Month: August 2018

Posted on

Hillary was my choice

[Intramuralist Note: Today features Guest Writer #8 in our annual summer series; the opinions expressed may or may not be held by me, but I value the writer’s expression and their commitment to respect…]

Hillary was my choice for President…

She was my choice for President of the United States because she had a sense of duty, was articulate and thoughtful in her delivery and had weathered many storms both personally and professionally. Hillary had a long history of fighting for people outside the mainstream society who weren’t recognized as equals. Hillary had changed, mellowed and become more reflective through the years. She was a trailblazer in many ways as she had years of work on children’s, women’s and other issues for those without a voice. Yes, she had flaws and years of unfavorable press that were both justified and unjustified. Many people just didn’t like her.

Yet, it was her “lack of likability” that I respected the most in her. Hillary demonstrated to me she could distance herself from the emotion and separate the politics of situations, allowing her to not only analyze situations in isolation but to recreate multiple potential scenarios to find a creative solution. She understood complex relationships. She was criticized for staying with Bill, but she survived being humiliated beyond what anyone deserves and still raised a poised daughter. This spoke to me greatly. I have profound respect for her as the “comeback kid.” I especially admire the number of miles she logged internationally. The fact President Putin didn’t trust her or “like” her told me she was able to stand up to foreign powers. She was never given credit for her role of taking out Bin Laden.

It bothered me that many voters questioned her faith. To have survived the many positions she had that were not traditionally held by women, her husband’s indiscretions, and the amount of negative press she had, I found her resiliency to be a result of having great faith. How else would you continue to find the strength to go forward?

Admittedly, she was not an effective campaigner and didn’t have the likability factor that many voters need to feel a connection with a candidate. Voters want to feel as if they can sit down with a candidate over coffee to tell their story. They want to like the person. If they “like” the candidate, they turn a blind eye to the issues. Hillary could never get over this obstacle. Bill Clinton had to learn how to be personable with voters. He learned from his first loss as Governor. Hillary was always too academic in her approach for many voters. Simple sound bites resonate with voters; the bites allow people to make connections. Hillary always explained things beyond what was necessary. 

Ironically, knowing her, she is very personable and warm when you speak with her one-on-one.  She is probably one of the best listeners I have ever known. She has an uncanny ability listen to your words and translate them in the way you intended to be heard. Hillary hears you and is intrigued by opposing viewpoints and tries to incorporate them into solutions. Voters rarely saw this side of Hillary.

This last presidential election was very interesting. There seemed the perfect storm sociologically. It was reflective of many changes, fears and lack of hope in the American society.  As previously “dismissed” groups like those in the LBTBQ community, African-Americans, newer groups of immigrants and women became acknowledged as equals and “white privilege” became a discussion topic, the heightened amount of cognitive dissonance challenged many “norms” and values. Couple this with declining blue collar industrial opportunities due to increased technology impacting manufacturing jobs and the decline of the coal industry, the perfect storm was created. Whether you liked or disliked candidate Obama, he created “hope” for many voters. For many Americans, I think candidate Donald Trump did the same in his direct attacks and simple messaging. Hillary never found a way to “connect” with the very voters she could have helped through policy changes and administrative practices. She didn’t create a sense that “we can do this together” in areas where she needed the electoral vote.

She was hurt by Bush and Clinton fatigue and by the fact she was female.  Americans had many issues and wanted a “change,” for good or bad. I would argue that Hillary would have brought stability to the Presidency by having been one of the most experienced, qualified candidates who had ever run for the office of President. She had been First Lady, a U.S. Senator, U.S. Secretary of State, and a mom who had protected her child from cruel taunts; she was a survivor of an unfaithful husband who brought shame to the family and was as well-versed in policy as a person can be. To me she understood global issues and had the ability to make a difference in how the United States was viewed worldwide. 

Hillary understands policies and how they are translated into everyday life. I am disappointed that we will never know what type of President she would have been, but I do believe since she took so many “hits” that the next woman candidate for President will find that the Hillary blazed the trail for her. I also believe she gave many young women and girls the hope that they, too, could be the leader at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It just wasn’t her time.

