intramuralist ™ – Page 83 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

12/27/2016

after christmas

Just a few words this day…

As the decorations are dismantled and all hung with care keeps coming down, my thoughts turn to the reality after Christmas.

I paused the other evening, as I, too, sat seemingly amidst a sea of crumpled wrapping paper and contented kids, hearing that iconic pop singer, George Michael, passed away. As choruses of “Freedom” and “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go” quickly danced in my head, I was again reminded of reality.

Immediately, many lamented the challenges and pain of the year behind…

… the deaths… division… and undesired outcomes…

All of the above existed in 2015. They will be again exist in 2017.

But depending on who are the deaths, where is the division, and what are the undesired outcomes, the reality affects different people to different degrees. Reality affects us differently.

And so I immediately think back to the bells heard on Christmas Day… the messages of hope, proclamations of peace, and the depth of a great, great joy.

What is beautiful about that hope, peace, and joy is that it lasts for far more than a day; it’s available more than a single day each year; and it has the power and potential to transcend the pain within any of our realities.

As the Intramuralist continues to reflect on the end of the year, we wish you great blessing… including that hope, peace, and joy… always…

Respectfully…
AR

12/24/201612/24/2016

what it’s about

Sometimes the most powerful messages are shared in the simplest ways, such as 51 years ago, in “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” Near the animated special’s end, a discouraged Charlie Brown mutters the following:

“I guess you were right, Linus. I shouldn’t have picked this little tree. Everything I do turns into a disaster. I guess I really don’t know what Christmas is all about.

[shouting in desperation]

Isn’t there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?!”

And then Linus van Pelt — Charlie’s best friend, Lucy’s younger brother, and the show’s seemingly calming philosopher however insecure — chimes right in…

“Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you what Christmas is all about.

Lights, please. [a spotlight shines on Linus]

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not:

[Linus drops his security blanket on purpose]

For behold, I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.’

[Linus picks up his blanket and walks back towards Charlie Brown]

That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”

That’s what it’s about… peace on earth, glory to someone bigger than self, good will toward others, and a joy-filled confidence and hope that allows for the intentional dropping of all that qualifies as our security blanket.

Blessings, friends. For all those celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, or neither this day, the Intramuralist wishes you peace, hope, harmony, and joy. Always.

May we each love all people well.

Respectfully (… with a few extra ho-ho-ho’s this day)…
AR

12/22/2016

the first star trek

One of the most poignant perspectives of the Christmas story, whether or not one adheres to the Christian faith, is the expectancy of all those in active pursuit of something good.

The Bethlehemites and key players involved didn’t just sit around, fumbling with some semblance of a remote, loosely surfing or scanning for something new to entertain them.

Neither did they simply react to some noise or community disturbance — like when a siren blares down our street — and we each suggest to one another we go take a look.

It wasn’t casual. It wasn’t happenstance.

It was an intentional pursuit.

What strikes me arguably most all those years ago, is the deep, genuine, eager expectation…

The Magi went after the manger; they traveled most probably thousands of miles in pursuit of the promise. Call it, if you will, the “first star trek” — although allow me to humbly acknowledge, the title is not an Intramuralist original (and with all due respect, no one, to my limited knowledge, exhibited any especially unusual ears).

Little is actually known about these Magi, these “wise men” or “kings,” as often depicted. There exists only one historical reference, reporting that they came “from the East” — quite possibly from Persia — and tradition then tells us that they had a reputation for astrology. Hence, what we know is that they actively trekked after the Messiah, and something that was already meaningful to them — yes, the star, since they were astrologers — got their attention.

It causes me to pause this holiday season, wondering how expectant I am, wondering what I am most searching for…

How am I preparing for this season? What am I doing besides making my lists and checking them twice?

What reflection would be wise, especially before 2017 is ushered in?

And what is God using to get my attention?

… after all, he will no doubt use something that is already meaningful to me.

What am I searching for? For what am I looking?

Is it something good? … peace? … joy? … hope, harmony, or reconciliation?

I keep wondering: am I looking for what is good?

It strikes me profoundly that the very first star trek was in eager expectation of what was good. That expectant hope changes everything.

