intramuralist ™ – Page 117 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

02/25/201602/25/2016

forget you (ooh, ooh, ooh)

As our ongoing dialogue continues, I remain fascinated by the diversity of our audience — by the many of you hailing from varied walks of life and who thoughtfully, consistently chime in with me, either publicly or privately. I deeply value your opinion and the ensuing, mutual sharpening. I have much to learn.

While there exist differences in the degree to which we individually sense challenges across the globe, one of the areas in which I see significant commonality among the diverse is the recognition of a seemingly ceaseless, moral digression in society.

One of the areas, however, in which I see significant uncertainty among the diverse is the reason for such perceived, moral digression.

Each May, in fact, beginning in 2002, Gallup polls Americans on their outlook on the state of values in the United States; it’s termed their “Values and Beliefs” poll. When asked last year whether the “state of moral values in the country as a whole is getting better or worse,” 72% said that they believe that the paradigm is worsening; in contrast, just 22% said that it is improving.

Consistent with the identified diversity of the Intramuralist’s audience, clear majorities of conservatives, social moderates and liberals agree that America’s moral standing is on the decline. Again according to Gallup’s results: 81% of conservatives say that moral values are worsening; 76% of social moderates concur, as do 58% of self-identified liberals.

Let me ensure I am totally transparent: I cannot offer the exact right answer as to why such a perceived decline exists. I don’t know. I doubt any could concisely identify the exact right reason (even if they rhetorically attempt to attach a political promise to such a perception). But as all good bloggers bravely do at times, I’m willing to take a semi-humble stab… as every now and then in my regular research and reading, a potential answer appears that hits me over the head — about as subtly as a divine two by four.

In the ancient scriptures, written thousands of years ago, I stumbled upon the following, profound question this week:

“What other great nation has a god so near to them like the Lord our God whenever we call on him?”

What a cool concept to think of a higher power being known so intimately and being so in tune to the needs of the people and what’s happening on the planet… One so known by the people that he is recognized to be there whatever the circumstance… one fully engaged… fully aware… omniscient and omnipotent… and… available… “whenever we call on him.”

The question, no less, is followed by:

“Again, however, pay very careful attention, lest you forget the things you have seen and disregard them for the rest of your life.”

Pay careful attention.

The above thus begs the question: is there a relationship between the current moral digression and not paying careful enough attention to what may be good, right, and true?

Have we forgotten something?

Do we teach what we’ve learned?

Is there truth we have callously disregarded?

Just asking questions, friends… wrestling with none other than those divine two by fours…

Respectfully…
AR

02/23/2016

best recent stories

With the plethora of polarizing stories in Washington these days (and with the Intramuralist taking a few extra days to invest in intentional respite), I found the following to be the more encouraging reports of the week. While aspects of each sometimes serve cause for annoyance for some — missing the bigger picture, I believe — the reality is that the bottom line of each brief story has something to do with great joy, empathy, and hope.

From NBC News this weekend…

“This 106-year-old admitted she never thought she’d live to visit the White House — and then gave the president and first lady a surprise of their own.
Virginia McLaurin danced her way across the room as she met Barack and Michelle Obama as part of Black History Month.
‘Slow down now, don’t go too quick!’ joked the president, clearly taken aback at the diminutive centenarian’s energy. The first lady told her: ‘I want to be like you when I grow up.’
McLaurin was born in 1909 in South Carolina and moved to Washington, D.C., in 1941, according to a community Facebook page set up for her. She told the Obamas: ‘I thought I would never live to get in the White House… I am so happy — a black president.’
The video of the meeting received almost 11 million views on the White House’s Facebook page in the first six hours after it was uploaded late Sunday.”

