intramuralist ™

Here we are. It’s our sweet, annual summertime encouragement where we pivot to the manifestation of listening to diverse voice and perspective. As author Steve Goodier once cleverly quipped, “We don’t get harmony when everybody sings the same note.”

Let’s be honest; the past 10 days there hasn’t been a ton of harmony; in fact, the days have been ripe for discord. I chuckle (sometimes it’s easier to chuckle than wrestle with the shockingly sad reality), but my strong sense is that if we only listen to likeminded voices, we walk away with an imbalanced ear. 

Note the sobering, not-very-fun example in the week that was. As we each attempted to find a way to make sense of the President not making sense, many most addressed the lies of the former President. That’s valid. Also valid is addressing all the lies told to make us think the current President was cogent and ok. Hear that contrast as advocacy for no one; it’s not. It’s a reflection of varied perspective, which acknowledges there are indeed serious concerns about both the sitting and former President — and as of this posting, still the two primary Presidential candidates… albeit those odds decrease daily. Way too many feel like it’s acceptable to lie.

Friends, I don’t say that to egg anyone on. I have yet to corner the market on wisdom or perspective, and the reality is that such is never going to happen this side of heaven. Truth is, it’s not going to happen this side of heaven for anyone else either. There will always be things we don’t know, places in which we have inaccurate perspective, and places in which we have inaccurate perspective but are completely clueless of our own inaccuracy, passionate as we may be.

That said, it’s vital to listen to others. Let me say that differently. It’s vital to listen to a variety of others — people hailing from a wide range of varied social, ethnic, faith, political, educational, etc. backgrounds… people from different demographics… people with sundry stories. We often learn most when we lean into and listen to the story of one different than our own. Thank God for that beautifully insightful opportunity.

Hence, as delightfully said above, here we are.

It is time for one of the Intramuralist’s favorite practices, our annual Guest Writers Series! Over the course of the next 5 weeks, you will hear from an articulate group of communicators from all sorts of backgrounds. They are ages 20-something to 80-something (still cogent, of course). They represent various ethnicities, genders and political leanings. They have advanced degrees and no degrees. And they are passionate about a plethora of manifold matters. You will hear about Caitlin Clark, climate change, and the collective human experience. You’ll hear the journey of one parent who struggled with the all-of-a-sudden, somber diagnosis of a defect in her previously thought-to-be, totally healthy young son. You’ll hear about patriotism, Covid, and more.

But let me tell you what these gifted communicators most have in common…

They desire to share with you in a way — whether in agreement or not — that is respectful… that encourages you… that makes you think. They do not believe in insult. And they are wise enough to know that agreement is secondary to how you treat other people. Only one is a manifestation of wisdom.

In the meantime, I will take a bit of a respite… time to engage in a season of intentional rest, gratitude, and also travel and personal reflection. I’m eager to think and dream and pray and reflect… What should we talk about this fall? … What perspectives am I not all that humble about? … Where are my perspectives incomplete? … Where have I been unwilling to see potential inaccuracies? … Where can I grow?… Good stuff, friends… indeed, good stuff.

For the record, please know that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Intramuralist. I may agree. I may not. But again, agreement is secondary. That’s something I wish we all recognized a little more these days. It would help with the respect.

We learn from one another. We learn from diverse voices. Let this year’s Guest Writers Series begin. P.S. I’m so grateful they don’t all sing the same note.

Respectfully…

AR

Intramuralist, can we talk?

Absolutely. I’m not perfect at respectful dialogue. Never have been. I’ve screwed up multiple times and still do. But there is no conversation we can’t have. I really do believe we’re all in this together.

Thanks. I’m struggling this week with what’s happening in our world. It’s hard to find a way to put all I feel into words. It’s hard to find a wise angle in. I’m frustrated and flabbergasted and disappointed and sad and angry and sometimes even a little hopeless all at the same time. I really hated last week’s debate. I know, I know — it’s been this way for a long time, but it’s like all of a sudden, everyone realized it. I realized it. Before, I was able to tune most of the dysfunction out, not realizing the American political state is as awful as it actually is. I was able to find solace in one of the sides, aware that it wasn’t perfect, knowing they keep trying to divide us, but feeling like I wasn’t sacrificing anything significant. I no longer feel that way. 

