intramuralist ™

So why would we pay so much attention to royalty? I mean, she really had no political power; her family’s distinction is more symbolic than one denoting a ruling authority.

So what is it about Queen Elizabeth II that prompts the unprecedented pomp and circumstance of the week?

Why did they broadcast live?

And better yet, why did we watch?

It was expected to be the most-watched moment in TV history. Estimates are that more than half of the world’s population watched it. I wonder why…

Maybe, just maybe, it’s because Queen Elizabeth stood for something more.

Maybe, just maybe, she stood for something different.

Even though a celebrity, she seemed to never divorce herself from the call to service.

Even though so obviously privileged, she seemed to never equate privilege with entitlement.

And even though she lived a life where the eyes of the masses were always upon her, she seemed to never think of herself as one who had so much to give to them; she instead possessed the keen awareness of wondering what others could instead teach her.

As the Intramuralist joined the enormous viewing crowds, there was one description of her repeated by many that magnifies all of the above — all of what’s most responsible for our collective attraction to and deep respect for this Queen who’s tenure spanned more than seven decades…

It was said of her that it was more important to her to be seen and not heard.

Allow us to say that again: seen and not heard.

With all due respect, how many of our leaders walk into a room with the goal of listening both first and most?

How many could care less about their Instagram status?

How many never posture themselves in anything other than a humble position?

I’ll be honest… when penning this post, I again found myself wrestling with the idea of assuming a humble posture. With all the ills and ails in the world, it just may be that our individual unwillingness to consistently frequent and encourage a humble posture may be our most significant sin, weakness, glaring blind spot, you-name-it. 

A humble posture is the opposite of a proud posture. Let us be clear; we speak not of being proud of what we do, proud of who we are, or proud of the gazillions of ways we’ve each been gifted or blessed, even when we can’t see it. That pride is more of an embedded gratefulness.

The pride that opposes humility is one marked by arrogance — better yet, marked by judgment.

Proud people judge people in comparison to themselves…

If I wouldn’t do it, why would they? … If I wouldn’t think it, why should they? … Obviously, something must be wrong with them.

The proud’s extension of compassion and grace, therefore, is based on — and thus limited by— self. 

Back to the Queen of the United Kingdom… if her behavior towards others was based on self — knowing the massive extent of her celebrity, wealth, privilege and power — who could stand? Who would not be judged?

Hence, allow us a final, respectful shout out/curtsy/bow to Elizabeth II… how inspiring to have such a capable, contemporary, humble leader and example.

Respectfully…

AR 

One of the more fascinating phenomenas we’ve witnessed as of late — and remember, “fascinating” doesn’t necessarily equate to good — is this quiet recognition of the benefits of having an enemy. Having an enemy gives us something to fight against. It inflames our passions… makes us rise up… calls us to action!

Or as Jakub Grygiel wrote in The American Interest in 2018,“The enemy provides an organizing principle for our strategy.” We “compete with them and defeat them — yes, of course.” But no doubt before that, “we can benefit from them.” And alas, we can benefit even if the enemy doesn’t really exist.

Look at how we justify talking about politics. It’s almost as if the tribes — I mean parties — encourage viewing the other as the enemy. That goes for the parties, Presidents, pundits, you-name-it. It oft seems they spend more time creating and condemning enemies than actually finding solution to the underlying problems.

The challenge then is that when our leaders resort to such dishonorable behavior, it begins to play out in other circles. Note, for example, what began to unfold last month on the college campus…

Duke’s volleyball team was playing against Brigham Young in Provo, Utah. Rachel Richardson, the only black starter on the team, said after the match that she was “targeted and racially heckled throughout the entirety of the match.”

She shared this with her godmother, a criminal defense attorney, currently running for office in Texas, who then tweeted: “My Goddaughter is the only black starter for Dukes [sic] volleyball team. While playing yesterday, she was called a [n-word] every time she served. She was threatened by a white male that told her to watch her back going to the team bus. A police officer had to be put by their bench.”

Over the next two weeks, an enemy was created. The story went viral.

