Category: Current Issue

Posted on

big picture

In the news this past week was much conversation regarding spending money. Whether it’s funding the federal government or finding one more creative, Christmas gadget, we focus much on how we spend our money. I think, however, we often focus on foolish things.

Let me not appear to be disrespectful, friends; it’s not my intent. It’s just that we fall so easily prey to becoming passionate about a singular aspect of spending that we sometimes ignore the big picture.

Look at the federal government’s spending bill — which next to the Gruberization of Obamacare and controversial CIA report — was perhaps the most significant story out of our nation’s capital this past week. While passage was bipartisan but narrow in the House — and  faced a similar fate in the Senate — note also the bipartisan criticism. Republican critics, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), demanded the bill be stripped of money that could be used to implement Pres. Obama’s Executive Order on immigration. Democrat critics, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), demanded the bill be stripped of provisions that roll back part of a controversial banking bill, even questioning the “maturity” of the provision’s supporters. Yet both the Cruz’s and Warren’s of the world — who are supposed to represent us — are focusing on something less than the big picture.

Over no time during the past six years have our leaders passed an annual budget.

Allow me to say that again in another way: our federal government has not adhered to a budget for the past six years.

For whatever reason (and I’m sure entrenched partisans will willingly and quickly cast blame on someone else), during the Obama administration, the federal government has never passed a budget. Instead of being guided and limited by a standard practice that most successful business entities must acknowledge, the federal government simply keeps passing “continuing resolutions” — “CR’s” — never wrestling with the bigger problem.

This lack of wrestling is what allows for ample waste and long term problems. This lack of adherence is what allows for the current, uncontrolled spending of the federal government, such as $387,000 spent on a study of the effects of Swedish massage on rabbits… $371,026 on if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids… and $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills. In other words, an annual budget forces legislature and the White House to specifically address spending and cut out money we don’t have (… i.e. love those dogs and lions, but not sure massive monies should be spent…).

We seem to be growing complacent in the reigning in of exploding spending, and thus when the Cruz’s and Warren’s and White House, etc. focus on a singular aspect, passionate as they may be, they are still focused on something lesser. How will spending ever be under control if we can’t agree on how much to spend? What domestic entity has ever succeeded by such a process? Where is the courageous, big picture leadership? Where is the leadership to adopt an annual, wisely limiting budget?

This week comes my annual Christmas brunch (fire up), a wonderful, community event where my sole goal is to love on the participants — genuinely and generously — jumpstarting their celebration of the season. It is a marvelous event — fun to partake in and a true privilege to host — sharing all sorts of goodies and gadgets.  The goodies and gadgets are actually far less important than the celebration. The event is thus so sweetly good because we never lose sight of the big picture.

P.S. That’s important.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

split-brained

2014-08-26-right_brain_left_brain-thumbRight brain, left brain. Left brain, right brain. Schemeel, schlemazel, Hasenfeffer, Incorporated.

Ok, ok, so the “Laverne & Shirley” lyrics leave a little to be desired, but again we’re faced with the psychological myth that persons prefer one side of their brain to the other.

“Left-brained” persons are said to be more logical. “Right-brained” are more creative.

In other words, according to multiple sources utilized for this post (including psychology.com, livescience.com, National Public Radio, etc.), “left-brained” are supposedly more rational, respond to verbal instructions, solve problems via logic, sequence, and order, and are known to be more structured, and in control of their feelings. They see the logic of cause and effect.

“Right-brained,” on the other hand, are less structured. They are more intuitively guided. They solve more with hunches and emotion; they are more spontaneous and free with their feelings and emotion. They see resemblances and base conclusions off of such correspondence.

And then look at events of today…

Should they be solved solely via logic?

… solely via emotion?

Or both?

Let the record show that every time the Intramuralist takes the left brained/right brained test, my results are the same. I test pretty equally, right down the middle; in other words, I don’t consistently lean toward either hemisphere. I appreciate emotion, but I can’t leave logic out of the equation. I value logic, but I can’t dismiss emotion.

