Current Event – Page 74 – intramuralist ™

09/18/2016

“conduct issues”

On a recent trip out West, we took time out for a baseball game at Chase Field in Phoenix, Arizona. It was a fun game, with the local taco joint promising the tortilla treat to all in attendance if the Diamondbacks scored at least five or six runs.

There were multiple non-sports aspects that got my attention that night — aspects other than the enthusiastic taco pursuit. It was bobblehead night… and a not-so-nice fan actually stole two of our bobbleheads (… yes, sin does exist on this planet). There was also a 9 year old birthday boy, who after ardently advertising his special day, had a ball thrown to him in the stands. His glee was immediately obvious… that is… until he dropped it.

Still, though, another aspect prompted a blog-worthy thought. It was a simple announcement — probably one comparable to messages shared across the country in our stadiums, arenas, and other mass venues — perhaps it oft goes unnoticed. On the large screen, they announced:

“REPORT GUEST CONDUCT ISSUES BY TEXTING:
DBACKS <space> LOCATION and ISSUE TO 69050.”

Simple, I know.   Ordinary, I know.

Makes total sense.

And then it donned on me…

I understand the idea that in the setting of a game, concert, etc., that designated officials would be responsible for attending to guest conduct issues. The audience is there to enjoy the activity for which they gathered; others are taking away from that enjoyment. My sense, though, is that we often take this too far… when we get outside the venue. Notice what’s happening in our our own, small circles…

We all witness “conduct issues” — people behaving in ways that we deem disturbing, disrespectful, and/or odd.

My parents and role models instilled in me years ago that the most effective means of curbing inappropriate behavior was to go straight to the source. Go to the person. Point out the fault. Just between the two of you.

If they listen to you, you have won them over. They still feel respected because you care enough to talk to them one-on-one. You have thus positively influenced their conduct and potentially curbed future behavior. If they don’t listen — and it’s clear the behavior is inappropriate — that’s when you get others involved. That’s when you “text 69050,” so-to-speak.

What makes this a blog-worthy thought, no less, is the realization that we tend to skip a lot of these steps. If we see disturbing, disrespectful, or odd behavior, rarely do we go to the “disturber” first. We often first go to the likeminded, finding ammunition in their knowingly-biased support… and then we’re really good at making passive-aggressive comments on Facebook and elsewhere.

You know what I’m talking about… those indirect expressions of hostility. They may be cleverly worded; they may be witty and make the rest of us laugh out loud. And the slam at the other’s oddness or character sometimes even makes us feel better. Yes, the social media shouting lets the world know of our offense and disgust!

However… it avoids going to the person first.

And going to the person first, one-on-one, respectfully, is what best has the potential to curb the behavior…

Respectfully…
AR

09/15/201609/15/2016

who chooses what we see?

Maybe I just shouldn’t go here. Maybe today’s angle would be better left unstated — like we sometimes do with that younger generation and the teens around the house… we don’t say anything — just stay silent. We sit back, allowing reality to slowly sink in, wondering at what point the embedded irony will speak for us…

First full disclosure: the Intramuralist is a fervent football fan. No, not that hot, burning with intense passion kind of person — I mean, it doesn’t ruin my day if my team loses, and I don’t “hate” any opponent. I just enjoy watching the game, cheering the guys on, appreciating excellent play. In fact, for an extended glimpse into our household, starting last Sunday, our family got back into our fall routine, with 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time commencing our annual “watch-8-games-on-the-screen-at-one-time” exercise. 🙂

Our fandom actually extends into Monday, where on the inaugural annual weekend, the NFL treats us to two games. Game two last week featured the St. Louis — I mean Los Angeles — Rams vs. the San Francisco 49ers. Ah, yes… the 49ers. My sense is that far more than the casual fan is aware of the 49ers these days, as one time starting quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, remains on their roster. He has received increased attention, choosing to sit in recent weeks during the pre-game National Anthem as a stand against perceived police brutality.