Richardson’s father spoke with multiple media outlets. In his interview with the New York Times, he described an alarming scene. Even though the racial slurs continued, his daughter just tried “to keep her head down and continue playing.” He added, “As the crowd got more hyped and the epithets kept coming, she wanted to respond back but she told me she was afraid that, if she did, the raucous crowd could very well turn into a mob mentality.”

In her own interviews, Rachel herself said that as the match progressed, the “atmosphere of the student section had changed,” growing “more extreme, more intense.” Increasingly more, then, we went after the enemy… 

LeBron James tweeted his emphatic support. The Governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, released a statement of disgust. The University of South Carolina women’s basketball team cancelled their upcoming game in November. The Washington Post, CNN, Sports Illustrated, NPR, etc. each published pieces decrying the incident. Note MSNBC’s headline: “The racism on display at Brigham Young Friday fits a historical pattern.”

To their credit, BYU also quickly issued an apology, starting with “All of God’s children deserve love and respect.” Indeed they do. There is no place for racism and bigotry in a wise, thriving society. And not only did BYU apologize, they also swiftly banned the fan deemed primarily responsible from all university athletic venues.

There’s only one rather significant problem. As the weeks and investigation continued, zero evidence has been found of any of the above happening to Richardson or her teammates. There is no evidence of even a single slur. More than 5,000 people were in the arena that day. None of the big cameras covering the court or all the smaller cameras in people’s hands offer evidence supporting Richardson’s account. No one has acknowledged hearing any such utterance.

Let it be said that evidence could still be forthcoming, and again, in no situation should we be supportive of such disparaging behavior. Perhaps, too, Richardson genuinely felt unsafe, but didn’t have an accurate grasp of why.

But let it also be said: what does it say about our journalism when the sources rush to judgment with zero evidence or corroboration? And what does it say about what happens when we create an enemy? There are some reports that the young man banned is mentally disabled.

Fascinating, as well, no doubt, is that the journalistic source that broke the story that there exists no corroborating evidence was none of the media outlets mentioned above. It also wasn’t ABC, CBS, or NBC — none of the national outlets. No. It was the Cougar Chronicle, the BYU student paper.

Remember: fascinating doesn’t necessarily equate to good.

Respectfully…

AR

Many have increasingly serious concerns about the future of this country, especially with leadership continually prompting questions of competency, compassion, morality or radical ideology. In my search to find an effort that is more good and right and true, I have landed in “No Labels,” a respectful, bipartisan, problem-solving group. We have monthly calls, discussing aims and plans in order to make our country better. This past year, in fact, I’ve met with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gov. Pat McCrory and Gov. Larry Hogan. Two weeks ago it was with popular New York Times columnist, David Brooks. Today’s post is reprint of Brooks’ public response to that call. Take a look. What No Labels is planning is downright fascinating…

“What happens if the 2024 election is between Donald Trump and somebody like Bernie Sanders? What happens if the Republicans nominate someone who is morally unacceptable to millions of Americans while the Democrats nominate someone who is ideologically unacceptable? Where do the millions of voters in the middle go? Does Trump end up winning as voters refuse to go that far left?

The group No Labels has been working quietly over the past 10 months to give Americans a third viable option. The group calls its work an insurance policy. If one of the parties nominates a candidate acceptable to the center of the electorate, then the presidential operation will shut down. But if both parties go to the extremes, then there will be a unity ticket appealing to both Democrats and Republicans to combat this period of polarized dysfunction.

The No Labels operation is a $70 million effort, of which $46 million has already been raised or pledged. It has four main prongs. The first is to gain ballot access for a prospective third candidate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The organization is working with lawyers, political strategists and petition firms to amass signatures and establish a No Labels slot on the 2024 ballots. The group already has over 100,000 signatures in Ohio, for example, and 47,000 signatures in Arizona.

The second effort is to create a database on those Americans who would support a unity ticket. The group’s research suggests there are 64.5 million voters who would support such an effort, including roughly a third of the people who supported Donald Trump in 2020 and 20 percent of the Democrats who supported Joe Biden in that year, as well as a slew of independents.

The group has identified 23 states where it believes a unity ticket could win a plurality of the vote, including Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Minnesota and Colorado. If the ticket gained a plurality in those 23 states, that would give its standard-bearer 279 electoral votes and the presidency.

