Category: Current Event

This was not a slow news summer. When I think of the season’s biggest stories, I think of the conflicts between Ukraine and Russia and between Israel and Hamas and how sad it is that they continue. I think about the Epstein files and the “client list” dispute and how this has been an issue for years. I think, too, about violent crime still existing in this country and how the vast majority of us want it solved but oft differ in how to solve it. Sometimes the news can be a little overwhelming.

One of the other big summer stories, no doubt, was the emergence of Zohran Mamdani, winning the June Democratic primary for the mayor of New York City — now viewed as the fall favorite due to the city’s demographic, partisan makeup.

Mamdami is a 33 year old, native of Kampala, Uganda, and in my opinion, an articulate, bright-sounding individual. What’s unique about him as a mayoral candidate, is that while identifying as a Democrat, he is also a member of the more obscure Democratic Socialists of America. 

My sense is that sometimes an identification is more or less attractive to us because of what we don’t know. If we’re frustrated with capitalism, for example, feeling like it hasn’t worked for us, maybe socialism sounds more attractive even though we don’t understand what it really is; we’re attracted because it’s something different. Let’s attempt today to understand what the different actually is.

We must first ask: what’s the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? Such is a fair and necessary question.

Unfortunately, the difference is ambiguous. Some distinguish between the two by acknowledging that socialism is a broad economic system centered on the idea of government or community ownership of the means of production as opposed to private ownership; whereas, democratic socialism works to achieve socialist ideals within primarily existing structures. Democratic socialists believe in strong welfare states rather than a complete abolition of capitalism. What’s also true, therefore, is that while all democratic socialists are socialists in their goals, not all socialists are democratic socialists. Many socialists advocate for authoritarian methods to achieve their economic objectives.

What too is true is that the term “socialist” is viewed negatively by a majority of American people. Granted, studies have shown in recent years that younger generations (particularly Millennials and Gen Z’ers) have a higher regard for socialism than those who’ve gone before them, although such may also fit into the quandary previously presented of not understanding what it really is. Hence, while there is an ambiguous difference between a socialist and a democratic socialist, the chosen terminology may or may not correlate more with popularity than actual political ideology.

Socialist systems are designed to reduce perceived disparities in income and wealth. They tend to provide universal access to a determined set of basic needs, such as healthcare, education and housing — often at no cost to the individual. It also is oft believed to manage public services well, such as in regard to road repairs and emergency services. The philosophy prioritizes the collective over the individual.

Because of that collective focus, socialism also inhibits innovation; social ownership reduces the personal incentive for innovation and hard work that exists in a competitive, for-profit market. Additionally, there is a strong risk of authoritarianism as witnessed historically. True, too, is that socialist economies lack price signals that typically guide production and resource allocation. Costs can become incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain, especially during a recession, when more people require services while government tax revenue simultaneously decreases. To fund the social programs, significantly higher taxes are necessary. 

Recognizing the difference in terminology then, where has socialism worked? Where has it not?

The reality is that there is no consensus on where socialism has “worked.” While some cite the Nordic model and historical Israeli kibbutzim as examples of social democracy with socialist elements, most political scientists and economists agree that these are primarily capitalist with social safety nets; in other words, they are not true socialism. We should thus be keenly observant of the countries described as socialist, like China and Vietnam, which have blended socialist principles with market economies, and then those with explicitly socialist aims, such as Venezuela and the former Soviet Union. Each has faced significant failures. 

With democratic socialism, it’s thus prudent to understand how strictly the fundamentals of socialism are to be applied. Such would help us discern how attractive said philosophy may actually be.

Respectfully…

AR

It’s that time again. Millions around the world will soon all tune in together. It’s one of the most anticipated weekends of the year: the start of the NFL season!

There’s just something about professional football (and college, too) that riles many of us up in a totally good way. It goes beyond the game — beyond the stats and celebrations, too. We are drawn to football fall and the professional pigskin. We pay attention to the players on and off the field. (Congrats, Travis and Taylor.)

Attempting to understand the why, I utilized our resourceful friend, Mr. Google, asking the following question: why do people love this game so much?

Several had something to say.

