Current Event – Page 76 – intramuralist ™

06/09/2016

raped

Perhaps by now you’ve read the story of the unconscious young woman who was raped by the college freshman. If you have not yet heard of it, let me start by saying it was awful. Awful… heartbreaking… heinous… disgusting. Pick whatever disturbing word you wish. It’s that bad.

20 year old Brock Turner went to Stanford on a swimming scholarship. Unrelated to this story, Turner was a three time All-American in high school. In January of 2015, he sexually assaulted an unconscious 23 year old. They were at a fraternity party. She was out of college and had a boyfriend, who was not in attendance; she had no intention of engaging physically with any other. Turner drank a lot; the young woman drank a lot — more liquor than her out-of-college body now tolerated, she stated. She did call her boyfriend during the evening, leaving an incomprehensible, slurred message. What ensued later that evening she does not remember in any capacity. It was relayed by a pair of graduate students who walked by, witnessed, and (thank God) stopped the horrific incident.

The woman was unconscious. She was totally out of it. She had been dragged behind a dumpster adjacent to the frat house, half of her clothes ripped off, with pine needles, etc. in multiple areas on and in her body. The witnesses shockingly saw Turner sexually violating a completely immobile, unresponsive, and clearly non-consenting woman.

12 jurors found Turner guilty on three felony counts, which are as follows (again, this is awful): (1) assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, (2) sexual penetration of an intoxicated person, and (3) sexual penetration of an unconscious person. Note that “sexual penetration” is distinct from “rape,” as it involves any object or body part other than a sexual organ. Note, also, that Turner made no apology nor offered any admission of wrongdoing.

At sentencing last week, Turner faced 14 years in prison. Prosecutors had asked for 6. Guilty of three violent felonies, astonishingly, the judge gave him 6 months… (You read that correctly…) 6 months.

Please don’t mistake this as any race/privilege issue; no evidence suggests such. Allow me to instead return to the reference earlier identified as “unrelated” to this story. Truthfully, a more accurate phrasing is “should be unrelated”…

Brock Turner was a varsity swimmer — a reported Olympic hopeful. After Turner left the university and lost his scholarship, his father, Dan, who pleaded for leniency, responded: “His [Brock’s] life will never be the one that he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.”

“20 minutes of action”… “a steep price to pay.” I agree… but a steep price to pay does not mean the wrong price to pay. There are serious consequences for serious sins.

The judge actually said a harsher sentence would “have a severe impact on him”… Him.

Let’s be clear: there was only one victim in this instance, and it was not Brock Turner. Yes, I believe in forgiveness. Yes, I believe in mercy and grace. I also believe in justice. This sentence does not in any way appear just. This shockingly light sentence, in fact — which only paves the perception that losing his scholarship and Olympic dream was somehow enough — indicates that the judge valued the impact of the rapist’s consequences more than the impact of the violation of the victim. It furthers the fictional, societal notion held by far too many that rape isn’t as violent or criminal as we think. These kind of judgments — sentencing profound minimums, forgiving an offense because it’s one’s first, and reducing rape to the absurd description of any “minutes of action” — disturbingly fuel the normalization of rape — again, in too many people’s minds. That’s awful.

Let me sensitively add that I am also hesitant to join some of the succeeding public protests demanding re-sentencing. I have no desire for the loudness of the people to dictate appropriate consequence (see Salem, 1878). I do, however, believe in justice, restitution, repentance, and forgiveness. I just don’t believe we’ve witnessed any of it here.

What we have witnessed, no less, is an amazingly articulate victim, who read her poignant, 12 page account in court and shared it publicly. She is both bold and sincere — and honest about her own strengths, weaknesses, fears and failures. As one empathetic friend said, “Her words speak powerfully of the brutality of rape, the imperfection of our justice system, and the strength of the human soul.”

Indeed they do… all in the face of something awful and unjust.

Respectfully…
AR

05/31/2016

who do we blame?

When bad things happen, it often seems our instant reaction is to blame… Who’s at fault?! … Someone must pay for this!… Someone is in the wrong!

We then spend significant energy and time targeting the person(s) we have so omnisciently, judiciously determined to be responsible for what happened. We assign blame.