How would it change the perceived polarization of our country — the Republican vs. Democrat, the white vs. black, the White House vs. Congress, for example — if we valued both logic and emotion? … as opposed to solely base decisions off of one?

How would it change how we wrestle with the issues?

From the budget to Ferguson to the scandalous crud of the IRS? How would it change each of our perspectives if we honored logic and emotion both — as opposed to being solely driven by one side of the brain or the other?

And one more “for the record…”

While the “left-brained/right-brained” theory was coined by Roger W. Sperry in 1981 — who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his research — many contemporary psychologists believe the split-brain theory to be a myth.

Is it a myth? Maybe.

But are some more logical in their approach and some more emotional? And do we tend to think the other is misguided because of their different approach?

Fascinating.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

who thinks we’re stupid?

images-1I wrestled this morn with which of the week’s most significant stories to write about… do we discuss how a man who assisted in writing the Affordable Care Act admitted that to pass the legislation, they had to play on the “stupidity of the American voter”? … or do we wrestle with the wisdom in the President’s approach, with his intent to bypass all others, creating legislation on his own? Bear with me, friends. I have a feeling the two stories will easily, semi-profoundly merge together.

Meet Jonathan Gruber: story #1. He’s an MIT Econ professor, teaching there for the past 22 years. He was heavily involved in crafting Obamacare. Wikipedia refers to him as a “key architect.”

As now reported by multiple sources, Gruber has said the following about the Affordable Care Act (also, please take note of the intelligence necessary to become a professor at MIT):

  • The legislation “would not have passed” had the administration been honest about the income-redistribution policies embedded in its insurance regulations.
  • The “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”
  • “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.”
  • “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Gruber visited the White House five times in 2009. Pres. Obama’s campaign featured Gruber in a re-election video. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week she didn’t “know who he is,” but a video quickly surfaced showing Pelosi directly referring to and supportive of Gruber’s work. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) once referred to Gruber on the Senate floor as “one of the most respected economists in the world.”

On to story #2….

Near two weeks ago, America sent a message to Washington via the election. As discussed, the Intramuralist believes the primary message was “one, you’re acting arrogantly,” and “two, we don’t like the way you’re acting.” That includes Congress and arguably, especially the President.

Pres. Obama announced the next day that he will take action on immigration reform on his own before the year’s end. Granted, a new Congress was just elected, but Obama intends to bypass them before they are ever sworn in.

Now the Intramuralist believes that reform should be taken on immigration; the influx of illegals in this country has posed some incredibly challenging economic, social, and national security issues. We need to manage this is a more effective, reasonable way. Yet by bypassing the legislative branch in its entirety — even though the purpose of the legislative branch is create the law and the purpose of the executive branch is to enforce the law — the President has decided to create.

It is true that immigration reform has yet to pass both houses of Congress. It is also true that when Obama had super majorities in the House and Senate, he did not prioritize any immigration measures. For Obama to proceed now via Executive Order — completely avoiding Congress — is to this current events observer, an obviously arrogant approach. It does not adhere to the message of the most recent election.

It also makes me wonder how frequently people perceive the American voter as “stupid.”

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

dignity

lauren-hill-gray-shirt-10312014Last week we chronicled the life of Britney Maynard, the 29-year-old Oregon woman dying of brain cancer, who chose the time her life would end. Contrast that with the life of Lauren Hill, a 19-year-old Ohio athlete, also dying from brain cancer. Lauren has chosen to instead maximize her believed last few days, however long that may be. Both stories have garnered significant, national news.

The day after Britney died, Lauren played her first and only college basketball game for Mt. St. Joseph University, despite her rapidly declining health. As observed by Xavier University men’s head basketball coach, Chris Mack, in a USA Today editorial: “She did it in front of 10,250 watery-eyed locals, with a few celebrities to boot. She scored a layup on the first possession of the game, and scored another basket just before the final buzzer. The game was held at Xavier’s Cintas Center, and MSJ beat Hiram 66-55. It very well could have been held at Paul Brown Stadium if not for the Jaguars/Bengals game — the only difference would have been that there would have been more tears.”