First, from some Cornell University students in the field of Educational Technology (EdTech) and cognitive psychology…

• NFL is a piece of popular culture
• NFL is part of American tradition 
• NFL fosters relationships
• Tailgating is fun
• People love watching talented athletes
• League parity keeps things interesting
• NFL hits hard
• NFL has the best sporting final
• There is a chance to win big
• Fantasy Football has real stakes

I agree on all of the above (although my tailgating time has been lacking in recent years). The “Office on Trinity” blog, no less, puts it this way:

• Football and Tradition Go Hand in Hand
• Football Unites People
• It Keeps You Guessing
• Love & Loyalty For Players
• The Vibe is AHMAZING
• More Than Just a Game
• Chow Time during Games Matters a Lot
• Clashes Get Pretty Heated
• Fantasy Football Puts You in the Game

All also good. Next from a Quora contributor: “It’s tough, fast, surprising, tactical, full of violence, noise, heroics, music, fireworks and pageantry. Friday night lights, Saturday festivity, Sunday warfare. What’s not to love?”

Indeed, the NFL is a big deal.

I find myself landing on two primary points in the pondering.

One, as said by the creative Trinity personnel, “Well, it ain’t just a game of football. It’s a mix of tradition, thrills, and community.” Such is indeed an attractive combination to many.

And two — and this may show my semi-humble, current events blogger bias — but there’s something auspiciously profound about what’s playing out before our very eyes — something we don’t witness in too many places in the polarized world we live in… 

Note: the current average attendance for an NFL game is just under 70,000 people. So tens of thousand of people are sitting in close-knit quarters with one another. Of those tens of thousands, there’s widespread diversity — age, ethnicity, gender — pretty much every demographic; all are welcome. Better still, no less, in those tens of thousands, they are remarkably passionate, yelling and screaming loudly for their team… but not all yelling for the same team. Right before us we see tens of thousands who profoundly and publicly disagree.

And save the response of a disrespectful few, they don’t insult one another. They don’t tell the other why they’re right and the other is wrong. There is no presumed moral high ground. At the end of the game, players and fans walk away peacefully and respectfully and prepare to play and cheer again.

That, my friends, is a wonderful game in far more ways than one.

Respectfully…

AR

And so it goes one more time. Absolutely awful. And the reality is, whether we see it or not, we’re united. We hate it. We hate the hate. We don’t want it to happen even one more time.

As students were worshipping and celebrating in their first mass of the year at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis last Wednesday, a young man opened fire on the stained glass adorning the building, murdering an 8-year-old and 10-year-old, and seriously injuring 17 more.

The 23-year-old shooter (who will go nameless here — no need to add to any desired notoriety) had the following words inscribed on his guns: 

• “6 million wasn’t enough.”
• “Humanity is overrated.”
• “Israel must fall.”
• “Burn Israel.”
• “Kill Donald Trump.”
• “Sponsored by Blackrock.”
• “I’m the Woker, Baby, Why So Queerious?”
• “Fart Nigga.”
• “McVeigh.”
• “I am a terrorist.”
• “Bitch.” (This and the one immediately above were written in Russian.)

There’s so much grief. Anger, too. And so many questions. As written by Free Press contributor Peter Savodnik, “In the wake of the tragedy, as with all of these tragedies, we want to know how it happened. And who did it… But most of all, we want to know why. We want to know why, not just so we can assign blame, but so we can make sense of a country where murdering children can happen on any given Wednesday.” We all agree; our kids shouldn’t be scared to go to school. 

As details emerge, we’ve learned the following:

• The shooter was a transgender woman, born a biological male. In a brief manifesto, he confessed he “was tired of being trans.”
• The shooter’s mother used to work at the school.
• The shooter was armed with 3 guns — a rifle, shotgun and pistol — each which were legally purchased.
• The shooter had no known violent criminal history.
• Investigators say the shooter was “obsessed with the idea of killing children.”

We still don’t have all the details. The sad reality is that we may never have all the details.

