Current Issue – Page 14 – intramuralist ™

06/19/201606/19/2016

redirecting anger

The examples are seemingly endless. First is Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.): “If anybody is directly responsible for Orlando, it’s the Republican Party for stymieing all manner of gun control.”

Next is Sen. John McCain: “Barack Obama is directly responsible for it because when he pulled everybody out of Iraq, Al-Qaeda went to Syria, became ISIS, and ISIS is what it is today thanks to Barack Obama’s failures, utter failures, by pulling everybody out of Iraq.”

And let’s not omit ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, suggesting Christians are to blame: “You know what is gross — your [Christian] thoughts and prayers and Islamophobia after you created this anti-queer climate.”

I get it. We’re mad. We’re mad that someone could annihilate the innocent. It makes no sense. To all of us.

While conversations regarding gun control, Obama’s military strategy, and the truths in Christianity can and should be respectfully had, each of the above arguments directs the anger more at something other than the source. As stated in a recent post, we don’t know all the details yet in regard to what happened at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. What we do know is that a Muslim man who claimed loyalty to ISIS, an Islamic terrorist organization that routinely executes homosexuals, took it upon himself to brutally murder 49 more.

My sense is our most intense anger should be directed at him.

It concerns me, nonetheless, when we redirect our anger. It’s as if when someone does not match the intensity of our passion, we assume they should be looped into the opposition. It’s as if we’ve changed the idea of “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” to “if you’re not as loud and angry as we are, you are just as bad as them.”

We seem to keep feeding the growing divide… the divide that too many of the politically expedient immediately succumb to. I was saddened, I will say, that in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity in Orlando, some of the most prominent politicians attacked their partisan opposition more than focusing on the victims. When we pounce on politics first, we have fed the division more than wrestled with the truth.

What happened in Orlando was awful. As said here previously, I believe it was the clear manifestation of evil. So regardless of whether you’re a Republican or Democrat (or like the many more seemingly gathering somewhere in the middle), whether you’re a card-carrying member of the NRA or desire to abolish the 2nd Amendment, or even if you’re a supporter or not of gay marriage as the law of this land, it doesn’t change the fact that what happened in Orlando was horrendous. And we can each see that regardless of partisan stance.

Now is not the time to chastise those who don’t share our intensity. Now is not the time to demand that everyone “agree with me” because only “I” know what is right. Now is also, no less, not the time to feed any division.

What if we could pause long enough to see what we have in common?

Republicans and Democrats…
Gay and straight…
NRA members and non-members…
Trans-bathroom supporters and non-supporters…

What if we realized that regardless of where each of the above stand on the issues with which they most identify, their hearts still hurt for what happened to those 49 innocent men and women in Orlando?

What would happen if we took the time to take a deep breath and realize that?

Maybe, just maybe, we then could wrestle with the truth. Maybe, too, we could heal.

Respectfully…
AR

06/16/2016

wrestling with the truth

Many of our longtime Intramuralist readers are aware that my professional background is in human resources. I was privileged to spend several years consulting after a career working for a highly respected hospitality management company. While the “semi” of my oft repeated “semi-humble” status would never allow me to say I was “the best,” I do believe I was trained by them (… thanks, JG).

Over the course of the last several years, no less, consistent with the progression, digression, or whatever of society you wish to call it, the HR field has changed significantly. There was always a plethora of forms… taxes, immigration, demographic info, etc. HR directors ensure the company has all their ducks, details, and doctrines all in a row.

Human resources also oversees all new hires. We meet, greet, they apply, we interview. Sometimes there’s a second interview. In the hospitality industry, typically the first interview is with HR alone and the second with the probable future supervisor. If all looks good, we would then check the person’s references, ensuring they are who they say they are — or are how they represent themselves.

But a funny thing happened during these years of progression/digression…

It used to be when I’d call former employers, I’d ask them to tell me a little bit about the their former employee’s performance record… What is this person like? How’d they do? How was their performance? What were their strengths… weaknesses? How did they interact with their peers? … supervisors? … subordinates?

And near the end of our call, I would ask, “Why did they leave? Are they eligible for re-hire?”

This process was always helpful — gleaning information in order to best discern who to hire and who to not. Every HR professional wants the right person in the right position — making sure skill set, gifting, and experience are commensurate with the job. If the person excelled in a recent job, it makes sense to know that, thereby potentially affirming a perceived future fit. If a person struggled, it made sense to know that, too, discerning any applicable relevance.

