Current Event – Page 97 – intramuralist ™

05/26/201605/26/2016

pickles & redskins & a little bit more

Not too long ago, an un-intending server failed to omit the pickles on my sandwich. As my deep loathing of the brine-infused condiment has long been known to Intramuralist readers, one can imagine my reaction. Better yet, picture taking that first bite. Yes, it is true. I hate pickles. While one of my desires is to only hate what God hates, I must admit, I still hate pickles. And to actually leave them on my sandwich? Oh, no… there are few words. To say I was offended is satirically close to true.

I’m wondering this day on a bit of a broader scale; what do we do when we’re offended? Is my offense enough? I mean… is it enough that the offense is mine? … or does it need to be shared? I can’t stand those slimy green things, but in all honesty, that’s between me and my pickle. Is it important to ensure a majority of others agree with me? — that they should be offended, too?

Last weekend The Washington Post released some polling data that seemed to fly semi-below the radar (… perhaps because the polls seem sadly inundated with everything Clinton and Trump). A brief, edited summary is as follows:

“Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

… Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word ‘Redskin’ was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.”

In other words, a majority of the persons most affected by the use of the word “Redskin” are not offended by the reference.

Yet three years ago, we witnessed a rather significant, stentorian bandwagon — the “national movement” as identified by The Post. There began a barrage of pointed, public criticism…

50 U.S. senators signed a letter asking the NFL team to change their name.
The New York Daily News, San Francisco Chronicle, Slate, and Post editorial board among with multiple other news outlets, each discontinued using the nickname. So did several prominent broadcasters, including Bob Costas and Phil Simms.
A board within the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ruled that the use of “Redskins” violated federal trademark law.
The U.S. Justice Dept. intervened to defend the Patent & Trademark Office.
A smaller group of senators then introduced legislation aimed at revoking the NFL’s tax-exempt status — that was, if the league failed to force the Washington owner to stop using the term “Redskins.”

Friends, this is a healthy debate and one that should be had. Is the use of the word “Redskins” a derogatory term? To some people, it definitely is. To others — and potentially to a majority of those who most identify with the term — at least according to The Washington Post — it is not. So how do we honor all people? And how do we refrain from projecting our offense onto another?

Almost as if on some sort of expected cue, no less, in this increasingly contentious society we seem to live in, several immediately, emphatically rejected the results of The Post’s poll. Some simply declared the results to be untrue.

I get it. It’s tough. And when we’re offended, it’s hard to comprehend how others are not.

I just wish we were better about not projecting our offense upon a majority of others.

(Otherwise — with a little bit of tongue in my cheek — a lot more people need to start hating pickles.)

Respectfully…
AR

05/24/201605/24/2016

where’s the line?

Lately I’ve been hearing much about the need to rally around one another — to come together as one, “because we’re all __________.”

It’s the call to unify.

Such seems more pronounced and proclaimed as the presidential primaries come to a close — and each party is attempting to get “their people” to rally behind a candidate that is far less popular nationally than the party would obviously prefer. That’s an observation — not a criticism. Each of the three remaining, mainstream presidential candidates has serious, perceived flaws; this will be a “slam dunk” election for no one… hence, the call to unify.

That call, no less, got me thinking…

We are to rally around one another… to come together… to let our voices be heard as one. Why? Because we are all “__________.”

But what goes in the blank?

Seriously.

What goes in the blank?

Who are the so-called “their people”?

Is it us? Is it not? Do we know when it actually is us?

It seems to me that individuals subjectively draw a dividing line…

They suggest we need to come together… because we’re all Republicans… we need to come together because we’re all Democrats… we need to come together because we’re all black… white… gay… straight… yada, yada, yada…

Please don’t perceive my “yada’s” or “yada’s” as any intended form of disrespect; they are not. My point is simply that people draw the dividing line — the proverbial boundary which supposedly establishes unity — in different places. I have challenges with that.