Respectfully…
AR

12/20/2016

the conclusion of our diverse roundtable

[What a treat to spend extended time with these 6 individuals. What a growth opportunity to be sharpened by those who don’t all think the same as me. Here is the end of our 5 part series, as articulated by Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth, and their recognition of intentional respect as the first, best step forward…]
_____

AR: Ok, friends — and that’s what you are… I so appreciate how each of you recognizes that friendship and relationship are more important than agreement and likemindedness. Give me some final thoughts as we wrap this up (although I have a sneaky suspicion we may keep talking…).

BRENT: Nobody reads BOOKS anymore! I see so many people my age (31) and younger completely detached from the mechanics of real learning or study. I read a note today that summed it up well, saying, “We educate to the point of accepting what we’ve been taught, but not enough to question it.”

RONI: This group is a group of readers. The number of bookstores that have gone out of business is incredible. Very sad. Many read on-line, but sadly many done. I think you make a good point.

MIKE: In the spirit of what Ann is promoting here, I’ll put myself out there. Why is it assumed because I am conservative that I am evil, greedy, prejudiced, and/or don’t care about people in need? Because I assure you, none are true.

RONI: Likewise, as being termed liberal, why am I seen as wasteful, soft on crime, not a real Christian, and unpatriotic?

AR: Why are people so judgmental of political identifications?

MIKE: Equally fair questions, Roni, though I do not equate politics with crime, religion, or patriotism.

RUTH: I’m with Mike, in that I despise the way people have treated others, as in the stories shared here of assumptions and hateful treatment toward others. The only way I know to conceptualize why there’s so much judgment is because we’re in a fallen world, awaiting us unifying, while an enemy stirs up division and strife. If one has received mercy from the Creator, even in disagreement, empathy is possible toward “opposing sides.”

RONI: Empathy or a lack there of plays a significant role. Seeing if someone who seems so different from you has the same value but through a different lens is critical.

MIKE: This has been great conversation. This is the way our political discourse should be. And Congress. It could be, if we could focus on everyone winning rather than our side winning. We all lose when we won’t let the other side win.
_____

Our conversation actually covered far more, fascinating ground. We went on to respectfully discuss the following, although arguably each to a limited extent:

Why a person is conservative
Why a person is liberal
Why it is inaccurate to identify conservatives as “angry, white males”
Why it is inaccurate to label either party/partisans as either “meaner” or “kinder” than another
“Hateful attitudes” on both sides
The sadness and potential hate in “unfriending”
Voting for the person as opposed to party
Russian involvement/WikiLeaks
The burden of our $19 trillion debt
States rights
The role of the federal government — how big should it be?
Economic analysis of the Carrier deal
North Carolina
The value/concerns of privatization — including education
Perceived economic differences
Populist candidates
Potential cabinet nominations and appointees
Racism, socialism, elitism, etc.
The wide, bipartisan respect for Colin Powell
The power that accompanies wealth
The Electoral College
William F. Buckley
If the current Dem. and Rep. parties are consistent with their predecessors
Putting down our labels
How “everybody is right and everybody is wrong”
How true conservatives and true liberals are alike and often agree on concepts
Where we each get our news
The Chicago Cubs and more.

There was generous affirmation, questions, and respect, finding more we had in common than did not. We get into trouble when we magnify the “did not’s.” So allow me to close with a couple more comments from the table…

MIKE: Sounds like lots of agreement here. If we could unite in purpose, I think we could figure out how to get there.

RONI: I think this group could find enough agreement to make things work fairly for all.

RUTH: I appreciate the hope and value each of you all have brought to the table. I am thankful for the ability, as upside down as the world is, to still reach across and shake hands, and show care, concern, and hope.

Agreed… and amen.

Respectfully…
AR

12/18/2016

a diverse roundtable – part 4 of 5

[Over the past week, we’ve posted excerpts from a conversation with 6 diverse individuals: Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth. Each recognizes intentional respect as the first, best step forward in the polarized, political environment in which we live. Here is the second to last piece of our conversation, with the conclusion coming Tuesday…]
_____

AR: We’ve referenced a need to “overcome” — overcoming a nastiness on all sides… from the ugliness, hatred, arrogance… even from sides thinking they are “all in the right” and another is “all in the wrong.” How do we actually overcome? How do we “overcome someday”?

