Posts

Posted on

hacked

On Sunday, April 9th, CNN host and CBS correspondent Anderson Cooper presented the a piece on “60 Minutes” with the following lead in:

“What is ‘brain hacking’? Tech insiders on why you should care…”

In a culture that continues to buy into this idea that Facebook is somehow authentic conversation, Snapchat is an accurate picture of one’s life, and any of the above and other social media apps/sites qualify as any kind of listening or dialogue, we should care about “brain hacking.”

Cooper began: “Have you ever wondered if all those people you see staring intently at their smartphones — nearly everywhere, and at all times — are addicted to them? According to a former Google product manager you are about to hear from, Silicon Valley is engineering your phone, apps and social media to get you hooked. He is one of the few tech insiders to publicly acknowledge that the companies responsible for programming your phones are working hard to get you and your family to feel the need to check in constantly. Some programmers call it ‘brain hacking’ and the tech world would probably prefer you didn’t hear about it.”

Cooper proceeds to interview Tristan Harris, who according to CBS, “was living the Silicon Valley dream. He dropped out of a master’s program at Stanford University to start a software company. Four years later Google bought him out and hired him as a product manager. It was while working there he started to feel overwhelmed.”

Said Harris: “Honestly, I was just bombarded in email and calendar invitations and just the overload of what it’s like to work at a place like Google. And I was asking, ‘When is all of this adding up to, like, an actual benefit to my life?’ And I ended up making this presentation. It was kind of a manifesto. And it basically said, you know, ‘Look, never before in history have a handful of people at a handful of technology companies shaped how a billion people think and feel every day with the choices they make about these screens.’”

Harris put together a 144-page presentation for Google execs arguing that the constant distractions of apps and emails are “weakening our relationships to each other” and “destroying our kids ability to focus.” With little change, Harris decided to quit three years later.

Again, said Harris: “It’s not because anyone is evil or has bad intentions. It’s because the game is getting attention at all costs. And the problem is it becomes this race to the bottom of the brainstem, where if I go lower on the brainstem to get you, you know, using my product, I win. But it doesn’t end up in the world we want to live in. We don’t end up feeling good about how we’re using all this stuff.”

Tristan Harris says the only thing the apps and sites and their developers want is our attention. The longer they hold our attention, the more money they make. (Question: know why texts and Facebook use a continuous scroll? It’s a proven way to keep us searching longer.)

Note that as Cooper’s report continues, one psychologist says that the typical person checks their phone every 15 minutes or less — and — “half of the time they check their phone there is no alert, no notification.” We are checking into Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, etc. We are checking in on — and investing in — things that are not people.

Let me attempt to be more clear…

We are spending more and more time on our apps. We are often using them to connect with other people, thus potentially investing in relationship.

However, we are mistaking these connections for authentic communication.

We are mistaking status updates and opinion sharing as good, give-and-take dialogue.

And thus, we are mistaking social media for being a solid investment in other people.

Seems like we are doing a lot of mistaking.

As the tech industry prioritizes grabbing our attention, the reality is that such will pull our attention away from someone or something else. Hence, it’s not only our brains which are being hacked; it’s our relationships, too.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

what I think about today

For a few select years, this semi-humble parent took time out to homeschool two of her three children. It was no intended disrespect of any of the excellent educators in our community, nor was our family any less involved; we love our local schools and will always support them. This was simply a choice that for two of our three kids, for those few, specifically selected years, a more targeted one-on-one educational approach would be fruitful. Socialization was never an issue (… and no, with all due respect to my homeschool family friends, I never wore a denim skirt nor some sort of bun in my hair).

One of the educational units we most enjoyed during those years was the study of world religion; it was fascinating! While some have opted for religion being on the short list of things people don’t talk about, I felt it was wise and appropriate for my children to understand the interworking of each major faith…

… what is the origin?
… who was the founder?
… are people encouraged to worship God or worship man?
… what is the primary doctrine?
… what are the primary behavioral components?
… where has the information come from?
… how do we know if it’s true?
… what parts are hard? … and if so, why? … because they don’t make sense or because of any stubbornness or unwillingness on my part to understand and attempt to comply?
… how through the centuries, has its prophecy proven true?
… what seems based merely on human thinking?