Lauren feels called to spend this time amidst her suffering encouraging other people. She has said: “One January night, I was having a meltdown. I asked God if I could do anything. I didn’t know what He sent me here for. I wanted to know what He sent me here for. Whatever you sent me here for, I’m ready to do… What keeps me going is remembering why I’m here… I told (God) I’d take every opportunity to speak for the kids who can’t speak… I’m spreading awareness on a level that’s never been spread before. I really hope it’s going to bring a change to the world. Being able to have this opportunity is all I’ve wanted and prayed for.”

Neither Britney nor Lauren should be judged for their different approaches to life’s end. Each of us has to figure out our path, wrestling with the God of the universe in how our thinking aligns with him. Britney and Lauren, no less, prompt the Intramuralist to ask multiple, major questions… like…

What does dying with dignity actually mean?

Does suffering equate to no dignity?

Is there any value in suffering?

Where are we “playing God” — in the ending, extending, or sustaining of life?

Is “playing God” wrong?

And a last pair of questions, that always cause me to loop through some transparently tough, emotional gymnastics: what does “quality of life” mean? … and who is capable of defining such?

Being the parent of a special needs child has strongly challenged my thinking. It’s not that I know best nor that my experience translates into truth for all people. Yet what is true about the experience manifest in my household is that I care for a son who many — especially in academia — assume to have a lesser quality of life. He’s got a cognitive disability; his fine and gross motor skills are a little off. Yesterday, by the way, he accidentally, almost (thanks, God!) made an $80,000 purchase on my laptop precisely because of his impairment. But is his quality of life any lesser? I would challenge any to get to know my Josh… get to know how he loves people… get to know how he loves and encourages others arguably better than you and me… get to know how he reads people and how he loves life. Then let’s talk about “quality of life.” My simple point is I’m not sure all our measurements are all that accurate.

This end of life bit is a curious thing. It’s an easy place where judgment, arrogance, and lack of Godly submission creeps in. It’s hard. I pray we learn from the examples of Britney Maynard and Lauren Hill. There is much to learn and the answers are not neat, simple, nor easy.

Said by a local reporter covering Lauren’s thought to be final days… “Lauren will shine brightly until her light is extinguished. Even then, she hopes she’ll be remembered for the good she did. This is how to script the most perfect ending to this most imperfect story. It’s spectacular how the imminence of death can prompt so much living. That’s Lauren’s gift. To us all.”

What a gift indeed. P.S. I think Lauren’s light will shine even longer than that.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

maynard’s choice

cover-768Today was the day. Today was the day Brittany Maynard’s family and friends were to begin life without her. Today was to be the beginning of her surrender… and of, her family’s grief. Allow me to provide some brief background info, as shared by Brittany herself…

On New Year’s Day, after months of suffering from debilitating headaches, I learned that I had brain cancer. I was 29 years old. I’d been married for just over a year. My husband and I were trying for a family.

Our lives devolved into hospital stays, doctor consultations and medical research. Nine days after my initial diagnoses, I had a partial craniotomy and a partial resection of my temporal lobe. Both surgeries were an effort to stop the growth of my tumor. In April, I learned that not only had my tumor come back, but it was more aggressive. Doctors gave me a prognosis of six months to live.

Because my tumor is so large, doctors prescribed full brain radiation. I read about the side effects: The hair on my scalp would have been singed off. My scalp would be left covered with first-degree burns. My quality of life, as I knew it, would be gone.

After months of research, my family and I reached a heartbreaking conclusion: There is no treatment that would save my life, and the recommended treatments would have destroyed the time I had left.