And yet we react. The grief, the anger, all the questions — they prompt us to cry out and fill the gaps with what makes the most sense to us… gun control, school fortification, prayer… True, though, is what makes the most sense to us may be incomplete. For example, reasonable people call for increased gun control; most gun control targets semi-automatic or assault weapons. Based on what we currently know, it’s unlikely such would have made a difference here. Also for example, reasonable people respond with prayer. Believing God is absolutely aware of all that happens on this planet — and recognizing that no, heaven is not a place on Earth — often it seems he is simply waiting for his people to truly depend on him. But true, too, is that even though we respond in prayer, we don’t have to ignore other potential control measures — from legislation to building more effective school safety systems — that would guard against such a tragedy.

One more for example is transparently wrestling with the mental health of the person who pulls that trigger. What wrongful thinking inside of the shooter makes them feel like such is ok to do? Clearly, this most recent shooter was not thinking wisely, logically, morally, you name it. Something was wrong in his head. It’s profoundly incomprehensible. That’s why reasonable people will also say it’s not the gun but the person with the gun that’s the problem.

And so noting all the reasonable people, let’s ask the better question. In Minneapolis last Wednesday, what would have made a difference? What would have prevented the attack? What would have halted the clear manifestation of evil?

That is the most excellent question. Wisdom suggests we answer in a way that spares vilifying the varied approaches. Here, for instance, there’s no need to vilify those who pray. There’s no need to vilify the trans community. There’s no need to vilify those who approach this from some other, also incomplete angle. 

One of the reasons I think we make seemingly so little progress on this issue is because we spend too much time vilifying someone who emphasizes another angle, i.e. the guns, mental health, prayer. Maybe we should instead start by recognizing and respectfully acknowledging that hard as this may be to see, we’re unified. We want the same thing. We want this to stop. Let’s do it together.

Respectfully…

AR

Remember: it’s wise to listen and learn from persons outside our ecosystem. Last week I stumbled upon a social media post from a previously untapped source. It was sobering indeed. It was written 3 years ago by Spanish psychologist, Dr. Luis Rojas Marcos, in an article he entitled “A Silent Tragedy.” The tragedy is this:

There is a silent tragedy that is unfolding today in our homes and concerns our most precious jewels: our children. Our children are in a devastating emotional state! In the last 15 years, researchers have given us increasingly alarming statistics on a sharp and steady increase in childhood mental illness that is now reaching epidemic proportions. Statistics do not lie:

• 1 in 5 children have mental health problems
• A 43% increase in diagnosed ADHD
• A 37% increase in adolescent depression has been noted
• There has been a 200% increase in the suicide rate in children aged 10 to 14

What is happening and what are we doing wrong? Today’s children are being over-stimulated and over-gifted with material objects, but they are deprived of the fundamentals of a healthy childhood, such as:

• Emotionally available parents
• Clearly defined limits
• Responsibilities
• Balanced nutrition and adequate sleep
• Movement in general but especially outdoors
• Creative play, social interaction, unstructured game opportunities and boredom spaces

Instead, in recent years, children have been filled with:

• Digitally distracted parents
• Indulgent and permissive parents who let children “rule the world” and whoever sets the rules
• A sense of right, of deserving everything without earning it or being responsible for obtaining it
• Inadequate sleep and unbalanced nutrition
• A sedentary lifestyle
• Endless stimulation, technological nannies, instant gratification and absence of boring moments

What to do? If we want our children to be happy and healthy individuals, we have to wake up and get back to basics. It is still possible! Many families see immediate improvements after weeks of implementing the following recommendations:

• Set limits and remember that you are the captain of the ship. Your children will feel more confident knowing that you have control of the helm.
• Offer children a balanced lifestyle full of what children NEED, not just what they WANT. Don’t be afraid to say “no” to your children if what they want is not what they need.
• Provide nutritious food and limit junk food.
• Spend at least one hour a day outdoors doing activities such as cycling, walking, fishing, bird/insect watching.
• Enjoy a daily family dinner without smartphones or distracting technology, let everyone feel valued.
• Play board games as a family or if children are very small for board games, just let the pretend to play it.
• Involve your children in some homework or household chores according to their age (folding clothes, hanging clothes, unpacking food, setting the table, feeding the dog, etc.)
• Implement a consistent sleep routine to ensure your child gets enough sleep. The schedules will be even more important for school-age children.
• Teach responsibility and independence. Do not overprotect them against all frustration or mistakes. Misunderstanding will help them build resilience and learn to overcome life’s challenges.
• Do not carry your children’s backpack, do not carry the homework they forgot, do not peel bananas or peel oranges if they can do it on their own (4-5 years). Instead of giving them the fish, teach them to fish.
• Teach them to wait and delay gratification.
• Provide opportunities for “boredom”, since boredom is the moment when creativity awakens. Do not feel responsible for always keeping children entertained.
• Do not use technology as a cure for boredom, nor offer it at the first second of inactivity.
• Avoid using technology during meals, in cars, restaurants, shopping centres. Use these moments as opportunities to socialize by training the brains to know how to work when they are in mode: “boredom”.
• Help them create a “bottle of boredom” with activity ideas for when they are bored.