MIKE: I used to think the goal was a color-blind society. I no longer believe that. Racism exists, so we need to deal with it. I ask my black friends what it’s like, how they get looked at, and how I can help. I think it starts there — we all need diverse friends. We can’t understand what it’s like to be black, Hispanic, gay, liberal, or conservative until we sincerely get to know people who are.

RUTH: We need to recognize we are in this together. We need more intentional communication across lines of diversity, yes — and pursuing opportunity to grow in understanding, wisdom, and synergy.

JANIE: With my diverse friends, there is no subject we won’t talk about. We talk about what we don’t understand. I keep coming back to Ecclesiastes 3, said in Hebrew and English after the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007…. “a time to be born, a time to die, a time to plant, a time to pluck up that which is planted, a time to heal, a time to build up, a time to weep, a time to laugh, a time to dance, a time to embrace, a time to lose, a time to keep, a time to keep silence, a time to speak, a time to love, a time of peace… So perhaps wisdom comes with those words. Learning to listen… to walk in another’s shoes…

AR: So how do people fuel the division, even though they may not realize it? And is there ever a time to severe a relationship over political differences?

MIKE: Our language fuels division. Why is white always good, and black bad? White hat, dark side, blackball, etc. Calling myself pro-life implies you are against life. Calling yourself progressive implies I am against progress.
I never sever relationships. But I have blocked people on Facebook so I don’t have to listen to their incessant rants.

JANIE: I don’t severe relationships over political differences.

RUTH: I can’t see severing a relationship over political differences. As a respected leader in my life often says, “We don’t often get 100% agreement over things in our own household!” Life is full of negotiating differences in relationships. Political differences may go deep, but I hope relationships go deeper.
We all have reasons behind our political leanings, which always have the possibility to change. If we cut each other off rather than try to understand and graciously express reasons for our position — or at least discuss how to work together for the common good — doesn’t that in itself inadvertently perpetuate division?

Seems to me, if we are not intentional, we can fuel division by default. Unless we make efforts to stay open to listening — and if we don’t look for opportunities to reach across barriers to connect, then our circles of association will continue to drift further apart. If not intentional to search past our comfort zone of associates most like us, then social media feeds us our separate preferences, ingraining them further.

Also fueling division: presenting our opinions as judgments and labels against others — and in a manner lacking humility, mercy, and love even, for persons with opposing views.

RONI: So what can be done?
1. Recognize there are issues.
2. Create safe spaces, like this, for respectful discussion of solutions; solutions often take a long time.
3. Recognize that as you discuss there needs to be follow-up, because healing takes time.
4. Seek to understand the meaning and intent of others.
5. Respond with kindness when possible.
6. Understand that protests are not bad but part of the change process.
7. Value the first amendment while understanding your words/actions have consequences.

AR: How still is social media making this worse?

JANIE: Facebook tries to tell me I don’t know what I am talking about, even when I live here, witnessing reality. It incites the ugly and mean.

MIKE: So many ways, social media makes this worse. Fake news, anonymous trolling, etc. And with so many news sources, outlets seek out the extreme to get attention. But the biggest issue is being able to filter out news sources to see only what we want to see. We are continually reinforcing our own viewpoint without seeking to understand others.

RONI: Mike, I think you are right. We do give more grace to those we understand. We all tend to discount others. Part of that is the Western practice of only seeing things as right/wrong or good/evil.
_____

Recognizing that one “side” is not all good or all evil — encouraging each of us to seek to understand others first.

Great discussion. Our conclusion comes Tuesday…

Respectfully…
AR

12/15/2016

a diverse roundtable – part 3

[The conversation continues with Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth… 6 diverse individuals who recognize intentional respect as the first, best step forward.]
_____

AR: So let me ask a question. When someone doesn’t share your stated fears or concerns, how do you work with that? How do you talk to him/her?

RONI: Often by what someone doesn’t say, you can ask questions to understand someone’s fears.