Such is a fascinating study. And while I believe that true religion must fully affect a person’s head, heart, and feet (meaning it needs to make sense, spur us on to love other people well, and then put our feet into motion/service), that study gave us excellent head knowledge.

For example, did you know that the Jehovah Witnesses teach that only 144,000 people will go to heaven? (… someone might want to review those odds with their 3.5 million members…)

… or that Scientology, founded by L. Ron Hubbard, teaches that 75 million years ago, an evil leader called Xenu decided to eliminate the excess population from a galactic confederacy, tricking billions of people and then exporting them to Earth? (… note that Hubbard was a career science fiction writer… shocking…).

All that to say that it is an entirely false statement to say that all religions are equally good, true, and right. That is simply untrue.

One of the aspects, no less, that fascinated my boys and I, as we took advantage of the opportunity to learn together some dozen years ago, was that as we studied the world’s religions, only one teaches about a central figure who died and came back to life. The bodies of all other founders and leaders of the world’s religions remain dead and decaying in a tomb somewhere.

Let me not be callous nor disrespectful. Such is not my intent.

My intent is simply to share that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the one aspect of Christianity my boys and I could never shake. We could never quit thinking about how it’s the one aspect that differentiates Christ from the leaders of all other faiths and ideologies.

I am not saying that all parts of Christianity are easy for me; they’re not. But on Easter Sunday, the day the world remembers that radical, unparalleled-by-any resurrection, I must pause. I pause asking myself what I believe and why… where am I right? … where am I wrong? … and for me, where has my own stubbornness and unwillingness gotten in the way?

I think of the resurrection this day.

Respectfully… always…
AR

Posted on

the american dream

As stated here previously, one of my favorite authors is Peggy Noonan. She’s witty and wise, articulate and animated. I’ve watched her on multiple networks, from ABC and NBC to MSNBC and FOX News. While conservative in nature, she is fair-minded. This week she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary.

In an election season when the individual emotions of many journalists seemed far more vocal than any presentation of news or balanced perspective, Noonan was a consistent, fair, thought-provoking editorialist. The prize judges said Noonan rose “to the moment with beautifully rendered columns that connected readers to the shared virtues of Americans during one of the nation’s most divisive political campaigns.”

Ah, those shared virtues… so many seem to have forgotten…

Last week, Noonan had yet another great column, attempting to again connect us. She wrestled with “What’s Become of the American Dream?”

She started by saying that the dream is not dead, but “it needs strengthening.” She defines it as “the belief, held by generation after generation since our beginning and reanimated over the decades by waves of immigrants, that here you can start from anywhere and become anything.”

She then gives some tremendous examples… Abraham Lincoln, the one time “backwoods nobody”… Barbara Stanwyck, who lost her parents… and Jonas Salk, the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland. One became President, another a “magnetic actress,” and another cured polio. But then Noonan makes an important distinction…

“… The American dream was about aspiration and the possibility that, with dedication and focus, it could be fulfilled. But the American dream was not about material things—houses, cars, a guarantee of future increase. That’s the construction we put on it now. It’s wrong. A big house could be the product of the dream, if that’s what you wanted, but the house itself was not the dream. You could, acting on your vision of the dream, read, learn, hold a modest job and rent a home, but at town council meetings you could stand, lead with wisdom and knowledge, and become a figure of local respect. Maybe the respect was your dream. Stanwyck became rich, Salk revered. Both realized the dream.”

Somehow we got the dream mixed up. Part of that, Noonan opines, is that when Grandpa shared that “this is the American dream,” the kids looked around, saw the houses and car, and assumed the American dream is “things.” But it is not; “material things could be, and often were, its fruits.” Noonan poignantly continues…

“… The American dream was never fully realized, not by a long shot, and we all know this. The original sin of America, slavery, meant some of the oldest Americans were brutally excluded from it. The dream is best understood as a continuing project requiring constant repair and expansion, with an eye to removing barriers and roadblocks for all.

Many reasons are put forward in the argument over whether the American Dream is over (no) or ailing (yes) or was always divisive (no—dreams keep nations together). We see income inequality, as the wealthy prosper while the middle class grinds away and the working class slips away. There is a widening distance, literally, between the rich and the poor. Once the richest man in town lived nearby, on the nicest street on the right side of the tracks. Now he’s decamped to a loft in SoHo. ‘The big sort’ has become sociocultural apartheid. It’s globalization, it’s the decline in the power of private-sector unions and the brakes they applied.