We seem unwilling to acknowledge the prudence of recognizing our perspective may be limited. We ignore that perhaps time will tell more of the story; maybe it won’t. But we are somehow lured into thinking we are experts at things we are not — and that takes the place of extending most mercy and grace. We feel emboldened in assigning blame.

On Saturday, a four year old boy fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo. One 17 year old gorilla — named “Harambe” — was then shot and killed, after rapidly dragging the boy through the waters edging the habitat. Zoo officials called it “a life-threatening situation” for the boy. Note, also, the decision was made to shoot and kill the animal, as opposed to tranquilizing him, because the boy was in danger and the tranquilizer would not have taken effect immediately. Also, the tranquilizer could have potentially, further agitated the gorilla.

What has actually taken effect immediately, however, is the assigning of blame. It has been fast and furious…

The parents are negligent…
You need to keep an eye on your kids…
They shouldn’t have killed the gorilla…
Justice for Harambe…
Protest! Protest!…
People do not come above animals…
Parents need to do their job…
That dumb bi*** should have kept her kid closer…

Ugh. There’s a proverbial pit in my stomach. I feel bad. I feel bad for the gorilla; it’s awful his life was lost. I feel bad for the parents; the shock of seeing their kid in danger and wondering if they could have prevented it. I feel bad for the zoo officials; I’m not sure I could have pulled that trigger. But is feeling bad for all of them not possible? Can we only empathize with one? Can we not have empathy or compassion for more than a single side?

And by feeling bad for only one, is that what allows us to assign blame to another?

I’m beginning to ponder if the assignment of blame equates to an absence of empathy. I will have to think on that more…

In the meantime, I wonder if one of the justifications for our blame assignment is that we too often convince ourselves that “we would never do that” or “we are incapable.” I get that; we all do it. But I’m not sure it’s accurate. I’ve made some mistakes in this life that I never imagined. I’ve seen dear friends make other poor decisions. And but by the grace of God, I think I’m unfortunately capable of too much more; hence, thank God for that grace! I’m thus uncomfortable that our belief of being incapable of similar screw ups provides justification for the lack of empathy and the assignment of blame.

As a semi-humble current events observer, let me also add that here exists an avenue in which I perceive social media having evolved into an illegitimate license to spew — to spew an opinion when perhaps patience, silence, and compassion would be more sensible. Social media is not a conversation; a tweet or snap or status update does not qualify as dialogue. And so we are lured into spewing opinion, forgetting our limited perspective, our lack of expertise, and that time and increased investigation may be prudent to the truth. Instead of actually taking that time, instead of waiting and saying prayers for the persons most affected by the situation, we instead assign blame.

I am saddened that the animal was killed. But I am more saddened by our lack of generous grace.

Bad things happen to good people. I’m not sure we’re ever going to be ok with that. I’m not sure assigning blame helps either.

Respectfully…
AR

05/26/201605/26/2016

pickles & redskins & a little bit more

Not too long ago, an un-intending server failed to omit the pickles on my sandwich. As my deep loathing of the brine-infused condiment has long been known to Intramuralist readers, one can imagine my reaction. Better yet, picture taking that first bite. Yes, it is true. I hate pickles. While one of my desires is to only hate what God hates, I must admit, I still hate pickles. And to actually leave them on my sandwich? Oh, no… there are few words. To say I was offended is satirically close to true.

I’m wondering this day on a bit of a broader scale; what do we do when we’re offended? Is my offense enough? I mean… is it enough that the offense is mine? … or does it need to be shared? I can’t stand those slimy green things, but in all honesty, that’s between me and my pickle. Is it important to ensure a majority of others agree with me? — that they should be offended, too?

Last weekend The Washington Post released some polling data that seemed to fly semi-below the radar (… perhaps because the polls seem sadly inundated with everything Clinton and Trump). A brief, edited summary is as follows:

“Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

… Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word ‘Redskin’ was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.”

In other words, a majority of the persons most affected by the use of the word “Redskin” are not offended by the reference.