Be emotionally available to connect with children and teach them self-regulation and social skills:

• Turn off the phones at night when children have to go to bed to avoid digital distractions.
• Become a regulator or emotional trainer for your children. Teach them to recognize and manage their own frustrations and anger.
• Teach them to greet, to take turns, to share without running out of anything, to say thank you and please, to acknowledge the error and apologize (do not force them), be a model of all those values you instill.
• Connect emotionally – smile, hug, kiss, tickle, read, dance, jump, play or crawl with them.

How wise it indeed is to learn from other people.

Respectfully…

AR

“War itself is, of course, a form of madness. It’s hardly a civilized pursuit. It’s amazing how we spend so much time inventing devices to kill each other and so little time working on how to achieve peace.” — Walter Cronkite

While I do believe there is a time for everything — a season, time for every activity under heaven — clearly not every war is a just war; most indeed seem not. Most seem more that crazy, despicable form of madness.

Such no doubt is the case with Russia invading Ukraine in 2022, starting the largest and deadliest war in Europe since World War II. There was no just cause; it wasn’t a last resort; and there was zero right intention.

There have been tens of thousands of civilian casualties, with several thousand being children. I must admit, I appreciated Melania Trump’s letter to Vladimir Putin last week, imploring the Russian President in “protecting the innocence of these children.”

Hence, the watching world seems felicitously unified in our number one desire here being we want this war to stop. We want it over. No more killing. We want to work more on achieving peace in Eastern Europe than extending the brutal bloodshed.

But as we’ve witnessed these past three and a half years, it’s not all that easy to stop and solve. Hear from USC professors Robert English and Steve Swerdlow, each international relations experts with personal experience in the region. 

Question: what are the biggest barriers to peace:

English: “Neither side is willing to end the war on terms that are acceptable to the other side. Ukraine will not agree to renounce NATO membership and still insists on reclaiming all its lost territories, including Crimea. Russia rejects both of those positions and insists on sweeping political changes in Kyiv. So, until the costs of continuing the fighting grow high enough that one or both changes these positions, the war will continue.”

Swerdlow: “Putin has turned this war into an existential fight for his own imperialist legacy, making it increasingly difficult for him to concede without appearing defeated. He has made clear that his intentions in this war are to subjugate Ukraine, deprive it of sovereignty, prevent it from having the right to join NATO. Even a temporary ceasefire is unlikely to satisfy the Kremlin’s revanchist desire to expand its imperial reach. The best outcome for both Russia and Ukraine is one that reaffirms the principles at the heart of our international system: territorial integrity, sovereignty, and democracy. That would require Russia’s withdrawal of forces from Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory and a commitment to avoid threatening future invasion.”

Clearly, achieving peace is not easy. And nothing the US or European leaders have done thus far has been lastingly effective.

I thus find it fascinating all those who feel so emboldened in their Monday morning or Saturday night quarterbacking, so-to-speak, believing that this should be done or that should be done or this should have gone this way and that, that way. He should have done this. He shouldn’t have done that. And we spend most of our time criticizing the playbooks of the peacemakers. 

Perhaps an unpopular perch, but this semi-humble, current events blogger firmly believes that if the Biden administration knew how to solve the conflict and bring about peace, they would have done so. If the Trump administration knows how to solve the conflict and bring about peace, they will do so. No doubt significant time and multiple steps are necessary. It is clearly complicated.