What ails the dream is a worthy debate. I’d include this: The dream requires adults who can launch kids sturdily into Dream-land.

When kids have one or two parents who are functioning, reliable, affectionate—who will stand in line for the charter-school lottery, who will fill out the forms, who will see that the football uniform gets washed and is folded on the stairs in the morning—there’s a good chance they’ll be OK. If you come from that now, it’s like being born on third base and being able to hit a triple. You’ll be able to pursue the dream.

But I see kids who don’t have that person, who are from families or arrangements that didn’t cohere, who have no one to stand in line for them or get them up in the morning. What I see more and more in America is damaged or absent parents. We all know what’s said in this part—drugs, family breakup. Poor parenting is not a new story in human history, and has never been new in America. But insufficient parents used to be able to tell their kids to go out, go play in America, go play in its culture. And the old aspirational culture, the one of the American dream, could counter a lot. Now we have stressed kids operating within a nihilistic popular culture that can harm them. So these kids have nothing—not the example of a functioning family and not the comfort of a culture into which they can safely escape.

This is not a failure of policy but a failure of love. And it’s hard to change national policy on a problem like that.”

[Insightful commentary… thought-provoking once again…]

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

nothing like the originalism

[Today’s post is from a guest contributor. Meet articulate brother #1…]

 

Last week, the United States Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch as the newest member of the Supreme Court. I am a fan of Gorsuch because he adheres to the judicial philosophy of originalism. What exactly does originalism mean?

Some people view judges as having the ultimate say in what our laws should be. That is not what the founders of our country intended. The judicial branch is just one of three coequal branches of government. As we all remember from elementary school, the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch administers the law, and the judicial branch interprets the law. Plain and simple, it is not the courts’ responsibility to make law, nor should they make law.

Originalists like Gorsuch (and me) believe that the proper way to interpret law is to ascertain its original meaning, or in other words, what those who wrote the law were thinking when it was passed. If the text of a law is silent on an issue, it is not up a judge to determine what it should say. That is up to the legislature.

Unfortunately, not all judges are originalists. Many are judicial activists who allow their personal opinions to influence their decisions. Instead of following the text of the law and allowing it to lead them to a conclusion, they choose the outcome they want and then twist words into their own desired meaning to get to that outcome.

In a democracy, it is vital that courts, especially the Supreme Court, refrain from making law. Because justices aren’t elected and have lifetime tenure, we can’t hold them accountable if they make laws we don’t like. If we don’t like laws that legislators make (or if they won’t pass laws that we want), we can get new legislators.

An egregious example of judicial activism was a 1965 case called Griswold vs. Connecticut. The state of Connecticut had a law on the books at the time that prohibited the use of contraceptives. Now I think most of us would agree that is a stupid law, but here’s the thing: if Ms. Griswold thought it was a stupid law, she should have lobbied her legislature to repeal it. That’s the way our system is supposed to work.

Instead, the Supreme Court found that although the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution didn’t explicitly declare a right of marital privacy, there is a “penumbra” of undeclared rights as such and therefore overturned Connecticut’s law as unconstitutional.

Let me be clear… I am not taking issue with the result in this case as unjust. I think the people of Connecticut should be free to use contraceptives as they see fit. The problem is how the courts came to that result. By their very nature, the edges of penumbras are blurry and not well defined. If indeed the Constitution has an enforceable penumbra, what other rights are included? The right to smoke marijuana? The right to own an automatic weapon? The right to assist in a suicide? The right to free health care?

We would all disagree on what’s within the penumbra and what’s outside. If unelected judges determine what’s in or out, that’s not democracy; that’s despotism. Therefore the whole concept of a Constitutional penumbra should be rejected and only the text of existing law should guide judges.

Note that judicial activists can be either liberal or conservative, although there are many more instances of liberal judicial activism in the fifty years since Griswold, for example on abortion and gay marriage. It is inappropriate for judges to allow their personal feelings to influence the outcome of a case, regardless of their political leanings.

