what now?

photo-1460060343905-8bd4f8435dd6

Navigating through the aftermath. Remembering that division has existed long before now. Wading through the wise words of others…

“Everybody is sad when their side loses an election. But the day after, we have to remember we’re actually all on one team.” — B.Obama

“I believe that we can all come together because if you take away the labels, you realize we are far more alike than we are different.” — E.DeGeneres

“We all need to give President-Elect Trump a chance. Support the good. Lobby against what we disagree on. No one is bigger than us all.” — M.Cuban

“The genius of the American system is checks and balances. When one side pushes too far there will be a correction.” — D.Bacon

“As you know, I didn’t vote for Hillary or Trump. But I meant it when I said I’d congratulate the winner & give him/her a chance to unify.” — J.Bila

“President-Elect Trump promised to rebuild our economy for working people, and I offer to put aside our differences and work with him on that task.” — E.Warren

“I have never supported Donald Trump but as a young person that was given the privilege to be born into this great nation, I will have to put my opinions and what I wanted aside till future elections. The only way our country can be successful is if our leader is successful. I encourage you to have an open mind for Donald Trump, and I ask him to have an open mind for the change we want to see.” — GL, a young teen

“We will be trying to figure out for months, if not years, to come just what was this election was really all about and what’s going on with the American public.” — M.Nutter

“Civility is a two-way street. Respect can’t be demanded and then not returned. Many on both sides have been guilty of this. Let’s change political discourse from the ground up. Have the courage to ask for and listen with the intent to understand different opinions.” — B.Brown

“Go out and actually do something positive, loving, and productive for whatever cause you claimed was such a huge issue this election season!” — K

“Condemn no man for not thinking as you think.” — J.Wesley

“You can’t win people over to your side by demonizing them. If people cannot rise to the level of human decency when dealing with others, we can never expect to move forward. This goes for both leaders and constituents.” — K.McCracken

“We are now all rooting for his success.” — B.Obama

Respectfully…
AR (… and all those above)

the election, empathy, and the table

photo-1445333952594-1833970b4b35

My heart grieves. It grieves for a nation divided. We see persons who are hurting. We see persons who are fearful. We also see persons who are proud. And we see arguably the majority somewhere in between. Among both the fearful and the proud, we see persons sincerely unable to see any other perspective than their own. That is cause for grief. That has been cause for grief for me not just this week… but for years. We have been divided for some time.

Can we — and I know this is tough — but can we step outside our circumstances and emotion long enough to realize their are other valid perspectives than our own? Remember, as previously written, there are 360 degrees in a circle — each looking at the center from a different angle. That angle — through which we view life — is only one degree.

Hence, now is the time not to re-arm and get ready to fight. Now is not the time to disrespect. Now is not the time to burn the flag nor to dismiss the one who burns it. Now is the time to come to the table.

As known, one of my favorite phrases in life is “come to the table.” What I mean by that is there is a seat for everyone. No one is omitted. No one is marginalized.

That means we gather together…

That means we authentically fellowship and converse…

That means we hang out with more than the likeminded…

And that means no one drowns out another. We sit. We listen. And all voices are equally heard.

Friends, we have lost our ability to listen. When we get wind of a person who thinks differently, it seems as if we categorize them in our head as “one of them.” And “one of them” is a person we silently (or not) assess as either ignorant, intolerant, or somehow idiotic. Let me suggest that we are each ignorant in areas, as ignorant merely means “unknowing” — and there are a lot of things each of us does not know… especially when we are only “one degree” — and we refuse to come to the table.

Coming to the table means working out the tough issues…

Take the abortion issue, for example. And yes, I utilize such because it’s become so emotionally-charged. I really hate the fact that our abortion dialogue seems to have been reduced to protests and placards where people scream at or past one another, never sitting down, listening, and empathizing with the one who feels differently. We are awful here at looking at the totality of another’s perspective.