And so with that onerous reality, I attempt to do and encourage three things in response…

Recognize that each administration knows more than me. My position and perspective is way too far away.

Refrain from criticizing each step in the playbook, like I somehow am empowered to know what’s best, most effective and appropriate.

And most importantly, in this reality, keep praying for those thousands of kids.

Respectfully…

AR

People indeed have wild imaginations. Hence, the creation of the conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory is an idea, often challenging the mainstream or official explanation of a situation, that typically involves an alleged secret plot by powerful individuals or groups, believed to be manipulating events behind the scenes. My sense is we’re currently seeing a lot of them.

“With social media and the 24 hour news cycle,” writes Dr. Shauna Bowes for the American Psychological Association, “You can be exposed to misinformation and conspiracy theories much more than in the past,”

In recent weeks alone, for example, it’s infiltrated my news that Pres. Donald Trump wasn’t really shot at in Butler, PA last summer; he had fake blood in his mouth. And that the wife of French Pres. Emmanuel Macron was actually born as a biological man.

The things that make you go hmmmm…

While the above two may qualify as a bit of an ad absurdum approach, our list of longstanding, potentially plausible conspiracies is long. Conspiracy theories have been rampant for years. For example…

The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: Despite investigations, some people still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and that the CIA or other groups were involved. With all sorts of conspiratorial angles evolving, it didn’t help that Oswald was himself murdered two days after killing the President.

The Moon Landing Hoax: Some individuals contend that the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing was faked by the US government, with the footage actually shot on a Hollywood set. All sorts of creative analysis includes the supposedly flapping flag and lack of stars in the sky.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: These theories propose that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were orchestrated by the U.S. government or that the buildings were in reality, brought down by controlled demolition.

Princess Diana’s Death: The unexpected death of the beloved Princess Diana in 1997 in a car crash fueled speculation about a conspiracy involving the British monarchy or intelligence agencies. Theorists suggest the royal family wanted to prevent her from marrying the Muslim man she was dating at the time and potentially carrying his child.

Flat Earth Theory: This active belief asserts that the Earth is a flat disc rather than a sphere. For the record, the “Flat Earth Society” has over 145,000 members on Facebook today. (Can someone please let me know if anyone falls off??)

But it makes me wonder, with absolute respect to all people, including those 145K above, what makes us prone to belief in conspiracy? What makes us likely to adopt something other than the accepted status quo? Note that according to research presented by the National Institute of Health (NIH), over half of Americans believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. Thus we ask, what is it that makes us believe what we’ve been told is untrue?

The NIH provides more analysis, suggesting that conspiracy theories come from many motives.  Sometimes we find the conspiracy more appealing. Some, too, possess personality traits that are more aligned with acceptance of the conspiracy. Bowes identifies these as “tendencies to perceive threat and danger, having sort of ‘odd’ beliefs and experiences, relying on intuition, and being antagonistic and superior.”

The reality is that conspiracy theories have always existed, will continue to exist, and aren’t all created equal. We hear them today wresting with Epstein, Covid, Soros and more. How do we know what’s true? Better yet, how do we guard against getting sucked in to that which isn’t true?

Seek evidence — not claims. Watch tone and style; is the presentation balanced and fair or sensationalist and one-dimensional? Scrutinize the source. Does the proclaimer suggest he has the only valid truth? Watch how emotional we become. Be educated. Utilize diverse resources. Look for motive. Beware of drastic leaps in logic. Say prayers for wisdom and discernment, and let our hearts not be rattled.

Lots to think about. Still waiting for that person who falls off the Earth.

Respectfully…

AR

This week got me thinking. Is there anyone we wouldn’t sit down with?

Let’s try it another way…

Is there anyone we’d be unwilling to sit down with, have a cup of coffee, wine, you name it? Is there anyone we’d be unwilling to have a conversation with?

Note I speak not of being reluctant, hesitant or even unenthusiastic. There are perhaps several for each of us for whom we’d have to think twice, maybe three times, being especially intentional about any conversation beforehand.

But therein lies the difference. 

I wouldn’t have happy-go-lucky, act-like-all-is-well-and-wonderful conversations with all people. Because it’s not. 