I mean, I have friends who are Republicans and friends who are Democrats. I have friends who are black and friends who are white. I have friends who are gay and friends who are straight. And I have friends who fit into none of the above and friends who are yada, yada, yada. Am I not to be included in their circle? Is the circle around them — separating them from the rest of us — impenetrable?

Friends, I think some people are selling us short. These so-called rallies to come together are not unifying; rather, they seem more a desire to isolate and ensure no one thinks any differently.

Why aren’t we drawing the line more broadly? Why aren’t we encouraged to more generously and extensively fill in the blank?

What about…

Because we’re all Ohioans… Iowans… or Floridians…

Because we’re all Americans.

Or what about… because we’re all people who live on the same planet.

Better still…

Because each of us was created by something bigger than self… by the great big God of the universe… divinely and magnificently made.

Can we draw the line around that?

Respectfully…
AR

05/12/201605/12/2016

angry birds

First it was the pigs’ fortresses. Birds of a feather were slung into the dwellings of pigs, smashing and breaking them down. Through rocks, wood, mountains and ice, the fowl flew through previously thought-to-be, nothing short of impenetrable obstacles.

Why? Because the birds were “angry.”

First released in late 2009, “Angry Birds” became a bit of an Apple app phenomenon. There have since been 13 editions of the game and 3 more spin-offs. “Angry Birds” exists in various “Seasons,” “Space,” and even in “Transformers” and “Star Wars.”

These angry animals are so contagiously popular, it was reported last summer that the games had now been downloaded more than three billion times, making it the most downloaded “freemium” game series of all time. (Note: “freemium” equates to a pricing strategy by which a product or service is provided free of charge, but money — aka a “premium” — is charged for proprietary features.) “Angry Birds” is undoubtedly one of the most popular, mainstream video applications… ever.

Again… it’s all because the birds are “angry.” So does anger break through obstacles? Does anger fix things or make them somehow better?

Ironically, angry is an adjective frequently used by the NY Times, LA Times, Dallas Morning News, Yahoo, Mother Jones and more, to describe the current election cycle. As respected, former CNN senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, poignantly said, “Electability, schmelectability: It’s the year of the angry, angry voter.” They say this is the so-called “year of the angry voter.”

I doubt, however, we’re all angry about the same things. Watch a Tea Party rally; watch the Black Lives Matter movement; watch “Occupy” anything. While they don’t all agree, anger seems more prevalent than any empathy or compassion ever expressed — especially for other people.

The “year of the angry voter,” therefore, arguably serves as the reason why Donald Trump is the last (reportedly) Republican candidate standing and Bernie Sanders continues to beat Hillary Clinton in statewide primaries. Trump and Sanders are tapping into it… “Until we fix it [the country],” said Trump, “I’m very, very angry.” According to Sanders, “I am angry. The American people are angry.” Yes, they are tapping into an anger, desiring to break through the obstacles that established politicians have enshrined for decades.

My sense is that the American public is weary of politicians pushing their own agendas… politicians seemingly lecturing the rest of us… politicians who represent a minimum number of constituents… and politicians routinely labeling others, shaming them, and pharisaically sharing how they are so divinely different. Oh, they are a not so humble few. Oh, that makes me angry.

As one who has been intentional in channeling anger into more productive avenues (although admittedly, not always successful), the words of author Matt Towery resonate with me… “This year has been described as the year of ‘the angry voter.’ The term ‘angry voter’ has always been used by the media to subtly suggest an image of crazed extremists.

I would submit that this is not the year of the angry voter.

I would argue that this is the year of the ‘I’m finished’ voter. I think that many voters feel about these elections as I feel about writing this column each week. They have watched so many politicians promise so much and deliver so little that they are finished with them. I know I’ve written about so many issues and political leaders for so long that I am as confused and frustrated as voters are.”

Yes, “finished”… that’s a better word.

In 10 days or so, no less, the American public will be subject to the one and only, “The Angry Birds Movie.” This anger is contagious.