As he kneeled (because in my opinion, kneeling looks better than sitting), ESPN’s cameras focused on him, maybe four, five times. Play-by-play broadcaster Chris Berman and sideline reporter Lindsay Czarniak supplied ample info on Kaepernick’s protest, even taking intentional time out at the conclusion of the anthem to share with us a few thoughts about the quarterback, how his protest is perceived to be received, all prior to pivoting back to actual football.

No problem. Each of us is free to choose how to respond to Kaepernick’s actions. As stated here previously, the Intramuralist does not care for Kaepernick’s behavior, as from my limited perspective, he makes his point by disrespecting other people, but I solidly support his right to express his opinion. I support the individual freedom of speech. No one should be forced to stand. I stand — and actually sing — because I’m mindful of all those who’ve fought for us, who’ve fought for that flag, who’ve defended us so that we could be free… and express those varying, individual opinions.

But the target of today’s post isn’t about Kaepernick. In fact, I don’t really pay all that much attention to him. Today’s post is about the irony of what happened later in the game.

Admittedly, even as a football fan, the game was kind of boring. There wasn’t a lot of exceptional play, no razzle-dazzle, and the Rams were especially, offensively challenged. They often seemed to get the ball, run three plays, and then give the ball away.

Knowing I needed to hit the hay (as two games in one night creep past my weeknight bed time), it had become a bit of a yawner to me… that is, until a little unexpected excitement a few minutes into the fourth quarter. With the teams lined up and the Rams futilely attempting to again move the football, all of a sudden the players slowly rose, as “time” had been called on the field. Momentarily, we saw a very enthusiastic 49ers fan come sprinting across the field. He was grinning and laughing and running notably fast (his speed seemingly uninhibited by the other substances in his body). A funny thing then happened…

On ESPN, for a moment, the cameras followed the young man, moving as if to cover him. Yet simultaneous with an awkward silence, the cameras stopped showing the fan. Announcer Berman then shared that there was a fan on the field, but — and here’s where my yawn instantly morphed into an ironic chuckle — Berman said something along the lines of, “Well, we don’t show you that because we try not to pay too much attention to people like that.”

What? You mean you are choosing for us what we should see and what we should not? You are choosing for us from a media-perspective what is worthy of our attention?

Fascinating. Just fascinating.

For the record, I laughed more a day later, hearing tape of the radio broadcast by Westwood One announcer Kevin Harlan. In his all of a sudden, revved up voice, Harlan said,“Hey, somebody has run unto the field. Some goofball in a hat and a red shirt. Now he takes off the shirt! He’s running down the middle by the 50! He’s at the 30!… Now he runs the opposite way! He runs to the 50! He runs to the 40! The guy is drunk!! But there he goes! The 20! They’re chasing him! They’re not gonna get him! Waving his arms, bare-chested — somebody stop that man! Oh, they got him! They’re coming from the left! Oh! They tackle him at the 40 yard line!”

Harlan had a little fun. He also allowed the audience to decide for themselves what was important.

Respectfully…
AR

09/13/2016

stabbing at unity

On Friday, before a friendly audience, Hillary Clinton made the following remark:

“To just be grossly generalist, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call ‘the basket of deplorables.’ Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”

Clinton apologized the next day.

Before getting to the point of today’s post, allow me a few initial disclaimers, as this post is about far more than any current candidate…

First… please don’t use the above as an indictment against Clinton; we have all said inappropriate things. We are capable of saying more.

Next… please don’t use the above as support for Donald Trump; he, too (geesh), has said multiple inappropriate things. He is capable of saying more.

Lastly… please don’t perceive the above as an endorsement for any (note: there will be no forthcoming Intramuralist endorsements). Again, this is not about the candidates; this is about us and whether we truly desire unity more than division.