This process, however, is no longer routinely, fully in use. Due to the subjectivity that may enter into an assessment of past performance, companies found themselves liable if their record or perspective painted any picture of a past employee as anything less than positive. Even if the assessment was true — that the employee, for example, struggled getting along with others, was late, rude, had a temper, stole, refused to follow the rules, etc. — even though this would be helpful for a future employer to know in discerning fit — applicants sued past employers because this made them look something less than wonderful.

That’s one thing I perceive in this progression/digression of society… we have trouble when we paint a picture of something less than wonderful.

We keep feeding a festering culture that is fearful of making another look bad. We like to paint the picture — often making it more positive than it really is.

I chuckled last week receiving one of those “proud parent of my honor roll kid” stickers from my son’s school. Yes, my son, JT, does very well academically. The sticker, though, was for my youngest — the one with special needs on a modified curriculum.

I love it — I’m thankful they want to honor each of my kids, but it’s ok to be truthful and accurate about the strengths and weaknesses in each of our lives. There’s no need to worry if he looks something less than wonderful (…I, for one, find him incredibly wonderful!). But there is no need to omit details and be so politically correct.

In our society, unless a person is perceived as a bigot, racist, or some other derogatory, socially unacceptable position — our progressive/digressive culture can’t always handle the truth.

Why does it matter to call something what it is and respectfully share something perceived less than wonderful? Because then we can wrestle with reality — and can make a better assessment of what should happen next.

Respectfully…
AR

06/07/201606/07/2016

authenticity

One of our long time family traditions is that at the onset of any vacation or significant road trip, as soon as we hit the interstate, we pop in our fave Ricky Martin CD, skip to song #9, and blast it through the car speakers…

“Do you really want it?
Do you really want it?
Do you really want it?…”

And so begins Martin’s rousing “Cup of Life” rendition from 1999. After the bold question of whether we really want something, we are then encouraged to “go, go, go.” My question today is whether we really always want what we say we do.

Think about authenticity…

Authenticity is the respected trait of sincerity within existence, expression, or intention. It’s saying what you mean and meaning what you say. It’s getting what you paid for. It’s knowing what you hear, see, and sense is the real deal. It’s not fake. It’s synonymous with genuineness and bona fides. We say we really want it…

… or at least we think we do.

And yet as we continue to watch at least the vernacular of our current polarized, political climate seemingly spiral downward, we still cling to the perceived value of scripts.

Scripts are prepared texts of what a person will or will not say.

They are poll-tested, time-tested, and ensured as much as humanly possible to produce a specific outcome or emotion. They are often great speeches.

But… they are not written by the deliverer of the address. Scripts are typically written by screen writers, speech writers, or campaign staffers because they have the best education and experience aimed at eliciting the desired emotion. Scripts are not the authentic words of the one doing the delivery. The deliverer may pose that “this is exactly how I feel — thanks for writing this script” — but yet, it would be more accurately said that “this is better than I can say it” — meaning his or her actual own words may not produce the yearned for outcome or emotion.

Scripts are not authentic.

They are not genuine nor bona fide.

They are written for a reason.

But we say we want authenticity. In fact, while it’s no secret that this semi-humble current events observer has serious concerns about the economic effect of the advocated policies of a President Sanders, it seems that many are attracted to his perceived authenticity. Authenticity is refreshing… especially when too many others are so scripted.

But herein lies the problem; if a person’s authenticity leads them to say something that feels especially harsh or incorrect, we sometimes seem to prefer the scripting. We prefer the inauthenticity.

Really? Do we prefer a person who says what we want to hear? … one who knows what to share how, and with which particular audience — meaning they are utilizing their script especially well?

Or… do we prefer a person who is authentic? … transparent then, too?

My sense here is there’s a little bit of having our cake and eating it, too, as it’s not an easy choice. We want authenticity as long as we don’t disagree too much with what’s actually expressed; hence, we don’t always really want it. We aren’t quite ready to “go, go, go” and dispose of the long held script.

Respectfully…
AR

05/19/2016

celebrating greatness

It’s true; when I love a good book, I love that good book; and I tend to read or reference it repeatedly. It’s why you may ever so often hear me mention “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “A Thousand Splendid Suns,” the Bible, “Sneetches,” or “When Character Was King.”