It used to be that judicial activists were less conspicuous with their law making. Now that the practice is commonplace and difficult to hide, judges have become overt about their intentions. Just last week, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal (which is comprised of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana) in Hively vs. Ivy Tech Community College, ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bars employment discrimination on the basis of sex bars employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well.

No one believes that the original intent of the 1964 Congress was to include sexual orientation as a protected class in civil rights law. It is striking that Judge Richard Posner acknowledges that fact but brazenly admits that he and his colleagues are making law. For an excellent write-up on Judge Posner’s opinion, see Josh Blackman’s blog at http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/04/05/judge-posners-judicial-interpretive-updating.

Allow me to reiterate: I don’t think employers should fire someone just because they are gay. Yet, if we the people want a law to prohibit such discrimination, the proper channel to bring about that change is through the legislative branch, not the judicial. Otherwise, we will cease to live under the rule of law and will have embraced the rule of men.

Respectfully…
Pete

Posted on

just war?

Save for the testosterone-infused, teenage boy lost in the latest video game craze, I’m not convinced there are any rational-thinking, goodhearted people who actually like war. The question, therefore, is not: who likes it? … who wants it? The better question is: when it warranted?

On Thursday evening, as Syrians slept (and others across the globe had their eyes closed in regard to current events), America launched missiles to destroy airplane and fuel facilities allegedly used by Pres. Bashar al-Assad’s regime to mount chemical weapons attacks. Two/three days prior, Assad’s military had dropped chemical weapons on persons deemed oppositional to the Syrian government; they dropped them on their own people.

While the Intramuralist is one whose head and heart are typically both fully engaged in decision-making and the building of perspective, my heart hurt seeing the horrific pictures associated with this chemical attack. Chemical weapons are some of the most dangerous to ever exist; they attack the body’s central nervous system, which includes control of functions such as our heart rate, breathing, digestion, waste, etc. My heart grieved at initial glance.

To be clear, I am one not comfortable with any cheers where violence is involved. Such is true whether it’s military conflict, political protests in the streets, or crime directed at one. Violence is not something to be celebrated. Celebrating and believing that there is a “time for everything,” however, are separate, capable-of-coexisting perspectives. There is a time to be born and a time to die… there is a time to mourn and a time to dance… and there is a time for peace and a time for war. The question thus becomes: when is that time?

The best, time-tested guidelines go back centuries, initially put forth by St. Augustine of Hippo and added to by succeeding, societal leaders. They developed the concept of a “Just War.” The purpose of this timeless doctrine is to ensure military force is morally justifiable but is also conducted in an ethical way. It seeks to reconcile (1) the wrong in taking a human life, (2) the duty of states to defend their citizens, and (3) the protection of innocent human life and of important moral values.

Hence, the first premise of the Just War concept is the admonition to all citizens and governments to work for the avoidance of war. Assuming all non-violent options have been exhausted, the principles of a Just War are as follows:

• A Just War can only be waged as a last resort.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority.
• A Just War can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.
• The ultimate goal of a Just War is to re-establish peace.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.
• And the weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants; civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.

As this doctrine has developed over the centuries — and as modern warfare methods (nuclear, biological and chemical) have become so extreme — crimes against humanity are also viewed as something to be especially guarded against.

Friends, I have serious concerns about escalation in Syria and elsewhere. I also will never celebrate violence against any. I do, though, believe a just response is sometimes necessary. I will also add that I am no expert. I am thus thankful for the veterans and career military men and women who have far more expertise than I — and whose perspective is shaped by more than their heart or by their politics.

And while I sincerely doubt peace will ever fully come until heaven is a reality, my strong sense is that we should never tire to work for it… peace on the planet… peace with the people around us… recognizing peace is not always possible.

Let’s be bold enough to ask the question of when war is just. But let’s do so in reverence, sobriety, and with zero celebration.

Respectfully…
AR

 

[Editorial note: significant external sources were utilized extensively for the contents of this post, including but not limited to the BBC Ethics Guide, the “Big Think”, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Mount Holy Yoke College, and Wikipedia.]

Posted on

talking some gorsuch

You know (… and for the record, I know “you know” isn’t the wisest way to begin a blog post…), but you know, I don’t mind talking about politics. Granted, I don’t always like politics, but I don’t mind talking about it. I don’t mind talking about politics or even the icky, sticky, controversial issues, as long, of course, as it’s done respectfully.