I’d like to take a stab at extending the call for unity, that so many seemed to embrace a mere two days ago. On the anniversary of 9/11, there was minimal focus on what divides us. Rather, there was the profound realization that even as evil attempted to destroy us fifteen years ago — and continues to attempt to pierce us today — the “united” is still in our states and the flag is still there.

So how do we keep it going? How do we make it last? How do we embrace unity more than feed division? As one thoughtful friend commented, “We can overcome the differences in our country if we only understood that we are stronger together”… if, we are united.

So let’s go out on a pretty big limb here and take that stab…

What if we all agreed to give up one thing?

Let me first provide a little logic… The aforementioned call-out of these extreme people out there, these “baskets of deplorables” — the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic people — is not solely one person’s assessment or belief; far more have chimed in on all sides of the equation. Let’s add the other oft-identified extremists… the Marxists and Communists… the feminists, meninists, and yes, even Leninists. Don’t forget the deniers of freedom or the growing Christianophobic. Forget not either the narcissistic; they can be pretty extreme, too.

The point is that while we all may agree that extreme groups exist, we may not all agree on who exactly is how extreme.

I thus have no intention of denying the existence of the above people groups. I also believe we should never quit interacting with and respectfully listening and learning from one another. I believe, though, there’s something bigger we could give up.

What if we each agreed that there is no such thing as a person who is deplorable?

What if we each gave up our so-called “basket”?

We each put different, perceived people groups into our self-crafted, extremist baskets. We allow ourselves to then justify that we are somehow better or wiser or far more righteous than entire groups of people… “they, of course, are the extreme ones.” We then write them off, effectively elevating self. We diss the legitimacy of those who think differently. They oppose and offend us — so we put them in our “basket.” We judge them by convincing ourselves that they are actually deplorable.

When people who do not think or act like we do, can we give up thinking the worst of them?

That’s not really the question; the question is whether we want more unity.

Respectfully…
AR

09/11/2016

the united states of america

“That the flag was still there”… in the United States of America…

The flag was still there in 1814, after Francis Scott Key watched British ships bombard the Baltimore Harbor, penning his infamous poem.

The flag was still there in 1991, only 10 days into the Persian Gulf War, when Whitney Houston offered perhaps the most rousing rendition ever of our National Anthem.

That’s the thing. Regardless of what any attempt to do to our country, the flag is still there. Regardless of the level of heartache or absence of immediate hope, the flag is still there. Regardless of the actions of any, the flag remains still there.

Fifteen years ago, 2977 people woke up, grabbed their coffee, breakfast bar, and other items in their morning routine, walked out the door, not knowing their lives would end that day. Their lives would intentionally end at the hands of 19 men, motivated by pure evil. The youngest victim was 18 that day… the oldest, 79. Multiple unborn babies also died in the attacks.

Those people, who paid with their lives, they are the heroes. They are the ones deserving our attention today.

Those heroes did not choose their role in history. And that, I suppose, is where the men and women of Flight 93 make a difference to me. Of all the angles and details and people and perspectives surrounding 9/11, I can’t stop thinking about United Airlines Flight 93.

Unlike those aboard the planes that hit the Pentagon and Twin Towers, the passengers traveling on Flight 93 were aware of what was looming; they had called friends and loved ones after the hijackers took over, and thus, they knew that other planes had been used to target specific buildings in order to create huge casualties. Hence, with the hijackers controlling the plane in the cockpit, the men and women aboard Flight 93 gathered in the back of the plane and voted. They honored each other with the simplest, most democratic act; they voted. They voted on whether to act or not… to allow themselves to be used as another missile to kill the masses… or… to take on the hijackers. At approximately 9:57 a.m. on September 11, 2001, the passenger revolt began. The passengers attempted to force their way into the cockpit.

It is not known for certain whether or not the passengers’ breach of the cockpit was successful. It is known, however, that these brave men and women — these heroes — halted the intent of the terrorists.