From ABC News…

“John Kasich ended his town hall at Clemson University in South Carolina this afternoon with a hug from a young man who told the Republican presidential candidate he gave him hope amid his personal despair.
During a question-and-answer session, 21-year-old Brett Smith told the Ohio governor he had driven up from Georgia to see him. A man close to him had recently killed himself, his parents had divorced and his father had lost his job, Smith said.
Amid a dark time in his life, Smith said, Kasich gave him hope.
‘I found hope,’ he said, standing before around 200 attendees. ‘I found it in the Lord and in my friends, and now I found it in my presidential candidate that I support, and I’d really appreciate one of those hugs you’ve been talking about.’
Kasich obliged, coming down from the stage and embracing the young man, a senior at the University of Georgia, as he choked up and blinked away tears.
‘The Lord will give you strength, I promise you, if you ask him,’ Kasich said in Smith’s ear.”

And finally, from the homily delivered by Rev. Paul Scalia, the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, at the funeral Mass for his father on Saturday…

“…In the past week, many have recounted what Dad did for them. But here today, we recount what God did for Dad, how he blessed him…
God blessed Dad, as is well known, with a love for his country. He knew well what a close-run thing the founding of our nation was. And he saw in that founding, as did the founders themselves, a blessing, a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned form the public square, or when we refuse to bring it there. So he understood that there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country, between one’s faith and one’s public service. Dad understood that the deeper he went in his Catholic faith, the better a citizen and public servant he became. God blessed him with the desire to be the country’s good servant because he was God’s first…”

Here’s to great joy, empathy, and hope. May those aspects never annoy us. May we never miss the bigger picture.

Respectfully…
AR

02/21/201602/21/2016

the only angle?

Sixteen years ago, many of us were rocked by a shocking incident. The innocent lives of twelve teens and one teacher were claimed instantaneously. Awful. Twenty-four additional others were injured in the attack. The two responsible then committed suicide.

Two teen boys… killed themselves.

At first, there was shock. Then there was outrage.

On April 20, 1999, senior students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed the sadly infamous, Columbine High School massacre. Last week, for the first time — yes, sixteen years later — Sue Klebold spoke out.

Sue is the mother of Dylan. She spoke with ABC’s Diane Sawyer…

Like many parents, Sue Klebold was certain she would have known if something were wrong with her son. Allow me to say that again: she was certain that she would know.

But she did not.

“Before Columbine happened, I would have been one of those parents. I think we like to believe that our love and our understanding is protective, and that ‘if anything were wrong with my kids, I would know,’ but I didn’t know, and I wasn’t able to stop him from hurting other people. I wasn’t able to stop his hurting himself and it’s very hard to live with that.”

Isn’t that the reality?

We think we know when something’s wrong and when it isn’t.

But we don’t.

Said Klebold…

“I want people to be aware that things can seem awfully right when things are terribly, terribly wrong.”

What she wants to say to Columbine survivors and victims’ families…

“The one thing, of course, that I want to say is I am so sorry for what my son did, yet I know that just saying ‘I’m sorry’ is such an inadequate response to all this suffering. There is never a day that goes by where I don’t think of the people that Dylan harmed.”

Diane Sawyer emphasized, “You use the word ‘harmed.’ “

To which Klebold continued, “I think it’s easier for me to say harmed than killed. And it’s still hard for me after all this time… it is very hard to live with the fact that someone you loved and raised has brutally killed people in such a horrific way.”

Truth told, I’m not sure what the bottom line message is here today. I think the point is that it’s easier for us to cast fingers and stones when someone does us wrong. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did us obvious, awful, heinous wrong.

But is that the only angle there is, to process what happened sixteen years ago? Is that the only perspective?

What helps us work it through even now?

What empathy is necessary for others involved? Is any empathy appropriate? Is it inappropriate?

Great questions. Wish I knew all the answers.

Just thankful we’re humble enough to ask and attempt to answer the questions.

Respectfully…
AR

02/18/201602/18/2016

the replacements

The hottest topics of the week seem to be whether or not Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should be replaced by Pres. Obama or how Taylor Swift finally let Kanye finally have it at the Grammys. Since I prefer to focus on the supposed positive, let’s take a look at the court.

Justice Scalia passed away Saturday morning. The politics started that afternoon. (You may have just heard me sigh.) The question raised is whether Scalia’s seat should be filled by a nominee chosen by the sitting president or if the person elected in the November of 2016 elections should instead hold that responsibility.