What coming to the table then does is that it allows us to hear that perspective; in other words, it provides a place for empathy. People who won’t come to the table have very limited empathy. And when there is no empathy, there is judgment. Judgment divides our nation.

So left, right, and all those somewhere in the middle…

Trump voters, Clinton voters, those third partiers or no voters…

All ethnicities, races, genders, and varied demographics…

The LGBTQ community…

The evangelical Christian community…

The faithful and the non-faithful…

The abortion advocates and the advocates for the unborn…

Americans…

Now is the time to come to the table and listen to one another… all sides… all 360 degrees… choosing empathy over judgment.

Respectfully…
AR

come…

photo-1478624728066-4eb3f085003a

I have only one phrase for this day, and no, it’s not: “Thank God it’s over.” 🙂

After campaigns that were too often filled with intentional disrespect, we need far more than a respite from the nasty. The nasty is not who we are…

We are the United States of America…

A country that has always recognized we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights…
A country that has always welcomed the huddled masses yearning to be free…
And a country that has always desired to secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and future generations.

Friends, come… let us reason together…

Let us reason together.

Let us not gloat.
Let us not despair.
Let us not dismiss…
Nor refuse for all to care.

We have some huge challenges in this country.

We get lost, as they are not as much about foreign policy, education, energy, the economy, and a plethora of social issues than they are in our inability — and our lack of desire — to come and reason together.

Reasoning together means wrestling with dissent.
Reasoning together means expressing dissent in respectful ways.
And reasoning together means everyone has a seat at the table.

Reasoning together suggests consideration more than compromise. It means listening and valuing other opinion. That process promotes respect; and respect promotes unity. Our challenge is that in recent years too many of our leaders — and too many of us — have allowed our country to operate as only the “States of America.” We have forgotten the united.

To be united is like a mighty mixed choir… there are sopranos and altos and tenors and basses. There are even second sopranos… baritones, too. And together they sing. They make beautiful music! But each has a different role — a role that is uniquely theirs, fitting with their circumstance and gifting; in fact, it would be incomprehensible to think a bass could sing the soprano line well; the role doesn’t belong to them. The idea is to do your job well — and not make light of any other.

In order for the choir to come together in perfect, sweet-sounding harmony — in unity, if you will — no voice can be too soft, or else we’ll never hear it; the chorus will be off, and the music simply won’t sound or even function right. Equally true, no less, is that no voice can be too loud, belting so demonstratively, that other parts are marginalized. No, in unity, there is no marginalization.

The only way the choir sounds beautiful is when all voices are valued and heard.

Come. Let us reason together.

Respectfully…
AR

election day… eight years later…

photo-1464660756002-dd9f9a92b01b

Eight years ago today was the birth of the Intramuralist. I was so discouraged by the way people interacted with one another — by the way good, intelligent people seemed to forsake all wisdom, and forget to treat their brothers and sisters with the respect we each deserve.

That day, we began. This is what I wrote:

TOP 10 THINGS I LEARNED FROM THIS ELECTION CYCLE:

10. People will do anything to win.

9. Tina Fey is a comedic genius.

8. Limericks using “Obama” can be fun (“Homearama”… yo momma…).

7. Jesus would not be a Democrat OR a Republican.

6. Objectivity in the media cannot be assumed.

5. No party has a true grasp of all that encompasses social justice.

4. “Feminism” does not mean “in support of all women.”

3. People need to pray for our nation more than once every 4 years.

2. Most people don’t know how to respect those with whom they disagree.

And for this playful artist…

1. Both Presidential and ‘Veep’ candidates will be fun to caricature over the next 4 years!

As this election cycle closes, I find myself thankful that it’s over, weary of what it entailed, and hopeful for what is to come – and that’s regardless of whom I voted for. Two years for a campaign is too much… too much money, too much mudslinging, and too much manipulation. Each campaign attempts to manipulate us by promoting desired images, but not necessarily reality. Last I could tell, neither the Messiah, the anti-Christ, nor “George W” was running; neither Biden nor Palin was an idiot; and no administration has been a complete failure.