Respectfully…

Eve

Posted on

why I voted for Trump (shhh…)

[Intramuralist Note: Today features Guest Writer #7 in our annual summer series; the opinions expressed may or may not be held by me, but I value the writer’s expression and their commitment to respect…]

When people in the room begin talking about Pres. Trump, I immediately begin praying that the conversation does not make its way over to me. I am terrified to admit to another human being that I voted for Trump in 2016, but not because I think he is failing at his job. It is because the people who oppose him seem filled with such anger, spewing vitriol at him, that I honestly believe they might never look at me the same way again after discovering this newfound information.

I fear being judged as a human being because I cast a vote to put this man into the highest office in the land. I fear that informing another person that I voted for Trump will produce an automatic, superficial link between myself and the President in their mind, one in which they are convinced that I support every decision he makes, policy he enacts, and that I align myself, utterly, with his beliefs, morals, and ethics. In doing so, I am just like him and represent the very things that his opponents despise. After all, those who voted for Trump are “deplorables” and “toothless hicks” who “didn’t like black people getting rights” and “women getting jobs.” 

Psychologists and sociologists are performing experiments, evaluations, and psychoanalysis on Trump supporters as though their brains have never been seen by mankind. Recent research suggests that we (Trump voters) are driven by racial resentment, authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation. We are easily tricked into believing falsehoods because we suffer from a condition in which we believe we have surpassing knowledge about a particular topic, but, in fact, have little to none (Dunning-Kruger). Because of this overconfidence, we do not fact check what our fearless leader tells us and fall prey to his lies, leaving us forever uneducated as we do not believe there is anything new to learn. In polls released last year, nearly half of liberal Democrats admitted that if they found that a friend of theirs supported Trump, it would create a strain on the relationship, and nearly 70% of Democrats find it “stressful and frustrating” to talk to Trump voters.

Let me share some insight into the mind of a “deplorable.” I did not vote for him because I like him. I did not vote for him because of his impeccable moral character, his unquestionably ethical business dealings, or his incomparable integrity. I did not vote for him because of his race (as some did for Obama), gender (as some did for Clinton), sexual orientation, or education level. I did not vote for him because I thought he was faithful to his wife. I did not vote for him because I thought he would be fun to have a beer with. I did not vote for him because I thought he was a religious fellow, just like me. I voted for Trump because it is time for Washington politics to die. 

Politicians talk in circles, leverage people’s welfare for political gain, waste taxpayer’s money, and speak to us in political language about solving our problems as though they understand what our problems are. They do what they must in order to maintain power and influence. As I watched Trump offer unhinged, ill-advised, outlandish and seemingly nonsensical rhetoric at rallies, debates, and interviews during the his 2016 campaign, I realized that this might be the only way to light a fire under — not only under government — but people. Trump established that he was ready for a fight – for anyone ready to tag him in. Reasons for his fight be damned. I could care less if he is fighting for me. I could care less if he is doing it out of a less than developed sense of patriotism. I could care less if he honestly thought he would run just to see if he could win.  

He has gone to Washington and done what people expected. For his voters, it has taken less than two years of his presidency to fulfill numerous campaign promises (exiting the Paris climate accord, tax cuts, moving the Jerusalem embassy, reviving oil pipelines, withdrawing from TPP, enforcing aggressive action against illegal immigration, nominating a conservative Supreme Court justice, defeating ISIS, etc.) and many others have been addressed and are ongoing (renegotiating trade deals like NAFTA, dismantling Obamacare, eliminating funds to sanctuary cities, etc.). He even issued an executive order to fulfill his promise that for every new federal regulation delivered, an existing one must be removed. 

For his opponents, he has been their worst nightmare. For establishment Republicans, he has brought them to account for their apathy and forced them to make difficult decisions and answer to the people that put them into office. On the left, he has exposed multiple, ideological contradictions within the Democratic Party. Many preach love, but discharge hate when the office holder is not in their camp. Many preach tolerance, but end relationships because of political views. Even Trump’s own debacle of separating children from parents exposed the lunacy of immigration policy-making, as a significant number of Democrats now advocate for abolishing ICE, reinforcing sanctuary cities, and enabling illegal immigrants to vote in US elections. That disregards United States law for political gain. It is Trump that has brought it all to fruition.