First, some background…

Article II Section 2 includes the following: “He [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.”

There is nothing that usurps the responsibility Pres. Obama currently holds to propose a nominee.

However, multiple Republicans have averred that Obama should not make such a proposal. Most notably, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Immediately there were claims of obstructionism.

Next, a problem…

In the summer of 2007, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke to the left-leaning American Constitution Society. Note that at the time, Pres. George W. Bush had a year and a half left in his term. Schumer said: “We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not… I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally on the court.”

Note that Schumer’s vow was met with significant applause.

Hence, my conclusion…

Obstructionism occurs by both parties, but outrage is only claimed, feigned, and encouraged when it’s happening by someone else. Also, claims of obstructionism seem utilized most in attempts to turn the public against the so-called obstructionists. Sometimes it works. [Did you hear another sigh?]

Charles Lipson, the well respected, moderate Professor of Political Science and founder and director of the Program on International Politics, Economics and Security at the University of Chicago, has concisely positioned what’s happening like this:

No. 1: No nominee for the high court can get through the Senate before the election. No one.
No. 2: President Obama and the Democratic candidates for president know that. So do Republicans. All God’s children know it.
No. 3: Since the nominee will not be approved, Obama will use the opportunity to advance other goals. He will propose someone who burnishes his own progressive credentials and shows why control of the court depends on the November election. Putting Senate Republicans in an awkward position would be a nice bonus. But the target is November.
No. 4: Obama will nominate someone whose demographic characteristics help in the contests for president and U.S. Senate. That is not just his main criterion. It is his only one. The candidate could be from a purple state. Or a Latino. Or openly gay. Having finished law school would be a plus.
No. 5: The proposed candidate will not receive a Senate vote before the election or in the lame-duck session. If Mitch McConnell even considered it, he would become the former majority leader.
No. 6: Democrats and Republicans will both use the issue to show voters why it is crucial to elect them — and not the other party. Democrats will add that this again shows we have a “do nothing” Congress. Republicans will say it shows we have “do too much” judges.
No. 7: All the rest is political theater, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Political theater… signifying nothing. Ok, I’ve changed my mind… maybe we should go back to talking about Taylor Swift and Kanye.

Respectfully…
AR

02/16/2016

Scalia

There are all sorts of ramifications surrounding the unexpected death of a Supreme Court justice of the United States of America. Within hours Saturday, after news of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — described by The Washington Post as “the intellectual cornerstone of the court’s modern conservative wing, whose elegant and acidic opinions inspired a movement of legal thinkers and ignited liberal critics” — politicians, pundits, and all sorts of people were pondering the path advantageous to pursue. In other words, we often become [sigh] political.

I can’t say I knew Scalia nor his opinions extraordinarily well. But fitting with the mantra of the Intramuralist, there is one aspect about him that stands out to me. I speak neither of the “elegant” or “acidic.” I speak of something arguably more profound. Here is an excerpt from the story that ran a year ago in the Los Angeles Times…

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia seem unlikely friends.

Though both grew up in New York City and graduated from Ivy League law schools, Scalia went on to become a lawyer in the Nixon administration and a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, and Ginsburg led the women’s rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
He’s brash and burly and believes in strict adherence to the Constitution’s original text. She’s soft-spoken and slight and believes in a “living Constitution” that can change with the times. On controversial cases, they are often the most likely of any pairing of the nine Supreme Court justices to disagree.

Despite their standing as the intellectual lions of the left and right, Ginsburg and Scalia have forged an uncommon bond on a court where close friendships outside of chambers are rare.

Their areas of agreement may be few — which is likely to be the case this month when the justices decide whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry — but they maintain a tone of respect. Scalia, 79, and Ginsburg, 82, frequently dine and vacation together. Every Dec. 31, they ring in the new year together. Their relationship has even inspired an opera, set to debut this summer.