Let’s move ahead, being respectful of our leaders. Let’s get rid of using the word “hate.” And let’s engage in respectful dialogue in this country, remembering above all else that we pledge ourselves to be one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Time to run… need to find that sketch pad…
_____

What I wrote that day remains true eight years later. Change the year… change the candidates… buy a new sketch pad for caricatures. Regardless, my concern remains the same…

Do we get it? Do we truly understand?…

Do we understand that we are damaging relationships in our political disrespect?

Do we understand that surrounding ourselves with the likeminded is not a key to wisdom?

Do we understand that none of us have this all figured out?

And do we understand that no candidate takes the place of who God is and the plans he has for any nation?

Eight years later, I stand here, hoping for more… hoping we understand…

Respectfully…
AR

humble enough to limit service

photo-1456431063673-c7c7e8bab74f

While our current societal state seems rife with disagreement, one thing most agree upon is that our political system is broken. It’s inefficient. It’s too much…

… too much money… too much spending… too much obstruction… too much manipulation of the rules… too much gerrymandering… too much partisanship… too much arrogance… too much lying… too much division… too much disrespect… too much rhetoric… too much secrecy… too much corruption… too much special interest… too much.

Regardless of what happens on Election Day, the American government will remain broken until we solve the “too much.” What’s the solution? Some contend it’s campaign finance reform. Others boast if only we all agreed that their party should possess all power.

My sense is that it starts with something far more simple. It starts by reminding the elect that they are public servants — not career politicians. Public servants do not forget whom they serve; career politicians tend to serve party, special interest, and often self.

We need to remind the elect that they are not the elite. We need to remind them that they are citizens just like the rest of us, putting on their pants — or pantsuits (hardeeharhar) — the same leg at a time. Let me thus strongly advocate this day for term limits. I believe we need to limit how long our legislators can spend in elected office.

One of the things I’ve learned in recent years is that when you realize a season or experience is limited, you’re more intentional during that time. You don’t take it for granted. You’re more apt to handle it wisely and well.

Term limits would keep our Senators and Representatives humbler, reminding them that they are not God’s gift to us. It would emphasize the servant aspect of their position. As stated by Dan Greenberg, a nonprofit executive and former member of the Arkansas House of Representatives:

  • Term limits counterbalance incumbent advantages.
  • Term limits secure Congress’s independent judgment.
  • Term limits are a reality check.
  • Term limits minimize members’ incentives for reelection-related “pork- barrel” legislation.
  • Term limits would restore respect for Congress.

We certainly could use more respect for Congress.

Interestingly, term limit polling continually shows an overwhelming majority of us support such a measure. Note that the only substantial opposition comes from incumbent politicians and special interest groups; that should tell us something. Special interest groups/lobbyists want to keep “their people” in power. Said convicted-for-extensive-corruption, lobbyist Jack Abramoff, “As a lobbyist, I was completely against term limits, and I know a lot of people are against term limits, and I was one of the leaders, because why? As a lobbyist, once you buy a congressional office, you don’t have to re-buy that office in six years, right?” Again, that should tell us something. It should tell us lots.

Note the following:

  • Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has spent over 51 years in office.
  • Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is in year 45 of office.
  • Sen. Thad Cochran (R- MS) — combining his Senate and House tenure — is in year 43.
  • Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is also in year 43.
  • Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been in office for 41 straight years.
  • His counterpart, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has served the exact same amount of time.
  • Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has been in the Senate and House over 40 years.
  • Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have both served for 39.

I thank the above for their public service. However, I desire the promise, independence, creativity, objectivity, and respect that new congressmen would infuse into our current inefficient political system. We’ve put up with it for too long. It’s too much.