I watched a lot. Read a lot these past few days. And I found myself resonating maybe most with the words of Scottish historian Niall Ferguson who wrote this week about the “known” finally being known. “The president is senile. The former president is a blowhard. Both these truths have been obvious for years.”

Ferguson formats the painful resulting question as follows: “Why has the American political system provided voters with this terrible choice between two embarrassing old men for the post of president?” 

Some will make their peace about our collective conundrum by concluding that one man’s flaws are decisively worse than the other. Usually that’s a statement about how only one stands for democracy; the other wants to destroy it. And then I remember how both parties actively worked to keep any unity ticket from being on this year’s ballot. I have trouble with each parties’ means of defining and defending democracy.

But after watching the shots heard ‘round the world last week, I know I’m far from alone in being confused with what is good and right and true. The enormously inconvenient truth — as hard as this is for many to accept — me, included — is that it’s not clear to me what good and right and true actually is.

Not being clear on that doesn’t make me wrong, misguided or delusional. It doesn’t make me anti-patriotic, undemocratic or outright stupid. It doesn’t make me evil either. It also doesn’t make the person on the other side of me more educated, more enlightened or smarter than me. It doesn’t make them more sophisticated either. 

It means as they’ve processed what they’ve seen and prioritized, they’ve come to a place where they have peace about their choice. I hope they do. I want that for each of us. For me, I simply don’t have peace yet. And last week made it worse for me. What do I do?

I wish it was an easy answer. I wish I could just say, “Vote for – – – – – and feel good about it.” But I can’t. There are concerning factors about both people and parties.

And so I suggest a bit of a humble listening tour. Listen to a diverse set of voices. The other night after the debate, I did something unusual: I watched television news. I typically read my news so as to better filter out the biased and more sensational voices. 

I circled through four stations Thursday night: CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and NewsNation. It was fascinating, and it certainly helped with my processing. (For example, I perceived the perspective of David Axelrod, Van Jones, Dana Perino and Chris Wallace to be most honest and insightful.)

So be humble. Listen to other perspective. Ask more than speak — especially when you don’t understand. Ask instead of assess. Refrain from judgment of other people. And hard as it may be, remember we’re all in this together, even if many don’t want us to believe it is so.

Respectfully…

AR

Put the politics aside. I understand such to sometimes be a difficult task, but clearly the politics are secondary to reality. Today’s post isn’t about the November 5th election, which candidate lied most, nor anyone’s golf game. Allow us to begin with a bit of fiction, courtesy of Hans Christian Andersen, as summarized by the University of Colorado Boulder:

There was once an Emperor who loved new clothes to the point of excess and spent all of his money and time buying and showing them off. One day, two swindlers come to the town disguised as weavers, and claim to be able to make beautiful garments with rich colors and patterns, but which are only visible to those who are worthy of the positions they hold, and are invisible to the impossibly dull and those who are not fit for their jobs. The Emperor is enthralled and gives them a large sum of money in advance to make the clothes. He wishes to check up on their progress, and, having his own reservations, sends his minister to see the weavers in his stead. The faithful old minister finds the two swindlers pretending to be hard at work at their looms, and can’t see a single bit of fabric because it is not really there. He worries that he may not be fit for the position he holds, and does not dare tell the Emperor he cannot see anything, so he pretends to be able to see it. The Emperor sends another official to see the stuff, and the same thing happens to him. Soon, the whole town is talking about how splendid the fabrics are. Wishing to see it for himself before it is taken off of the loom, the Emperor goes accompanied by the two men he had sent to check up on it. He cannot see a thing either and worries that he himself is not worthy of being the emperor. But, he lies, and exclaims that the patterns and the colors are beautiful. Everyone in the suite agrees with him, and the two swindlers are given an order of knighthood. The next day, a very big deal is made out of dressing the Emperor in his new clothes, and they tell him that they are marvelously light so that he will not feel like he is wearing anything at all. They ‘dress’ him, and he starts a procession to show off his new clothes, with chamberlains pretending to be holding up his train while he walked. The entire town pretends, also, to see the clothes, until a little boy shouts that he is naked, and everyone else begins to say the same thing. The Emperor knows that they are right, but continues with the procession anyway.