The third effort is to find a policy agenda that appeals to unity voters. The group has come up with a series of both/and positions on major issues: comprehensive immigration reform with stronger borders and a path to citizenship for DACA immigrants, American energy self-sufficiency while transitioning to cleaner sources, no guns for anyone under 21 and universal background checks, moderate abortion policies with abortion legal until about 15 weeks.

The fourth effort is to create an infrastructure to nominate and support a potential candidate. There’s already a network of state co-chairs and local volunteers. Many of them are regular Americans, while others are notables like Mike Rawlings, a Democrat and a former mayor of Dallas; the civil rights leader Benjamin Chavis; and Dennis Blair, a former director of national intelligence.

The group has not figured out how the nominating process would work, though it wants to use technology to create a transparent process that would generate public interest. There would be a nominating convention in Texas, shortly after it becomes clear who will be the Democratic and Republican nominees.

The people who are volunteering for this emphasize that they are not leaving their parties. This is not an effort to create a third party, like Andrew Yang’s effort. This is a one-off move to create a third option if the two major parties abandon the middle in 2024.

The big question is: Is this a good idea? To think this through, I’ve imagined a 2024 campaign in which the Republicans nominate Trump, Biden retires and the Democrats nominate some progressive and the No Labels group nominates retired Adm. William McRaven. (I’m just grabbing his name off the top of my head as the sort of person who might be ideal for the No Labels ticket.)

The first danger is that the No Labels candidate would draw more support away from the Democrats and end up re-electing Trump. This strikes me as a real possibility, though Jenny Hopkins, a No Labels activist from Colorado, tells me, “I find it easier to find Republicans who want to pull away from Trump than it is to find Democrats who want to pull away from Biden.”

The second danger is that the No Labels candidate fails to generate any excitement at all. Millions of Americans claim to dislike the two major parties, but come election time, they hold their noses and support one in order to defeat the party they hate more.

The last competitive third presidential option was Ross Perot in 1992. He ran as a clear populist outsider, not on the moderate “unity” theme that is at the heart of the No Labels effort. On the other hand, the gap between the two parties is much vaster today than when Perot ran against Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. There is much more running room up the middle. Plus, the country is much hungrier for change. Only 13 percent of American voters say the country is on the right track.

This is one of those efforts that everybody looks at with skepticism at first. But if ever the country was ripe for something completely different, it’s now.”

Respectfully…

AR (& David Brooks)

I’ll admit. I’m a little bit jealous. In a good way, if that makes sense.

Just watching from afar. 

And as hard as it no doubt is for many, something embedded within is so good and right and true. 

Maybe it’s because of how respected author and encourager Jennie Allen framed it…

“Reasons we respected the Queen:

1. She submitted to something bigger than herself for the good of others. 
2. She was not controlled by her emotions.
3. She lived a quiet life, and could have but didn’t draw extra attention to herself. 
4. Her identity seemed secure despite a constant global spotlight and criticism.
5. She was slow to speak and thoughtful with every word.
6. She was wholeheartedly committed to her marriage and family.
7. She regularly displayed wisdom and courage in unthinkable circumstances.
8. She saw her life as service.”

Elizabeth II — Elizabeth Alexandra Mary — unexpectedly led the British monarchy for near 71 years. While monarchies may seem somewhat archaic and ineffective, something about the Queen of the United Kingdom was not.

Her wise words were many…

“It has always been easy to hate and destroy. To build and to cherish is much more difficult.”

“We may hold different points of view but it is in times of stress and difficulty that we most need to remember that we have much more in common than there is dividing us.”

“Each day is a new beginning, I know that the only way to live my life is to try to do what is right, to take the long view, to give of my best in all that the day brings, and to put my trust in God.”

And so are the wise words about her…

From Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, who’s known the Queen since childhood: “Her Majesty’s reign spanned so many decades – a period when we came into our own as a confident, diverse, and forward-looking country. It is her wisdom, compassion, and warmth that we will always remember and cherish.”

From Elton John — or Sir Elton, as he is more formally known in the UK:  “She led the country through some of our greatest and darkest moments with grace and decency and a genuine caring warmth.”