What I do mind are (1) the inability to talk about political issues — when ignorance, intolerance, or some other attitude or emotion shuts down all other points of view — and (2) playing politics.

In that context, I’d like to “talk some Gorsuch” today. While I often chuckle with the proper noun sounding more like some foreign, foreign language to me, I instead speak of Neil Gorsuch, the 49 year old federal appellate judge and current candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Before we can “talk some Gorsuch,” we need to address two additional, relevant aspects. First, we need to remember the procedure for affirming a Supreme Court justice. Second, we need to acknowledge the judicial ongoings of the past year.

First, as set forth by the Constitution, candidates for the high court are nominated by the President, with the “Advice and Consent of the Senate” necessary for appointment. Note that the Constitution does not set forth any actual qualifications for service; therefore, the President may nominate the person of his choice.

While not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate, a nominee’s confirmation may be prolonged via the filibuster. Regardless, the Senate typically confirms the President’s nominee unless there exist serious, outstanding questions and concerns. Ideological differences or dislike for the nominating President are characteristically not enough to deny confirmation. (ie. Pres. Ronald Reagan’s nominee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, was confirmed in ’88 by a vote of 97-0; Pres. Bill Clinton’s nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, was confirmed in ’93 by a vote of 96-3; and the last nominee to be rejected was in 1987.)

Second, remember what happened solely one year ago. Justice Antonin Scalia was considered as “the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court’s conservative wing,” but he passed away unexpectedly in February of 2016. As is his purview, President Obama then nominated appellate judge Merrick Garland to succeed Scalia. Noting that ideological differences are not disqualifiers, Garland was fully qualified to be the next member of the Supreme Court. Senate Republican leadership denied him both hearings and a vote; they denied Garland’s mere consideration as a justice, proclaiming the next president should make the choice… a president, who would be inaugurated almost a year later.

In the Intramuralist’s semi-humble but honest opinion, the Senate Republican leadership played politics. There were no serious, outstanding concerns regarding Garland.

Now to “talking Gorsuch”…

Like Scalia, Neil Gorsuch is a proponent of textualism and originalism of the Constitution. His fairness and temperament have been raved about from all sides of the proverbial, partisan aisle. By all accounts, Gorsuch is also fully qualified to be the next member of the Supreme Court. The Senate Democratic leadership, however, has decided this week to oppose him.

In the Intramuralist’s again semi-humble but honest opinion, the Senate Democratic leadership is taking its turn, playing politics.

So now the Republican leadership in the Senate plans to change the rules in lowering the threshold for the number of votes necessary for confirmation. Before the immediate grimace at the obvious, partisan rule manipulation, note that the Democratic leadership changed the threshold rules three years ago when they were in the majority. Unfortunately, though, too many of us only jeer or cheer based on who is doing the rule changing. If it was wrong for one, it’s wrong for both, and thus, neither party can claim to be handling the confirmation process with total honesty, integrity, and even semi-humility.

Friends, I have no desire to be harsh; it’s simply that the Intramuralist so desires what is good and true and right. The challenge is when either the Republicans or Democrats play politics, they each engage in something less than that.

Let me be clear:  both parties too often engage in something less than what is good, true, and right.

Wanting something more… wanting something better… always, regardless of party…

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

wrong?

This weekend a friend shared an honest, transparent question on Facebook.

The question was something like, “How sensitive should we be to the expectations of others in our own sharing and expression?”

She then gave the example of those who post sonogram shots of their soon-to-be-born babes and how hurtful that can be to those who are unable to have children or who have actually miscarried.

My friend’s Q was honest and authentic; she really wanted to know. How sensitive should we be?

Is it ok to wish someone a Happy Easter in the coming month, even though others may take offense at the celebration of Christ’s resurrection?

Was it ok in February to send candy hearts and all sorts of public love wishes for Valentines Day, even though for many, it’s a reminder of recent or former heartbreak?

Does that make the sincere, public expression associated with Easter, Valentines, etc. wrong?

What about the holidays that are more individualized…

Some of us celebrate marital anniversaries; some of us do not. My friend, in fact, is a soon-to-be, unwanting-to-be, divorced woman. Does that make acknowledging and celebrating our individual anniversaries — again — wrong?