JANIE: Am I the only one in the “south” or close enough to understand the Confederate Flag remains a serious way of life? Not making fun of it. I’m saying that there exist regional influences. Hence, are the fears different depending on the region where we live?

AR: Great question, Janie. And whether we relate or not, share them or not, what should be our approach?

MIKE: First, I acknowledge that the fears are real, sincere, and not contrived. Then I would offer the hope that the demonizing in which both sides portrayed the other was probably worse than reality.

RONI: As far as the “fear factor,” it is real. It’s like the the reality my two sons face when dealing with police and others is very different. (I’m not against the police and am not saying they are bad.) One son is white, and one son is bi-racial and very brown. However, my “brown” son has been harassed when he was doing nothing. I truly fear for his safety. Both parties may have demonized, but there was an unleashed meanness that is real. I appreciate your perspective Mike, but am afraid Pandora’s box is opened and can’t be closed.

MIKE: I do think the demonizing exceeded reality, but I also recognize some ugly elements of society that embraced the candidates, and the candidates did not denounce them, because they wanted the votes. I certainly hope they don’t govern that way, but acknowledge that remains to be seen. Skinheads are not going to rule this country. The vast majority of us oppose that.

JANIE: Roni — Pandora’s Box! Thank you. I could NOT find that in my brain cell!

RUTH: That’s another shock — the seeming permission given (or taken) for an unleashing of such hidden ugliness and nastiness. I am shocked to hear those reports from here and there. The fears I can understand, but I hoped in reality we were past so much of the racism etc. as a society!
Has the perception of being disregarded, some thinking self-righteously that “since the constitution and executive powers have been overstepped,” they are justified in now ugly backlash unleashed? … by a “minority of the majority”? WAY too many bad stories. The only hope I take is that at least, like puss oozing from an infection, maybe now it’s out, we can begin to deal with it.

MIKE: Just as MLK taught, folks, we overcome hate with love. So as this ugly element of society feels more comfortable coming out into the open, let us be loving rather than hateful toward each other.

RUTH: Agree! We shall overcome… someday!

RONI: I agree.

JANIE: Forceful denunciation is missing — can’t come together when “you” are insulting the people with whom you want to become friends. I suggest re-reading Reconstruction and the Northern treatment of the South.

RONI: Ubuntu is missing. So is the concept of ichi-go-ichi-e. Heard an interesting movie line that seems to sum “thangs” up for the political parties:
Little Rascal one: “Why don’t you look where you’re going?”
Little Rascal two: Why don’t you go where you’re lookin’.”
I think this applies to both parties.
Both parties have ideology which diminishes healthy dialogue. I appreciate AR’s reaching out to lead to understanding, not necessarily agreement, but at least a way to provide a vehicle to deeper insight.

Learning styles and exposure of people’s life trauma seems to have been amplified by this election cycle with no healing mechanisms. You just don’t “get over” the opened wounds brought out this election.

RUTH: I, too am so blessed by a diverse network of family friends. I’d love to hear more definition of the concepts you mentioned, Roni. What do they mean personally to you?

AR: Yes, Roni… “ichi-go-ichi-e”?

RONI: “Ubuntu” — cooperation. I lift you and you lift me. “Ichi-gu-ichi-e” — one time, one meeting.
Only get today. Make the most of each new experience. Reconciliation hearings were painful but honest.

JANIE: WOW! Roni, we would be BFF’s!
_____

[It’s amazing what respectful dialogue can do.]

More soon in regard to how we overcome, how we each fuel division, and some specific insights. Two more posts. Stay tuned.

Respectfully…
AR

12/13/2016

a diverse roundtable – part 2

[Continuing with Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth… 6 diverse, gathered individuals — all over the political, social, and demographic map. They each advocate for respectful dialogue — no matter the passion, no matter the supposed “side” — no matter the chickens, eggs, “tastes great’s” or “less filling’s.” Intentional respect is the first, best step forward…]

BRENT: I’m very curious to hear what everyone thinks along the lines of how much control truly lies with the people in our government, one that keeps growing in federal power.