Yet three years ago, we witnessed a rather significant, stentorian bandwagon — the “national movement” as identified by The Post. There began a barrage of pointed, public criticism…

50 U.S. senators signed a letter asking the NFL team to change their name.
The New York Daily News, San Francisco Chronicle, Slate, and Post editorial board among with multiple other news outlets, each discontinued using the nickname. So did several prominent broadcasters, including Bob Costas and Phil Simms.
A board within the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ruled that the use of “Redskins” violated federal trademark law.
The U.S. Justice Dept. intervened to defend the Patent & Trademark Office.
A smaller group of senators then introduced legislation aimed at revoking the NFL’s tax-exempt status — that was, if the league failed to force the Washington owner to stop using the term “Redskins.”

Friends, this is a healthy debate and one that should be had. Is the use of the word “Redskins” a derogatory term? To some people, it definitely is. To others — and potentially to a majority of those who most identify with the term — at least according to The Washington Post — it is not. So how do we honor all people? And how do we refrain from projecting our offense onto another?

Almost as if on some sort of expected cue, no less, in this increasingly contentious society we seem to live in, several immediately, emphatically rejected the results of The Post’s poll. Some simply declared the results to be untrue.

I get it. It’s tough. And when we’re offended, it’s hard to comprehend how others are not.

I just wish we were better about not projecting our offense upon a majority of others.

(Otherwise — with a little bit of tongue in my cheek — a lot more people need to start hating pickles.)

Respectfully…
AR

05/24/201605/24/2016

where’s the line?

Lately I’ve been hearing much about the need to rally around one another — to come together as one, “because we’re all __________.”

It’s the call to unify.

Such seems more pronounced and proclaimed as the presidential primaries come to a close — and each party is attempting to get “their people” to rally behind a candidate that is far less popular nationally than the party would obviously prefer. That’s an observation — not a criticism. Each of the three remaining, mainstream presidential candidates has serious, perceived flaws; this will be a “slam dunk” election for no one… hence, the call to unify.

That call, no less, got me thinking…

We are to rally around one another… to come together… to let our voices be heard as one. Why? Because we are all “__________.”

But what goes in the blank?

Seriously.

What goes in the blank?

Who are the so-called “their people”?

Is it us? Is it not? Do we know when it actually is us?

It seems to me that individuals subjectively draw a dividing line…

They suggest we need to come together… because we’re all Republicans… we need to come together because we’re all Democrats… we need to come together because we’re all black… white… gay… straight… yada, yada, yada…

Please don’t perceive my “yada’s” or “yada’s” as any intended form of disrespect; they are not. My point is simply that people draw the dividing line — the proverbial boundary which supposedly establishes unity — in different places. I have challenges with that.

I mean, I have friends who are Republicans and friends who are Democrats. I have friends who are black and friends who are white. I have friends who are gay and friends who are straight. And I have friends who fit into none of the above and friends who are yada, yada, yada. Am I not to be included in their circle? Is the circle around them — separating them from the rest of us — impenetrable?

Friends, I think some people are selling us short. These so-called rallies to come together are not unifying; rather, they seem more a desire to isolate and ensure no one thinks any differently.

Why aren’t we drawing the line more broadly? Why aren’t we encouraged to more generously and extensively fill in the blank?

What about…

Because we’re all Ohioans… Iowans… or Floridians…

Because we’re all Americans.

Or what about… because we’re all people who live on the same planet.

Better still…

Because each of us was created by something bigger than self… by the great big God of the universe… divinely and magnificently made.

Can we draw the line around that?

Respectfully…
AR

05/12/201605/12/2016

angry birds

First it was the pigs’ fortresses. Birds of a feather were slung into the dwellings of pigs, smashing and breaking them down. Through rocks, wood, mountains and ice, the fowl flew through previously thought-to-be, nothing short of impenetrable obstacles.

Why? Because the birds were “angry.”

First released in late 2009, “Angry Birds” became a bit of an Apple app phenomenon. There have since been 13 editions of the game and 3 more spin-offs. “Angry Birds” exists in various “Seasons,” “Space,” and even in “Transformers” and “Star Wars.”