I wouldn’t refrain from drawing necessary boundaries, as not all conversations are appropriate with all people. Boundaries are healthy and wise.

But I speak of being absolutely unwilling — meaning “I will not… I refuse… I would never do that” — in regard to sitting with and taking the time, doing the work to understand another person. That’s the key.

For years we’ve seen the convenient cry from the keyboard warrior in how disagreement serves as warrantable reason for the expressed unwillingness…

No, we will not agree to disagree. You are wrong. You are wrong in ways that are harming other people. This is not disagreement. This is you being immoral. You are inhumane, heartless and cruel.

Yikes, I admit that some people would be really hard for me to talk to. For some people I’d really have to work at sitting down, being patient and intentional, deciding ahead of time what boundaries need to be drawn and what I’m comfortable and uncomfortable discussing with that person. Some conversations are indeed more laborious, sensitive and difficult than others. 

But the minute I say I’m unwilling to sit down with them, the minute I’ve chosen to forgo any actual conversation, is also the moment I’ve chosen to know no more. I cannot sit behind my keyboard (or elsewhere) and pose that I understand another person fully when I make no effort to really get to know them. I cannot suggest that I know why they think or act the way they do.

Allow me a few, brief, blood pressure elevating examples, if you will. If someone thought either of our two most recent presidents were the most wonderful, compassionate and competent president ever, I would want to sit with them and understand the reason they think that way.

Take the immoral argument. If someone, for example, thought abortion should always be allowed at any time under any circumstance or should never be allowed at any time under any circumstance, I would also be curious and want to sit with them. “Help me understand why you think that way,” I would respectfully ponder.

My goal is to understand what I don’t — not to cast judgment on those with whom I disagree.

This idea that we won’t sit with another because we disagree is sad to me. Absolutely, once more, it is indeed completely healthy and wise to limit the extent of our interactions and instill those boundaries with certain people, as many have ways of articulation and expression that are difficult to be around; that’s not what we’re speaking of today.

We’re speaking instead of the humanity argument. If I judge you to be immoral because of the opinion you hold and utilize such to justify an unwillingness to speak or interact no more, I have just cut off my most effective means of knowing more than I already do.

And if I choose to know no more than I already to, then that makes me sad for me.

Respectfully…

AR

It was easy to be excited. The weekend was one off to celebrate with a small group of people, all especially dear. You know the kind of circle… a safe one, fun one, one where you may laugh, cry, be silly or serious and maybe all of the above at the exact same time. You could talk about anything. Be safe there. It promised to be a great weekend, and nothing would deter me.

With the seven hour solo drive loosely mapped out with extended phone calls, podcasts, and a few coffee shop stops in between, I was set and ready to go. 

I left my house, turned on the turnpike and was well prepped for the first few hours. It was mid-morning, and traffic was decently light. There were four lanes of traffic heading north out of Orlando. Again, with light traffic there were still cars in all lanes, but navigating the pass of slower cars was seemingly simplistic indeed. 

Still in a great mood, I was in the third from the right lane, with the lane to my left being the one intended for the fastest among us. The speed limit is 70 mph there. 

As I approached a slower car from behind in my lane (which for the record, had me going at 77 mph — sorry, Mom), I looked in the rear to my left and right, discerning which lane provided the path of greatest ease. Passing is always preferable to the left of the car one is passing, and with a vehicle near my blind spot on the right, moving into the fast lane to pass made the most sense.

There was a car in that lane several car lengths back. It was actually going faster than my chosen 77; it wasn’t hard to discern. However, it was indeed a ways back and I had the right of way. So I turned on my blinker and moved into the fast lane, passing the slower car. 

A few seconds went by. Then a few more. I was soon to pass the vehicle once in front of me.

Then all of a sudden the one time car a ways back was on my tail. And not only were they on my tail, they were on their horn. Loudly.

I took a glance and continued on, passing the first car as planned. I then safely pulled in front of that car, back in lane number three. The honking car didn’t want to wait for my passing, so while I maneuvered as planned, they had now jetted over to the second lane from right, passing both me and the other car from the right side of the road. Ah, yes, they were now not only back on their horn, this time also including an emphatic hand gesture, mouthing some artful expletive and flipping me off. 