For months — make that years — we’ve been told we don’t see what we see; we’ve been told the clothes are actually there, but we are unable to see them, it’s just a stutter, or someone has slightly manipulated what we see.

The shock heard round the world Thursday night was that it was painfully clear that there were no clothes, it wasn’t just a stutter, and no one manipulated what we saw. Pres. Biden looked dazed and confused. And that was before he opened his mouth. That was before he answered a question about abortion by talking about illegal immigration. This wasn’t just a bad debate performance; it wasn’t a question of character either. It was evidence of indisputable cognitive decline. And that’s not just an Intramuralist assessment; that’s the assessment of a majority of media outlets which are typically partial to the President.

Friends, remember that politics is secondary. This isn’t an analysis of the candidates nor the coming contest; this doesn’t negate any of the valid concerns many of us have about Biden’s opponent. The current sobering disquietude is that we have someone in the highest office in the land, with access to the nuclear codes, advising world leaders, who is not ok. And I am being kind. The belief that dementia is setting in is indeed plausible.

What I’d like to know, no less, is why didn’t they tell us? Why weren’t those near to Biden, those who speak for Biden, those who cover Biden tell us? Why were they dismissive in February when special counsel Robert Hur reported that he was opting not to bring classified document misuse charges against Biden because “Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”? Why did they block the audio tapes of Pres. Biden’s testimony from being released? Why did they act offended when the Wall Street Journal reported 3 weeks ago that “behind closed doors, Biden shows signs of slipping”?

Simply put, why have they lied? Why did they attempt to get us to believe that the sitting President of the United States was looking spectacular, running circles around everyone, wearing some kind of imperial, “marvelously light” clothes? And don’t they know that if you’re willing to lie about one major thing, you’re likely to lie about a whole host of others?

In the classic “The Emperor’s New Clothes” the reader knows from the beginning that the weavers are dishonest. The reader then sees how the deception plays itself out on a bigger stage, as repeated tales are told. We saw that on Thursday night’s stage. What a sobering reality.

I said earlier that politics are secondary. I believe that. I want what’s best for our country. I want what’s best for Joe Biden. I also don’t believe that equates to sitting in the highest office in the land, with access to the nuclear codes, advising world leaders, and not being ok.

Respectfully…

AR

And here we are, time for the first Presidential debate for 2024. Ugh. Yes, there are still 129 days as of this posting until the election, and yes, this is unprecedentedly early, as neither candidate has even been officially nominated as of yet. But after months of debating if they’ll actually be debating — and knowing that extended, skillful dialogue is not a perceived strength of either candidate (albeit for very different reasons), it’s interesting what people have been saying about Thursday’s primetime match up… 

“As we near Thursday’s debate, Americans are fixated on whether Joe Biden will stumble on stage or Donald Trump will blow up in rage. Anything’s possible in a debate – especially when both candidates are high-wire acts,” begins RealClearPolitics contributor Ron Faucheux.

“In an age when we have become inured to the drama in presidential politics, there is still something about this week’s debate that sets the pulse racing. There has probably been no occasion in the modern era when the stakes of a presidential debate have been so high, the competition so close, or the candidates’ performances so unpredictable. The direction of the long campaign, its outcome and even the ultimate identity of one of the party’s candidates could hinge on this 90-minute encounter in Atlanta. Do I exaggerate? Perhaps,” writes The Wall Street Journal’s Gerard Baker.

“Rarely, if ever, has one candidate in a presidential debate had so much material to use against the other,” and, “Can Biden perform? Can Trump tone himself down?” writes AP’s Steve Peoples.

“How do you run a debate between two men whose combined age is two-thirds that of the US republic? The answer is to have no audience, mute the one not talking and schedule bathroom breaks (calling them commercials). It would be an overstatement to say that next week’s clash between Joe Biden and Donald Trump will be definitive. But in a close election in which each candidate’s mental capacity is under scrutiny, it will matter a lot,” wrote the Financial Times Edward Luce.

“This week’s debate between President Biden and Donald Trump won’t produce much in the way of civil dialogue over the nation’s future. It’s more likely to resemble a demolition derby, with each contestant trying to knock the other off course. And, let’s face it, many viewers will tune in mainly for the crashes,” says Los Angeles Times columnist Doyle McManus.