These angry animals are so contagiously popular, it was reported last summer that the games had now been downloaded more than three billion times, making it the most downloaded “freemium” game series of all time. (Note: “freemium” equates to a pricing strategy by which a product or service is provided free of charge, but money — aka a “premium” — is charged for proprietary features.) “Angry Birds” is undoubtedly one of the most popular, mainstream video applications… ever.

Again… it’s all because the birds are “angry.” So does anger break through obstacles? Does anger fix things or make them somehow better?

Ironically, angry is an adjective frequently used by the NY Times, LA Times, Dallas Morning News, Yahoo, Mother Jones and more, to describe the current election cycle. As respected, former CNN senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, poignantly said, “Electability, schmelectability: It’s the year of the angry, angry voter.” They say this is the so-called “year of the angry voter.”

I doubt, however, we’re all angry about the same things. Watch a Tea Party rally; watch the Black Lives Matter movement; watch “Occupy” anything. While they don’t all agree, anger seems more prevalent than any empathy or compassion ever expressed — especially for other people.

The “year of the angry voter,” therefore, arguably serves as the reason why Donald Trump is the last (reportedly) Republican candidate standing and Bernie Sanders continues to beat Hillary Clinton in statewide primaries. Trump and Sanders are tapping into it… “Until we fix it [the country],” said Trump, “I’m very, very angry.” According to Sanders, “I am angry. The American people are angry.” Yes, they are tapping into an anger, desiring to break through the obstacles that established politicians have enshrined for decades.

My sense is that the American public is weary of politicians pushing their own agendas… politicians seemingly lecturing the rest of us… politicians who represent a minimum number of constituents… and politicians routinely labeling others, shaming them, and pharisaically sharing how they are so divinely different. Oh, they are a not so humble few. Oh, that makes me angry.

As one who has been intentional in channeling anger into more productive avenues (although admittedly, not always successful), the words of author Matt Towery resonate with me… “This year has been described as the year of ‘the angry voter.’ The term ‘angry voter’ has always been used by the media to subtly suggest an image of crazed extremists.

I would submit that this is not the year of the angry voter.

I would argue that this is the year of the ‘I’m finished’ voter. I think that many voters feel about these elections as I feel about writing this column each week. They have watched so many politicians promise so much and deliver so little that they are finished with them. I know I’ve written about so many issues and political leaders for so long that I am as confused and frustrated as voters are.”

Yes, “finished”… that’s a better word.

In 10 days or so, no less, the American public will be subject to the one and only, “The Angry Birds Movie.” This anger is contagious.

According to initial plot summaries, one of our feathered friends, who used to be known as “a reclusive, cruel violent but grumpy red bird outcast prone to hissy fits,” is supposedly now reformed. We’ll see. The reform remains in question.

So — dare I say — do many of our votes in the fall of the year.

Respectfully…
AR

05/10/201605/10/2016

deeply divided

Let’s focus on a statement posed in a recent post. First, however, note the following current news reports…

“With a presidential election just six months away, Americans appear deeply divided over the role the United States should play in the world, according to an opinion survey by the Pew Research Center. ‘Considerable apprehension and concern’ are the words researchers used to describe the mood of the American public regarding how the country fits into the current world order.”

Or this one…

“The people of Chicago are deeply riven by race, class and neighborhood, distrustful of the police, fearful of the growing rate of violent crime and united chiefly in their disapproval of the mayor’s performance and their conviction that the city is headed down the wrong track.”

Or even notes taken from a scant scan of the headlines:

“Parties Nearly Conquered — and Deeply Divided”
“Texas Republicans Divided On Support For Trump”
“A Divided Democratic Party”

Fascinatingly, unfortunately, one word stands out: “divided.”

Fascinatingly, unfortunately, one phrase stands out: “deeply divided.”

Yes, the division is deep.

So what do we do?

Last week, the Intramuralist posed the idea that “the American political system will remain broken as long as there remain too many people who refuse to humble themselves, pray, and love their neighbor more than self.”

Let me edit that slightly for the purposes of today’s post…

Americans will remain deeply divided as long as there remain too many people who refuse to humble themselves, pray, and love their neighbor more than self.

Let me also be clear; each of those three steps is vital. We must one, humble ourselves; two, pray (acknowledging there exists a Divinity far greater than “me”); and three, love our neighbor just as much or more than we love and look out for own interests and well being.

