat-Up, and Burnt Out…”

(… sometimes I indeed feel all of the above…)

“… In effect, Jesus says the kingdom of His Father is not a sub-division for the self-righteous nor for those who feel they possess the state secret of salvation. The kingdom is not an exclusive, well-trimmed suburb with snobbish rules about who can live there. No, it is for a larger, homelier, less self-conscious caste of people who understand they are sinners because they have experienced the yaw and pitch of moral struggle…”

(… sometimes it’s challenging to come to grips with the reality of our own moral struggles, much less anyone else’s…)

With all his wisdom, transparent sharing, and encouraging articulations, Color Green Films has actually made a movie about Manning’s life, entitled “Brennan.” The following quote is included; it’s also especially, seemingly relevant now…

“None of us has ever seen a motive. Therefore, we don’t know we can’t do anything more than suspect what inspires the action of another. For this good and valid reason, we’re told not to judge. Tragedy is that our attention centers on what people are not, rather than on what they are and who they might become.”

Read that again, friends…

none of us has ever seen a motive…

… we can’t do anything more than suspect what inspires another…

… for this good and valid reason, we’re told not to judge.

And yet a lot of us these days — myself included — sometimes feel so capable.

Craving for more wisdom… recognizing the existence of ragamuffins…

Respectfully…
AR

all good or all evil

marta-esteban-fernando-2489

You know the ones…

First… maybe my favorite…

He was an adventure-seeking youth…
… talented and professionally skilled.
At a young age, he was ready to leave home and lead others.
Granted, he grew up unaware of his origins, but his life changed forever, as he persevered through family tragedy.
He would then embark on an unprecedented journey.
He underwent extensive training and mentoring.
He began to lead others well — a sensitive leader… unquestionably instrumental…
He also had a solid alliance.
Granted, he had to battle many — and many of those came at a significant cost.
He continued, however, to persevere.
He did not shy from conflict nor temptation — and successfully overcame both.
His reputation soon became heroic.
Many even began to worship him, believing he would somehow save them. And perhaps, for some, he actually did.
He fought for the people… with the people… by the people.
He was one of us.

The second one…

He was notably different… darker, one might say… maybe a longshot.
He believe he was chosen — maybe the chosen one.
It was sometimes hard to see any heart.
In fact, some believed he was more machine than man…
… twisted and evil.
When his talents first became noticeable, he had to choose between leading for good — or leading for bad.
Power undoubtedly corrupted him.
He quit serving the people.
Thus, many were afraid of him — even those closest to him… if there was anyone close.
I would guess he had few friends.
He did have children — in which we saw a glimpse of his heart — but the time was fleeting at best.
He led most through intimidation and the instilling of fear.
He had no patience for opposing opinion or insubordination.
He had a distinct look to him, although his suit always seemed to augment his diminished strength and vitality.
For some reason, he seemed ever tormented inside… even if he faked it in his plethora of public interactions.

Maybe I’m wrong here, but my sense is we are so narrow in our view. We look at pundits and politicians, names and nominees — and feel justified in placing them firmly in solely one of the above two categories…

… as if one is all evil and one is all good.

But there’s a problem.

The above descriptions are fictional.

As described by “Wookiepedia: The Star Wars Wiki”, the above depicts Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader… yes, fictional characters.

Friends, we are omitting wisdom when we equate real life people and public personalities with fiction.

There is only one Luke — and only one Vader.

And neither one is real.

Respectfully…
AR