Thank God for tinted windows. Just saying. 

But I’ve thought about that driver many times.

Friends, I did nothing unsafe, unfair, un-nothing. I simply got in a lane to pass a car, safely and methodically. I didn’t cut anyone off nor do anything improper. 

But…

I made another slow down.

I made another unable to go in the path and at the pace they wanted.

I got in another’s desired way. I inconvenienced them.

Because of that inconvenience — and let’s be honest — that’s what it was — it wasn’t a safety hazard or an impasse nor any sort of major complication — but because of that inconvenience, the driver of the other car justified focusing all her angst at me.

Of course that got me thinking…

How often to we magnify an inconvenience?

And then, after we magnify it, unable to perceive it fully accurately because we’ve taken no time nor intent to do so, how often do we focus our angst entirely on another?

And then, after we focus our angst entirely on another, how often do we justify treating them awfully?

Just thinking how misperception makes a difference… and how maybe we should pause a little bit more…

Respectfully…

AR

In the early 19th century, Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a bill he reportedly didn’t like. Gerry had been a prominent figure in the American Revolution, even later serving as Vice President under Pres. James Madison; he was held in high regard by many. He was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a supporter of limited government, and an opposer of political parties. Gerry became governor in 1810, representing the Democratic-Republican party, and was re-elected for a second one year term the following year. In his second year he was presented with the unfavorable bill.

The Bay State was adopting new electoral district boundaries. The party with most power attempted to craft the proposed districts in a way that benefitted their party. So much so, a local paper likened the new map to the shape of a salamander, thus wittily referring to the electoral reshuffle as a “Gerry-mander.” While Gerry was said to have been unhappy with the highly partisan districting, for some reason, he still signed the bill, even though it wasn’t his party. We are since blessed with the word “gerrymander.” 

Simply put, to gerrymander is to manipulate the boundaries to favor one party. Let us be simply clear: the Intramuralist espouses nothing that includes the word “manipulate.”

The issue has come to the forefront of the nation’s current events as Texas is currently in a 30-day special legislative session with redistricting on the agenda. Republican lawmakers have proposed a new congressional map aimed at creating up to five additional GOP-leaning districts. A state House panel advanced the redrawn map along party lines. Note that redistricting is typically done soon after the Census is calculated; this is happening in the middle of the decade.

In response, no less, dozens of Democratic state lawmakers have fled Texas in an attempt to deny Republicans a quorum and prevent the adoption of the new map. This has thus far prevented a vote on the redistricting plan as the House lacks the necessary number required for official business.

As one might expect in our sadly, highly polarized, political state, every action has had a reaction, escalating in both magnitude and publicity. Suffice it to say, communication between all the adults involved has been painstakingly poor.

Here once more, therefore, we come to a reason why this semi-humble current events blogger has difficulty in wholeheartedly, fully supporting either primary political party.

Both parties gerrymander. In other words, both parties manipulate. They each justify their manipulation with either the elementary playground retort that the other did it first or the ratcheted-up cry in need of saving our democracy.

Don’t let us act that all sides enact this underhanded process equally. From the fact that Republicans have more control in state governments across the country, they have more opportunities to gerrymander, making the manipulation seemingly more frequent in the GOP. 

That’s just it. It seems that those who have the opportunity to manipulate do so, even though the process is self-serving and unfair. One party claims “foul” when the other engages, knowing deceitfully full well that they would do and have done the same thing under similar circumstances.

I laughed last week when the Republicans began employing their manipulation tactic in Texas. Please, represent the people fairly and well.

I laughed still more when the Democrats fled to Illinois, a state where after the 2020 Census, the Democrats significantly redrew the state’s congressional districts, resulting in Republicans holding only 3 of 17 seats, the fewest number of Republican seats since the Civil War. 

The problem with gerrymandering is that both parties track records are laced with hypocrisy. They point fingers at another without transparently acknowledging their own shortage of scrupulous behavior. My sense is they hope we will conclude one is so much worse than another, and thus be blind to their holey track records.

We deserve better and more, friends. We deserve more noble behavior in all of the elect.