My sense is that we’re not very good at this.

We’re not very good as a culture at refraining from placing our expectations upon everyone else. We’re not very good at truly putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes. Sometimes, we’re only willing to put on a few, select pairs.

Putting on someone else’s shoes, for example, means I never rub my acknowledgement, celebration, or emotion in the face of another. I recognize that some moments/events are hard for some people, and thus I am intentionally careful with any bold broadcast.

Putting on someone else’s shoes also means that I allow the emotion of another to be expressed. I don’t have to stop or diminish another’s emotion simply because I do not share it nor feel it.

Again, we’re not very good at this.

Sometimes it seems we attempt to shut down what we don’t understand. We’re not good at what we can’t relate to. We’re not good at recognizing that two different people can have two different reactions to the same kind of event…

… and…

… both emotions can be ok.

As potentially expected, my friend’s initial post created extensive conversation. (Honest, transparent questions have a way of doing that.) Some persons keyed in just to learn and grow, and arguably to flag those places in their own lives where they aren’t all that good at wearing the shoes of another…

“Where can I grow?… Do I have any blind spots? … any places where I’m really not all that gentle and kind? … any places where I am judgmental and intolerant?”

Others commented freely — some with strong opinions… some even, seemingly, with the “how-dare-you” kind of Q’s.

Sadly, my friend and I are no longer “Facebook friends.” Not because of us; we’re good. But because yesterday, after her post, she left social media.

Some were unkind in their response. Some felt no need to wear her shoes.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

headline questions

As has long been a tradition of the Intramuralist, every now and then I enjoy taking a quick glance at the nation’s headlines, just to get a pulse on what people are talking about. Also, of course, I enjoy the insightful questions embedded in those headlines.

(Remember: the question mark is the only punctuation piece that actually invites a response.)

Nonetheless, while on spring break, the following questions — which themselves served as actual headlines — got my attention:

“Whose Luck Runs Out in Final Four?”

“What If George W. Bush Spied on Obama in 2008?”

“Is Obamacare a Lifesaver?”

“Why Can’t Politicians Work Together?”

“When Is It OK for Democrats to Work with Trump?”

“What Do Republicans Do Now?”

“Is Russia America’s Enemy?”

“What’s Next for Gold, the Dollar, and the Stock Market?”

“Think Tax Reform Will Be Easy for Trump?”

“Does Believing in God Make You a Better American?”

“Why Is Water Sacred to Native Americans?”

“If Gorsuch Can’t Be Confirmed, Who Can?”

“Why Are Baseball Games So Darn Long?”

“Is a Secular America a Worse America?”

(… and perhaps my favorite — at least in the non-polarizing category…)

“Dancing With the Stars: Who Will Win Season 24?”

Let me always offer the freedom not to answer the questions; some questions, in fact, are impossible to answer. Some questions I simply don’t like.

But almost always, the asking and entertaining of a question is key to further understanding. Further understanding would be wise for us all…

… always.

Respectfully…

AR

 

Posted on

“I’m so mad!”

Some of life’s most poignant lessons come from the least expected places. For me that often means coming from my youngest son, Joshua.

As said here many days, for those who believe special needs equates to some lesser quality of life, I contend you have not met my Josh. He is vibrant and sensitive and incredibly insightful; he, too, is often better with people than I.

One of the many things I admire about Josh is that he doesn’t hide his emotion. That doesn’t mean he takes it out on unfortunate others, but it does mean that when he’s happy, we all know it. When he’s excited, his enthusiasm brightens up everyone else in the room. And when he’s mad, he’s really mad. There is no doubt whatsoever.

We adults — well — we’re better at hiding things, being fairly well versed in managing the impressions we wish others to have of us. The sharing of emotions, though, is typically a higher priority for Josh than managing those impressions.

Last week, no less, Josh was mad.

Let me begin by explaining that Josh loves many things… from Batman and Disneyland, to nachos and mozzarella cheese sticks, to his two older brothers and Joey Tribbiani. And consistent with his emotional expression, when Josh loves something, that zestful glee is 100%, absolutely contagious. Yes, Josh’s love is contagious.