And from New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern: “Here is a woman who gave her life, utterly, to the service of others. And regardless of what anyone thinks of the role of monarchies around the world, there is undeniably, I think here, a display of someone who gave everything on behalf of her people, and her people included the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.”

The extent of the heartfelt, admiring tributes is unprecedented. And what do they overwhelmingly speak of? … her decency… compassion… servant-heartedness… commitment to her family and faith… her thoughtfulness… not seeking of the limelight… and her enduring consistency in all of the above.

So why jealous?

And why in a good way?

Because even in grief it feels good to pay tribute to a leader, imperfect as they are, that the majority of us don’t question if they are actually worthy and good.

May you rest In peace, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. God be with your family as they mourn now and continue to work out what family looks like. Thanks most, no less, for your humble, absolutely beautiful example to the world.

Respectfully…

AR

So many events unfolded while this semi-humble blogger was on respite… so many currents events that attracted a little more of my attention… from various legislative priorities, to the death of those such as the iconic Olivia Newton John (“Grease” is still the word), to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s significant trip to Taiwan. Please, no disdain nor hurrah for the Speaker’s travels. As one who has actively studied State Dept. and academic analyses in the past year regarding Taiwan independence and its history with China, this is a most nuanced issue. It’s a hollow argument to suggest said act was all good or all bad; it’s complicated. But alas, that seems what 21st Century political activity has oft succumbed to — this notion that an act or stance is all good or all bad. We are thus oft hollow. Oft unknowingly so.

One of issues, no less, that arose while away is Pres. Joe Biden’s decision for the government to repay a nominal portion of outstanding student loans. Thanks to the many who have already, preemptively dialogued with me… some in celebration… some in disgust… and some still a little more balanced — thankful for the aid in their personal predicament but aware of the greater economic effect.

It’s been fascinating to watch play out…

Via Executive Order (meaning no congressional involvement), Pres. Biden announced a plan where individuals making less than $125,000 annually — or households under $250,000 — are eligible for $10,000 in federal loan forgiveness. (Those with outstanding Pell Grants would qualify for more.)

Biden authorized such based on the 2003 Heroes Act, a law which gives the Secretary of the Dept. of Education the authority to waive debt obligations amid a war or national emergency. That law was crafted to care for veterans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11.

Regardless then of legal precedent in addition to individual choice, responsibility and current ability to repay — and also infusing more money into an already inflated economy — this was a unilateral decision. Just last year, Speaker Pelosi, who shares the President’s party, said that Biden lacked the power to make such a decision unilaterally. “It would take an act of Congress, not an executive order, to cancel student loan debt,” said the Speaker.

Hearing the reaction of many, most in support base their advocacy on either (a) their trust of Pres. Biden and his party or (b) how it affects them individually. Most base their disapproval based on (a) their distrust of Pres. Biden and his party or (b) their greater understanding of economics. It is the most expensive Executive Order ever, with estimates from the mid-hundred billions to $1 trillion, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a nonpartisan, widely regarded analysis. To be clear, debt cancellation is not free; the federal government has to pay that money. Taxpayers fund the federal government, and those taxpayers include the millions of men and women who made the decision to attend a trade school, no school or less expensive school, knowing the potential cost to be incurred.

The other reality is that the bottom line issue, in my opinion, is the exponentially increasing cost of a college education; it’s an unsustainable financial burden for future generations. However, this Executive Order, as multiple prominent Democrats and Republicans concede, does not address that issue. The bottom line problem will remain the bottom line problem.

So why? Why do it? Why craft this Executive Action now?

I’ve heard all sorts of reasons. And let me be bluntly honest with you. I don’t know…

A promise? A bribe? Win more to a side?

Midterms? More?

With multiple holes in the reasoning, let us again respectfully ask: why do it now? Some warn it will continue to increase inflation, as the plan equates to even more money chasing still too few goods. Let me suggest, however, that such an impact is difficult to precisely predict; inflation depends more on how consumers change their spending habits as a result, and student loan repayment has been suspended for some time.

So again, let me claim not to know the convincing rationale. I’m grateful several of my friends will find some relief. I’m also sarcastically snickering that several other of my friends making $100K plus will now have their leftover loans paid off by you and me. The bottom line seems the decision makes ambiguous, inconsistent sense.