According to initial plot summaries, one of our feathered friends, who used to be known as “a reclusive, cruel violent but grumpy red bird outcast prone to hissy fits,” is supposedly now reformed. We’ll see. The reform remains in question.

So — dare I say — do many of our votes in the fall of the year.

Respectfully…
AR

05/10/201605/10/2016

deeply divided

Let’s focus on a statement posed in a recent post. First, however, note the following current news reports…

“With a presidential election just six months away, Americans appear deeply divided over the role the United States should play in the world, according to an opinion survey by the Pew Research Center. ‘Considerable apprehension and concern’ are the words researchers used to describe the mood of the American public regarding how the country fits into the current world order.”

Or this one…

“The people of Chicago are deeply riven by race, class and neighborhood, distrustful of the police, fearful of the growing rate of violent crime and united chiefly in their disapproval of the mayor’s performance and their conviction that the city is headed down the wrong track.”

Or even notes taken from a scant scan of the headlines:

“Parties Nearly Conquered — and Deeply Divided”
“Texas Republicans Divided On Support For Trump”
“A Divided Democratic Party”

Fascinatingly, unfortunately, one word stands out: “divided.”

Fascinatingly, unfortunately, one phrase stands out: “deeply divided.”

Yes, the division is deep.

So what do we do?

Last week, the Intramuralist posed the idea that “the American political system will remain broken as long as there remain too many people who refuse to humble themselves, pray, and love their neighbor more than self.”

Let me edit that slightly for the purposes of today’s post…

Americans will remain deeply divided as long as there remain too many people who refuse to humble themselves, pray, and love their neighbor more than self.

Let me also be clear; each of those three steps is vital. We must one, humble ourselves; two, pray (acknowledging there exists a Divinity far greater than “me”); and three, love our neighbor just as much or more than we love and look out for own interests and well being.

But here’s the problem: too many of us only do one or two of the three. For example, I may pray consistently and love my neighbor fairly empathetically, but if when it comes to humility, I only see the need for the humbling of another, then I really don’t understand the step.

Or when I pray, if I’m always praying for the “other guy” to repent or finally come to his senses and my attention is focused upon the growth or sharpening that someone else desperately needs, well then, I wonder how God works with that. Each of us, friends, will always be in need of growth and sharpening.

Humility and prayer are the ways we grow. Loving others well is a manifestation of that growth. That’s why all three steps are necessary.

It’s also why without each of the three steps, the deep division may not-so-fascinatingly, unfortunately, only increase.

Respectfully…
AR

05/05/201605/05/2016

nothing short of scary

What if during an election season, there was a candidate described as follows:

… one who tell lies…
… one who is malicious…
… one with a clear lack of character…
… one no reasonably intelligent person could support…
… one who preys on our ignorance…
… one who lacks integrity…
… one who is nothing short of scary…

And what if during an election season, you knew that wasn’t true?

We all get it. We’ve all seen it. Those descriptions are all around us.

That’s what too many candidates do… even, perhaps, what good candidates do.

But sometimes… what they say, is not true.

People don’t know what they don’t know.

Many times over the last seven and a half years on the Intramuralist, we have tackled tough angles in regard to how the American political system seems so broken… it’s too big, too controlling, too financially imbalanced… there’s too much arrogance, too many attacks, too much self-servingness… too much money involved.

It seems, too, that one of America’s biggest political problems is what it now takes to get elected… utilizing a misrepresentation of truth.

No longer is an election a rational attempt to discern between two (or more) people in which each presents themselves honestly and authentically, clearly representing their policy stances and perspectives, letting us know how strongly they feel, respecting their opponent… And saying at the conclusion of their campaign, “We wish each voter and candidate well. Win or lose, we trust you will make a good choice.”

No. Elections have seemingly instead become a manipulative attempt in which each candidate presents themselves in the perceived most positive light, hiding policy stances and perspectives that they know are not popular, dampening how strongly they feel, denigrating their opponent… And saying at the conclusion of their campaign, “God forbid my opponent should win. I am the only good choice.”