In joint appearances, their mutual affinity and gentle joshing delight audiences, particularly at a time of bitter partisan differences that have made friendships across the aisle difficult.
“Call us the odd couple,” Scalia said this year at a George Washington University event with Ginsburg. “She likes opera, and she’s a very nice person. What’s not to like?” he said dryly. “Except her views on the law.”

Seated next to Ginsburg on the stage, Scalia teased her about the minor uproar that occurred after they were photographed together on an elephant during a trip to India in 1994. “Her feminist friends” were upset, Scalia said, that “she rode behind me.” Ginsburg didn’t let him have the last word, noting that the elephant driver had said their placement was “a matter of distribution of weight.” The audience, including Scalia, roared with laughter.

She describes her fondness for “Nino” by recalling the time she first heard him speak at a law conference, before they became judges. “I disagreed with most of what he said, but I loved the way he said it,” Ginsburg recounted…

Their off-the-bench friendship grew over time, aided by Ginsburg’s husband. By day he was a Georgetown law professor and one of the nation’s foremost experts on tax law. But, outgoing and funny, he also was an extraordinary self-taught chef. When Scalia and his wife, Maureen, came for dinner at the Ginsburgs’ Watergate apartment, part of the attraction was the meal Marty prepared.

Shortly after her husband died of cancer in June 2010, Justice Ginsburg came to the court to deliver an opinion. As she spoke, Scalia sat a few feet away, wiping tears…

The bond between Scalia and Ginsburg was special. It was authentic.

Said Ginsburg on Saturday: “He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his ‘energetic fervor,’ ‘astringent intellect,’ ‘peppery prose,’ ‘acumen,’ and ‘affability,’ all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.”

Antonin Scalia was 79 years old. God be with him and his family. May we learn from his example… and from his sweet friendship with Justice Ginsburg.

Respectfully…
AR

02/14/2016

shepherded

Let’s stay on the leadership theme for another day here; it’s an area so relevant to us all, and there’s an additional insight I believe wise to discuss.

I keep toying with what makes a good leader… yes, from the presidency to the pulpit to our places of business… from our homes to our sports teams to all heads of state; this affects each of us.

And I keep coming back to one, profound line:

“So he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them with his skillful hands.”

(Hence, fully in touch with my inner nerd — as I love word studies!) Allow me to first define a few key words…

shepherd (v.) – to feed a flock, to tend to

integrity (n.) – moral uprightness, wholeness, without any evil purpose

heart (n.) – the inner most part, mind, will, soul, understanding

guide (v.) – to lead forth, to show or indicate the way

skillful (adj.) – intelligent, understanding, insightful

When I read that brief but excellent description, I sense that’s what’s scarce in current culture. Instead of men and women focused on carving out the character it takes to emulate each of the above, we instead have persons in authority or seeking authority who value the cameras, microphones, and social media more; they seem so enamored with all sorts of selfies and hearing themselves speak. In other words, too many leaders are “me-oriented” — forgetting that it’s not about who is right, but what is right.

What strikes me, no less, about the above, bold description, is who the “he” is — who the comment was actually said about. It comes from the historical scriptures, in reference to David.

According to all accounts, David was a clear leader. When he led; people followed. When he spoke, people listened. He was powerful and effective.

But what strikes me as profound — and what’s relevant here regardless of being a regular reader of scripture — is that David was quite the flawed individual. He screwed up… he had an affair… he arranged a murder… he covered it up. He was a bit of a mess at times in my book.

Yet — and this is a big “yet” — his flaws did not disqualify him from leading. Let me say that again: his flaws did not disqualify him from leading. In fact, they may have actually made him more effective.

There is no perfect person; there is no person who has never screwed up.

And so all this image casting that we see on a daily basis — be it in press conferences, primaries, or any sort of Snapchat — reflecting an image of always, unprecedented wisdom and ability — is inauthentic. Why? Because it omits our flaws.

The difference with David is that his flaws were not omitted. And by admitting his own foolish mistakes — seeking then both the necessary forgiveness and repentance — David again led well… not attempting to be something he was not… not solely casting himself in the best light… but relating to others via his humility and weakness. That is a humble, effective leader. There was no trace of a boast.

