Can you hear me now?

In the likely event that you read my recent post about Dale McGowan's series and immediately rushed over to check it out because you so highly regard my opinion...I thought I should give you a heads up that the next post in the series is now up at his site. In somewhat related news, my recent post "Community Division" is not from an entirely different vein than the Can You Hear Me Now? series.

Community Division

“[People] draw this neat little circle, and everyone inside the circle is normal. Everyone outside the circle should be beaten, broken, and reset so they can be brought into the circle. Failing that, they should be institutionalized, or worse, pitied.” – Dr. Gregory House played by Hugh Laurie in the Fox series House.

There seems to be a natural instinct to seek community. We all like to experience fellowship with people who share some kind of interest or perspective or goal. Young schoolkids form clubs for a variety of purposes. Athletic activities give fine expression to this urge. College kids belong to social or service organizations, or proudly belong to the community of people who abstain from being in organizations. Beyond school and sports, anyone can observe a variety of other indicators for this instinct. Young Upcoming Professionals “network” together. People in particular fields of work form associations and leagues and societies and such. People develop such a sense of pride in their homeland that they form community around notions of nationalism and/or ethnicity. There are even examples of groups based on common race. There are forms of community based on gender, others based on age, and others based on religion.

Whatever the particular common ground is, any communal expression necessarily involves exclusion of those who do not “fit” or who choose not to comply with some requirement. A community is defined in part simply by who is in and who is out. It’s not a football team if people with no athletic skills or abilities are able to sign up. It’s not a sorority if guys are on the member list. It’s not the state’s Bar Association if accountants and plumbers are on the roll. And it’s not a Baptist church if all the congregants are baptizing their babies.

All of this can be harmless, given good circumstances. People don’t tend to have reason to boycott the local high school’s Future Business Leaders of America club. The massive riches obtained in the world of professional sports indicate that there is a consensus of support for the endeavors of professional athletes. The Young Professionals Association downtown doesn’t seem to be offending people.

However, problems can arise when the “in” crowd of a particular stripe have views which indicate that the “out” crowd are inferior or pitiable for their lack of being “in.”

Even this is not always the case. Groups do have sufficient cause at times to believe that their experience is better than people who are not in the group. My wife, who looks over my shoulder as I write, points out just now that we who are not in prison have a superior experience to those who are in prison. Another example is that I am among those who have visited Boston, while my wife is among those who have not, and I am obviously not a bad person for thinking she is inferior for this. And there is probably very little harm when a group of tuba players look down their noses at a group of oboe players.

But when real or perceived serious consequences are involved, it is possible for outsiders to be alienated, offended, demoralized, and even dehumanized.

You’ll have no need of me explaining how the relatively recent history of racism provides some clear examples of this. And you are surely aware of various news headlines indicating some extreme religious fanaticism leading to a serious injury and/or murder of “infidels” (outsiders deemed to be “not faithful” and not worthy of continued life according to an extremist community standard).

However, there are more common examples of outsiders being derogated.

Some abortion advocates may suggest that anti-abortion activists are Neanderthals. The return shot may be a categorization of murderer.

Some atheists may suggest that adherents to supernaturalism are weak-minded squanderers of time and energy. The return shot may be the notification that the afterlife for those without theistic faith will involve an eternity burning in a lake of fire.

Some Baptists may suggest that Catholics are superstitious and in danger of hellfire for idolatry. The return shot may be that Baptists have no connection to the historic Christian Church and are in danger of hellfire for failing to be reconciled to Christ’s ordained earthly representatives.

Some Presbyterians may suggest that a variety of other Christian denominations are in grave error for not believing the right things in precisely the right way. The return shot may be that Christian faith is not about having the correct set of beliefs in the head, and those who put their faith ultimately in their particular understanding instead of having faith in God are the ones in danger.

In the natural pursuit and enjoyment of community life, it is inevitable that a division will be created between those on the inside and those on the outside. Whether or not the outsiders in any scenario are alienated, offended, demoralized, and/or dehumanized is dependent upon the insiders’ capacity for grace, patience, and understanding.

While insiders should feel free to continue making arguments in favor of their various perspectives and experiences, they should consider that it is risky, and sometimes counterproductive and even wrong to derogate outsiders.

Think back ten years or so. There were circles that you so neatly fit into, groups that seemed to be the bar for your normal. Have there been shifts of thought or activity which have landed you in a “community” previously considered outside your realm, beyond the pale of your orthodoxy?

I’ll presume upon your willingness to allow me this imitation of a broken record:

Thoughtfulness is the order of the day.

Hearing and Being Heard

I’ve encounted a series of posts by a blogging writer who has been saying what I wanted to say, only he’s been saying it way, way better. And as you’ll see, one of the reasons he says it better is that he has what some call “authority.” Dale McGowan makes a deliberate effort to hear what others are saying, and he makes deliberate efforts to be heard. It appears to me that he is regularly successful with both intentions.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I’ll say that the purpose of his series, “Can You Hear Me Now?” is to offer up his advice for “how to stop talking past and through and around each other, how to hear and be heard.”

I am not an "educated" man if you evaluate such things by the number of institutional certificates a person receives. However, my “college years” included a stint of seeking a degree in “Communications,” and I don’t mind sharing that Dale McGowan’s blog series is far more helpful than anything I encountered in that effort.