This essay is not an argument for the purposes of convincing Trump opponents why they should get on board the Trump train. It is simply intended to demonstrate that just because I voted for Trump doesn’t mean I like him. It doesn’t mean I agree with every policy he puts forward. It doesn’t mean he has my unwavering support. I am, however, a satisfied voter, because he has done what I put him there to do. He entered office with nothing to gain and nothing to lose and put Washington, and the world, on its heels. Why? Because he could care less about what anyone thinks about him. And that is the single disposition that the Oval Office desperately needs. Hillary Clinton would not have gone to an international summit as president, chastised world leaders for not upholding their agreements as part of the NATO alliance, and demanded immediate change or the United States would leave the accord. Being president has nothing to do with likability and everything to do with results. I do not like the idea of separating families at the border, but immigration has now become too large an issue to be overlooked. This is what Trump is doing.

Is Trump the first president to lie to the American people? Obama lied about healthcare and Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq. Is he the first president to have an extramarital affair? Clinton was impeached for perjury relating to his affairs and Warren G. Harding impregnated his mistress in a closet in the White House. The office of the President of the United States is not a radiant beacon of purity. It is a public position held by a human being who has as many faults as you and me. We do not elect someone for that office to be our philosopher-in-chief. We elect someone to that office that will make difficult decisions to help check and challenge an indecisive federal government, ensure that our country is not taken advantage of on the foreign platform, and enforce the execution of the laws of the United States. If we want a lesson on morals, let’s go to church next Sunday.  

Respectfully…

David

Posted on

warring witches

[Intramuralist Note: Today features Guest Writer #6 in our annual summer series; the opinions expressed may or may not be held by me, but I value the writer’s expression and their commitment to respect…]

 

Warring Witches — casting curses on enemies. Will this be our demise?

I was talking with a friend about about conflicting political stances (… do we mention an example? … the lesbian group against the trans activists… freedom of religion vs. a person wanting service in a manner that infringes on the business owner’s values). 

If we desire a loving response, is that not grace and mercy on both sides? How do we honor both the choice and convictions, for instance, of the Muslim and Christian bakers, the Brazilian wax shops, and those who desire services which are in conflict with the server’s conscience? (A Muslim business woman who religiously cannot touch a man and a trans person demanding service.) 

On my mind are the historic Bible/Torah stories where the enemy troops would fall into confusion and end up routed, which always sounds so miraculous reading it — maybe it was! But I’m wondering now: could there be another reason?

Were they bumbling idiots, those confounded military strategists?

Even the smartest humans — as much as we think we’re working for any noble cause — we labor, limited by our own motives and understanding of what’s best. Our desires, even in our closest of social groups — such as even a marriage or family — inevitably come into conflict with others. So what is the standard?

We each want to be treated with love and mercy — yes? And we become offended when we see actions or attitudes contrary to our measure of love. So we want that to change! When others have an offense against another, is it right for the offended person to hate the perceived hater?

How much does that solve? How’s that working for us?! Hate against hate!

But what if there was a God that set a standard… of loving… even enemies? What would that look like?

We’ve heard the age-old question of “who is my neighbor” in response to the call to “love our neighbor.” But if we are to also “love our enemies,” have we asked the question, “Who is my enemy?”

And…

… what does it look like to love them? 

If we see that we are each other’s enemy, what is the standard that keeps us from fighting to the death? What do we do instead?

Friends, if our hearts are not submitted and surrendered to the Higher Source of truth and love, we might be working for a cause for a certain segment of society, but how do we labor in love and peace and hope and joy and self-control and gentleness to all?

Oh, so many questions! And more… where does mercy play in? … what is the standard for that? … if there is a Creator who generously offers love and mercy for all, how do we practice that in the midst of our disagreements? … are we listening for his instructions, or fighting amongst ourselves? … and… does that make us his people, or just prove we’re one of the enemy troops, confounded in fighting each other?

Oh, the profound words of Samuel from long ago: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.”

What?! 

Rebellion means using our power, created and given by God, for some purpose outside his intent.

What is His intent? How good are we at loving our enemies? Have we ever needed God’s mercy? And am I displaying that mercy to my enemies? (Again, who are my enemies?)

Or do we instead fall into that bunch of warring witches… wishing evil and casting curses upon others?