I considered passing away in hospice care at my San Francisco Bay-area home. But even with palliative medication, I could develop potentially morphine-resistant pain and suffer personality changes and verbal, cognitive and motor loss of virtually any kind. I did not want this nightmare scenario for my family, so I started researching death with dignity. It is an end-of-life option for mentally competent, terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live. It would enable me to use the medical practice of aid in dying: I could request and receive a prescription from a physician for medication that I could self-ingest to end my dying process if it becomes unbearable. I quickly decided that death with dignity was the best option for me and my family.

Brittany moved to Oregon, obtained the prescription, and after finishing her so-called “bucket list,” planned on dying yesterday, November 1st. Brittany, however, changed her mind. She remains alive today.

Let me thus add a few thoughts and questions. Please perceive no judgment; there is none. I have no idea what it would feel like to be in Brittany’s shoes. Walking in her shoes, however, does not lessen my emotion nor question.

Brittany says she changed her mind because she “still feels good enough”… “I still have enough joy and I still laugh and smile with my family and friends.” She also is still “reserving the right” to die on her own terms.

I can’t imagine being Brittany. I can’t imagine the sobriety that encounters her every day, the sobriety so many of us fail to face as it’s so easy to take a month or minute or moment for granted.

Amidst all the heartache, within Brittany’s seizing of the moment, there is a wisdom so many of us miss. Brittany makes me want to take nothing for granted.

More questions directed to this articulate young woman and her heartbreaking situation… why exactly did you change your mind? With circumstances the same, why have you decided to currently live? What keeps you here?  What do you think happens next? Do you know God? Do you trust him? Can he comfort you? Can he help you die with dignity? What will be the first conversation after death you have with God?

I have no answers this day… no judgment either… I am walking away, just hugging my family and friends right now… really tight.

Respectfully…

AR

[NOTE:  At 9:35 p.m. EST on Sunday, Nov. 2nd, long after this column was posted, USA Today reported that Brittany did indeed end her life.  USA TODAY Network is awaiting further details.  Rest in peace, Brittany. ]

Posted on

trusting obama

images-1For some time I’ve considered penning this post. For some time more I’ve shied away, knowing the mere mention may be strongly offensive to some. My desire, however, is never to offend nor avoid simply due to offending’s sake; my desire is to dialogue respectfully — and that means taking on the tough topics — even though increasingly often in our hyper-sensitive culture, many will be offended that the conversation ever existed. Such is inconsistent with the Intramuralist’s mantra The more we are willing to discuss the hard stuff — and proceed in a manner respectful of those with whom we disagree, recognizing that good people possess varied opinion — the more we can be educated, learn from one another, and grow.

Today’s topic: I don’t fully trust Pres. Obama.

It’s not that I believe Obama’s a bad person or evil or whatever other sensational adjective some may insist upon. It’s not that I’m an “Obama-hater,” “Bush-lover,” or any other manipulated moniker one may use to dismiss me and my opinion. I’m not. I don’t hate the President. I simply don’t fully trust him.

In a cyberspace conversation last week, I made the comment that I wasn’t certain we could trust the President to lead us through the Ebola situation well. A friend asked why not. “For many reasons,” I thought, but the bottom line? Obama’s “yes” hasn’t meant “yes,” and his “no” hasn’t meant “no.” In other words, his words and the reality of the situation often contradict one another.

Whether it was the plethora of Obamacare promises, claims of IRS non-corruption, foreign policy mischaracterizations, or the blaming of all things bad on someone else, my perception is that Pres. Obama’s words have often been confusing or even untrue. Have his statements been knowingly false? Great question (and undoubtedly one that partisans will pounce upon). My point is that Obama has consistently, in my opinion, misused his presidential platform rhetorically. He has repeated aspects and claims that sound good regardless of truth — appearing to control the dialogue, control his image, or control something… i.e. “In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores…” Two weeks later Ebola was here.