“Even if people are unenthusiastic about candidates, they want to see if there’s a meltdown on stage. And there could be two types of meltdown. Trump could have an anger meltdown, and Biden could have an age meltdown,” said Bipartisan Policy Center presidential historian, Tevi Troy.

“It’s an incredible test of their cognitive competence. This is our chance to see how much they’ve declined or if they’ve declined,” said University of Arkansas political science professor Patrick Stewart.

“Donald Trump and Joe Biden come into Thursday’s presidential debate as incredibly well-known quantities defined by shared unpopularity and competing weaknesses. But their most important liabilities — for the incumbent, his decrepitude and his record on inflation; for the challenger, an unfitness distilled and confirmed by the events of Jan. 6 — feel too well known to be worth discussing further until we see what happens on the stage,” writes New York Times opinion columnist Ross Douthat.

“So, we’re going to party like it’s 2020 all over again,” writes Salon’s Heather Digby Parton.

I suppose it’s sad that we are so far removed from the primary purpose of good debate, that is “to generate effective critical thinking into primary issues in the given topic.”¹ As indicated by the eloquent chorus above, the promotion of critical thinking is trivial at best. The candidates are attempting to score points, look more popular than they really are, and land socially acceptable, rhetorical knock out blows… none of which, dare I say, qualify as good and right and true.

Perhaps the commentary the Intramuralist most resonates with comes from CNN contributor Terry Szuplat, who avers that “most Americans say they want more civility in our national discourse.” In encouragement of how to get there — craving either Biden or Trump would lead us wisely (aka omit the knock out blows) — Szuplat recommends they debate the issues by utilizing the following:

• Have some humility.
• If you want to persuade, don’t condemn.
• Don’t otherize, demonize, or dehumanize.
• Don’t “fight” for your country.
• Appeal to common identities.
• And remember the values we share.

We have more in common than we do not, friends. I wish the candidates realized that, too.

Respectfully…

AR

¹ University of Illinois Springfield, ION Professional eLearning Programs

With all the discussion of age in recent months, perhaps there is something we can learn. Question, in fact: do we recognize youth as a strength? Note the following, fascinating stories of success. Yes, there is much we can learn…

The first emperor of Rome, Augustus Caesar, became a Roman senator at 20 years old.

Joan of Arc was 17 when she helped turn things around for France.

French mathematician Blaise Pascal began developing a handheld calculator at 19.

Louis Braille created the Braille language for the blind at only 15 years of age.

Mozart wrote his first symphony at the wee age of 8.

Also in the music world, Beethoven published his first work at only 13.

Mary, mother of Jesus, was said to be only up to 17 at the time of his birth.

History’s King David was crowned at age 30.

Moving to a bit more of a contemporary season, Bill Gates was 20 when he founded Microsoft.

Steve Jobs was 21 when Apple was born.

Malala Yousafzai spoke out against the Taliban and how they treated women, becoming the youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize at age 17.

Not only was Jesse Owens recognized as the world’s fastest human at 22, but he also was credited with “single-handedly crushing Hitler’s myth of Aryan supremacy.”

Several young authors led via their youthful creativity… Mary Shelley writing Frankenstein at 17 and both Charles Dickens and Truman Capote having iconic success at only 24.

Creativity continues as one Miss Taylor Alison Swift began professional songwriting at 14.

The “King of Pop” Michael Jackson went solo also at only 14.

We get a little older but remain youthful when we remember that Elon Musk founded SpaceX at 30.

And Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu — aka Mother Teresa — founded Missionaries of Charity at age 40.

At 52, Colin Powell became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest position in the Department of Defense, becoming the youngest officer to serve in this capacity.

Lest we forget the athletes, Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes each led their teams to their first Super Bowl wins at age 24.

And the one and only Nadia Comăneci became the first Olympic gymnast to score a perfect 10.0 at only 14 years of age.

Suffice it to say, there is great talent, leadership and gifting in our youth.

While I will always offer and encourage deep respect for those who’ve gone before us — those who have deep wells of experience and sweet stories to share, I feel like we need to tap into our younger generations. Instead of being the “one” — the leader, head honcho, top dog, you-name-it — those who are wisest know when to tap into others who could also be the “one.” Wise leadership is never self-preserving.