Respectfully…

RH

Posted on

you can do anything around here with 5 votes

[Intramuralist Note: Today features Guest Writer #5 in our annual summer series; the opinions expressed may or may not be held by me, but I value the writer’s expression and their commitment to respect…]

 

Every year on January 22, throngs of people march up Washington’s Constitution Ave., past the United States Capitol, and improperly demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court Building, yelling and screaming either their opposition or support for abortion rights and the Roe v. Wade decision that established them. This exemplifies everything that is horrifically wrong with the American judicial system.

SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States, does not make laws. Congress makes laws. But these demonstrators stride right past Congress on their way to the Court Building. If they were doing their job properly, the Supreme Court justices would not pay any attention to what these people yell and scream. But they do.

Just look at the media. With the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, CNN, CNBC, The Huffington Post, Politico, and The Hill are each reporting that “64% of Americans support the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion” and  “they would not like to see it overturned.” NBC now claims it is 71%.

This is completely irrelevant. It is not the Court’s job to pass laws that people want. That is Congress’ job, which is why our Congressmen and women are elected by the people. It is the Court’s job to determine if those laws are Constitutional, or to interpret them if they come under dispute.

This is basic civics. According to Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Article III says, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and…shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” Lastly, in the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Though controversial, let us use the abortion issue as an objective example. Reasonable people can have different opinions about abortion, and it is not my intent here to argue for or against it. But there clearly is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Harry Blackmun based his Roe opinion on the “right to privacy” in the Fourteen Amendment. Read the Fourteenth Amendment. The word “privacy” is not there. These are the words upon which the Court based their decision: “No state shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” At face value, those words would seem to support life more than choice.

Furthermore, Blackmun made up an admittedly arbitrary trimester framework where in the first three months, the decision lies completely between a mother and her doctor, the second three months laws can be passed only related to the mother’s health, and in the last three months, the state’s interest to protect the unborn becomes more compelling. While that may be the most brilliant compromise ever decreed since Solomon suggested cutting a baby in half, where in the world does the Constitution say anything about trimesters?

To have a staunch position on Roe, you have to read it. It is an opinion so devoid of solid foundation that it took Justice Blackmun 51 pages to explain it. There is not a single sentence in it that qualifies as a legal argument. He simply wrote his personal opinion about why he thought this would be the best way forward, then tried to justify it.

He may have been right. But that was not his job. Supreme Court justices are not wise old sages to be consulted for their wisdom on difficult issues. They are to determine whether laws passed by the legislative branch are Constitutional. Their personal opinions are irrelevant, even worse for them to be imposed upon us.

Justices quote other cases, which is appropriate, considering the importance of legal precedent. But sometimes they quote other writings of legislators who passed laws to help define what the laws mean. The problem with this is that the legislative process involves a countless number of compromises, and regardless if one side wrote about their personal opinion in some other context, only the words in the legislation that were agreed upon when the law was passed should be law. The infamous “separation of church and state” principle, for example, came from a personal letter of Thomas Jefferson’s. Thomas Jefferson’s personal letters should have no more force of law than Donald Trump’s tweets.

When justices are not bound by the words of The Constitution in their authority, they can do whatever they want. Sitting Justice Stephen Breyer is on record saying that the “Court cannot do its job without a careful understanding of foreign law and practice.” What do other countries’ laws have to do with the American Constitution? Do any of us want to be ruled by other countries’ laws? The late Justice William Brennan was even more transparent when he candidly remarked, “You can do anything around here with five votes.” That was a man who believed there were absolutely no limits to his authority.

Therein lies the problem. When SCOTUS issued its opinion on Roe, there were 32 states that banned abortion, 14 that restricted it, and 4 that had repealed bans that were previously in place. That’s how the democratic process works. Elected officials, accountable to the electorate, pass laws and sometimes repeal them. And the Tenth Amendment clearly says that all powers not given to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states. So when five or more justices think they know better based on any reasoning whatsoever except for what the Constitution says, that is not democracy. They are overruling the democratic process, throwing out democratically passed laws. That is dictatorship, or in this case, oligarchy, “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons.”

As one legal scholar put it, “We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.”