I will thus add that one of my benchmark standards of living is to act in a way above or beyond reproach. In other words, prudent behavior means acting in a way that criticism isn’t so obviously called for. One might disagree with our decision-making — they may, in fact, do so adamantly — which party loyalists do with regularity — but they understand the decision-making; there is no inconsistency in the logic. This Executive Order — like it or not, benefitting from it or not — doesn’t stand up to said benchmark.

It makes me think of the incredibly brave Rosa Parks — brave in so many contagious, historical ways. Said Parks, “If you want to be respected for your actions, then your behavior must be above reproach. If our lives demonstrate that we are peaceful, humble, and trusted, this is recognized by others.” And we wonder why our government, on all sides of the aisle, struggles with being respected and trusted. Maybe we should learn anew what it means to be above or beyond reproach.

Respectfully…

AR

Once again, we have concluded our annual, superb Guest Writer Series. Thank you first to our articulate writers for sharing their experience and expertise. Thank you, also, to each of you, for reading and pondering their perspective. Remember that we never suggest here that we must all agree. In fact, it’s quite the contrary. We believe we are sharpened by the words and wisdom of other people. And most definitely, by the un-likemindedness — or at least by those who run in different circles than self.

I’ve witnessed some troubling things during my time away. Don’t get me wrong — it’s no doubt been a refreshing, life-giving necessary respite. Intentional rest is a prudent practice, friends, one I’m afraid our culture doesn’t encourage or celebrate nearly enough.

But one of the more solidifying observations in my time away as we watched multiple current events unfold, was the growing number of people who no longer recognize that they can gain wisdom from the person who believes differently than they. In fact, sadly, with some of the more contentious decisions as of late, I’ve heard some really loud voices ostentatiously declare that, “If they think that way, then they are @^%#$!#&*^#!!” (insert derogatory character judgment of choice there).

That’s it, isn’t it?

If someone thinks opposite of us, their character is off… as if only one of us ever has the ability to err in our reason.

We allow ourselves to conclude that because another person believes as they do, that they are either (a) inhumane, (b) stupid, or (c) something worse. And once we can conclude they are “worse” — meaning really, “worse than me” — we can justify not only not listening to them but also demonstrably squelching their voice…

“They don’t deserve to have a voice!”

And just like that we’ve become arrogant…

Judgmental…

And maybe also worse…

Friends, we can’t encourage enough how important it is to listen to other people. Sit with them. Be fully present. Hear their story.

In recent years I’ve taken advantage of the opportunity to sit down with various ends of various perceived spectrums — from the most Covid protectionists to the anti-vaxxers… those who support Roe/those who don’t… those who love Trump/those who hate him… those who support Biden/those who are convinced he has definite dementia… etc. etc. etc.

When I walk into those conversations, my desire is to seek to understand. “Tell me your story,” we say… ”Sincerely share the unfolding of your perspective.”

We each have a story. There’s a reason we think like we do.

When we are present long enough to listen to the story of another, it’s not that the goal is to change one of the respective opinions we each already possess; that’s not it. Listening to another doesn’t need to change our opinion.

But sitting down and showing respect to another by sincerely listening gives us opportunity to grow in our compassion. Compassion for the heart of someone other than self is a beautiful, moral, and ethical response. It is clearly wiser than any arrogance, judgment or something worse.

Hence, as the Intramuralist graciously surges forward this fall in our continued respectful dialogue, let us each be known to be a person marked by their compassion, especially for the un-likeminded. Remember: we don’t have to all agree; such would be a ludicrous expectation. But there is no wisdom in treating any select one poorly.

So grateful to be back. We’ve got things to talk about.

Respectfully… 

AR

Meet my son, Josh. Josh, tell our readers a little bit about yourself…

“Well, for one thing, I boss up every day and all day.”

Help us a little. What does “boss up” mean?

“It means stand up for yourself and own it.”

Is that a good thing? And if so, why?

“Yes. It is a good thing. It’s all about being who you are and who you were created to be.”

I like it. Now before I ask you some deeper questions, give us a few fun facts about yourself — things you like, dislike, habits, etc.