RONNIE: Brent, my answer to your last question: zero, nada, zilch and none. Best thing to happen in this country in truly draining the swamp is have a good old revolution.

BRENT: How do we even begin to go about moving the power back to the states and localities? I also think a lot of the problem is that we now face a generation growing up where entitlements are the norm.

JANIE: I raised three non-political sons to always know who they liked and research the one they did not. Taught my college and high school students to do the same. Pick an issue you like and research the other’s viewpoint. We don’t encourage that today.

RONNIE: Could I post a few videos for Brent on what a real convention should look like if we want to drain the swamp?

JANIE: Wait Ronnie; the word “compromise” — today no one wants to use it. Working together. And no one takes the time to research or to listen.

BRENT: It’s comforting to know there are still teachers teaching kids critical thinking skills!

JANIE: Brent, thank you. Critical thinking is becoming a lost art and skill.

AR: So recognizing that several of you adhere to a specific party fairly loyally, how have you seen the party you most identify with dismiss/omit critical thinking?

BRENT: When you pander to the masses as your audience, it leaves little room for debate because it’s based on group think mentality.

MIKE: Well, politicians used to campaign hard, then work together to govern. Good ideas were advanced, regardless of which side of the aisle they came from. Now we are in constant campaign mode. Can’t support the other’s good idea, because you can’t let them earn political points.

[THUMBS UP FROM BRENT]

JANIE: The parties have lost their way. The great hope of the citizens is newer districts with real representation — not party representation!

MIKE: That’s a good point. There’s so much gerrymandering both ways; you create majority safe districts by creating minority safe districts as well — that for the most part, winning the primary means you win the general. That means both parties select candidates to the extreme — “I will fight for you!” — rather than the sensible person who can appeal to both sides, because you no longer need that person to win the general.

[THUMBS UP FROM RONI]

RUTH: Critical thinking — had to wonder, is there any on either “side”? There seems a lack on both sides — about consequences of policies and orders passed, on one hand — on the other, a lack of judgment and recognition of the power of words and tones, opening up stuff that should’ve been denounced, rather than played into so freely during the campaign. Seems as though the more critical thinkers were ruled out in the primaries.

RONI: (Going back a bit) I think fear also played a major role in this past election. Fear that “they” were/are taking over — applicable to both sides. I also am genuinely changed by the way I have seen this election deeply hurt my Jewish, Muslim, immigrant, and LGTBQ friends. The lack of empathy has disturbed me.

MIKE: Roni, I assure you that I take no joy in anyone’s fear, and I would stand with you fighting discrimination against any of the groups you mentioned.

RONI: That’s why I love you, Mike. I know that you would.

AR: Oh, this is good…
_____

More is forthcoming… how we overcome, how we work through political differences, and too, some specific topics. Again, stay tuned.

Respectfully…
AR

12/11/201612/11/2016

a diverse roundtable – part 1

No matter the potential controversy or intensity, the Intramuralist will not shy away, always advocating for respectful dialogue. No matter the deeply passionate, supposed “sides” — the chickens, eggs, the “tastes great’s” and “less filling’s” — I believe that intentional respect for one another is the first, best step forward.

The challenge is that we each receive ample encouragement to move forward alone — or only with the likeminded. We are encouraged to cut our losses and dismiss the value of “together,” falsely believing that one “side” is all right and the other is all wrong. Such grieves me, as it seems not synonymous with wisdom. Thankfully, however, I am not alone in said assessment.

A week ago I gathered 6 friends in an online discussion. These articulate 6 are all over the political, social, demographic map. At first glance, they look as if they have little in common. If they shared their political affiliations, they would appear to have even less. But what they do share is a commitment to take that first, best step forward. They do not believe in severing relationships. They believe in a respectful dialogue of current events.

Meet Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth. They are good people. While a few in the group knew another previously, they had never all met before.

Over this next week, I’d like to share portions of our diverse, roundtable discussion, starting with their introduction today…

RONI: I’m in! Thank you for the opportunity to connect with others.

MIKE: I’m in. Looking forward to learning from everyone.

RONNIE: I’m in… and since this will be like family, call me “Ronnie.”