I have been asked by many: “how do we fix this?” If we want to fix what’s clearly broken in the American political system, we can’t fall prey to left or right talking points. We can’t embrace solely the notion that the insertion of term limits or the repeal of the high court’s Citizens United decision, that then all will be good and true and right. No. The system will still be broken. Those are more rhetorically, good-sounding, political-party-pleasing Band-Aids… as if they alone can retract the embedded arrogance and disrespect.

The American political system will remain broken as long as there remain too many people who think too highly of themselves. The American political system will remain broken as long as there remain too many people who refuse to humble themselves, pray, and love their neighbor more than self. The American political system will remain broken as long as too many people refuse to love all people well.

…Most… only love… some.

Yes, most only love some people well — typically only those who agree with us. We then denigrate those who disagree, justify looking down on others — even calling them ignorant or something worse. Thus, the American political system will remain broken as long as we, the voting public, continue to support that less than virtuous mentality.

Again, we need to humble ourselves, pray, and love our neighbor more than self. Anything less remains sadly, nothing short of scary.

Respectfully…
AR

05/03/201605/03/2016

change your questions, change your life

Years ago I was introduced to a great book by Dr. Marilee Adams, an adjunct professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs, with the same title as listed above. Adams specializes in consulting, coaching, and leadership training. She has created and promoted the concept of “question thinking.” It’s based on the premise that everything starts with a question and that question then bridges the gap to increased comprehension, healthier communication, and more effective results.

Think about that; everything starts with a question; in fact, when I wake up, I typically ask myself a series of unspoken questions, such as… “What’s on my agenda?… How warm is it outside? … Is it raining?”… or “Is my favorite outfit clean?”

Those questions then affect the entire day ahead; they transcend how we interact with other people. In order to clearly comprehend and both adequately and accurately understand what’s going on in life, we have to ask and answer questions. Note: asking and answering questions is more vital and intimate than simply spewing an opinion; spewing opinion typically stems from an incomplete perspective. In other words, as Dr. Adams says, “You can’t get the best answers unless you answer the best questions first.”

I then took a brief scan of the weekend headlines from the most popular internet news sites. After dismissing those centered on cleaning my kidneys, Ted Cruz’s VP ploy, and the latest developments in the NBA playoffs, the following 20 questions caught my eye:

(1) Can Corporate Leaders Be Good Citizens?
(2) Can Songs Help You Learn Scientific Concepts?
(3) How did Prince die?
(4) The 9/11 Truth?
(5) Could Texas Become the Next Trans Bathroom Battleground?
(6) ’Dumbest pick’ in NFL draft history?
(7) What is May Day, anyway?
(8) Why Are Blacks Leaving Liberal Cities?
(9) Is Sara Ramirez Leaving ‘Grey’s Anatomy’?
(10) Is U.S. Ready for Post-Middle-Class Politics?
(11) Did Larry Wilmore go too far with N-word joke at Obama’s last #WHCD?
(12) Will the Paris Climate Agreement Deliver?
(13) Beyonce: Making Marriage Work?
(14) Is The Party Warming To Trump?
(15) Why Do Progressives Cling to Hillary?
(16) Does Bernie Sanders Really Deserve Any Concessions From Hillary Clinton?
(17) Did Michael Strahan make big mistake leaving ‘Live!’ for ‘GMA’?
(18) For Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it’s all about Indiana … isn’t it?
(19) Prince, Bowie and Haggard: Icons? Legends? What’s the difference?

(… and my personal favorite…)

(20) Wardrobe whoopsies: On purpose, or an accident?

I must go back, no less, to one of Dr. Adams’ core principles. That is, again: “You can’t get the best answers unless you answer the best questions first.”

With all the difficulty and tension in discussing tough topics (especially on social media), I wonder first if we’re being intentional in asking questions.

I wonder second if we’re asking the best questions — questions that prompt insight, perspective, and honest, heartfelt exchange — questions that lead to sharpening and growth.