Let’s talk to those who represent us…

Want to represent us well? Then start by being humble enough to limit how long you serve.

Respectfully…
AR

wanna fight?

photo-1470936972859-25f4c18b7479

What should we fight about?

C’mon… what should it be?

Cubs/Indians? Indians/Cubs? (… although for the time being, that’s already been decided… Congratulations, Cubs’ fans…)

How about Clinton/Trump? Or Trump/Clinton?

Or how about how one has so much more integrity than the other?

Friends, stop. Could we agree to quit fighting? Because if we can’t agree — and if we can’t agree to respect the person who thinks differently than we do — what do you think is going to happen next Wednesday — when the vote is done? Do we honestly expect the outcome to silence all dissent? Should it? Should we actually rationalize not listening to another?

By this point, most people seem to have made up their mind (… well, not this semi-humble current events observer — but I do have until Tuesday…). Each person’s vote is valid, no less. Each person’s…

Because each person’s vote is valid, we face disagreement. Unfortunately, many of us then also face fierce attempts to silence us or shut up. Let’s be clear: those attempts don’t further dialogue; they don’t build solution; they are not wise or respectful; and by no means do they equate to loving your neighbor well.

For those who are voting based on party platform, policy, or potential Supreme Court justices, the vote is clear. May they exercise their right to vote and sleep well on Tuesday night. For those whose vote is based on character or the perceived integrity of the candidates, the choice is more ambiguous. Note the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday morning; 60% of voters view Hillary Clinton unfavorably; 58% see the same in Donald Trump. We are bothered; there are good people who are seriously, soberly bothered by the thought of a President Trump — or —  of another President Clinton.

We are bothered by the so-called “October surprises” — these incidents and events that are announced or occur in the month before the election, often making one candidate look especially bad… like George W. Bush’s announced DUI (that happened 24 years earlier)… like Pres. William Howard Taft’s 1912 reelection ticket, when his Vice Presidential candidate died one week prior to the election… or like in 1840, when federal prosecutors charged “big Whigs” opposing Pres. Martin Van Buren with fraud in the preceding weeks.

This year, we’ve been “surprised” by Donald Trump’s 2005 crude comments about women and Hillary Clinton’s ongoing, criminal email investigation. We hear more claims that we can’t tell if they are true or untrue from WikiLeaks. Again, good people are bothered. Different things bother different people, but the bottom line (from my very limited vantage point) is something along the lines of: ugh… the perceived lack of integrity is dripping.

Yet here’s the inherent challenge. One of the above two candidates — barring something unforeseen — will become the nation’s 45th President. While no candidate has an unblemished ethical record, most of us will still choose to vote for one of the above. In other words, most of us will choose to vote for someone — whether we personally hold the same belief or not — whose integrity is in question by unprecedented multitudes.

And so here is my plea…

Remembering that each is perceived as something less than ethical, let us stop fighting and refrain from judgment.

Just like the Indians and Cubs, there is a time to stop fighting, shake hands, and congratulate the other.

Can we do that?

Can we further dialogue, build solution, be respectful, and truly love our neighbor well?

I know it’s hard… even among good people.

Respectfully…
AR

needing friends who differ from us

photo-1463778996521-da8b6f00dacf

I wish I had personally penned the below. I did not, but it is one of my favorites. The wisdom shared is poignant, especially in a world where we far too easily (and sadly) justify omitting respect due to differing opinion; we aren’t always kind to those who think differently than we. Hence, as it first appeared on Salon in 2011, NY Times Magazine and GQ contributing writer Taffy Brodesser-Akner offers the following, excellent piece. It’s a little long, but well worth the read, in light of the election, one week from today…

Janet and I would likely have never met, save for the thing that unites so many women across divides of income and age: fat. We met in a weight-loss group. There were six or seven of us in that group, but Janet and I were drawn toward each other. I liked her refusal to lie about what she’d eaten or rationalize it. She liked my tenacity and optimism. She handed me a business card that said her name, followed by “Ph.D., Housewife” and contact information. Clip art of an American flag appeared on the next line.