One book that has been clearly instrumental in my thinking is “Raising Kids for True Greatness” by Dr. Tim Kimmel. It’s about redefining what success looks like… for our kids… for us. When first read as a far more inexperienced parent (even though I daily find myself having so much more to learn!), I found Kimmel’s truths to be eye-opening…

… What are we raising our kids for? … to be rich? … wealthy? … marry well or get the best job? … how about getting the most “re-tweets” or “likes” in social media?

All are understandable ambitions, but let me be honest; I want something more for my kids. I want them to be great.

Not just successful, but great.

What we witnessed in Mother Teresa was greatness — same as in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Anne Frank, and Billy Graham. It’s what stood out about teacher-turned-astronaut Christa McAuliffe and cancer-stricken, college basketball player Lauren Hill. It’s not about being famous; it’s about maximizing our gifts and utilizing our God-given potential with whom and how we spend our lives. That, my friends, is far more than success; that is greatness.

One of the concepts, no less, that stands out in how we instill in our kids the idea of pursuing actual greatness is how we view opportunity. Do I look at opportunity as finite and limited? … and there are only so many job opportunities and so many roster spots and so many scholarships available? And that means that if your kid wins any of the above, I can’t be genuinely happy for you. Why? Because there’s now one less for me.

Or… do I look at opportunity as divinely provided and thus infinite or limitless? In other words, each of us is wired completely differently. None of us have identical DNA. We have different gifts.

Think I’m wrong?

Spend an afternoon with my youngest son, Josh, a thriving teen born with Down syndrome. Josh scores a little lower than most on those old IQ tests. But test his emotional intelligence. You will quickly see that while I like to believe I’m a fairly empathetic individual, Josh’s empathy for the well-being of other people far surpasses mine. That’s not a criticism or any selling of self short; that’s an acknowledgement of the nothing less than unique, amazing, divine gifting of my youngest son.

The reason I raise this issue this day, is because all around us, there seems a flurry of activity. It’s the month of May! That means graduations, proms, and parties… sectionals, playoffs, and district finals… scholarships, awards, and all sorts of public acknowledgements surround us. There are a plethora of — shall we say — selfie kind of moments.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could each celebrate them all? The ones we’re involved in and the ones we’re not?

… as opposed to… sitting back, allowing any ounce of comparison to permeate our thinking, comparing one kid’s plight to another… as opposed to ever thinking, “That’s one less opportunity for me or my kid.”

The beauty in the recognition that opportunity is infinite is that it frees us up to genuinely celebrate and support one another. Perhaps my kid didn’t win that scholarship, but that means there’s a better fit for him elsewhere — a fit more in line with his unique, amazing gifting. My desire is to never look at the accomplishment of another and think of myself at the same time.

Ok, off ’til the weekend, friends. First, though, I plan on hanging out on social media for a bit. Some awesome kids are experiencing all sorts of monumental moments; they have multiple individual honors coming their way. I’m so excited for them.

Can’t wait to celebrate… each and every one.

Respectfully…
AR

05/15/201605/15/2016

cheers, cries & precedents

On Friday Pres. Obama sent a letter to all public schools across the country telling them to let transgender students use both the bathrooms and locker rooms of their individually preferred gender identity. The decree is not legally binding; however, if schools do not comply, they were told they risk the cutting off of “Federal funds” and additional lawsuits.

Let me first offer emotion #1… sigh. (… breathe in… breathe out… another pause, please…) This is another tough issue, friends.

I hear those who now cheer… the previously silent, transgender student, for example, who has long, sadly, faced ridicule and shame.
I hear those who now cry… the previously silent, teen survivor of sexual abuse, for example, who has long, sadly, faced fear of the opposite sex.

I hear the others — on so many sides — the many, justifiable concerns. And I hear the lack of empathy from again, far too many. Yes, it seems, we continue to politicize issues; we continue to see only very limited perspectives. We tend to hear only one side well. We tend to hear only the cheers — or only the cries. Or… we tend to boldly proclaim why either the cheers or cries are for some reason irrelevant.

I wish there was a way to honor all people well. I wish we didn’t have to keep pitting people against one another.

As far as bathrooms/locker rooms are concerned, my first response after this arose in the North Carolina state legislature, was similar to the federal courts wrestling with the inflation levels of NFL footballs… Why are they spending so much time on this?… Is someone attempting to push an agenda?