Back to Justice Kennedy’s retirement. There are factions of society that would have you believe that this is the end of the world as we know it. Why? Because there is a long list of initiatives that in spite of not surviving the democratic process have been imposed by doing an end run around the legislative branch and getting five justices to dictate them upon us.

You may be happy with the results of the Court’s edicts thus far, but what if you were not? When Congress passes laws we do not like, we can vote them out. When SCOTUS dictates their personal opinions upon us, we have no recourse.

If Roe were overturned, that would not outlaw abortion in America. What it would do is properly return that decision back to the states. The issue could be debated, and rightly so. And officials who are elected by their people to represent them could make whatever decisions they want.

That is democracy. And that is what America is supposed to be.

Respectfully…

MPM

Posted on

the hottest of messes

[Intramuralist Note: Today features Guest Writer #4 in our annual summer series; the opinions expressed may or may not be held by me, but I value the writer’s expression and their commitment to respect…]

 

Police cars sound in the distance. A look of sheer panic flashes in her eyes as she begs her teacher to know if it is yet another bomb threat.

An over-the–road truck driver’s family learns of his whereabouts when he does not return home at the end of dropping his load. No one would have guessed he would never make it home alive.

“If I could ask my son one question, I would ask him how it felt, after he pulled that trigger, to fall into the arms of Jesus,” sobbed a grieving Pat, the father of a colleague who committed suicide at the end of school last year.

One common thread binds these three stories together. One consistent — dare I say, “friend” — proves to be there. 

Tragedy…

Tragedy… those events, which cause each of us great suffering, destruction, and distress.

Tragedy comes in many shapes and sizes. You know those moments… those that nearly do us in, leaving us breathless. 

The truth is stingingly real. Not a one of us is immune to tragedy. Each of us is impacted by the tragedies that touch our lives. Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a something that changes within us. Whether it is our thought process or our coping skills, I am not sure.

Or maybe it is our hearts. No one can answer that question for us. We must each take the time to look at who we are from the inside out.  

Another profound aspect of tragedy is that it plays no favorites. It does not concern itself with demographics or statistics. It comes when it comes…

Maybe it is a mass shooting such as Sandy Hook or Columbine. It could be a bomb threat at a school in rural southern Indiana “where things like that just don’t happen.” It could be the events that push a college friend to see no other way out but to take his own life. Or, even more surreal, perhaps it is that over-the-road truck driver who is your brother that was out of your life more than he was in and is now gone far too soon.  

Hear my heart. Regardless of what your tragedy may look like, it is okay to own it and be real with exactly where you are. If a struggle is there: say so and then let’s figure out how to rise up. We are all in this boat together friends! We are all a HOT MESS!!  

At the very least, we all have the great potential of becoming a hot mess. 

Just think how much sweeter this world of ours would be if we could only recognize that place in each other. We have to start within ourselves. We have to allow ourselves to walk in the freedom of knowing that we are all on level ground; we are not so different from one another.

Tragedies and joys alike are going to come. We will each face these moments in our lives. And we can all rise above. 

So this is my challenge to each of us… 

Can we strive to walk this road together? Can we walk beside each other, leaving room only for love, grace, and respect — and the freedom to do so regardless of what that looks like for each of us? … knowing it will look differently for each of us?

With you in the fray… respectfully…

The Hottest of Messes

Posted on

living simply

[Intramuralist Note: Today features Guest Writer #3 in our annual summer series; the opinions expressed may or may not be held by me, but I value the writer’s expression and their commitment to respect…]

 

“Live simply so that others may simply live.”

This is a difficult statement because it requires us to define the word, “simply.”  

It does ask us to decide the difference between two very different words: NEED as in “must have… survival, you know” — and WANT as in “sure-would-be-nice-to-have and-fun, too”!  Of course, the internal argument that goes on in determining an answer is easier if we can quickly convert the “wanted” to the “needed.”  But that truly isn’t a solution, is it?  So why is it such a challenge?  

Well, one word suggests we may need to give up something or maybe make a change in lifestyle or abandon the “I-deserve-it” mentality. And does less make any sense (almost un-American?) or is having more really being self-indulgent? Tough questions if we really want to be honest with ourselves. Now some of you may have stopped reading now because no one likes thoughts and ideas that make us uncomfortable. But I will share a small personal example. 