“I like to play video games. I’m a gamer. I love to stay up. I’m almost 21 — this year, actually. I have some talented homies — in both Florida and Ohio. I’m famous on TikTok. Follow me. I love the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. If I had to pick a dog or cat, I’d pick both. I love guacamole — a shout out to my queso buddies. Mexican restaurants are my go-to. I like parties. Ice cream cakes are the bomb. My Birthday Buddy has a piece of my heart. So do Steve and Barbara. Craig and Sally, too. My favorite candy is Reese’s. Chocolate is my friend. NonaStudents rocks. I work at Bark Nona. I love hip-hop. If you notice the words in my stories on social media, you’ll learn and see what I got my hip-hop from. I’m also growing in my faith.”

Tell me about that. I mean, faith is something we’ve each had to figure out on our own. What’s that journey been like for you?

“Well, it’s hard to find faith.”

What makes you say that? Why is it hard?

“Because it’s something that we sometimes think we’re too good to believe. Or we don’t like it or need it.”

Why do you think people don’t think they need it?

“Because we think we know what we’re doing, but we don’t.”

I don’t totally understand what you mean by that. Can you help? What are we missing?

“We like to think we’re in control — especially with all our emotions — and then that causes us problems, leaving God out of it.”

So if I hear you correctly, you have no doubt that God is real, true?

“True.”

Is that a change in you? Did you used to doubt?

“I used to doubt. And I used to have questions. I still have questions about some life lessons, but I don’t have any questions about God being real or about how He feels about me.”

How do you believe God feels about you?

“He tells me I’m here for a reason. Here to stay. And He loves me big.”

What does it feel like for you, then, to know you are loved “big”?

“It’s amazing. Peaceful. And calm.”

Is that a change in you?

“It’s a different heart. A new start. A new day. I just want to love God and love people.”

No judgment — you know we don’t accept that in our household — but do you think current culture understands what it really means to love other people?

“To me, no. Sometimes they think violence or bullying or being mean is ok. God’s not ok with that.”

Do you think that’s just kids? Or are us adults guilty of it, too?

“Both. Adults sometimes think they’re nice or smart, but they’re not very wise. Wise people love people.”

Excellent. Thanks for your encouragement and insight. Anything else you wish to say?

“This blog is about love and respect. All of us need to improve our love and respect.”

Thanks, Josh. I think you rock.

“Boss up, Mom.”

Respectfully…

AR & Josh

There is one word which seems to be part of any news report: “SHORTAGE.”  What then follows is a list of commodities usually followed by a list of possible causes. These shortages over which we have no control cause inconvenience, frustration, and sometimes actual harm.  However, there is one shortage which should cause great concern.  It is not a commodity.  It is one which affects us all; it is one with which we are all very familiar; it is one to which we even contribute.  That shortage is TRUTH.

 As a child I learned the “Thou shalt nots” and heard the playground “Liar, liar,” and even played Truth or Dare.  But as a young girl a personal experience greatly expanded my insight into the concept and impact of truth.  

Influenced by peer pressure, I decided it was time to shave my legs.  Sneaking into my father’s cabinet for the needed supplies, I proceeded outside to my own private haunt and began the task.  So far so good…until I noticed a long trickle of red from shin to ankle.  Obvious my inexperience created a dilemma which needed immediate attention.  Quickly I became my own medic, armed with hastily acquired gauze, tape, etc. Obviously, it was it was not something I could conceal, but I nonchalantly strolled back into the house.  So, who was the first person I met?  My dad.  He took one look at me and said, “Did you fall on your bike AGAIN?”  My response?  Nothing.  Nada. Surely silence is not lying, is it?  Besides I naively assumed that my father knew nothing about this teenage rite of passage anyway.  So, his assumptions were not my fault, were they?  I was home free, UNTIL later that day when I heard him reporting his assumptions as fact to my mother, which immediately activated her TLC.  Now what?  True confession?  Is omission of truth a lie?  Though I was not old enough to analyze this completely, I did feel very uncomfortable since my upbringing included a generous amount of moral instruction which I knew had violated, so I did what we all do… rationalized my behavior.

“The whole truth and nothing but.” That doesn’t really mean the “whole.”

“It’s just a white lie.”  So, what is a black lie?’

“It’s just a fib.” Is that a euphemism for a lie?