And I wonder third if we’re pausing long enough to actually listen to the answers.

I remember a lesson taught to each of my budding young sons… Listening does not simply mean hearing what another says; listening means hearing and thoughtfully considering all that was said.

May we learn to ask good questions (… and… to hopefully never experience any sort of “wardrobe whoopsie”).

Respectfully…
AR

04/24/2016

prince, et al.

Never will I forget… far too many to quote from…

“Little red Corvette
Baby you’re much too fast
Little red Corvette
You need a love that’s gonna last…”

… to…

“How can you just leave me standing?
Alone in a world that’s so cold?
Maybe I’m just too demanding
Maybe I’m just like my father too bold…”

… to…

“Sometimes it snows in April
Sometimes I feel so bad, so bad
Sometimes I wish life was never ending,
And all good things, they say, never last…”

“Little Red Corvette,” “When Doves Cry,” even “Sometimes It Snows In April”… When iconic musician Prince passed away on Thursday, so many of those lyrics flashed through my head. I found myself engaged in my own, private, somber lip sync…

Prince Rogers Nelson contributed much to far more than a small corner of the world. His death is shocking and sobering, recognizing that an incredibly gifted and talented man has left us. Much like the deaths of David Bowie, Glenn Frey, and Joey Feek earlier in the year, we are left saddened by the loss. I must say, there many nights I spent — especially in the 80’s — with a school book on my desk and Prince singing somewhere in the background. Still more nights I dropped the book and danced away with several of us sorority sisters in the room. But we are sobered by the loss of someone who meant so much.

I never wish, however, for the loss of any other to be any less sobering…

As one of my long time friends that is closer than a brother said yesterday:

“While we collectively mourn the death of Prince, let us not forget to mourn and pray for the families of ‘everyday people’ who also leave this world long before we desire. Let’s remember to pray for the parents who have to bury their child, or the family who has to say goodbye to one of the shining beacons in their family who has touched countless lives. Let’s remember to pray for those whose family member(s) were killed due to some seemingly senseless crime or had their lives snatched away from an earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster. These people may not have a global impact like a celebrity may have, but to those who knew them, they were a big part of their world.”

In other words, there exist lots of “big parts” to our individual worlds. Celebrity status does not equate to less sad or less sobering. Celebrity status only means more of us are familiar; it does not mean the impact of a lesser known person is any less.

Most of us have experienced the loss of life of someone who is deeply important. From the waitress I spoke to on Friday who just lost her father to the over 650 who passed away in Equador’s recent earthquake, all loss of life is significant.

As Prince’s brother-in-law said, “Death isn’t easy for anybody.” No, it’s not.

Death is sobering. The loss of life is sad and significant. It also prompts me to ask some of life’s bigger, more challenging questions.

Let us not forget…

Respectfully…
AR

04/21/201604/21/2016

something bigger

How many of us would walk away from a million dollars?

Better yet, how many would willingly walk away from thirteen million dollars?

Nothing illegal. Nothing more than being paid for the profession you love to do. That’s it. Walk away. Such is the status of Major League Baseball’s Adam LaRoche. There are two seemingly relevant reasons why the former professional recently walked away. First, as told by ABC News….

“Adam LaRoche said he decided to resign from the Chicago White Sox about 20 minutes after ‘a short, heated conversation’ in which he was told he could no longer bring his 14-year-old son to the team clubhouse, telling ABC News in an exclusive interview that he didn’t hold any grudges and wouldn’t rule out returning to baseball.

The first baseman had played 12 seasons for seven different teams and his son, Drake, has been with him practically all the time. Drake even had a locker right next to his dad’s in the White Sox’s clubhouse.

‘I haven’t lost an ounce of sleep,’ LaRoche said of his decision. ‘I mean, I have zero regrets.’