I’ve often wondered what went through the heads and hearts of those men and women. Surely they knew there was a strong likelihood they would pay with their lives. While it may have been their only grim stab at survival, there also seems embedded in their act the realization that they knew this was bigger than them. If they did not take on the terrorists, far more people would die.

That, my friends, is patriotism.

That is worth paying attention to.

The beautiful thing after 9/11 — which remains prominent this day, even amidst our continued heartache, strife, and societal tensions — is that the flag is still there.

No one can remove the “united” that stands in our name.

Respectfully…
AR

09/04/2016

hopes & crowns

With the most frequent conversation this week posed somewhere along the lines of either (a) the relationship between patriotism and protest, (b) the right of free speech vs. disrespect of law enforcement and the military, and (c) the consistency within the combination of our public and private behavior, did you notice what we did not talk about?

There was no conversation centering on Clinton or Trump.
(Ah… it’s telling how refreshing that is…)

As no subject is intentionally avoided on our blog, allow me to share with you a bottom line observation: while there exist pockets of people here and there who are very excited about one of the above candidates (and a fewer number excited about Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson), the overall enthusiasm is significantly lesser for the entire 2016 presidential field. Gallup has been consistently reporting significant lows for all in response to agreement with the statement that “there is a candidate running who would make a good president.”

Personally, I have peace regardless. Why? Because we are electing a “president” — not attempting to discern who is God nor crowning some kind of king or queen. That gives me peace.

Recently, no less, while on my recent respite, one guest writer shared a delayed entry with me. While the expressions of another may or may not be held by the Intramuralist, I appreciate his genuine offering of hope. Hope, my friends, is part of what we all crave. He suggested the following commentary regarding our choice this coming November:

“I’m watching this election season with both despair and at the same time some amount of hope. The despair is obvious because both of the candidates at the top of the tickets are so tainted that we will need to take a collective bath as a nation after it the dust settles. The first candidate is obviously qualified by virtue of being in the inner sanctum for so long with different roles (First lady, Senator, Secretary of State). To deny those credentials would not be part of an honest dialog. Yet it is because of the being in the inner sanctum that I’m afraid she has learned how to use the system to benefit herself and other family members. Not to mention the obvious benefits for her friends and colleagues who defend her regardless of the action or even possible crimes committed – yes, I said ‘possible crimes.’ But the media will find a way to excuse it, because it is ‘only money’ just like it was seemingly ‘only about sex’ in the 90’s.

The other candidate has had by most objective assessment great success in the business world and obviously can and seemingly will fight anyone (he took out 16 mostly capable opponents in the primary). It is the latter part of that aspect of him that scares most of his critics. Or are they really afraid that might make him win the general election, as well? I personally like a fighter, but I always want the fight to be with dignity and a good grasp of the subject knowledge. I grew up in New York City, so I understand the swagger one has to have in order to survive the tough streets of South Jamaica (where I grew up) or the corporate offices of Wall Street (where I have worked). I get it, I get it. But when you are on the national stage, you better realize that mom and pop in Cheyenne, WY or Duluth, MN may not quite understand that swagger. You are speaking to a national audience that doesn’t always ‘get it.’ I grew up with guys who all thought they were wise guys (regardless of ethnicity). All those guys today have mellowed. I’m hoping what I have seen in the last week that this guy, too, can mellow so people can hear the message he has.

So where is the hope you ask? Well, I do believe that we are truly one nation under God, and we will survive this as we have every other election cycle. As Paul said to the Corinthians in II Corinthians (not ‘Two Corinthians’ – sorry I couldn’t resist), ‘We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. Always be hopeful.’”

Always be hopeful. That’s something we each can wrap our minds around.

So where does your hope come from? From a president, king, or queen?

Let’s hope not.

Respectfully…
AR

08/29/2016

bugged & unpopular

Calling this a post a perspective on the freedom of speech isn’t entirely accurate. That’s a bit too simplified.