What I’ve learned through the Ebola outbreak is that I am not alone in this unfortunate perception…

NBC “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd opened his Sunday show two weeks ago addressing the administration’s “trust deficit.” He mentioned multiple situations and Obama’s rhetorical response…

The NY Post’s Michael Goodwin ran the following Sunday, discussing how a single Ebola death has morphed into an unwarranted panic: “In rational and medical terms, they may be right. But their calculations omit another factor. It’s the X factor. In this case, X stands for trust. President Obama has spent six years squandering it, and the administration’s confusion, contradictions and mistakes on Ebola fit the pattern. This is how he rolls. Don’t worry, there’s no chance of an outbreak, they said. Then it was, Oops, we must rethink all procedures for handling cases. Then there was no worry about a ‘wide’ outbreak, yet quarantines for lots of people. The irrational fear of an alien pathogen is fueled by rational suspicion of an incompetent and dishonest government.”

Obama continues to rhetorically assert himself in ways where the perceived reality of the situation does not clearly substantiate his actual words, which causes the nation to lose trust in their leader. Therefore, Obama’s current trust problem (which I believe is also evident in his historically low approval numbers) is not due to partisan hatred. It’s due to Obama’s own words.

Let your “yes” mean “yes” and your “no” mean “no.” Don’t say things that aren’t true — regardless of motive — regardless of whether one shares your partisan persuasion. If a person is too concerned at controlling the narrative, he or she will unfortunately, eventually lose trust — even in an over-hyped crisis.  And trust is incredibly hard to reclaim.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

“you can’t handle the truth!”

e98df83447ef9af51137f6f21921f0Quit telling us what you think we want to hear. Tell us the truth. Don’t manipulate the truth in order to serve what you’ve determined is a greater purpose…

When Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) was asked by MSNBC this week if he “thinks the Obama administration has done an appropriate job in handling the Ebola crisis,” the November candidate fumbled the question — lots of “uh’s” and pregnant pauses before finally saying “it’s hard to know.” Pryor is running for re-election in a state where Pres. Obama’s approval rating is only, approximately 31%.

When Alison Lundergan Grimes (D-KY) was asked three times by local reporters last week if she voted for Obama in 2012, the November candidate repeatedly ignored the question and refused to answer. Obama’s approval rating is also only, approximately 31% in Kentucky.

Quit telling us what you think we want to hear. Quit dodging the questions. It’s ok to agree or disagree with Obama. It’s ok to have voted for him or not. Good people voted both “for” and “against” Obama in the last election — contrary to popular, partisan belief.

Pres. Obama, the Intramuralist would also like you to be transparent with the truth…

Just three weeks ago, the President, said the chances of Ebola making its way from Africa to America are “extremely low.” He said, “We’ve been taking the necessary precautions, including working with countries in West Africa to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn’t get on a plane for the United States. In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we’ve taken new measures so that we’re prepared here at home.” That was September 16th.

Two weeks later a Dallas man got on a plane after visiting Liberia, returned to the United States, and was diagnosed with Ebola. Before an accurate diagnosis, he went to a hospital, was sent home, and the measures taken were not effective nor substantial. He was diagnosed in the United States. “We” weren’t prepared. He sadly died this past Wednesday. More are probably infected.

Did Pres. Obama lie? Of course not.

I realize I aver such with emphatic certainty; truthfully, no one can opine with certainty the deceit within the heart of another. But there is nothing within the President’s statement that suggests any sense of falsehood.

My point is that while I do not believe for any reason that Pres. Obama lied to us regarding the potential spread of the Ebola virus, I do believe he again fell prey to what’s unfortunately been a consistent pattern throughout his tenure: Pres. Obama seems to tell us what he thinks we want to hear.

Pick the issue. Pick his public response. (Note: feel free to start with the IRS and being told there is no possible “smidgen” of corruption.)