But here’s the problem: too many of us only do one or two of the three. For example, I may pray consistently and love my neighbor fairly empathetically, but if when it comes to humility, I only see the need for the humbling of another, then I really don’t understand the step.

Or when I pray, if I’m always praying for the “other guy” to repent or finally come to his senses and my attention is focused upon the growth or sharpening that someone else desperately needs, well then, I wonder how God works with that. Each of us, friends, will always be in need of growth and sharpening.

Humility and prayer are the ways we grow. Loving others well is a manifestation of that growth. That’s why all three steps are necessary.

It’s also why without each of the three steps, the deep division may not-so-fascinatingly, unfortunately, only increase.

Respectfully…
AR

05/05/201605/05/2016

nothing short of scary

What if during an election season, there was a candidate described as follows:

… one who tell lies…
… one who is malicious…
… one with a clear lack of character…
… one no reasonably intelligent person could support…
… one who preys on our ignorance…
… one who lacks integrity…
… one who is nothing short of scary…

And what if during an election season, you knew that wasn’t true?

We all get it. We’ve all seen it. Those descriptions are all around us.

That’s what too many candidates do… even, perhaps, what good candidates do.

But sometimes… what they say, is not true.

People don’t know what they don’t know.

Many times over the last seven and a half years on the Intramuralist, we have tackled tough angles in regard to how the American political system seems so broken… it’s too big, too controlling, too financially imbalanced… there’s too much arrogance, too many attacks, too much self-servingness… too much money involved.

It seems, too, that one of America’s biggest political problems is what it now takes to get elected… utilizing a misrepresentation of truth.

No longer is an election a rational attempt to discern between two (or more) people in which each presents themselves honestly and authentically, clearly representing their policy stances and perspectives, letting us know how strongly they feel, respecting their opponent… And saying at the conclusion of their campaign, “We wish each voter and candidate well. Win or lose, we trust you will make a good choice.”

No. Elections have seemingly instead become a manipulative attempt in which each candidate presents themselves in the perceived most positive light, hiding policy stances and perspectives that they know are not popular, dampening how strongly they feel, denigrating their opponent… And saying at the conclusion of their campaign, “God forbid my opponent should win. I am the only good choice.”

I have been asked by many: “how do we fix this?” If we want to fix what’s clearly broken in the American political system, we can’t fall prey to left or right talking points. We can’t embrace solely the notion that the insertion of term limits or the repeal of the high court’s Citizens United decision, that then all will be good and true and right. No. The system will still be broken. Those are more rhetorically, good-sounding, political-party-pleasing Band-Aids… as if they alone can retract the embedded arrogance and disrespect.

The American political system will remain broken as long as there remain too many people who think too highly of themselves. The American political system will remain broken as long as there remain too many people who refuse to humble themselves, pray, and love their neighbor more than self. The American political system will remain broken as long as too many people refuse to love all people well.

…Most… only love… some.

Yes, most only love some people well — typically only those who agree with us. We then denigrate those who disagree, justify looking down on others — even calling them ignorant or something worse. Thus, the American political system will remain broken as long as we, the voting public, continue to support that less than virtuous mentality.

Again, we need to humble ourselves, pray, and love our neighbor more than self. Anything less remains sadly, nothing short of scary.

Respectfully…
AR

05/03/201605/03/2016

change your questions, change your life

Years ago I was introduced to a great book by Dr. Marilee Adams, an adjunct professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs, with the same title as listed above. Adams specializes in consulting, coaching, and leadership training. She has created and promoted the concept of “question thinking.” It’s based on the premise that everything starts with a question and that question then bridges the gap to increased comprehension, healthier communication, and more effective results.

Think about that; everything starts with a question; in fact, when I wake up, I typically ask myself a series of unspoken questions, such as… “What’s on my agenda?… How warm is it outside? … Is it raining?”… or “Is my favorite outfit clean?”

Those questions then affect the entire day ahead; they transcend how we interact with other people. In order to clearly comprehend and both adequately and accurately understand what’s going on in life, we have to ask and answer questions. Note: asking and answering questions is more vital and intimate than simply spewing an opinion; spewing opinion typically stems from an incomplete perspective. In other words, as Dr. Adams says, “You can’t get the best answers unless you answer the best questions first.”