This want-need struggle of mine first became apparent when I moved into a different house, one which I did not own. Along with all the possessions moved into the house were just the loveliest set of bath towels that were ideal in the former house… but now they were completely incompatible with the decor of the new bathroom, a total aesthetic nightmare in my eyes at least. Now I know any reader will have an immediate solution: “Paint!” Remember I said it was not my house, and it was inappropriate for me to get the permission of the owner. And then there were the realistic positions which I confronted literally and figuratively: The budget is tight.  We can’t afford this. Just get over it. And finally, the last straw, will the towels still do what a towel is supposed to do?  

Now this may be a trite example, but for many of us this “want-need” struggle still affects our lives, especially if we are trying to follow the Biblical truths that address the acquisition of “getting” and the teachings on “giving.”  But what if those truths mean we would really have more, not less?  

More of what, you ask?  

Here are only a few answers:

MORE room in our closets (… shall we have a shoe counting contest?)                                                         

MORE resources to help those who really do have needs… food, clothing, shelter…

MORE time to serve others, not just stuff that keeps us busy or on the go.

MORE rest not invaded by worry of bills, keeping up with the Joneses, etc.

MORE sharing of words that express appreciation, compassion, kindness.

So, make your own list of MORE’S…

And by the way, that opening statement — “Live simply so that others may simply live” — was written by Henry David Thoreau… I think Jesus would agree with him.

Respectfully…

DL

Posted on

who will make a difference?

[Intramuralist Note: Today features Guest Writer #2 in our annual summer series; the opinions expressed may or may not be held by me, but I value the writer’s expression and their commitment to respect…]

 

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States…

“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports, in 2016: Suicide was the tenth leading cause of death overall in the United States, claiming the lives of nearly 45,000 people. Suicide was the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34, and the fourth leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 35 and 54.There were more than twice as many suicides (44,965) in the United States as there were homicides (19,362).”*

The first time I heard of Thirteen Reasons Why I was looking at a long list of titles to be read in a very short time on a syllabus for a graduate class in adolescent literature. I knew nothing about it. Fast forward some years later and I heard Netflix was turning it into a series. I wondered how they were going to turn a single adolescent novel into a series with adult appeal. Being an avid reader, I am familiar with the concept of censorship and controversial subjects. Being an educator, I am aware of being sensitive to subjects that might be better addressed at home than in a school setting. The subjects tackled in the novel are hard and frankly not something I was sure I wanted to watch. Somehow reading the words on a page wasn’t as difficult as the thought of viewing the story acted out. Being an adolescent isn’t easy, and being the parent of adolescents isn’t any easier. For those of us who have been touched by teen depression in ourselves or someone we love, the thought of watching a story about a teen who chose to end her life hits a little too close to home. 

Thirteen Reasons Why is a novel by Jay Asher. It tells the tragic story of a young teenage girl named Hannah who committed suicide and left behind a series of audio tapes explaining her reasoning behind her decision to take her own life. The tapes are delivered in order to thirteen people with whom Hannah had a relationship. Hannah tells each individual how he or she impacted her life and her decision. In the TV series, each character is shown trying to come to terms with how Hannah’s secrets could impact them and deciding whether or not Hannah’s accusations were true. 

The story raises many more questions than it answers. The producers of the show decided to tackle many teen issues in this series. Due to its popularity, there was a second season in which the story is extended and the characters continue to deal with the loss of Hannah and testifying in the trial in which Hannah’s parents try to make the case that the school should be held responsible for allowing a culture of bullying and sexual harassment to exist and for neglecting to see that Hannah was assaulted by the star athlete.

Controversy has surrounded both the book and the show. It has caused much discussion and debate around the topics brought up and how the producers decided to tell the story. Some mental health professionals were concerned that the story glossed over the need for mental health intervention. The kids interact with each other but avoid seeking adult guidance. There was concern that the show glorified suicide and used graphic seasons to gain ratings.