He had no idea if the virus would reach our American shore. But that’s the point:  he had no idea. While none of us would desire the spread of this potentially fatal infection, none of us — none of us — not even the President — could or can predict the expanse of the epidemic. And yet, the President did predict the expanse. He told us what we wanted to hear. Perhaps I’m wrong, but my strong sense is that a “politician-first” tells us what we want to hear (note the above campaign examples even of viable candidates). A “leader-first,” however, tells us the truth — acknowledging what we can do, what we can’t, what we know, what we don’t, and all the while he or she boldly but humbly shares a commitment to trudge forward together.

More important than what we want to hear is transparently telling the truth. Sometimes the truth is “I don’t know.”

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

khorosan

middle-east-mapAs we found ourselves recently shocked by reality — that grown men would intentionally decapitate innocent others in the name of their so-called religion — most of us have begun paying increased attention to terror in the Middle East. Not since the unspeakable wake of 9/11 have we consistently been so alarmed. With this renewed attention, we’ve learned some new terms: ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — and ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. (The Levant is a larger Middle Eastern area that includes Lebanon and Jordan in addition to Syria.) Just last week, a new term arose: “the Khorosan group.” [or “Khorasan”]

Now let me immediately acknowledge that the Intramuralist is by no means aware of all geopolitical terminology. Many things fly over, under, and/or right through my desired, observant radar. But I found it odd that all of a sudden the United States was conducting airstrikes against “the Khorosan group” — and far more than this semi-humble observer had never heard the phrase before.

I began asking questions. I found it odd that still early this week, the definition of “Khorosan” in Wikipedia was nothing short of ambiguous, offering only six, brief potential meanings, from a historic region to a wheat variety.

I searched ample sites… liberal, conservative, factual, subjective. I repeatedly read the narrative of Khorosan being “a little-known terror network” (very little, apparently). I found a few who suggest an active, existent sect. I found still more repeaters of indeterminate talking points. I found one more perspective that scared me. Note: I don’t know if this is true…

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York — the same position once held respectively by Louis Freeh and Rudy Giuliani. McCarthy is most known for the conviction of Islamic terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and the 11 other defendants of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (according to Wikipedia, which had far more information on him, I might add). While McCarthy embraces conservative politics, he is respected across partisan lines because of his noteworthy background in terrorism prosecution; he is knowledgeable. He believes the Khorosan group is fictitious.

McCarthy’s opinion is certainly not widespread nor unanimous. He acknowledges the historic region definition, but adds that the name is one “the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the Iranian-Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.”

McCarthy argues that Pres. Obama has repeatedly boasted that al-Qaeda has been decimated under his watch, often substantiating the claim by the killing of bin Laden. McCarthy continues by saying Obama has routinely dismissed any serious rise of al-Qaeda, blaming the current threat on all things other than mistakes in his discernment or decision-making. Obama diminishes any perspective contrary to his desired rhetoric of strong leadership. And in perhaps his most poignant criticism, McCarthy adds: “Obama is not the manner of man who can say, ‘I was wrong: It turns out that al-Qaeda is actually on the rise, its Islamic State faction is overwhelming the region, and American interests — perhaps even American territory — are profoundly threatened.’ So instead . . . you got ‘the Khorosan Group.’ ”

Let me be very clear: I hope Andrew McCarthy is wrong. Many believe he is. Many believe he’s wrong in that the group is not fictitious, but that Khorosan is not an accurate representation of the entire picture, as it’s merely a small terrorist cell; in other words, the group may not be fictitious, but it may be overhyped.

The part that concerns this observer most is this administration’s tendency to embrace hyperbole in attempts to seemingly manipulate the public narrative… “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…” “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS. These are untrue. While manipulative rhetoric is certainly not indigenous to this administration, it greatly concerns this observer that the truth is so ambiguous.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

the dangers of social media

images-1I learned a lesson last week. I learned the “code” of social media. Not to be confused with the proverbial dress code, dating code, or universal bro code — each which are unfortunately, ostentatiously, sometimes broken — social media has its own understood, accepted protocol. For example…

Indirect tweeting is an art form.

The teens are all on Twitter because the parents invaded Facebook.