Last week, no less, as written, our staff participated in an interactive, team building event. Indeed, it was “epic.” There were four teams, each with a pre-chosen leader, a gifted, very capable captain.

Who were our captains?

Well, our four youthful interns and apprentices, of course. What a joy to see them succeed.

Respectfully…

AR

Who we listen to matters. Not every voice is wise to speak on all things. For example, I would never ask Donald Trump to write a book on “How to Win Friends and Influence People” nor Joe Biden on “The Art of Public Speaking.” 🙂

Today is Juneteenth, the day in the U.S. when all finally found out they were free. Freedom is a beautiful thing. While the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Pres. Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863 officially changed the legal status of enslaved African Americans, that message did not get to all people. Imagine not knowing you are free.

Who speaks on this, no less, matters. And while some may speak, not all voices carry the same level of wisdom. I realized such 4 years ago when I read 17 books on race, seeking understanding in an area where I was fairly ignorant. One of those disappointing public voices to me was Ibram X. Kendi, who promoted the idea that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Sorry, but that doesn’t resonate with me as good nor God-honoring. The God I serve believes in discrimination of no one.

One voice that has long resonated with me is Condoleeza Rice. Yes, she is a Republican. That doesn’t make her good nor evil; it’s her story. She became a Republican in 1982 much because of the influence of her father, whose political affiliation was “because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did.” Again, let’s resist buying into this binary notion that either Democrats or Republicans are all good or all bad. They both have issues. But all this to say, Rice is a wise voice. Hear her words on Juneteenth…

Toward the end of my term as Secretary of State, I had the opportunity to visit the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Permanently displayed in the Rotunda alongside the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights is the Emancipation Proclamation. As I stood reading, I felt the presence of my ancestors. I said a little prayer of thanks to them—and to God—for the great fortune of being born American.

Most Americans are familiar with the Emancipation Proclamation. Issued by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, it declared freedom for millions of slaves living in the South. Today, however, many Americans remain unaware that two more years would pass before the enslaved living in Texas learned of their freedom. 

It was on June 19, 1865, that Union soldiers arrived in the farthest territory of the Confederate states—in Galveston Bay, Texas—bringing with them the news that slavery had been abolished. Major General Gordon Granger read out General Order No. 3: “The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them, becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages.” 

While there was still a long road ahead—it would be nearly 100 years until the Civil Rights Act was passed—this was an important step for the 250,000 people still enslaved in Texas, and one they probably didn’t believe would ever come to pass.

A century after General Granger marched into Galveston Bay with those Union soldiers, I was growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, which was then the most segregated city in the country. My father couldn’t vote with reliability. We couldn’t go to the movie theater, sit at the lunch counter, or go to school with white children.

I was eight years old when, on a Sunday morning in September 1963, the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed. I felt the blast a few blocks away in the church where my father was the pastor. Four little girls, two of whom I knew, were killed.

But our community rallied and held close to one another. Despite the struggles of those years, we knew how far we had come from that fateful day in 1865.

Every year on Juneteenth, my parents and I talked about what our ancestors must have felt the moment they found out they were free and used it as an inspiration to keep seeking a better life here in America.

But even though my family has been celebrating Juneteenth since my childhood, it wasn’t until 2021 that Congress voted, almost unanimously, to make Juneteenth National Independence Day a federal holiday. Because many Americans are unfamiliar with its significance, some, perhaps understandably, wonder why it needed national recognition at all. After all, all Americans celebrate the Fourth of July—the ultimate celebration of our nation’s founding, of our independence and our liberty. 

To me, Juneteenth is a recognition of what I call America’s second founding. 

Despite our nation’s extraordinary founding documents about equality, this country was founded as a slave-owning state. That is our birth defect. But the words in those carefully crafted documents—written by great men who were themselves flawed human beings—ultimately lit the way toward a more perfect union. In some sense, the history of the United States is a story of striving to make their soaring words—We the People—real to every American. It’s the story of becoming what we profess to be.