My second response was a little more cavalier — motivated, no doubt, by the desire to stop all the bickering and social media rants (… FYI — which could easily serve as fodder for a new book entitled “How to Lose Friends and Influence People”). I thought, no less: couldn’t we just establish three kinds of public restrooms? (1) “Men’s,” (2) “Women’s”; and (3) “I Don’t Care.”

But alas, that, too, is not enough. Too many remain dissatisfied until they get what they want — even if it gives no thought to those who either cheer or cry. Again, we tend to only hear the cheers… or only hear the cries.

I wish I knew exactly what the right thing to do was. I wish no judgment on anyone. I wish no discrimination on anyone. But I am not comfortable solely looking out for one people group. I am not comfortable ignoring how it makes one group feel. I am not comfortable dismissing the transgender students; I am equally uncomfortable thinking only of transgender students.

There is one additional aspect about Friday’s letter that makes me uncomfortable. Remember first that there exist three distinct roles within the U.S. branches of government:

The Legislative Branch, which makes the law.
The Executive Branch, which carries out the law.
And the Judicial Branch, which evaluates the law.

Each is to do their job. No branch has the job of another.

On Friday, the Executive Branch made the law. The expression of an opinion alone, of course, does not equate to lawmaking; it’s the inclusion of the threat to withhold funding due to lack of compliance that creates the constitutional conflict.

I’m concerned about that precedent. While there are valid reasons to agree or disagree with the Obama administration’s perspective on how public restrooms should be used, what’s concerning is the lawmaking precedent. If we are ok with that process now, then we will need to be equally ok with it later — with whatever the issue… with the arbitrary making of law and the arbitrary withholding of funds… and, with the one who decrees it…

… a President Clinton.

Or…

… a President Trump.

(…breathe in… breathe out…)

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

04/27/201604/27/2016

arguing about restrooms

Let me be clear: I have close to zero desire to write about public restrooms. It’s not because the Intramuralist is hesitant to enter into controversial conversations. It’s more because I don’t see any conversation going on.

I see a lot of people shouting at a lot of people. I see more spewing of opinion than seeking to understand other opinion. And that’s not even quite it, regarding this growing national debate over gender-based restrictions placed on public restroom use.

I feel a little bit, in fact, like legislating about public restrooms like I feel about federal courts discussing the inflation levels in NFL footballs… surely we have something better to do?!

I don’t deny that this is a tough issue. And I don’t deny it’s worth in the context of healthy dialogue and discussion. What leaves me reluctant, though, is that this has just become another argument.

Perhaps some don’t argue immediately; perhaps we are better at least at asking a few questions first; but then at a certain point we seem to declare ourselves omniscient enough to know exactly what all others in disagreement are thinking.

We then go a step farther. Not only do we think we totally get it how all others in disagreement are feeling, we also seemingly subconsciously declare ourselves judge, jury, and whatever else seems phonetically convincing in that phrase. We are so good at exerting our opinion and projecting it onto others…

“Well, because I’m comfortable with this, you should be, too!” … or…

“Because I’m not uncomfortable, it makes no sense that you are uncomfortable!”

Once again, “I/me/my/myself” is the subject of each of those sentences. The reason we struggle with even a bathroom conversation is because “I” is the focus of our sentence. When will we learn it’s possible to be compassionate to more than one people group and more than one perspective?

As for the issue at hand and to those most affected in this messy shouting match…

To the transgendered individual who has felt shame and societally ostracized, I want you to feel great compassion. None of us should ever intentionally heap humiliation upon another.

To the individual who is uncomfortable (or uncomfortable with their children) sharing a bathroom with other genders, I respect your conviction. None of us gets to make this decision for everyone else.

And to those intending to take advantage of how messy this situation is — the person who uses this as a means to prey on others to fulfill their own perversion — that is wrong. I pray you get help soon.

Friends, there are solutions to this issue that don’t have to be an argument; there are options we can work through if we quit arguing long enough to listen. I’d start by enlisting the help of every parent of an opposite-sex toddler who’s had to navigate through this when the urge calls at the local department store.

We also will at sometime have to address the issue of transgender identity — and make no mistake about it; it’s a tough one… there are some who hold the conviction that gender falls into a single spectrum — a so-called continuum ranging from masculinity to femininity on polar opposite ends of a single scale. There are many others who hold the conviction that gender falls into separate spectrums, and God chooses what kind of masculine or feminine each baby starts out as. That is a longer, future conversation and one I am willing to have.