The problem with so many seeking leadership today is that they fail to recognize that the admission of weakness and inability shows us that you actually are “one of us.” We don’t want our candidates/coaches/QB’s/etc. to be perfect; we want them to be real. I will follow the one that’s real.

I will follow the one who gently and insightfully tends to his or her people without any unethical purpose…

I will follow the one who leads according to the integrity of his heart.

Respectfully…
AR

02/11/201602/11/2016

rare leadership

More and more I think we struggle from a lack of great leadership in our country. While I would hope to never fall prone to the historical temptation of clamoring for a king, I do crave wise leadership… from the presidency to the pulpit to our places of business… from our homes to our sports teams to all heads of state. We thrive from great leadership; we suffer from that which is something lesser.

I’m mindful of a piece published in Forbes two/three years ago. In it, contributor Mike Myatt wrote a great piece. Allow me to include a short excerpt here:

“If you ever wonder why we’re in a crisis of leadership all you have to do is to watch and listen to those in positions of leadership. While there are clearly many aspects of leadership that must work together in harmony in order for leaders to be effective, everything breaks down when leaders don’t understand how to engage effectively.

Let’s start with what leadership is not: Leadership is not a monologue, a speech, a lecture or a filibuster. Leadership is not talking at or over people. Leadership is not sequestered, does not live in a bubble or operate in a vacuum. Leadership is not exclusive or arrogant. Leadership is not about the leader.

What we see all too often in today’s leaders are little more than egocentric talking heads. They are so enamored with seeing themselves on camera or listening to themselves talk they have forgotten it’s their job to solve problems, not create or exacerbate them.

History’s best examples of leaders are of those leaders who were/are highly engaged, very inclusive, deeply caring, and highly empathetic. They don’t fear being proven wrong, but are deathly afraid about the thought of being wrong and not knowing it.

The best leaders are not interested in who is right, but what is right. They not only embrace dissenting opinions, but they seek them out at every opportunity. Real leaders are just as at ease when unlearning as they are when learning. And perhaps most importantly, they never pass up an opportunity discuss, converse, dialog, or debate. They know that their leadership is only as good as their ability to engage, listen, discern, and to act.”

Myatt — who describes himself as one who likes to “write about leadership myths, and bust them one-by–one” — hits the nail on the head, in my opinion.

“Everything breaks down when leaders don’t understand how to engage effectively…” how many times have leaders been silent — not engaging, not trusting supposed subordinates with information or perceived transparency. Often they ask for a following, albeit absent any authentic engaging.

“Leadership is not a monologue…” Sorry, I don’t care how brilliant a person is or what his/her teachers in school told him/her. I don’t care about their mind-blowing talent or extensive, academic affirmation. I don’t want my leaders shouting at me nor being the only ones talking. Great leaders need to be able to listen better than they speak. Leadership is not about the leader.

“Leaders are so enamored with themselves…” I have seen far too many whose humility seems to be siphoned away with all upward mobility. They forget that humility is perhaps the most attractive trait in any leader. Note: I speak not of passivity. I speak of a bold, embedded empathy — a mindset of which I never question if the person cares most about self and hearing themselves speak. Yes, history’s best examples of leaders were/are marked by being “highly engaged, very inclusive, deeply caring, and highly empathetic.”

“The best leaders are not interested in who is right, but what is right…” Again, the best leaders care less about their role, their ideas, and their success… the best leaders don’t excessively use first person pronouns… “I/me/my/myself” will always be secondary to “you,” “us,” and “we.”

Oh, how I crave wise leadership… recognizing what a rarity it can be.

Respectfully…
AR

02/09/201602/09/2016

under the micro phone/scope

In case you missed it, there was a bit of a big game on Sunday. Ah, yes, a reported 111.9 million of us tuned in, combining to form history’s third largest Super Bowl viewing audience. And somewhere after arguably most of us left the audience, each team’s quarterback took a turn before the mic.