When I was sworn in as 66th Secretary of State by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I glanced up at a portrait of Benjamin Franklin in the State Department. I wondered what he would have thought of this great-granddaughter of slaves and child of Jim Crow Birmingham pledging to defend the Constitution of the United States, which had infamously counted her ancestors as “three-fifths” of a person. I wanted to believe that Franklin would have liked history’s turn toward justice and taken my appointment in stride. 

Today, just as I once did with my parents, I will celebrate Juneteenth. I will think about my ancestors and what they must have felt when they were liberated from slavery. And I will give thanks for being born in a country where such moral progress is possible. That is worth celebrating not just by black Americans but by all of us. 

Respectfully…

AR

Bruce: “How do you make someone love you without affecting Free Will?”

God: “Heh, welcome to my world, son. If you come up with an answer to that one, let me know.”

. . . . .

One of my movie faves is the 2003 comedy, “Bruce Almighty,” with the star-studded cast of Jim Carrey, Jennifer Aniston, Morgan Freeman and Steve Carell. Besides showcasing the talents of the aforementioned individuals (like Carrey and Freeman above), especially tapping into their comedic genius, it’s also seemingly pretty theologically sound and encouraging in how it encourages us to relate to God and to other people.

Carrey portrays Bruce Nolan, a career TV newsman who’s upset after not attaining the coveted anchorman position. He believes he’s a victim of absolutely everyone and everything. He has convinced himself in his victim speak that God is treating him badly. The course of the movie shares the growth in his relationship with God in clever, clever ways.

Suffice it to say, there’s not a lot of maturity in Bruce as the movie begins. As with each of us, maturity of faith (or lack of it) is oft visible via how we treat other people. That’s not rocket science; a timeless truth is that God asks two primary things of those who follow Him: (1) Love Him. (2) Love other people.

Bruce isn’t all that loving when the viewer initially meets him in the movie. Concisely put, Bruce is incredibly self-focused. When graciously bestowed by God with divine power for a week, in fact, Bruce immediately blesses himself with a chic new sports car and snazzy outfit as well. (Did I mention clever?) Clearly put, therefore, Bruce’s self-focus is what most would deem as unhealthy. That’s no attempt at subtle judgment; for purposes of this discussion, we’re equating “unhealthy” with not good nor anywhere close to God-honoring.

It got me thinking: is an others focus always healthy? Is a focus on other people always good and God-honoring? Is it what we’re called to do?

And I think it is… most of the time… when the focus is pure… when the intent is honor, kindness and consideration… when the shifting of attention is actually for the appreciation or well-being of the other… when it’s not really one more not-so-clever cover up of a hidden, still self-focus. Yes, intent matters.

I’ve noticed a way we move to an others-focus that is unhealthy, meaning not good and not God-honoring. It’s not for any good of another… it’s more for the deflection of attention on self…

Maybe they won’t see how frail I am if I point out their weakness instead…

Maybe that minor character flaw of mine will pale in comparison if they pay more attention to him…

What I did really wasn’t so bad. Look at them…

And just like that we create a moral barometer based on something less than what’s good and right and true. We create a moral barometer based on comparison and other people.

Why? 

Because it’s easier.

We see this in social media. We see it in self. We see it in political candidates. It all just feels so impure so many days. No wonder we keep losing faith. It is not good and right and true.

Would you look at them…

Sorry, friends… 

When we use other people in an attempt to make ourselves look better — that’s all of us — me, included — we don’t look any wiser; we don’t look wise at all. We are only attempting to reroute attention so there exists less reflection on our own behavior.

That seems unhealthy.

Respectfully…

AR

I had a great discussion with one of my life-sharpeners the other day. You know those people. They are the ones with whom time spent is always fruitful… always producing of something better… in me. Granted, I have to be humble enough and discerning enough to recognize that something better is necessary and possible.

We were talking about the WNBA and how they are reacting wisely (and poorly) to their unprecedented popularity and the reaction to rookie VIP Caitlin Clark. (If not a women’s basketball fan, sports fan, etc., hang with me, friends. The point of this post is not about Caitlin nor women’s basketball nor about any perceived transgression within a potential gender pay gap.)

As our conversation continued, we spoke of the reactions of some of the league veterans. One name came up, where my sharpener praised the former player, saying he really liked her. I paused.