It took me a long while to get up enough nerve to watch the first season. I was hooked. The actors and actresses are compelling and took me right back to what it was like being awkward socially and trying to navigate the minefield of popularity and social pecking order. I remember how intense every interaction was and how it felt like every decision seemed to hold your future in the balance. I remember being the bystander when one of the social outcasts was verbally and physically assaulted in the hallway by a popular football player for the crime of being different. I remember being torn between not knowing what to do to stop it and at the same time fearing the ramifications of standing up to one of the popular people. I remember the girls who gave in to what the boys wanted in an effort to be liked and popular. I remember getting laughs by making fun of someone to the point they got someone to threaten to fight me to shut me up. Most of all I remember how alone I felt when it came to a support system for decision-making in the teen world. Some things are just too hard to talk to your parent about, and turning to fellow adolescents for advice doesn’t produce the best wisdom.

At the end of each season there is a follow up episode in which the producers, actors, and consultants are interviewed. The producers get a chance to explain why they chose to tell the story in a particular way. The audience asks questions about various aspects of the show. I wonder how many people skip those episodes? I really get the feeling that the producers of this show do a lot of research and take their job very seriously. Some may question their motives. I believe their intentions are sincere. Do they get everything right?  No. Do they make us start talking about topics that need to be addressed? I think so. Do teens have all the answers? Of course not. Do they make bad decisions? Of course they do. Do we need to do a better job of checking in with each other? I think so. 

The bottom line is we all play a role in each other’s lives. We have to ask ourselves how we can be a part of the solution. In America, suicide is one of the top ten causes of death. Among people aged 10-34 it is the second leading cause of death. How can we change this alarming trend? Can we check in on each other more often? Can we check on the strong, silent types who may be struggling quietly and go unnoticed because they aren’t drawing attention to themselves? Can we look beneath the behavior of the class comedian to recognize when humor is used as a mask for pain? Can we be slower to anger and judge, offering grace more freely? Can we do a better job of including the odd kid and checking on the lonely? Can we change the way we view mental illness so we remove the stigma surrounding it and make access to mental health as quick and affordable as medical care? Can we be brave enough to stand up to those who bully and offer support to the bullied? Can we listen without judging? Can we notice what is right with a person rather than constantly being critical? Can we do our part to make the world a little more loving and a little less scary for the souls we encounter daily? If we don’t make changing this statistic a priority who will?

Respectfully…

AST

[*https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml]

Posted on

state of civility

[Intramuralist Note: Today features Guest Writer #1 in our annual summer series; the opinions expressed may or may not be held by me, but I value the writer’s expression and their commitment to respect. Enjoy!!]

 

A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events… a guiding principle of the Intramuralist is to express one’s opinion while respecting those who hold an alternative perspective. Such is the essence of civil discourse. If the mission of this website is to lead by example so that others will debate the issues of the day in a civil manner, is anybody following that example?

Not so much, I’m afraid. Take a look at these events over just the last 12 months since the last Guest Writer Series:

  • An employee was fired from his job for a memo he wrote challenging the effectiveness of his company’s diversity programs.
  • A white separatists rally in Charlottesville, VA turned deadly when a man intentionally drove his car into a crowd of protesters.
  • Football fields turned into political battlegrounds pitting players against fans over protests during the National Anthem.
  • A tenured law school professor was removed from teaching mandatory first-year courses after challenging racial preferences in college admissions.
  • A left-leaning magazine hired a writer away from a right-leaning magazine and then fired him after one column due to backlash from its readership.
  • Protesters hounded a cabinet member at a private dinner and another restaurant refused to serve the White House press secretary.
  • A congresswoman advocated for further harassment of administration officials.
  • The congresswoman herself was harassed in response.
  • A comedienne used vulgar profanity on her TV show to insult the president’s daughter. (She apologized, but only to women.)
  • An opinion website was hounded into deleting a column defending an actress cast to play a transgender role, leading to the columnist’s resignation.
  • Trump supporters organized a boycott of a retailer for selling “Impeach 45” clothing on its website even though it was placed online by a third party.

I could go on. It seems we can’t even get to “live and let live.” Not only do we feel the need to tell those with the opposing viewpoint how wrong they are, many of us want to hurt (either physically or financially) those on the other side. They need to pay a price for disagreeing with us. It should go without saying that is not a healthy attitude to have.