LaRoche, 36, acknowledged that exceptions had probably been made to allow Drake’s presence and that he knew it could come to an end at any time. Nevertheless, he said he was ‘mad at the time’ when Ken Williams, the team’s vice president, made the decision.
‘I don’t hold a grudge. I don’t hate anybody over there. You know, it just made my decision easy,” LaRoche, alongside his son, told ABC News’ T.J. Holmes, adding, ‘Honestly, it’s not the end of the world to me. And I thank my parents for that. The way I was raised. Because baseball — and I’ve said it before, I don’t want to be defined by this game. I know there’s a lot more to life’…

Being available for Drake during his formative years was essential, LaRoche said.
‘Our kids are going to follow in our footsteps, good or bad. And you know, we got a small window here, a very small window here, to turn them into the men that they’re going to be. And I don’t want to miss six months of that window, even for $13 million.’ ”

There is a second relevant reason. According to QPolitical.com…

“This was recently reported by ESPN’s Tim Keown, and it might give some insight into the real reason for Laroche’s retirement:

‘LaRoche, along with Brewers pitcher Blaine Boyer, spent 10 days in November in Southeast Asian brothels, wearing a hidden camera and doing undercover work to help rescue underage sex slaves. All of which raises a question: After 12 years in the big leagues, the endless days and nights in dugouts and clubhouses, how did LaRoche’s nearly cinematic level of nonconformity escape detection?

… Working through a nonprofit called the Exodus Road, LaRoche and Boyer conducted surveillance in brothels and tried to determine the age of the girls — known only by numbers pinned to bikinis — and identify their bosses.
‘Something huge happened there for us,’ Boyer says. ‘You can’t explain it. Can’t put your finger on it. If you make a wrong move, you’re getting tossed off a building. We were in deep, man, but that’s the way it needed to be done. Adam and I truly believe God brought us there and said, ‘This is what I have for you boys.’

That’s right, last fall LaRoche, along with fellow big-leaguer Blaine Boyer, went undercover in Southeast Asia to rescue underage sex slaves from local brothels. Let that sink in for a minute. A pair of white professional athletes went undercover in an effort to rescue children from sex slavery.”

While it was assumed that LaRoche retired because of reasons stemming from his son not being allowed in the clubhouse, that seems only the last straw, as he can now focus more on something bigger.

So what does it take to walk away from a million or thirteen million dollars?

It would seem — by Adam LaRoche’s example — something bigger than self.

Respectfully…
AR

04/19/201604/19/2016

hating pickles

I hate pickles. I know, I know… that’s not really an appropriate use of the word “hate.” But it’s true; I hate them.

As an adult who desires to be at least perceived as semi-mature most days, I confess to hiding the depth of my loathing. If the watching world knew that I’ve totally caved to hating something with a passion — that is based solely on my own perspective and experience — and has been steadfastly fueled by the other secret pickle haters out there in existence — I know I’d be subject to rampant disrespect.

And yet, my hate continues.

But wait; it gets worse…

Not only do I hate pickles, when I observe someone else ordering “extra” pickles or ordering those stinkin’ fried pickles as some sort of desired, tasty appetizer, I cringe inside. I have zero comprehension how someone I otherwise admire could adore something that I do not. I have no idea how their taste buds and logic could allow them to even entertain the idea of eating “extra.”

Geesh.

The reality is (confession time, friends) that sometimes — instead of only offering a thinly-veiled, judgmental stab at why abstaining from pickles is far better for the soul — I go one step further; my hatred alone is not enough. So instead of advocating for pickle abstinence, instead of simply stating why I feel the way I do, I go after the person who feels the way I don’t. In a calm quiet, logical argument, I tear apart the pickle eater. I demonize the opposition.

Recently on the Intramuralist, we’ve found a bit of strong commonality — a thread woven into the lives of many, regardless of the perspectives from which we individually hail. Collectively, the masses seems to agree that the “I’m-mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-any-more” rant is not an attractive articulation. In fact, it is quite possible that it has the exact opposite effect than what’s desired; instead of spewing the opinion in a way that wins friends and influences people, it only influences people in a non-positive way.