JANIE: I am in and much prefer if family/friends call me Janie or JB. If you are “yelling” at me — which is fine — go with “Jane.” Disclosure… a U.S. Govt. educator since the founding of the country!

[AR: No yelling here, Janie. 🙂 ]

BRENT: I’m also in!

RUTH: I’m the late one to the table (no comments about “as usual,” AR! … can I call you “Annie”?? 🙂 ), but I’m in! Hi, new friends! Honored to make your acquaintances!

AR: Thanks for chiming in, all. So tell me: how would you describe this entire election/campaign season?

RONNIE: Short and to the point: insane and frightening.

MIKE: It was the craziest election of my lifetime. The dynamic of a celebrity candidate was bizarre. I did not appreciate how it became more about what was wrong with the other person rather than what they would do. Campaigns have been divisive in the past, but the vitriol has lingered so much longer this time around. A real turnoff.

BRENT: There are two main issues for me. First (coming from a 31 yr. old), there seems to be a large and growing chunk of people, a lot of them young, who are voting based mostly on “hearsay,” rather than research. Along with this, as the mainstream media has been consolidated into fewer hands over the years, the focus seems to have shifted from reporting the news as a watchdog to becoming a powerful propaganda machine.

JANIE: Sorry, but stuck with the educator hat at the moment… it used to be the party wasn’t nearly as important as the person.

RONI: Well, go to one retirement party and whoa, you miss the storm of thought. Loved reading
everyone’s thoughts!
This election was frightening, biased and had extraordinary efficiency gaps.

[“thumbs up” from JANIE]

JANIE: Were we all watching the same exact “show,” hearing the same words? How was there such joy and fear?

RONI: I agree, Janie; it is amazing how the views of this election are so different. The fears and joys are very real.

RUTH: Wow… Where to jump in? I’m “listening” and you all are fascinating! (I can tell already I’m going to learn a lot here.) My take on this election cycle was “shocking, but not surprising.” So much shock and drama: the shock of all the replayed disturbing words, the shock of dots connecting concerning influences, the shock of the seemingly least likely candidate winning the primary and then overtaking the shoe-in. Yet with what is glamorized and dramatized in our pop culture and “news” media, none of this should really come as a surprise. What did surprise me most was that some people really seemed to think one of the two candidates was really going to be so great over the other.

Much to chew on more than usual with this vote… More reason to dig down and consider what am I really voting for here. So it sobered me and drew me to research and pray much, much more than usual over an election.
_____

And there we start, friends… part two is on Tuesday… beginning with the value of critical thinking… and how it appeared absent in this past election cycle. Stay tuned.

Respectfully… always…
AR

12/08/2016

not news

CEDAR PLAINS, PA — “After years of delays and mounting criticism from voters and political pundits, President Barack Obama finally followed through on a campaign promise he made in 2008 to spend one night alone in the abandoned Cedar Plains Family Fun amusement park, sources confirmed Wednesday.
At approximately 6 p.m. last night, members of the press reportedly looked on as Obama—carrying only a flashlight, a water bottle, and a backpack full of snacks—scaled the 9-foot-high chain-link fence and entered the derelict theme park, making good on a vow that had been a central component of his initial run for the White House.

‘Eight years ago, I made an oath that if I were elected president, I would spend dusk till dawn in this old, run-down amusement park, and tonight I am fulfilling my obligation to the American people,’ said Obama, who had been widely accused of favoring other legislative priorities above an overnight stay inside the dilapidated regional attraction that shut its doors in 2003. ‘Between now and sunrise, I will climb to the top of the Ripsaw roller coaster, I will throw a rock through the window of the snow cone stand, and just as I’ve said time and time again, I will wander around in the big concrete track where the Lazy River used to be. And to prove that I do not take your support for granted, I will also walk through the Hall of Mirrors at midnight,’ Obama added.”

Oh, did the Intramuralist chuckle when reading the above on “The Onion” — a news satire organization that’s been entertaining readers for the past 28 years. In other words, it’s not news. It’s fake.

As in any significant aftermath, new terms are coined, and the term “fake news” is now being introduced into our vernacular, after November’s perceived political earthquake. “Fake news” equates to “false and sometimes sensationalist information presented as fact and published and spread on the internet” (see Collins English Dictionary).