I then took a brief scan of the weekend headlines from the most popular internet news sites. After dismissing those centered on cleaning my kidneys, Ted Cruz’s VP ploy, and the latest developments in the NBA playoffs, the following 20 questions caught my eye:

(1) Can Corporate Leaders Be Good Citizens?
(2) Can Songs Help You Learn Scientific Concepts?
(3) How did Prince die?
(4) The 9/11 Truth?
(5) Could Texas Become the Next Trans Bathroom Battleground?
(6) ’Dumbest pick’ in NFL draft history?
(7) What is May Day, anyway?
(8) Why Are Blacks Leaving Liberal Cities?
(9) Is Sara Ramirez Leaving ‘Grey’s Anatomy’?
(10) Is U.S. Ready for Post-Middle-Class Politics?
(11) Did Larry Wilmore go too far with N-word joke at Obama’s last #WHCD?
(12) Will the Paris Climate Agreement Deliver?
(13) Beyonce: Making Marriage Work?
(14) Is The Party Warming To Trump?
(15) Why Do Progressives Cling to Hillary?
(16) Does Bernie Sanders Really Deserve Any Concessions From Hillary Clinton?
(17) Did Michael Strahan make big mistake leaving ‘Live!’ for ‘GMA’?
(18) For Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it’s all about Indiana … isn’t it?
(19) Prince, Bowie and Haggard: Icons? Legends? What’s the difference?

(… and my personal favorite…)

(20) Wardrobe whoopsies: On purpose, or an accident?

I must go back, no less, to one of Dr. Adams’ core principles. That is, again: “You can’t get the best answers unless you answer the best questions first.”

With all the difficulty and tension in discussing tough topics (especially on social media), I wonder first if we’re being intentional in asking questions.

I wonder second if we’re asking the best questions — questions that prompt insight, perspective, and honest, heartfelt exchange — questions that lead to sharpening and growth.

And I wonder third if we’re pausing long enough to actually listen to the answers.

I remember a lesson taught to each of my budding young sons… Listening does not simply mean hearing what another says; listening means hearing and thoughtfully considering all that was said.

May we learn to ask good questions (… and… to hopefully never experience any sort of “wardrobe whoopsie”).

Respectfully…
AR

04/24/2016

prince, et al.

Never will I forget… far too many to quote from…

“Little red Corvette
Baby you’re much too fast
Little red Corvette
You need a love that’s gonna last…”

… to…

“How can you just leave me standing?
Alone in a world that’s so cold?
Maybe I’m just too demanding
Maybe I’m just like my father too bold…”

… to…

“Sometimes it snows in April
Sometimes I feel so bad, so bad
Sometimes I wish life was never ending,
And all good things, they say, never last…”

“Little Red Corvette,” “When Doves Cry,” even “Sometimes It Snows In April”… When iconic musician Prince passed away on Thursday, so many of those lyrics flashed through my head. I found myself engaged in my own, private, somber lip sync…

Prince Rogers Nelson contributed much to far more than a small corner of the world. His death is shocking and sobering, recognizing that an incredibly gifted and talented man has left us. Much like the deaths of David Bowie, Glenn Frey, and Joey Feek earlier in the year, we are left saddened by the loss. I must say, there many nights I spent — especially in the 80’s — with a school book on my desk and Prince singing somewhere in the background. Still more nights I dropped the book and danced away with several of us sorority sisters in the room. But we are sobered by the loss of someone who meant so much.

I never wish, however, for the loss of any other to be any less sobering…

As one of my long time friends that is closer than a brother said yesterday:

“While we collectively mourn the death of Prince, let us not forget to mourn and pray for the families of ‘everyday people’ who also leave this world long before we desire. Let’s remember to pray for the parents who have to bury their child, or the family who has to say goodbye to one of the shining beacons in their family who has touched countless lives. Let’s remember to pray for those whose family member(s) were killed due to some seemingly senseless crime or had their lives snatched away from an earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster. These people may not have a global impact like a celebrity may have, but to those who knew them, they were a big part of their world.”