“Everybody does it.” Really? Everybody?

“It didn’t hurt anyone?”  Even when the hearer’s actions are then based on a lie?

“The end justifies the means.”  Whose ends?  What means?

“You can’t handle the truth.”  Should that be your judgment call? “

Perhaps we should ask ourselves how we feel when we lie, when we rationalize.  Guilty? Uncomfortable?  Knowing we now must remember what we said?  Then that leads to another question.  How do we feel when we have been lied to?  Do we excuse the liar since he probably used the same rational we used? Do we give them a pass?  After all, if it is okay for me, isn’t it okay for others? 

Questions then? Do we just accept the rationalizations which are rampant?  Is truth the standard only when it is convenient?  Just what is our commitment to truth?  From our elected leaders?  From the media? From the advertisers? From our spouse or our children? From ourselves? Do we even care that the erosion of truth creates distrust, disruption, wrong decisions, disrespect, cynicism…and in the long run harm to our relationships, to our county, to ourselves?   But at least we don’t have to participate, do we?  Or is it all relative? 

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES?

For me, it all began with a razor.

Respectfully…

DWL

It’s me again — the Word Nerd! This Guest Writer is back again. This time my word ponder is the mysterious, yet often used-without-our-thinking-about-it-too-much word. Perception. Have you ever stopped to contemplate or reflect on the word “perception?” It can pack a punch and blindside you when you least expect it. Come; let me show you what I mean…

The word “perception” is a noun. It is derived from the Latin root word: “Percipere,” which is a verb meaning “to seize, understand.” In Late Middle English, there are two words that come together. The Latin word, Perceptio, and the English word, Perceive. Thus, we form the word that we know as “perception.”

Perception, as defined by the dictionary is: 

1. The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
2. The state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
3. A mental impression.

(Or my personal favorite…)

4. Intuitive understanding and insight.

Perception relies heavily on the awareness being brought to us through our senses.  This makes me think about what my Momma and whole host of other Old Timers would say to me when I was younger: “Just trust your gut!” To me, life always seemed a bit TOO risky to just be trusting my body parts to direct and lead me. What if that “ILL” feeling that I had in the pit of my stomach wasn’t my anxiety but just the bean burrito I ate for lunch coming back to haunt me? Or, what if my “perception” or the mental impression I had about someone was completely wrong? Maybe they actually aren’t the lazy, arrogant snob that I had them chocked up to be. Do you see the ongoing quandary that could constantly be a battle for the attention inside my brain box?

This tricky word perception — or more so, the phrase, “it’s all a matter of perception” — has me thinking and wondering. How many times do we make decisions based on how we perceive things to be? How many times do I make decisions based on “my” perceptions? Do we sell ourselves, and others, short because we only pay attention to what we “know” to be true? What if what we thought we knew to be true was only one part of the puzzle to the HUGE picture we call the human race?

All this wondering and pondering taken a few steps farther has brought me to these questions. Are Democrats and Republicans alike in danger of missing the truth about each other because of the perceptions we have about each other? Are all Republicans gun-toting, white supremacists? Do all Democrats really want to do away with our 2^nd Amendment Rights? 

Or…

What about the Southern Baptist youth group kids who had an encounter with the Living God? Was their encounter with God devoid of really having happened because there were things happening that the Southern Baptist does not practice? Does one denomination have the upper hand on hearing from God over another? 

Or… 

What about the school bud driver who feels as though he as quite literally thrown under the bus because he called out an issue with as student and wasn’t heard and then when the unthinkable happened — that bus driver became the fall guy all for “the matters of perception”? How does saving face play into this idea of perception? Or does it? 

Over the last several months, as this word nerd has pondered this loaded word perception, my mind has continually been brought to the words-from a soul far wiser than I could ever hope to be-scripted many years ago…

“When I was a child; I spoke as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now, I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also am fully known,” wrote one of the Church’s early leaders, Paul, some 2000 years ago.

Paul’s words have propelled my pondering, and I have suddenly been left with a whole new set of questions to mull over.  What if this whole idea of perception is some how connected to looking in that dimly lit mirror Paul speaks of? What if we only know in part and the whole will not be “fully” known to us on this side of heaven? Maybe the depth to which we can fully understand the power of perception will only be ours when we fully know and understand who we really are and all we were created to be? 