Do we believe in it? Do we not? Said freedom is embedded in our Constitution, although U.S. courts have often struggled to define what it means and what it does not. The legal definition is: “The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.” We don’t have a right to scream about a fictional fire in a crowded theater, but we do have the right to express the unpopular. The challenge is that we don’t like the unpopular.

In recent days, two key freedom of speech scenarios have received ample attention (although true, one could make the case as to whether such are so deserving).

First… as previously referenced, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has refused to stand for the National Anthem during preseason games. Said Kaepernick, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football, and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Kaepernick rose to fame when only a few months after his first NFL start, as a second year player, he led his team to the Super Bowl. San Francisco then had high hopes for the young, articulate star. However, in the three years since, after signing a multi-million dollar contract, questionable behavior and poor play have led a lesser role on the team for him. He is (was) no longer the focal point of their team.

And second… the University of Chicago sent a letter to all incoming freshmen, quite different from the more stereotypical, anodyne letters sent to new students across the country. Said the Dean of Students, John Ellison, “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

Both Colin Kaepernick and the University of Chicago are advocating for free speech. It looks different, manifests itself differently, prompts different angles and questions, but both are advocating for the right of a person to express their beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.

Both are also advocating for what to many, may be perceived, as the unpopular.

Here’s the bottom line of today’s post (… and this is why we began by opining that it wouldn’t be accurate to label today’s post as simply questioning the freedom of speech; there’s more to it than that)…

I think most of us believe in free speech — albeit only to a point. And that point isn’t the crowded theater and the fictional “fire” chant; the point is that expressions of free speech are unpopular — and often we want that squelched.

I’ll admit… Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand during “The Star-Spangled Banner” bugs me. Our anthem isn’t about policemen; it isn’t about race, ethnicity or religion. It’s about what American servicemen and women have defended for centuries — here, there, from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. It’s about what other people have sacrificed for you and me.

However, as much I believe Kaepernick’s behavior is disrespectful, I believe in his freedom to express his opinion in a way that hurts no one (but potentially himself). It is precisely because of our honorable servicemen and women that Kaepernick has that freedom.

Others, no doubt, are bugged by the Chicago school’s stance… how dare they! … it’s not politically correct… it’s insensitive!

I agree. I agree that expressing unpopular opinion can be insensitive. Insensitive, however, does not necessitate the extinguishing of freedom — not in Chicago, not in San Francisco.

Granted, it still might bug me.

Respectfully…
AR

08/28/201608/28/2016

two quotes

My recent time away allowed for some increased observation. It’s a fun exercise… you sit back, relax, take a little bit of extra time, maybe where never intended…

Breathe, say very little, refrain from comment…

You watch what everyone else is doing. You watch it. Consider it. No judgment.

I’m not talking about the quirkish, cultural sport of people watching; you know the one… you select a solid location… stay unobtrusive… watch with good intent… etc., etc., etc. (note: part of that was borrowed from “Wiki’s How to Do Anything”… can you believe it? We actually have an available guide as to “How to Begin People Watching.”).

What I more observed was what people are talking about — what we’re focused on.

Put away for a moment all Trump and Clinton conversation. Sorry, but this has become a little too much for me. We’re electing a president — not deciding who is king or God (… who, by the way, never runs against any noteworthy suitor).

Over the past three weeks, people have focused on much…

On Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte — and was he or was he not, robbed in Rio at gunpoint…

On the release of “Suicide Squad,” DC Comic’s latest, greatest theatrical release, where a team of dangerous criminals are utilized as supposedly disposable assets in high-risk missions for the United States government… (… am I the only one who isn’t that comfortable doing anything under the potential promotion of “suicide”?)…

And then there was this past weekend… on the NFL quarterback who refused to stand during the National Anthem, suggesting that he’s intentionally protesting an oppressive country… (… never mind that his past behavior has been questionable)…

It’s amazing to me what we focus on.

I’ll grant you this: sometimes the media drives — or attempts to drive — our focus. I really dislike that. There’s too much bias in our media.