But again, that is a conversation — one marked by listening, respect, and empathetic consideration of another’s opinion and emotion.

There. Done. I said I had close to zero desire to write about public restrooms. And don’t get me started on those Porta Potties. My desire there is even less.

Respectfully…
AR

04/26/201604/26/2016

revisionist history

The face of American currency is currently very male and very white. After a push by “Women On 20s” — a non-profit organization which “aims to compel historic change by convincing President Obama that now is the time to put a woman’s face on our paper currency” — the Treasury Department announced last week that Harriet Tubman would be the new face of the $20 bill.

Way to go Harriet Tubman!

(Note: let me share at the onset that the Intramuralist doesn’t have a strong opinion on this matter; that, however, is not the point of today’s post.)

Harriet Tubman is regarded as one of America’s most prominent abolitionists; her goal was to eliminate slavery and set people free. Utilizing the Underground Railroad’s network of secret routes and safe houses, Tubman — who was born into slavery — escaped and then assisted approximately 70 enslaved people via 13 dangerous, secretive trips, ushering persons out of slavery and into freedom in the 1840’s and 50’s in Maryland.

Andrew Jackson is the current face of the $20 bill…

Andrew Jackson served as the seventh U.S. President from 1829 to 1837. He was a courier during the Revolutionary War — captured and mistreated by his British captors as a teen — a colonel in the Tennessee militia, the hero of the 1815 Battle of New Orleans, and then later served in both the House of Representatives and Senate, prior to being elected President. His supporters would go on to found what has become the Democratic Party. Jackson, also, was a slave owner. He owned hundreds of slaves.

As for the bill itself, when first issued in 1914, the currency originally featured Grover Cleveland, the country’s 22nd and 24th President. Fifteen years later, Jackson was chosen to don the currency instead.

Last week, no less, the Treasury Dept. announced multiple future changes to American currency, with Tubman becoming the first African American appearing on U.S. paper money ever, and the first woman in 100 years. Treasury Sec. Jack Lew called it a “powerful message.” Jackson will be moved to the back of the bill.

Again… way to go Harriet Tubman!

What I find interesting is how our opinion of people changes over the course of history. At one point, Andrew Jackson was considered worthy of such an honor; in fact, for decades he was considered worthy.

As time goes on, however, many — who were not alive when he was, by the way — believe Jackson is not worthy.

And so it begs the question:

Who among us now do we feel is worthy of great honor that as time goes on, as history is revised, those who come after will say, “What were they thinking?!”

Where will the interpretation of history change?

On whom will history cast a different light than we see now?

… Barack Obama? … Hillary Clinton? … Donald Trump?

Oh, that history…

What a funny and fascinating thing…

Respectfully…
AR

03/22/2016

just a game?

As I empathized with many, watching my beloved alma mater be included in the unfortunate list of first round tournament upsets over the weekend, I wrestled with the timeless mantra of this being somehow “just a game”… “It’s just a game,” we like to say.

Right… so that’s supposed to make me feel better?

I’m not sure I believe that it really is “just a game” — and I say that not solely as one whose wadded up bracket is currently occupying space in the closest trash can. I mean, by definition — basketball, football, soccer, you name it — they are each games — show choir, band, gymnastics, etc. They are each a form of play or sport, played according to a certain set of rules.

But consistent with my frequent assertion, often articulated relevant to a specific post — that “this is not a sports post” — sports are where we learn so many valuable lessons far beyond the game idea…

… realizing the benefit of hard work…
… comprehending how hard work pays off over time…
… knowing the necessary investment in ongoing training…
… seeing the beauty of discipline…
… seeing the beauty of perseverance…
… recognizing the need for emotional control…
… keeping emotions from overtaking us and making poor choices…
… channeling our emotions into something good…
… not over-reacting to a given moment in time…
… recognizing that one “up” or one “down” is only a snapshot in time; it’s not the whole picture…
… grasping the concept of team…
… grasping the beauty of team…
… learning compassion and empathy for teammates…
… acquiring genuine respect for the opposition…
… acknowledging how solid competition spurs us on…
… and never seeing self as better and best…
… simply wanting to improve…
… simply wanting to grow…

I think better said than “it’s just a game” is that sports are an arena in which we have that opportunity to grow. But an opportunity is only an opportunity if and when we seize it.