And that, My Friends, is what I would call intuitive understanding and insight.

In The Fray,

LJS-Your Resident Word Nerd 

A few months ago I attended an opportunity to learn more about others. As with any training, there were various levels of comfort regarding the diversity training. A treasured colleague of mine made a comment to me that has lingered in my mind. “As a Black female I’m sick of others telling me of their good intentions…bottom line, they need to listen to me if they really want to know what the impact is on me. They don’t understand that their intentions have a daily impact.”

I need to thank my friend who expressed her feelings to me regarding intentions vs. impact. Her comment about our training has been most impactful on me, although not her intention. She has made me think daily about various things.

Knowing her comment applied to both ends of the spectrum of those attending roused my curiosity into how people make decisions. Do we truly consider all real and perceived impacts of our intentions? Have we developed a sense of the pain our “good intentions” may cause? We all develop constructs in our mind of what something is or isn’t. That is necessary to have better understanding of everything we experience. But are our experiences broad enough to make decisions that do not harm others personally or emotionally? Are there critical questions we should ask ourselves, especially when making the most difficult decisions?

Do we truly hurt others unknowingly in ways that have a lasting impact? When our lives are overwhelming do we cling to that which we know more tightly? Why don’t we ask this question more authentically on a regular basis? 

Think of the various responses to the non-violent raising a closed fist on the Olympic winners’ stand several years ago, returning Vietnam Veterans in the early-mid 1070’s, “taking a knee” protest or the reactions to recent Supreme Court decisions. On a much smaller scale, how we react to family and friends? Do we really consider what it is like to walk in another’s world or consider what road of experiences they have traveled to come to their reactions?

How often have we tried to do something nice, just, or with “good intentions” only to find the impact was far from our expectations? Even hurtful to others. Our decisions can have long term consequences for both ourselves and others. If you have ever been a parent, good friend, leader of an organization or elected to a position, this has happened more than you care to admit. How often have you said, “If I had only known?”

 Being willing to absorb another’s experienced anguish or joy can often have influence in how we impact others, but also how we make a difference in our own lives. Remember when someone just smiled at you when you were having a bad day? Have you ever been in a tent alone with a mosquito?

Was there a difference made?

Our eldest son, who switched his various science majors more than once during his undergraduate career, came to the conclusion second semester of his Senior year that he never wanted to take another science class ever again. He faced a quandary as an integrated physiology major because he wouldn’t graduate on time with his current major nor would he be happy in a future healthcare provider career.

His intentions were good when he started. He loved science. Taking every advanced class at a university in which he could enroll, only to find after four years he no longer liked any of the classes. He did what he always did when he had major decisions to make; he called home. He was truly trying to reckon how to move forward, but also to let us know that we had just paid his four years of undergraduate studies that he may not actually use in the future. I give him credit for having the bravery to make that call. 

We listened to his options: continue with his loathed major and be one credit short causing him to go an extra semester or switching majors again, which may also cause him to extend his undergraduate career. As parents we listened to his angst, his reasoning. He was prepared for us to coax him to remain his course, but instead we listened to his intent. He truly no longer liked what he was studying. My husband summed it up well by telling him, “You have forty years to be miserable in your career, what’s another semester or year to figure it out?” 

It meant another $40,000 tuition added to our budget, but his ability to share his gifts in a profession he would enjoy were more important to us than the financial consequences. We ended the conversation with, “You will make the right decision for you. Just let us know what you decide after you look into your options.”

His trip to his advisor revealed that he could graduate on time if he switched his major to Biology. His counselor also let him know that the application process for graduate school was still open, so he proceeded to apply. He attended graduate school for hospital administration the following fall semester and completed his M.H.A. He has since found that his years of those advanced science classes has made him a more empathetic decision maker as a hospital administrator since he had a better understanding of what health care professionals and patients experience. He has never regretted his decision of switching gears when he was so near the end.

Our intentions were good when he called us, but I am thankful we truly listened to his concerns as he was struggling with a life changing decision. Had we not, the impact could have been very different. 

Respectfully…

VEE