Beyond our weight-loss goals, we had little in common. She lives in Beverly Hills; I live in an area just beyond it where the potholes are reminiscent of Sarajevo and the government is broke. When we met, Janet was just closing up shop on reproduction, and I had just gotten married.

But for all the things we don’t have in common — and the papery, crumply things we do — our main difference is our political affiliation. Janet is a lifelong, passionate Republican. She does not pretend she is just a fiscal Republican, or just a Republican for Israel, as so many in our Jewish community are. She is a real, live, voting Republican. She likes Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. She admires Sarah Palin. She is for the defunding of NPR and Planned Parenthood. She is against “Obamacare,” and she is for parental notification of abortions. Right now on my Facebook page, I have linked to a New York Times article on how women’s rights are being violated by South Dakota’s new abortion laws. Janet has just posted on hers — I’m not kidding — video footage of her and her husband at target practice.

In the beginning, it didn’t matter. We were more concerned with our own mutual war on body fat. And we soon found on the periphery of weight loss the other things we had in common: a love of books and science, a hatred of hysterics. After I gave birth to my son, so far from my own extended family, her children became a local version of cousins: They marveled at his every new word, they imitated his walk, they donated the books they aged out of. Our husbands began to socialize. Before we knew it, our families were, well, family. Word got out that Janet and I were spending time together.

“You know she’s a Republican, right?” whispered another member of our weight-loss group after I took her card. It was meant as, well, what, exactly? A warning?

Yes, I had known. Her daughters’ names are Liberty, Honor and Victory, the latter named at the time we invaded Iraq. (Her son’s name, inexplicably, is Bernard.) She owns a bust of Ronald Reagan and cried when he died, proving that she, perhaps alone with Nancy, had remembered that he was still alive. There is a bumper sticker on her very, very large SUV that says “REPEAL,” and I believe it refers to the healthcare bill.

Janet and I refer to each other’s political parties as “your people,” but mostly, we try to stick to the things we have in common: budgets, schools, child-rearing. Janet wore a Tea Party shirt to my last birthday party, and my birthday present to myself was to not ask about it.

But it’s hard not to talk about it at all. When you live, say, on a coast or in a very blue state, you grow accustomed to being surrounded by people who believe like you do. You get to thinking that the only people who would dare contradict you are ignoramuses. Meanwhile, I began directing all my anger toward the Republican Party at Janet. On the day that Congress voted to defund Planned Parenthood, I found myself furious at Janet, just Janet, as the face of all that was bad in the world. Feeling sad and deflated, I wandered over to her house, unable to look her in the eye, asking her why? How? To what end?

She told me she didn’t believe government had any business funding it in the first place. That this isn’t about abortion or hating women but ways the government doesn’t need to be involved. She told me Planned Parenthood was well-funded and won’t even miss the money. “Planned Parenthood will be better off without government funding and all the strings that are presumably attached,” she said. “I sometimes wonder why liberals, who are so enamored of the freedom to do any damn thing they want, even take government money when it constricts their freedoms.”

I closed my eyes and breathed through what she was saying. Janet isn’t Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. She believes what she’s telling me, and she’s studied the issues. That might be what is so difficult: She has the same education as I have, and yet she has made different decisions, decisions that are so counter to what I believe. Decisions I find abhorrent.

And yet, I think having a Republican friend is making me a better liberal. We need friends who differ from us. It’s easy to watch Republican extremism and think, “Wow, they’re crazy.” But when someone is sitting face to face with us, when someone we admire and respect is telling us they believe differently, it is at this fine point that we find nuance, and we begin to understand exactly how we got to this point in history. We lose something critical when we surround ourselves with people who agree with us all the time. We lose out on the wisdom of seeing the other side.