Parents can “like” or “favorite” their kid’s status, but comments will negatively impact any coolness factor.

Insulting tweets are totally acceptable if they are retaliatory.

And…

Success is measured by the number of “favorites” and “retweets.”

Let me be the first to acknowledge the good that can come from social media. Among the many benefits, I am thankful that social media is a time saver. It allows us to connect with friends across the years and countries and that we otherwise may have lesser time for; it keeps us in touch.

It also gives us insight into how other generations are thinking. I love having extended, effective avenues to communicate with my kids — especially when they’re stuck in those adolescent stages of not wanting to share too much.

I additionally see social media applying pressure to some areas that otherwise might quietly fade away. I think of the spotlight social media has placed on trending topics — from the areas of semi-subtle government overreach to the recent abuses of not so subtle professional football players. Social media has prolonged the conversation and thus the attention on important topics.

Let me say, too, though, that social media can be dangerous. For example…

… One liners now count as communication; a response qualifies as dialogue. Insults are accepted — even thought to be good and true, especially if exceptionally witty. Respect for other people is secondary to the right to express oneself. Self-focus reigns. Hurting people is justified. Listening is not encouraged..  And… If I feel it, I can say it, post it, take a pic and broadcast it, because what I want matters most.  In other words, social media can sometimes act as an arrogant, selfish, foolishly accepted platform. What are we teaching our younger generations?

This week I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing an emotional drama publicly play out in the Twitter universe. One person says something… another person says something else… the first justifies the next… the next justifies more. There was arrogance, insults, justification for foolish behavior, yada yada yada.

But let me tell you what it was not. It was not healthy conversation. It was not respectful dialogue. It was people who think they’re grown up all hurting one another, and justifying it along the way. The challenge for this semi-humble observer is that I love the many persons engaged in the interaction. I wanted to shout out and say, “What are you doing?! Do you not know how to speak to each other? Do you not know how to have conversation? Do you not know that social media can be dangerous?” Sadly, obviously not. They couldn’t hear me.

The biggest danger of social media is that people think they’re listening when they’re not. They think they’re communicating when they’re not. And they think what they’re doing is wise… when by all means it’s not.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

what’s most important

149A headline snapshot from around the world this week…

“U.S. Military Leaders: Strikes in Syria Are Just the Start of a Prolonged Campaign”

“Ebola Epidemic Could Top a Million Victims If Not Contained, CDC Warns”

“Lois Lerner Breaks Silence: I’m ‘Not Sorry for Anything I Did’”

“A Majority of Americans Say Obama’s Presidency Is a ‘Failure’”

“Ravens Owner Steve Bisciotti Defends Team, Denies Withholding Information about Ray Rice Incident”

Each of the above gives me reason to pause…

War. Disease. Corruption. Leadership troubles. Domestic violence.

Each makes me stop in my tracks, soberly pondering the reality of what actually happened to substantiate such a headline. Most days, the Intramuralist does just that… ponders the headlines… reads deeper… makes inferences… asks questions. Except for days like today…

… when…

I went to a friend’s funeral…

I witnessed a son’s heartache…

I watched the advancement of an illness in another…

Each puts life into perspective.

Truly the little things matter very little… Being upset about an irritant or annoyance means little in the long run. Worried about a missed assignment or missed opportunity is disappointing but little more. And crying over spilled milk or spilled anything only adds liquid to the plate.

Are we paying attention to what’s truly most important?

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

It hurt my heart to see a young mom die. So soon. So early. But I have confident hope in a life that’s amazingly better. She knew that hope. She will suffer no more.

It hurt my heart to see my son in so much pain. He was wronged. Part of his response was wise — part of it not. I look forward to how regardless, he will grow.

And in regard to my friend who is sick now… that hurts my heart, too. But wow… her attitude of gratitude is amazing… it spurs me on… my turn to grow.

All keep me away from dwelling too much on dreary headlines… (Thank God).

Respectfully…

AR