[Disclaimer notice: as often with our sports posts, I perceive this post to be about far more than sports…]

Winning team QB Peyton Manning was obviously pleased and proud at the mic. Including his repeated, perky promise to “drink a lot of Budweiser” that night, Manning was incredibly gracious and glad in front of the microphone.

Losing team QB Cam Newton was notably sullen and sad. Fielding questions in the same room with a member of the opposing team — who was gleefully sharing how they manhandled Newton — Newton was abrupt with his answers, offered little insight, and in the middle of the session, he got up, despondently walking away.

With no more games then for the next five months (and thus minimal football news flow), many have spent the last two days debating Newton’s behavior. To be clear, Manning said that Newton “couldn’t have been nicer” to him when the two met at midfield after the contest, adding that Newton “was extremely humble.”

Let’s first, though, take note of the regular season… All year, Newton’s behavior has thrilled many fans with his high fives, chest bumps, and joy-filled, flight imitation celebrations. He and his team have had much to celebrate. Some fans, however, saw such exuberance as boastful and brash.

My sense is that one of the reasons Newton’s abrupt appearance stood out at the microphone is because it’s juxtaposed against of the contagious vivaciousness Newton displayed previously throughout the year.

I understand those who have no patience for Newton’s curt, dejected reaction. He’s a grown man, a star in the league, and makes millions of dollars; he is the clear, outspoken leader of his team. A leader must lead through the good, bad, and the ugly. As Hall of Famer Deion Sanders said about Newton, “You are the face of our brand right now; you can’t do that… You’re opening yourself for more criticism, because everybody is going to say you’re dabbing and smiling and smiling and styling. So this is how you go out when you lose?”

Good point. A wise man is gracious in both victory and defeat. The only thing understandably absent in defeat is the grin.

That said, Newton is also only 26 years old.

26.

When I was 26, I admit: I did some incredibly stupid things. (Can I just say again? …thank God Facebook and Instagram weren’t around then…)

But it’s true; it would have been wiser for Newton to act differently… he’s an adult…. he should know better… And sometimes when I was 26, I should have known better, too.

I must also confess… there’s another aspect I actually, oddly find somewhat refreshing — albeit, true, in a rude sort of way. That is, Newton didn’t fake how he felt. Maybe it’s the political season we’re in; maybe it’s this abundance of image branding and rebranding, in which we see continued persons attempt to look better and wiser than they really are; it’s so inauthentic. The fact that Newton didn’t fake the way he felt — the deep dejection after finally getting to the pinnacle of his profession and then losing it — in some ways, makes sense to me.

Thus, while Newton’s public reaction was rude and unsportsmanlike, I also wonder how many other 26 year olds would have had the wisdom and composure to lead well in that moment… under the pressure of the microphone and under the glare of society’s always-watching microscope…

Here’s to leading better, growing in wisdom, and holding onto both the grace and the grin.

Respectfully…
AR

02/07/2016

super bowl 50

One of the things I love about the Super Bowl is that more than most things, “everyone’s watching.” Let’s attempt to put this in perspective…

In the last presidential election, approximately 12.6 million people voted.

In last year’s Super Bowl, approximately 114.4 million of us tuned in.

Granted, not everyone’s old enough to vote, and one doesn’t have to be registered or an American citizen to watch the Super Bowl.

But as said, “everyone’s watching.”

What is also true is that we’re not all rooting the same amount for the same team…

Some people are lifelong Denver Broncos fans; others are diehard Carolina Panther fans (since they first began play in 1995). Some are motivated to cheer on Denver QB Peyton Manning, in hopes of one more Super Bowl win before the future Hall of Famer seemingly soon retires; others are intrigued by the talent and charisma of Carolina QB Cam Newton. Still more cheer on specific others; i.e. my youngest has great enthusiasm for Denver’s defensive specialist Aqib Talib (I think he likes saying his name), and many where I’m from are cheering on hometown hero Luke Kuechly. Still more, no less, are tuning in for commercials only — and several others are only in the room while the game is being played, paying minimal-at-most attention, enjoying this day as one of the world’s premiere social events.