When I moved to Los Angeles, the 2004 election had just finished ravaging the neighborhood. Friendships had ended over differences of opinions, a few marriages had learned what they were made of when one couldn’t abide what hadn’t been that big of a deal before 9/11. And so when I met Janet, she was on the defensive. That first dinner at her house, someone brought up her Republicanism. I looked down into my soup, sure this was something we shouldn’t talk about. I don’t remember the comment, or Janet’s reply, but I remember my husband asking why she’d be friends with all these liberals — and yes, it was only liberals at the table — if she felt so strongly. Throwing her hands up, she said, “I guess I lack the courage of my convictions.”

But it’s not that. I don’t speak for Janet, but I think there’s something deeper at play. Janet’s willingness to associate with so many liberal friends — though I know she seeks refuge in chat rooms and magazines that share her beliefs — makes her a better and more interesting person. She has her beliefs challenged constantly. She is more well-read and educated in her politics than most of the liberals I know. Too many liberals I know are lazy, they have a belief system that consists of making fun of Glenn Beck and watching “The Daily Show.” Shouldn’t their beliefs be challenged, too?

This is a democracy, after all. Isn’t it worth understanding a bit more about why approximately half the country votes differently than we do? Isn’t it important that we understand why people — good and legitimate Americans, whose votes count as much as ours — like Sarah Palin? Isn’t it crucial we figure out why any woman would want to defund Planned Parenthood, if only so we could then address the argument? Nobody benefits from sitting in a room, agreeing with everyone else.

Last year, Janet sent me a gift subscription for the National Review. Maybe it was her way of trying, like I am here, to understand how we can be so different and yet the same. Maybe it was a wish, a kind of magical thinking, that if I knew what she knew, I would think how she thinks. It didn’t work. In fact, I now often receive solicitations for causes and candidates I find objectionable. Every time I have to unsubscribe from something, tear up a brochure or tell someone on the telephone how disgusted I am with his or her mandate, I think again about how deep our differences run, mine and Janet’s, and I wonder if this is all worth it.

Then I remember the things that don’t get discussed in our debates — how she held my hand through a recent surgical procedure, rubbing it and distracting me the way a mother would, how she calms my fears about parenting, how she has been a family to me in a town where I have none. How that right-wing, gun-loving, flag-wearing, union-busting Republican still thinks, after all this time, and with so much information to the contrary, that I can lose and keep off weight.

I can’t help it. I love her.

Respectfully…
AR

360 degrees

photo-1471890932610-7ee4a5d280a9

I can’t. I just can’t.

I’ve heard it a lot this election cycle. And I get it. But I’d like to go out on a bit of a firm but gracious limb here and make a suggestion that might help us all at least talk a little nicer and get along a little more. Let’s change the “I can’t” to “I choose not to.”

The problem with “I can’t” is that it makes it difficult to see how anyone else actually can. It makes it really hard to put ourselves in the shoes of another — even though “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes” has been long thought to be a wise idiom. The reality this election season is that there exists only so many kinds of pairs we seem willing to put on.

So let’s try another angle…

In a circle, there exist 360 degrees. That means if 360 people surround a single object, each person’s perspective will be different. The persons nearest to us will logically possess a fairly similar perspective. The person directly opposite, on the polar, other side of the object, will have a completely different point of view. And those 90 degrees to the left or the right will see things that make absolutely no sense to me… I may even wonder if we are watching the same scenario unfold.

But that means that each of those 360 perspectives has validity. Just because I can’t see it, doesn’t allow me to dismiss it; just because I don’t share it, doesn’t make it wrong. And my perspective — passionate as it may be — is limited; it is only one degree. My perspective is limited as long as I stand only in my position, in that one degree… wearing only my shoes… and/or only borrowing a pair or two from those most adjacent to me.