In other words, there exist lots of “big parts” to our individual worlds. Celebrity status does not equate to less sad or less sobering. Celebrity status only means more of us are familiar; it does not mean the impact of a lesser known person is any less.

Most of us have experienced the loss of life of someone who is deeply important. From the waitress I spoke to on Friday who just lost her father to the over 650 who passed away in Equador’s recent earthquake, all loss of life is significant.

As Prince’s brother-in-law said, “Death isn’t easy for anybody.” No, it’s not.

Death is sobering. The loss of life is sad and significant. It also prompts me to ask some of life’s bigger, more challenging questions.

Let us not forget…

Respectfully…
AR

04/21/201604/21/2016

something bigger

How many of us would walk away from a million dollars?

Better yet, how many would willingly walk away from thirteen million dollars?

Nothing illegal. Nothing more than being paid for the profession you love to do. That’s it. Walk away. Such is the status of Major League Baseball’s Adam LaRoche. There are two seemingly relevant reasons why the former professional recently walked away. First, as told by ABC News….

“Adam LaRoche said he decided to resign from the Chicago White Sox about 20 minutes after ‘a short, heated conversation’ in which he was told he could no longer bring his 14-year-old son to the team clubhouse, telling ABC News in an exclusive interview that he didn’t hold any grudges and wouldn’t rule out returning to baseball.

The first baseman had played 12 seasons for seven different teams and his son, Drake, has been with him practically all the time. Drake even had a locker right next to his dad’s in the White Sox’s clubhouse.

‘I haven’t lost an ounce of sleep,’ LaRoche said of his decision. ‘I mean, I have zero regrets.’

LaRoche, 36, acknowledged that exceptions had probably been made to allow Drake’s presence and that he knew it could come to an end at any time. Nevertheless, he said he was ‘mad at the time’ when Ken Williams, the team’s vice president, made the decision.
‘I don’t hold a grudge. I don’t hate anybody over there. You know, it just made my decision easy,” LaRoche, alongside his son, told ABC News’ T.J. Holmes, adding, ‘Honestly, it’s not the end of the world to me. And I thank my parents for that. The way I was raised. Because baseball — and I’ve said it before, I don’t want to be defined by this game. I know there’s a lot more to life’…

Being available for Drake during his formative years was essential, LaRoche said.
‘Our kids are going to follow in our footsteps, good or bad. And you know, we got a small window here, a very small window here, to turn them into the men that they’re going to be. And I don’t want to miss six months of that window, even for $13 million.’ ”

There is a second relevant reason. According to QPolitical.com…

“This was recently reported by ESPN’s Tim Keown, and it might give some insight into the real reason for Laroche’s retirement:

‘LaRoche, along with Brewers pitcher Blaine Boyer, spent 10 days in November in Southeast Asian brothels, wearing a hidden camera and doing undercover work to help rescue underage sex slaves. All of which raises a question: After 12 years in the big leagues, the endless days and nights in dugouts and clubhouses, how did LaRoche’s nearly cinematic level of nonconformity escape detection?

… Working through a nonprofit called the Exodus Road, LaRoche and Boyer conducted surveillance in brothels and tried to determine the age of the girls — known only by numbers pinned to bikinis — and identify their bosses.
‘Something huge happened there for us,’ Boyer says. ‘You can’t explain it. Can’t put your finger on it. If you make a wrong move, you’re getting tossed off a building. We were in deep, man, but that’s the way it needed to be done. Adam and I truly believe God brought us there and said, ‘This is what I have for you boys.’

That’s right, last fall LaRoche, along with fellow big-leaguer Blaine Boyer, went undercover in Southeast Asia to rescue underage sex slaves from local brothels. Let that sink in for a minute. A pair of white professional athletes went undercover in an effort to rescue children from sex slavery.”

While it was assumed that LaRoche retired because of reasons stemming from his son not being allowed in the clubhouse, that seems only the last straw, as he can now focus more on something bigger.

So what does it take to walk away from a million or thirteen million dollars?

It would seem — by Adam LaRoche’s example — something bigger than self.

Respectfully…
AR