All that said, I don’t think as a culture, we’re all that wise on what we focus on. Two reasons why… and finally… today’s two quotes… from two wonderfully wise ones…

First…

“Summing it all up, friends, I’d say you’ll do best by filling your minds and meditating on things true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious — the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse.”

And second…

“Whatever we pay attention to, grows.”

Put those together. I have a feeling — granted, just a feeling — that we are paying attention to a whole lot of things that are growing, but are not that noble, reputable, best, beautiful, or wise…

I wonder why… I wonder how life would be different if our focus was, too…

Respectfully…
AR

07/31/2016

different approaches

Eight years ago, I sat in a local coffee shop and had a fascinating conversation. I sat with a then newfound friend who clearly approached life differently than me. Funny. I sometimes think in this polarized, political state we now live in, we’ve assumed there are only three approaches in life: left, right, and the ambiguous, undefined — mostly a route that just doesn’t want to be included with the other two.

I think we are making a significant mistake here. There are way more than three approaches…

There’s a little to the left, a little to the right… a zig zag here and there… there’s a roaming around in circles. There’s coming at it straight from the top… hovering overhead… or maybe those who zero in from somewhere on the bottom.

Some come creatively… others analytically… right brained, left brained, or some dichotomy in between.

There are our introverts, extroverts, and those introverts living in an extrovert world. There are the cautious, the meek, and those who tend to barrel the rest of us over with their exuberance and passion.

And here’s what’s beautiful: each of those approaches is ok. All may fit with the way we are each uniquely, divinely wired. What that then tells me is that there are far more than three approaches to life… maybe, quite possibly, even three zillion.

As the coffee shop conversations continued, the Intramuralist was born. My friend and I learned together that sharpening comes when we are willing to respect, honor, and learn from another’s approach. Let me be truly transparent, however; I don’t think as a society, we do that very well. We tend to hold onto to our own opinion, embolden it by camping in the vacuum of likeminded opinion, affirm it via biased news and resources, and then wholeheartedly deny or dismiss the validity of one of the other three-zillion-minus-one approaches. We, friends, are missing out. We are missing out on the sharpening that should come from one another.

In light of that backdrop, allow me to get to the point of the today’s post. Today I’d like to introduce one of my favorite events of the year, our annual Guest Writer Series. This is excellent!

Recognizing that none of us have it all figured out (and that none are going to have it all figured out, especially when exclusively immersed in the likeminded), the Guest Writer Series is a small manifestation of the Intramuralist’s mantra… that we can learn and grow from varied opinion, as long as that opinion is articulated in a way that is respectful of those who may not share the opinion. Yes, it’s true; it’s hard to learn from the person who is shouting at us; it’s hard to spend extended time with one who knowingly looks down on us because of what we believe.

In our annual summer series, you will find some ten/eleven persons who don’t all believe the same thing; they make up only a slight percentage of those three zillion approaches. But they are each committed to expressing their opinion in a way that is respectful of those who may disagree. That, is an incredibly beautiful, virtuous thing.  You will hear from men, women, and all sorts of professions. You will hear from persons in the public and private sector. You will hear from all sorts of demographic categories. And, of course, you will hear from people who approach life differently.

Do remember, that the opinions expressed may or may not be held by me; that’s not the point. While I have often published opinion that I did not hold nor agree with, the beauty of the Intramuralist is the recognition that agreement is secondary to respect. We can be sharpened through the respectful dialogue of diverse opinion.

Hence, while this semi-humble current events observer enjoys a bit of a summer respite, know that I will return in a few short weeks, refreshed and ready to roll. We have things to talk about!

Until then, enjoy this insightful series. I say again: it is excellent! Why? Because we are willing to learn from approaches different than our own. Fire up for Guest Writer #1, starting Tuesday.

Respectfully…
AR

07/28/2016

what we cannot see

One sentence.

That’s it.