Without a doubt, this is a unique election season. We have two primary presidential candidates (according to Pew Research) with whom 57% of likely American voters are frustrated or disgusted. That means the majority of us are not that excited to vote for either of the two. There do exist persons who are excited, and their perspective should not be diminished nor discounted. But the majority of us wish the slate was different. It is not.

As we then wrestle with this slate, many have said, “I can’t vote for _____”… him… her… fill in the blank.

But the reality is that we are choosing to vote or not vote for someone. Democracy is a choice. It is each individual’s right and choice.

I know many who are choosing to vote for Hillary Clinton. I know many who are choosing to vote for Donald Trump. Similarly, I know people voting for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and even Evan McMullin. But my point is that such is our constitutionally-given, rightful, individual choice.

While I comprehend the emotion behind “l can’t,” our vote is still a choice. And the challenge with the failure to recognize that it is a choice, is that it often denies the 359 other perspectives in the circle.

Each of us perceives and prioritizes so many angles and options…

… the party platforms… the candidates’ individual experience… the possibility of promises made and past promises kept… the health of the economy… healthcare… the approach to the war on terror… taxes… reducing/increasing the deficit and debt… social issues… states’ rights… religious liberty… foreign affairs… energy and education… the protection of our country, women’s rights, civil rights, the unborn, etc… potential Supreme Court justices… the integrity of the individual candidates… their behavior and words… and the integrity of the people who surround them.

Let’s be clear, though: how we perceive each of the above depends on which of the 360 angles we are looking from… 360 angles… all different.

Hence, let’s do better at remembering the existence of other angles. Let’s do better at remembering how much our perceptions are based on only a few spots within those 360 degrees. And let’s start by graciously putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes.

Respectfully…
AR

two questions today

photo-1472341581053-2af63cb175d4

As previously posted, the question mark is by far my favorite punctuation mark. The period makes a statement; the exclamation point too often justifies someone shouting at us; and the colon and semi-colon still allow one person to do all the talking. The question mark is the only punctuation mark that invites a response; it’s the only mark that keeps the conversation going — intentionally. This week, I heard two great questions.

“Are you asking a question or offering a judgment?” said the first.

Great insight. Am I truly trying to understand? Do I respect another enough to listen well, to put comprehension of their perspective above my right to evaluate and assess?

Or… am I just sitting back, waiting to pounce… You take your turn. I’ll take mine. But when I do, I’ll let you know how wrong you are…

Asking questions is not simply an exercise in taking turns. Asking questions means seeking to understand — and giving up the right to make any decree at the end. It’s asking, listening, processing together. And when the perspective shared is different than our own, it is not time to be judgmental.

Next great question…

“Is this the year?!”

Funny. I heard this from multiple people, supposedly from different so-called “sides” (… uh… I don’t believe in “sides,” you know… I believe in all sorts of angles from all sorts of varied perspectives, but people like to pit us against one another, fictionally driving the narrative that one of us is all right and one of us is all wrong — without ever analyzing that there might be something right and wrong with both of us… but alas… I digress…) With the onset of the Fall Classic — the MLB’s 112th World Series — and two teams who have not known the ultimate success in decades, I heard that humble refrain…

Again… “Is this the year?”

I ask again because what strikes me most about the simple statement is the embedded hope within the query. To ask if this is the year, assumes that one doesn’t know the answer. It may be; it may not. But the hope equates to an active wishing and watching. Hope is so much more attractive than its often self-proclaimed opposites… disbelief, demandingness… Something about the person who waits with that earnest expectation of what’s important is absolutely beautiful.

And so I thought of those two questions, wrestling with my reaction to each — thankful that others invited a response and encouraged dialogue.

I wondered, too, about this political season. Let me rephrase: this brutal, polarizing, often rhetorically-ugly, political season.

 Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of telling others how we think… instead of all the self-proclamations… instead of the Facebook rants and raves… instead of the judgment… instead of any pouncing… instead of pitting ourselves against one another… instead of falling prey to the idea that one of us is all right and one of us is all wrong… Wouldn’t it be better and wiser and more respectful and loving of one another if we asked questions and sincerely attempted to understand?…

I have a great friend with whom I am processing much of this political season. We approach it differently, but our willingness to understand is a growth tool for us both. We ask a lot of questions… a lot of questions. It’s amazing how that works.

So wouldn’t it be wonderful if we refrained from judgment — both verbally and quietly, even in the back of our minds?

I’m hoping someday soon it will be our year.

Respectfully…
AR

fall classic

photo-1452111874847-707d7ee99c9b

One was originally known as the Grand Rapids Rustlers — the other as the White Stockings. And tonight, the former Rustlers and Stockings — now affectionately known as the Indians and Cubs — will face off against each other in the 112th edition of Major League Baseball’s, best-of-seven World Series.

While a single Series, Super Bowl, or other professional championship does not necessarily merit an entire blog post, this one feels different. It’s not because it’s a grueling, head-to-head competition (… consistent with another intense, more electoral classic, also going on this time of year). It’s instead because of the unique, combined history of these two teams — and what that means for the rest of us.

The Cleveland Indians were established in 1894. They have appeared in the World Series six times in those 122 years. They were last in the World Series in 1997, but haven’t won the title since 1948.

The Chicago Cubs were founded 18 years earlier, in 1876. They have appeared in the World Series eleven times, but not since 1945. The Cubs last won the championship in 1908.

Let’s pause here for a moment. The Indians haven’t won since…

  • 1948… The first tape recorder was sold… the first U.S. figure skating championships were held, and NASCAR was incorporated. ABC began broadcasting on television. The World Health Organization was formed; and subway fares in New York City jumped from five cents to an outrageous ten. The Honda Motor Company was founded. Baseball’s Negro National League disbanded; and Allen Funt’s “Candid Camera” debuted on TV as did “Kukla, Fran, & Ollie.” It’s the year Prince Charles, Al Gore, and Olivia Newton-John were born — and Mahatma Gandhi and Babe Ruth passed away.

The Cubs last won 40 years earlier, in…

  • 1908… It was the first time the ball was ever dropped at Times Square on New Year’s Eve… U.S. stamps first started being sold in rolls; and the Model T was invented (costing a whopping $825). The first tunnel under the Hudson River opened. Star #46 was added to the flag for Oklahoma; and Mr. & Mrs. Jacob Murdock became the first ever to travel across the U.S. by car. The first Mothers’ Day was observed. The first Gideon Bible was placed in a hotel room, and the first numbers were used on an American football uniform (at the University of Pittsburgh). It’s the year Bette Davis, Mel Blanc, and Ethel Merman were born — and when Grover Cleveland and Butch Cassidy passed away.

This year’s World Series matchup features two teams which have gone a combined 176 years without a championship. Wow.

(With all due respect to the Astros, Brewers, Mariners, Nationals/Expos, Padres, Rangers, Rays, and Rockies, who have never won MLB’s top prize) We live in sports era that sees teams dominate. From Alabama atop college football’s annual polls… Duke, Kentucky, and a handful of others in NCAA basketball… even the Patriots and Steelers in the NFL… Said teams always seem good.

But the challenge for the team that’s always good is that they sometimes miss the depth of the sweetness of victory; they sometimes take winning for granted. They at times get puffed up, missing the humble gratitude for such a blessing.

Did you notice Cleveland’s enthralled fans the other night? Did you notice the joy in the streets of Chicago?

While there will always be a few puffed up persons who threaten to pierce the beauty of the moment, the reality is that these two teams — and their loyal legions of fans — don’t take winning for granted. They can’t; no Indians’ fan under the age of 68 has ever seen their team win the title — no Cubs’ fan under the age of 108. To them, this is beautiful, joyful, and sweet.

The gift to the rest of us, is we get to watch… cheering both of them on.

Respectfully…
AR