When the league marked their 25th anniversary a few years ago, they celebrated the significance by releasing “The W25,” designating the top 25 players in WNBA history. The player my sharpener mentioned was a name near the top of that list. 

I met her once.

I met her in the middle of her storied career. Oh, indeed… she was an excellent player. Unquestionably gifted, talented and she clearly made the people around her better. Suffice it to say that she possessed most everything we’d say we want in a star player; she deserved that top 25 status. Except for one thing…

She wasn’t kind to me.

Not only was she not kind, I found her to be rude, arrogant and a little snarky, too. Don’t get me wrong. I can definitely appreciate some timely, witty snark here and there. But this was different.I perceived this as an unattractive cockiness that seemed to come with celebrity status. I was grateful to meet her, but it was not an enjoyable experience. She didn’t seem like any kind of life-sharpener. And now, I am the one being kind.

Here, no less, is the point of our thinking this day…

There’s no question that my experience with this star athlete was real. It is equally true that my reaction to our interaction was valid. It doesn’t make me “right” or “wrong” (way too binary of a response choice), but as said, my emotions were valid — meaning well founded and having a sound basis in logic.

But here’s what’s also true…

My one time experience with the celebrity does not define who she is, even though my experience was real.

In fact, it would be unfair of me to think I could determine who she is via a single incident.

Hence, I wonder…

How often do we convince ourselves we are capable of discerning the character of someone after a sole interaction?

… as if that interaction represents all another is?

Thank God I am not defined by a singular interaction … like the time I was openly judgmental of a dear friend… the time I flatly refused forgiveness (she didn’t deserve it)… or the time I yelled another timely snark (or maybe expletive) on the baseball field… at a 12 year old.

“But I know them!” We justify. Thinking one interaction means we know them.

No. We don’t.

Single interactions don’t define us. Thank God. But single interactions don’t define others either.

Respectfully…

AR

Next week I have a really fun event prepared for my staff. We love team building. We work hard. We enjoy play. We have multiple, extremely talented individuals on our team. We also encourage emotional, physical and spiritual healthiness. In that health, we value, too, the importance of relational connection amidst professional execution. 

Thing is, this event is a surprise. So at this stage of the planning, I can’t give them all the details. In fact, I don’t really want to give them any of the details. I want them to save the date, save the time, and then trust me with the process.

I also, though, want to ratchet up the excitement. I want them to be greatly looking forward to this thing they don’t know that they’re actually going to do.

And so as I was writing the email designed to hype what’s happening — without really giving them any information other than time, date and “trust me” —  I found myself using a surfeit of superlatives…

Excellent… deeply valuable… epic…

My desire is to utilize words that make my team believe this is going to be good… even though they can’t see what I see or know what I know.

The embedded question of integrity, no less, rests on whether I believe it. And for our event next week, I’m pleased to share that indeed I do.

But herein lies the problem in our words.

Too often the integrity isn’t there. Too often the person who speaks the words doesn’t believe the words. The words are still intentionally chosen, but instead of them being an attempt to help another see what the sharer sees, the words are an attempt to make the hearer believe something that contradicts what they actually see. The words are an attempt to manipulate the perception of the person on the other side of them.

No doubt, unfortunately, that’s one of the reasons we’ve lost significant trust in so many of our leaders. On all sides. They often employ words we know are not true; they say what they want us to hear — not what is true. In my head, I’m trying to be respectful, but usually I want to retort with something along the lines of, “Do they think we’re stupid?”

We see it blatantly in Presidents 45 and 46. With all due respect, 45 seems to speak in an entire language of superlatives, routinely invoking the words “greatest” or “best.” Kurt Andersen wrote a playful piece in The Atlantic a few years ago, cleverly educating us all in “How to Talk Like Trump.” Utilizing superlatives, just to discuss Trump’s play on the word “positive,” for example, Andersen points to his use of “amazing / beautiful / best / big league / brilliant / elegant / fabulous / fantastic / fine / good / great / happy / honest / incredible / nice / outstanding / phenomenal / powerful / sophisticated / special / strong / successful / top / tremendous / unbelievable.” The chosen words often seem an attempt to make something better than it is.