Today, we’re going to go with just one sentence.

Want to guess what it is?

It is true that the Intramuralist has a special fondness for the following:

“Just do it.”
“Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.’ ”
“Fire up!”
“Give me a second sentence.”
And, both “Who dey!” and “Boiler up!” (… go easy on me, please).

But today, after watching two weeks of conventions (yes, I watch them both) and being succumbed to the succeeding rants and raves on social media… watching people praise one candidate and tear town the other…

Watching the perceived increased racial tension and lack of respect for law enforcement…

And basically, watching the world go round, seemingly digressing in its polarized, intolerant state — an intolerance that exists on all sides because the one thing they aren’t tolerant of, is any legitimacy of the other side…

Watching all that, one sentence by a friend stood out to me this week. They said:

“We deny others their perspective because it does not match what we believe to be true.”

Let me say that again…

“We deny others their perspective because it does not match what we believe to be true.”

Whether we are left, right, or somewhere in between, we deny the legitimacy in another’s perspective because it does not match our own. We equate our opinion with wisdom and truth — and dismiss another as something lesser.

Friends, that dismissal is dividing our country, zapping our unity, and keeping us from loving all people well.

Whether our approach comes from the left or the right, we must quit denying what we cannot see.

Respectfully…
AR

07/20/201607/20/2016

stingy

Minimize, maximize. Maximize, minimize.

As my madre often articulates, “We judge others by their actions — ourselves by our intentions.” In other words, we see the worst in others but the best in ourselves. Extending that one step further, in this political climate, we see the best in one candidate but the worst in the other.

Geesh. (Can I get a collective “amen”?)

We are so stingy with our grace. If it’s self or the politically likeminded, we tend to adopt the “what difference does it make” attitude. We bestow so much upon them — including the benefit of the doubt, the magnified possibility of “mis-speaking,” and the gift of second, third, and far more numerous chances.

If it’s another or the politically unlikeminded, however, we seem the first to pick up the stone.

(I thus utter another “geesh.”)

I return to the primary point of today’s post: we are stingy with our grace.

On Monday at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump’s wife, Melania, was accused of plagiarizing Michelle Obama’s speech from 2008. Out of 1,373 words, 4 to 6 sentences were strikingly similar. Allow me, no less, not to minimize nor maximize. Plagiarism is silly to me; I think people should speak for themselves; these are smart people. Hence, I think people should admit it if/when they (or their speechwriters) do it, as the reactions to the incidents are often worse than the incidents themselves. Plagiarism is something that then presidential candidate Barack Obama was accused of in 2007, borrowing from the sitting Governor of Massachusetts — and was the impetus for then Sen. Joe Biden exiting his first presidential campaign. Ensuring full disclosure, this semi-humble current events observer really likes Joe Biden; unfortunately, though, Biden was accused of a similar, far more extensive act in law school.

People don’t need to plagiarize. Obama, Biden, and the elegant Melania Trump — it is clear each has much to say on their own. Too often the speechwriters get in their way.

But as I was sorting and sifting through the news of this week, I was astounded that more than the other 1200 words, these few sentences became the focus of many. Some even suggested it was somehow racist… how dare she steal the words of a black woman…

I’ll say it again… Geesh (… can I get another collective “amen”?)

The words of a wise friend resonate with me…

“I don’t know if the use of those words was intentional or not, but the reaction to it seems a bit over the top… It appears that we choose and justify our emotions/reactions based on which candidate we most align ourselves, despite the significance of the issue.”

Yes, we see the worst in those whose politics are dissimilar — and the best in whom we are politically aligned.

Did Melania plagiarize?
Maybe.

Did she know it?
Maybe.

Were her speechwriters responsible?
Probably.

But do we hold ourselves and the people we agree with politically to the same standards?
No way.

Geesh. We are so stingy with our grace.

Here’s hoping for something better and more… from both of the conventions and from us.

Respectfully…
AR