In other words, we watch for different reasons… possess varied passions… feel it differently… express it differently… and are motivated differently. We are, by all accounts, a bit of a divided people group.

As a divided people group, we will eat chips, watch commercials, and remember forever some of the game’s great moments…

We will enjoy the halftime show, and hope for no wardrobe malfunctions…

We will see if Peyton’s still “got it” and if Cam can keep it going…

Yet what I appreciate most about this division, is that while as a collective whole we root for different teams and players — different people and parties — is that there is very little “take that,” “you idiot,” or any demonizing of the other team.

We play the game, accept the results, congratulate the winners, and act like mature adults.

I think that’s it for me…

In much of the division on this planet, there is too much demonizing… too many cave to believing they have been somehow blessed with the omniscient ability to cast another team, player, people, or party as all evil… all bad… all arrogant… all racist… all sexist… all dishonest… all narcissistic… all ignorant… all idiotic… or all yada yada something. Too many see themselves as all-knowing to do such casting. Too many demonize due to division. Too many more justify following along.

One of the things I love about the Super Bowl, is that we are better at dealing with the division…

… and that we eat a lot of chips.

Respectfully…
AR

02/04/2016

too good

Every now and then a story comes along that prompts a bit of a pregnant pause. There’s something that causes me to stop and take an extra glance. Granted, the reality is that in most of these stories, my perspective is limited as our information is incomplete. Such happened recently in the “Land of 10,000 Lakes”… in girls basketball, no less. According to the Minneapolis City Pages, “the definitive source of information for news, music, movies, restaurants, reviews, and events in Minneapolis”…

“Most children are encouraged by parents and coaches to ‘do your best’ and ‘give 100 percent.’ One girls basketball team in Minnesota is being told ‘Hey, that’s way too much.’

The Rogers Area Youth Basketball Association girls high school team was booted from the Northwest Suburban Basketball League for being too good — seriously.

‘We found out Friday at lunchtime that we’re not going to be allowed because according to the league, our girls were too talented,’ coach Jason Hanauska told Fox 9 News.

Hanauska says three teams were threatening to forfeit games or leave the league, so RAYBA was kicked out instead.

Parents of RAYBA players received a letter from the head of their association with this explanation: ‘The Northwest Suburban Basketball League has decided RAYBA does not fit into the league. The main reason they made this decision is because other teams do not want to play RAYBA due to the skill level.’

‘Are we supposed to play worse just to make them happy?’ RAYBA player Tessa McCarthy said.”

After a meeting was held to brainstorm potential solutions on Jan. 25th, the RAYBA team was banned…

…For being too good.

One editorialized report, in fact, read in conjunction with this post, suggested the following spin in regard to the girls’ play:

“They turned out to be monsters, crushing their opponents in the first two games.”

[Emphasis mine.]

I get it. This is tough stuff. It’s hard in the Little and littler leagues when one team dominates. It’s challenging to face another opponent when the chances of winning are seemingly slim. But teenage girls as “monsters”??

There’s a part of me, no less, that’s highly tempted to scream and shout (as much as I actually do scream and shout), wondering if this is a direct result of current culture’s equality bandwagon going too far… having to limit the playing field… giving everyone a trophy… unable to acknowledge differences in performance… unable to affirm excellence in another.

While it is certainly true that “all men were created equal,” it is equally true that “all men” do not possess equal ability.

We have each been uniquely wired by our Creator, doing some things better than others…. possessing some skills better than others… doing some things actually worse (… watch me ice skate sometime; I totally stink). The reality is — which FYI, might actually be a better thing to teach teenage girls — that we are not all equal in terms of ability.

I do confess, that if I was on the other side of that girls basketball team, having to face any so-called kind of “monster,” that would be a hard for me; I don’t like to lose.

But I would also hope that another team being “too good” or more skilled than moi would never be cause for me to quit or them to be kicked out. Otherwise, this embracing of equality — and ignoring of unique ability — has gone too far.

Respectfully…
AR