Respectfully…

AR

After weeks of travel, thousands of miles and literally crisscrossing the country, even venturing north internationally, there comes a time when all you want to do is get home, kick off the shoes, get the house at least minimally in order, and then crash in your own bed with your own pillow, getting some sleep and back to your normal routine. You start thinking of what needs to happen when you get home, and you utilize those last few restful hours in the air to plan ahead. It’s time to get your thoughts in order. But on this particular last leg, that was nowhere close to happening. Indeed… nowhere close. It wasn’t restful, and I’m not sure I could hear any of my own thoughts.

It was a large plane, as often is en route to Disneyland’s host city. One of the many things I oft enjoy flying back to “The City Beautiful” is how happy so many are on the plane, seemingly anticipating coming days of frolic and fun.

We had seats toward the rear of the plane, no less. Before we sat down, we didn’t glance at the passengers behind us, but there was an immediate sense of the issue. It seemed logical — like a lady’s cough — and clearly, she had a significant frog in her throat. She was coughing approximately every 5 seconds.

I learned quickly, however, I was wrong on many counts. One, it wasn’t an adult woman and two, there wasn’t any frog in any throat. As the person began to speak more with those in her row, it seemed an elementary-aged girl, with some sort of special need. My educated guess was that this was her first time on an airplane. For as said, kids on their way to Orlando typically exhibit an obvious excitement with thoughts of that so-called “happiest place on earth,” but such was not the case for the young girl sitting in the row directly behind me. Not only was she not excited; a better word from one clearly incapable to diagnose the situation might be “traumatized.”

From the moment we boarded through the entire duration of the flight, I would discern the cough to instead be a cry. Think of it like a broken sob, that rasps and catches in the throat.. And in every third or fourth sob, there would be an added, rough quick “I wanna go home!” She didn’t want to be on the plane. 

Sometimes there were ten “wanna go home’s.” Maybe more. Sometimes the sobs were more constant — less broken. It was absolutely incessant for the first 75 minutes.

Embedded, too, within the cries would frequently be a “mama” or “papa,” shared with great exclamation. More often than that was an “I need to go potty.” She was desperately trying to change her circumstances. Added midway through our flight, she starting actually naming her emotion; every few minutes now included an “I’m scared!” 

Couple that constancy with the every-so-often kick of my seat, suffice it to say, this was nothing like my planned last leg home. I couldn’t help but feel for the child; this was obviously awful for her. Granted, she calmed slightly halfway through our 2 hour and 45 minute flight, but her fears never diminished and the manifestation of her emotion never did end.

Her words changed slightly the last hour, with the coughs now accompanied with an “almost there, Mom?” Then “mama” would be repeated with no response. No judgment for that parent. I can’t imagine what her life is like the other 364 days of the year.

After the plane landed and taxied to the gate, we were delayed. Passengers were ready to exit but the airport and attendants were not ready for us to get off. And so what ensued was 10-15 minutes of extra time in which most are standing, eager to disembark. Multiple minutes in, the row behind me stood, too. For the first time, I was able to see the one who had indiscreetly become the center of my attention the past few hours. She certainly got my attention now even more.

I didn’t want to stare; I didn’t want to do anything that created any more discomfort for this family. But I was amazed. I actually couldn’t tell if she was a girl or a boy. But I had accurately pegged her in scope and size; she appeared no more than 10 or 11 at most. Then she said “hi” to me. No enthusiasm. No even eye contact — just a “hi” in my direction.

I responded, of course, with what I hoped to be an authentic warmth and kindness, wanting to ensure she and her family felt more grace than anything; surely they were well aware of her disturbance. I only lived with this for a few hours; they are living it for a lifetime.

With the conversation started and all of us standing, I asked the mom who appeared a little older, “Where are you guys from?” She shared that they were coming from Minnesota. She also then told me that they were making the trip to celebrate the birthday of the girl who sat behind me.

“Tell her how old you are now,” encouraged the mother to her daughter. She gave added encouragement and instruction, as the gal struggled with words. “Tell her how old…. 3… 0… You are thirty now.”

“30,” the girl repeated. I had no idea.

Not everything is as we see it. Not everything we believe is true.

I pray that young lady found Disney to be the happiest place on earth that week. I pray, too, they felt great grace and kindness on the plane.

Respectfully…

AR