Note that one of the things on that list of things he loves is sushi. While we don’t get too into the raw fish or eely edibles, Josh loves creating a cold rice combo with a small vegetable and shrimp garnish, wrapped in seaweed, and topped with a modest crunch. Thankfully, Wednesdays are often “Sushi Day” at school.

But last Wednesday, he had a problem.

Someone had graciously decided to bless Josh’s special needs class with a thoughtful gift. They were bringing lunch to the entire class, purchasing Arby’s roast beef sandwiches for everyone in the room.

For over a week, in fact, Josh had expressed his joy that someone was bringing them Arby’s!

And he continued to express that joy… that is… until Wednesday morning when he awoke, realizing that the acceptance of the gift meant no sushi. Remember: Josh loves sushi.

He was ranting and raving and unquestionably grumpy.

“I am so mad!”

Such was a mere one of his angry refrains.

Allowing the authenticity of his expression to play out, I felt no need to squelch any emotion until he kept repeating himself with even more ratcheted up responses. His continued expression was causing him to lose focus.

“Josh,” I finally said, during one small break in the ranting. “Do you see what’s happening?”

He looked at me with those big blue eyes that kind of wanted to stay mad, but still keenly aware that he should at least listen to other potential sources of wisdom.

“You are so mad, your anger is keeping you from being thankful. Your anger is getting in the way of seeing and doing what’s right.”

To be clear, Josh did not become instantly happy; as noted, he’s not one to fake how he feels. But he was able to stop ranting, surrender his anger, go to school, and then offer his thanks. He was able to keep his anger from getting in the way.

Respectfully…
AR

 

Posted on

when incivility wins

Every now and then I read an editorial I wish I would have written; however, I’m so thankful it’s more than me that shares such an opinion. What’s also true is that I learn from opinion other than my own.

From Lori Borgman…

… an author, columnist, speaker…

Also — dare I say — a person who speaks the truth. In a recent column, here, no less, is the truth she shares:

An “Old West and New West” cartoon shows the “Old West” side with a cowboy holding his hands above his holster, ready to draw. It’s labeled Gunslinger.

The “New West” side shows a man in jeans, T-shirt, and a bandana with globs of mud in both hands and more globs of mud at his feet. It’s labeled Mudslinger.

It would be even funnier if it weren’t so true.

We’ve taken mudslinging to new heights. Make that new lows.

If you don’t like someone’s stand on an issue these days, start calling them names. Fascist is a popular choice, as are racist and bigot. Liar, moron, and homophobe are in the top 10 as well. If none of those do the trick, pull out the big guns – call somebody a Nazi.

The smear has become standard operating procedure. Don’t attack the argument; attack the person espousing the argument.

And we’re the grown-ups. Well, in name at least.

It’s like the entire nation needs a time-out to contemplate incivility.

Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill went to the mat in vehement disagreement over policy. They often made witty but disparaging comments about one another (name-calling light). Yet at the close of many work days they sat down for drinks together in the White House.

Today, opposing factions would be more tempted to throw drinks on one another. Our incivility is all-encompassing — from Wal-Mart brawls to both sides of the political spectrum.

The internet and social media have become cesspools of incivility. The pseudo-anonymity of posting online serves as a cover for knee-jerk, brash and reckless. Post now, regret later. Or never. People say things online that they would never say to someone face-to-face. (Hopefully.)
Online media outlets are forced to close the comments section on articles due to incivility of readers’ remarks. Someone posts a comment relative to the article. A second poster questions the IQ of the first poster, a third poster slams the second poster for slamming the first poster and it’s a slugfest.

On Twitter, you can barroom brawl in 144 characters or less.

Incivility shuts guest speakers out of venues on college campuses, places that were once bastions of the free exchange of ideas. Odd, isn’t it? We punish bullying in some quarters but give it free rein in others.

Incivility is why some are contemplating discontinuing Town Halls. You can’t have a public forum when nobody can hear what anybody else is saying over the din of rabble rousers. Those who can crank up the volume the most seem to be winning.

Or are they? When incivility wins, everybody loses. When incivility becomes standard fare, civil people pull back. They want no part. Mudslinging, hurling insults and vitriol are degrading and embarrassing to all.

We don’t have to agree with one another. We don’t even have to like one another. But in the name of survival, we do have to be respectful of one another.

[Amen, sister… amen…]

Respectfully…
AR