The incidents and events did not actually happen in the way in which they are reported. Hence, there exists concern that inaccurate news causes readers (who evolve into voters) to be misinformed and therefore make inaccurate conclusions.

Said concern is valid, in my opinion. But I’d like to go one step further in identifying that which is not news…

Remember that news is newly received, noteworthy information. As best as possible, it is an objective account. Editorials — or opinion pieces and opinionated pundits — are also not news. They are a subjective account; subjective is not synonymous with truth. Swaying an audience — albeit often arguably, unintentionally — is prioritized over offering objectivity.

In other words, if we only pay attention to the Huffington Post, the NY Times, Rachel Maddow, and Steven Colbert, we won’t have an objective (or accurate) perspective; if we only pay attention to the Drudge Report, the NY Post, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, we also won’t have an objective perspective. Their political opinion skews their presentation of noteworthy information. Hence, this, too, is not news. That means the contributing journalists are also not news reporters. Opinion is altering the news.

Note Wednesday’s announcement, for example, that President-Elect Trump will nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency…

HuffPo’s headline read as follows: “DIRTY DEAL: Trump Picks Fossil Fuel-Friend to Head EPA”
Drudge lead with: “Trump’s EPA Pick Spooks Liberals and the Environmental Lobby”

The two accounts were covering the same story.

Popular FOX News host Megyn Kelly shared in an NPR interview this week that “too many millions of Americans aren’t listening at all to what the press tells them.” I wonder if “too many millions” aren’t listening because they’ve realized too many journalists are offering something other than news.

It’s tough. It’s tough to ensure that what we’re reading and hearing is both not fake but also not opinion. Both are not news.

Reporting on Obama on that Ripsaw coaster would be easier. More entertaining, too.

Respectfully…
AR

12/06/2016

(not) something lesser

Ok, I’ll admit it. I’m guilty. Totally guilty.

Sometimes I make this entire holiday season into something it was never intended to be. Sometimes I make it about materialism. Sometimes I make it about gifts. Sometimes I make it about something lesser.

Sometimes I pout. Sometimes I get something so stuck in my craw that I can’t emotionally shake myself out of it. I can’t always surrender to the Divine in order to help me navigate wisely through it. So yes, sometimes I focus on something lesser — not realizing that it actually is lesser.

A local church community created the below in video form last week. I thought it was brilliant — and relevant to each of us in different ways. It’s a message for Advent, a time of expectant waiting and preparation for future celebration. But sometimes we’re so busy that we miss the depth of the celebration. We miss what’s most important…

Everyone wants Christmas
To be meaningful
But, instead it becomes
Shop, shop, shop,
Credit cards
Traffic jams
To do lists
Useless gifts
Then off to church
Noel, Noel, Noel
Sometimes we’re just glad to survive it.
Did you know Americans spend $450 billion on Christmas every year?
EVERY YEAR.
So we ask?
How did Jesus celebrate?
Jesus gave
He gave himself
Relationally.
Incarnation.
Time, space, presence… (do you see where this is going?)
WHAT IF
you bought FEWER GIFTS
[that sweater she won’t like]
[that random gift certificate]
[that toy he doesn’t need]
And then instead of BUYING that gift
Give something valuable
LIKE
YOUR
TIME
Talk, eat, sled, bake, bike, read, play, create, craft
TOGETHER
Make gifts (like when you were a kid)
And remember that money you didn’t spend
What if you gave some of it away?
To the poor, the hurting, the lonely, the hungry, the sick, the thirsty
Since 2006 thousands of churches have been giving all over the world
That’s a lot of love… life
All because people
Spent LESS on gifts
And MORE ON relationships
LET’S FACE IT
Consumerism does not equal happiness, memories, meaning
Spend less on gifts
Give more on presence…

If we gave more on presence, I wonder what would happen… would our relationships be better? … would we be more empathetic? … would we be less accepting of division and writing people off? … would we learn to see more sides than our own?

I’m thinking I need to do this far more than this time of year.

Respectfully…
AR