So what to do about it? A few humble suggestions:

  1. Recognize that we are all part of the problem – Your incivility may not be as bad as others’, but are you as civil as you could be? If not, you are escalating the rhetoric which can lead to harmful outcomes.
  2. Acknowledge that everyone has biases (even you) – We are all inclined to focus on (or ignore) certain data points based on our perspective. As such, we don’t always see the world as it really is.
  3. Admit that you are not always right – Even if you think you are right 99% of the time, maybe this time is part of the 1%. Allow for that possibility, and it will be easier to retract your words if you have to.
  4. Disconnect from social media – Personally, I deleted my Facebook and Twitter accounts a couple years ago. I find myself to be a much happier person. Even if you don’t want to totally disengage from those platforms, try going without it for a few days and experience how little you miss it.
  5. Don’t type anything you wouldn’t say to someone’s face – Why is it that we are much crueler when we type things than when we’re speaking in person? Imagine that the person you’re communicating with is in the room with you when you type.
  6. Read some opinion you disagree with – Find some civil writers from the opposite side of the political spectrum and try to understand the issues of the day from their point of view. It may not change your mind, but it should change the way you interact with those you disagree with.
  7. Be honest with your self-assessment – There are some people who get an emotional high from arguing. There can be an addiction to adrenaline that comes from debating controversial issues just like any drug. If you think that might be you, seek professional help to preserve your personal relationships.
  8. Consider that Trump is a symptom, not the problem – I know, I know… some of you really, really hate Donald Trump. I’m not a big fan myself, but here’s the thing. He could not have risen to power were it not for the toxic political environment that existed before he was elected. He knows how to take advantage of uncivil discourse, but it did not start with him, and it will not go away after his presidency unless we do something about it.

Bottom line… before you speak, THINK! Is it True? Is it Helpful? Is it Inspiring? Is it Necessary? Is it Kind?

Respectfully…

PJM

Posted on

the voices of others

When the Intramuralist began nearly 10 years ago, there were some baseline principles we vowed to embrace, such as:

All people are created equal.

Everyone’s voice is valid.

Everyone deserves respect.

Disagreement does not equate to disrespect.

How we handle disagreement matters.

Listening is a virtue.

We are each endowed by our Creator.

None of us have life all figured out (… especially since we are each endowed by someone other than self…).

Focusing on what is good and right and true is best.

Dialogue leads to both solution and growth.

Insults, ridicule, and judgment kill both solution and growth.

I’m certain there are more than the above top ten, but these are principles to which we have consistently attempted to adhere.

Have we always done so? 

Great question. Probably not.

There have been times I did not listen well. There have been times I played the judge and pointed fingers more than shared well-thought-out perspective. There have been times I, too, unfortunately, have chosen to rant and rave and perhaps even ridicule. There have been times I have thus been hypocritical. 

Such is not my desire. But I — just like you — am very imperfect.

This side of heaven — even though endowed by that Creator with certain unalienable rights — I will sometimes fail, screw up, and royally fall flat on my face. Such is the nature of being human; is it not? 

But I will not quit striving — striving for what I deeply believe to be good and right and true.

That said, one of the principles embedded in the above, is that you need not always hear from me. Other voices are valid. Other voices are pertinent. We do not all agree on all things, but that doesn’t matter. We must listen to — and learn from — one another. We are sharpened by the one who thinks differently than we. That, my friends, is part of the beauty of diversity… a beauty that too often contemporary culture fails to acknowledge.

Beginning Sunday, therefore — and continuing for the next 3-4 weeks — you will hear from some trusted, articulate friends of mine. Yes… it’s time for our 10th annual Intramuralist Guest Writers Series! … an opportunity to hear from multiple individuals from multiple perspectives… men and women hailing from varied ethnicities and demographics. Please know: the opinions shared may or may not be held equally by me… but that doesn’t matter.

What matters is that we listen well to one another.

We can learn much if we actually listen to another; hence, this thought-provoking series will feature multiple guest writers sharing unique perspective regarding what’s going on in our world. You will hear about the Supreme Court, civility, some alarming suicide statistics, and far more. Feel free to agree, disagree, engage, and ask questions of them. Simply, as always, be respectful in your response.

Respectful…

Indeed… may our respect for one another — imperfect as we each are — always be intentional and clear. It is both a privilege and joy to be on this journey with you.

Blessings, friends…

AR