We saw it again this week with the Wall Street Journal’s research. The WSJ published a report on Pres. 46’s performance in private meetings headlined “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping.” Understandably, some did not appreciate the acknowledgement of decline, especially feeling it was an unbalanced, partisan piece. But some in defense prompted that question of integrity, suggesting no mental slippage exists. They want us not to believe what we actually see, as centrist Joe Klein detailed: “I feel a sharp stab of concern every time I see Biden in public—his eyes slits (too much plastic surgery), his words mumbled and slurred, his gait unsteady. I’ve known this man for nearly forty years and he does seem different now.” The chosen words here, too, seem an attempt to make something better than it is.

My point this day is not to offer any advocacy or opposition to any of the above. The point is that we often use words to create an impression that doesn’t actually exist.

Next week, by the way, I have something really fun planned for my staff.

Did I mention it was epic?

Respectfully…

AR

Ugh. It was approximately 2:36. Did I mention “a.m.”? 

We had each fallen into bed just 3 hours prior, having driven 7 some hours after a long day and even longer weekend. We were spent. It had been a great time, but the hours of traveling with still more to go left us each feeling a wee bit exhausted, although grateful for a clean, comfortable, fairly nice place to rest our heads for the evening, prior to resuming our drive the next day.

And then at a hair more than half past 2, the alarms sounded loud. Everywhere.

It’s a little disorienting when the fire alarms flare when sound asleep in a strange hotel in an unknown city… Where am I? … What’s going on? … What should we do?

And without much coherence of thought, trying to look semi-presentable (emphasis on “semi”), we threw on a bit more clothes, maybe a ball cap, flip flops, and got out the door, to the stairwell, and moved awkwardly but swiftly down the steps exiting the building, joining the now jolted, herded crowd of others wondering what to our sleepy eyes should appear.

We saw nothing. No smoke. No fire. Not even a flicker.

Not a fire engine either, for at least 10 minutes. 

The crowd grew slightly, although the consistency of ball caps and especially flip flops was indeed sporadic.

Unfortunately, however, as we attempted to do our best undercover work with zero announcement or hotel staff communication combined with the ebony in the evening clouds, one of our investigative trails — noting the time of year and recent weather trends — was to probe local storm activity. Sure enough, one of those sometimes helpful/sometimes terrifying national weather apps let us know that at the moment, there were 6 active severe alerts across the country… 1 of which was a tornado coming straight toward us, only 20 miles to our west. 

Yikes. Inside or outside? Fire or tornado? 

Let me also now acknowledge the magnified level of difficulty in our collective decision making on so few hours of sleep.

Semi-futilely one could say, we chose inside. What a night.

We sat in the sullen lobby another 20/30 minutes, waiting for which firestorm would first erupt. The half dozen firefighters meticulously searched the areas of greatest suspicion. The clouds outside got darker. But alas, there was no explosion inside or out. The firefighters said the scene was clear; we could go back to bed.

But here was the thing — and here is where we hang today…

What happened was bad. Concerning and confusing. You name it. It was uncomfortable. Undesirable. And it only multiplied our exhaustion. The hotel staff was not responsible for what happened, but they were charged with leading in the moment — figuring out next best steps and directing all those of us (with or without shoes). Yet it was clear they didn’t know what to do. So what did they say to us?

What did they say that night or even the succeeding morning? How did they address the negativity we all so obviously went through? What did they actually say?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

No one on staff said a word to any of us. No one addressed the situation. No one handled the hard. There were no voicemails on our room phones nor any notes slid under our door. There was zero communication.

This, of course, got me thinking…

Sometimes we face challenges that are immense or intense and we don’t know what to do; we don’t know where to start. Sometimes, too, we’re afraid; we’re fearful we’ll fail and then be held responsible; we’re afraid it will then equate to the loss of agency or influence. And so sometimes, we miss the opportunity. We miss the opportunity to problem solve and build the relationship via the hard.

We didn’t need anything from that hotel. We didn’t need a comp room or free coffee or even lunch on them upon return. But had the staff of the hotel simply had any conversation with us, they would have secured a future stay. Acknowledging the issue — respectfully discussing the difficulty and discomfort — builds relationship. Relationship can handle the hard.

I went to bed still thinking the other night. Everyone else quickly crashed back to sleep. It was then that I heard the thunder begin to roll in…

Respectfully…

AR