Cognizant of my very true pickle example, I’d like to go that step farther today. I believe it’s significant.

There’s another kind of articulation that is equally unattractive. It may be absent the zealous rant of our “mad-as-hell” folks. The passion may also seem dampered and enthusiasm subdued. But make no mistake about it; judgment still often drives the argument.

As opposed to that list of things that are universally considered right and wrong (note: there are at least 10 of them, starting with having no other self-created gods), why is articulating our own opinion not enough?

Why do so many spend so much energy tearing into another instead?

Does our opinion not stand alone?

Will another poke holes in our argument, so much so that we cannot substantiate it via reason and compassion?

And why do we have trouble resisting judgmental stabs at another?

My sense is that too often we attempt to make ourselves look better, sound wiser, and be of increased influence by demonizing the perspective of others as opposed to engaging in healthy, interactive, respectful dialogue. An added few, semi-random points: no rant will ever qualify as dialogue; no unwillingness to listen will ever gain full respect; and demonizing of opposition rarely equates to wisdom.

This is a hard one, friends.

Off now for a snack. For the record, it may be me in front of you in line who respectfully requests that they withhold the briny green relish. But I’m working on not adding the word “hate” or “slimy” to my order. I’m also working on remembering that such is based solely on my own perspective and experience.

Respectfully…
AR

04/17/201604/17/2016

the problem with social media

Call me a realist, but I find myself continually questioning the merits of social media. On one hand, it has allowed us to connect in a way we would otherwise not… Friends from grade school, high school, college, past jobs, towns, hometowns, etc. It has allowed me to converse at least sometimes with friends I would otherwise miss. It has allowed me to get to know people in ways I wonder if I would otherwise know… how we think, what we’re up to, and what is important to each of us.

I value knowing what is important to you. I am thankful for the insights into one another’s lives — knowing, no less, that what’s most important to each of us is different.

Thank God.

What concerns me about social media isn’t the inundation of semi-spectacular selfies. You know the ones… Here I am with my best friend’s neighbor’s mother’s dog, and we are having the most fabulous time!… Yes, I, too, love the “fabulous times.”

What concerns me about social media is the judgment of our differences.

There are too many “this is how I feel, damn it’s.” You know those, too. They typically fall along the lines of, “I’ve been ticked off enough, mad enough, unheard long enough, that I’m finally going to tell the rest of the wold how I feel!” (… or at least tell my Facebook friend group — which has an increased probability of being reduced after the “this is how I feel” moment. Just sayin’.)

(Notice, also, who the subject of the above sentences is.)

A tangent but related FYI… Every time I think I’ve waited long enough, been silent long enough, or I just have a strong sense that I shouldn’t have to be this patient any more, I think of the ancient Israelites roaming in the desert. I think of their less than ideal conditions. Shockingly, they had no iPhones, iPads, earbuds or iTunes to speak of. They barely had a clean change of clothes. There was also no Walmart, healthcare, or any local grocery or restaurant in existence. And yet, they wandered. Fo 40 years.

If I had to go even 4 days without my iPhone or iPad, I guarantee my grumbling would be near evident to all.

Back to my concern, of course… we are a judgmental people.

Every rant… every refusal to wait… every insistence that another hear me…

Why?

Who is the subject of my sentence?

Is it not me?

Have we somehow evolved to a point where we believe that the best way to win friends and influence people is to shout at them and not put up with their differing opinion any more? Have we somehow justified that loving others well means spewing our own opinion louder instead of listening and asking why another feels the way they do?

What if the next time you met a Donald Trump supporter (because yes, they probably live next door to you), you asked them why they feel that way — as opposed to simply mentally categorizing them as somehow advocating bigotry?

What if the next time you met a Bernie Sanders supporter, you invited them into a healthy dialogue — as opposed to immediately dismissing them as economically ignorant?

What if?

What if we approached social media differently?

… as opposed to, yes, falling prey to being so judgmental?

Such judgment rarely wins friends or influences people… at least in a good way.

Respectfully…