When we refuse to seize the opportunity — when we attempt to simply brush it off a loss with the convenient “it’s just a game” mentality — I wonder whether that causes us to focus only on the outcome, instead recognizing all of the above listed benefits.

I think of the NCAA tournament, now headed to next week’s slate of games that are advertised as nothing less than “sweet.” The reality of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament is that while 68 teams are included, 67 of those 68 will lose their last game. Should those 67 then walk off with their heads held in paralyzing despair? There is certainly room for disappointment — especially when not executing ability to one’s furthest extent; and that disappointment can drive us to improve and achieve. But there is also room for growth, if we recognize the contest actually is far more than any game. The idea is to not get so caught up in only the wins and losses.

Sometimes I think we encourage evaluation of the outcome only, as if such is the only measure of success. We miss the benefits in how the game is prepared for and played.

Perhaps then, the “just a game” idea is more said to make us one time hopefuls — those with the wadded up brackets — feel better after a disappointing loss. Maybe it’s said to soften the blow. After all, how many times is the “just a game” mantra mentioned after a rousing, spectacular win?

No, it’s not just a game.

Respectfully…
AR

03/20/2016

the underdog

For nine years, Shoeshine Boy’s heroic alter ego blessed many via his appearance on Saturday morning’s weekly slate of cartoons. “There’s no need to fear; Underdog is here!”

“…When in this world the headlines read
Of those whose hearts are filled with greed
Who rob and steal from those who need
To right this wrong with blinding speed
Goes Underdog! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!
Speed of lightning, roar of thunder
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Underdog. Underdog!”

As we currently find ourselves wrapped in both the madness of March and current election cycle, I find myself dreaming of those simple Saturday morning cartoons… Underdog! The underdog is the little guy — the David in the world of Goliaths, the competitor thought to have little chance to win, with little to no societal status. The beauty of the underdog — if we pause long enough to see it — is that he is someone who is “humble” and “lovable.” In fact, his humility is much of what actually makes him so lovable.

I find myself thinking that encouraged humility is rare these days; it’s as if we’ve allowed humility to somehow have become equated with weakness or being imposed upon. Thus in this world where we continually aver to “stand up for oneself” and “not take crud from anybody,” we’ve somehow suppressed the consistent encouragement of humility.

We also applaud ample behavioral contradictions… all the ongoing chest thumping and bumping, the social media rants and frequent “take that’s,” the disrespectful protests and deafening cheers — like it doesn’t matter who else may be affected by our behavior. And when it doesn’t matter who else is affected, conceit — the opposite of humility — creeps in.

Conceit often seems a more accepted societal position. And when we willingly embrace that excessive pride in oneself and our way of thinking, we forget that in humility, there is something beautiful; in the underdog, there is something beautiful…

There is something beautiful in the NCAA men’s college basketball tournament, when the underdogs labeled as the 13th, 14th, and 15th seeds all win on the same day…
There is something beautiful when a tiny mid-major school succeeds over a prominent basketball powerhouse…
There is something beautiful in the “little guy” banking in a miraculous, last-second three point shot — perhaps the “best shot ever,” as some would go on to say.

No one expected these “little guys” to win.

That’s it; there is no expectation of winning in the underdog. If you win, it’s a gift. It’s an opportunity. It’s a blessing. Blessings should never be confused with entitlement or expectation.

And yet infused in our society, we tend to utilize a colloquial language so inundated with self… “I, me, my, myself,” my spouse and I often say. Too many of us too often employ a vocabulary centered on self. “We” are often the subject of our sentences.

It’s like the athlete or politician who believes they’re God’s gift to the world. Friends, let me be very clear: we are never God’s gift to the world; the world is God’s gift to us. I think the underdog knows that.

The majority of “Underdog” cartoons ended with a common scene. A crowd of people would look up to the sky, saying, “Look in the sky!” “It’s a plane!” “It’s a bird!”

An elderly woman would then exclaim, “It’s a frog!”

“A frog?!” said another.

To this, Underdog replied:
“Not plane, nor bird, nor even frog,
It’s just little old me. Underdog.”

Little old me… the little guy. Humble. Lovable. There’s something beautiful in that.

Respectfully…
AR