I wish I had directed you to his blog earlier so that you could have followed along as the posts appeared instead of having to play catch up. I hope you won’t be overwhelmed. I really want you to take all of it in and ponder it. And a secondary hope is that you’ll take a few moments to share your impressions with me.

Here are a few disjointed teaser quotes from different posts in the series:

“I started drafting — phrasing, rephrasing, venting, deleting, adding modifiers. As I did so, both my accuracy AND my “hearability” increased.”

“If I don’t take a minute to think about how something will register from the other person’s perspective, I don’t deserve to be heard.”

“I needed to speak to my concerns without doing a leg-sweep that left the other person nowhere to stand.”

“It causes me to take just that little extra bit of care to be accurate, to be fair, but also honest — to be myself, but also to improve myself.”

“I’m a Facebook Slut. I climb into friendhood with anyone who asks. My 600+ Friends fall mostly into five groups: Family, K-12 friends, College friends, Post-college friends, and Readers of my books.”

“There’s a natural and adaptive human tendency to cling to the familiar, to distrust difference... Most of us read magazines and watch news channels and listen to talk radio that reinforces our worldview rather than challenging it.”

“…we’re dividing ourselves up into smug, self-satisfied silos, each with everything it needs, including pundits devoted to telling us how very smart we are to be in the silo we’ve chosen….I simply can’t stand the smugness of the silos—especially when I feel it starting to percolate in myself… Our siloing has a double effect: One silo loses the ability to speak AND the other loses the ability to hear.”

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO GO READ THE WHOLE SERIES OF POSTS…START AT THE BOTTOM “INTRO” AND READ TOWARD THE TOP, CURRENTLY UP TO “6” IN THE SERIES…

Legally Changing Name

I am considering changing my name to Anonymous Sources Close to the Situation. I think it would be cool to be quoted and credited in all sorts of press conferences, newspapers, magazines, online articles, etc. I wonder if I could make stories more interesting just by throwing out information randomly that reporters could legitimately share "according to Anonymous Sources".

"Anonymous Sources Close to the Situation indicate that income taxes and sales taxes will be done away with in 2010."

You get the picture. Could be fun.

Living In the Present

Have you ever received this little bit of wisdom from a friend or family member? “You’re gonna miss this.” You are complaining or gently expressing some form of discontentment about some kind of circumstance, when someone who has been in your shoes says, “You’re gonna miss this.”

College exams are looming…or…baby is crying at 3am…or…finances are tight this month. Whatever the excuse is for looking ahead and wishing for better days, you can be assured that someone somewhere wants to tell you, “You’re gonna miss this.”

And how do we respond? With stubborn short-sightedness. “No I’m not gonna miss this.” Somehow, we just can’t learn this lesson. No matter how many times someone older or wiser or both reminds us, we just keep right on looking for things to get “better,” not appreciating what’s right in front of us.

And then what? We do end up missing those days. “I wish I had taken the time to stop and appreciate how good things were.”

And then, we’re the ones passing the wisdom along to other deaf ears.

Here's a good song from Trace Adkins (CLICK HERE):

your gonna miss this
your gonna want this back
your gonna wish these days
hadn't gone by so fast

these are some good times
so take a good look around
you may not know it now
but your gonna miss this

Planning For Your Future

I have posted a new sidebar link, "Planning For Your Future". This is the blog of a fine attorney who also happens to be my friend and fraternity brother, Kris Boyd. For more on Kris Boyd, here is his law firm's primary website: CLICK HERE.

Capitalism...where do you stand?

Three definitions: dictionary version, my general understanding, and an opponent’s summary.

1. “An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.” The word “free” is key there as the dictionary also gives “communism” as an antonym.

2. Businesses look to capture as much income as the market will bear. If prices are too high, businesses risk losing customers. If prices are too low, businesses risk not being able to cover their expenses. But instead of coming up with a “comfortable” margin to cover the bills and stay afloat, capitalism encourages businesses to go for as much margin as they can get away with. And businesses don’t have to feel any guilt because it’s not their fault if the market is willing to bear high margins. “How can it be my fault if the market is willing to pay $10.00 for an apple and I charge $9.99 and make a large profit?”

3. Michael Moore on Jay Leno’s new show recently: “Capitalism is legalized greed.” He went on to make the point that the wealthiest 1% of Americans possess more wealth than the bottom 95% combined. His analogy was 10 people sitting around a table with one pie. The result of capitalism is that one man can take 9 pieces and leave 1 piece for the other 9 people to share…and this is somehow okay…as long as the “market was willing to bear” whatever various means the man took to get himself into that position.

For me, it’s an interesting topic, because I love “freedom” as I understand it and I like the idea of people being allowed to make “plenty” of money to be comfortable however they define comfort. But it is troubling to me that there are so many people who are “less fortunate” in the world and have no reasonable hope of ever having anything resembling wealth, while other people in the world have so much wealth they can hardly imagine how it could ever run out and they keep piling more wealth on top of that.

I am neither of these people of course. I am far too comfortable to complain of not having “enough” and yet my bank would testify that I am not so comfortable that I should be giving money away.

So my ponderings on this point are only theoretical for now. It’s just interesting. Some people are very very passionate on both sides of the spectrum.

Healthcare Reform

In general, I will not make a habit of arguing for or against a President because of his or her political party affiliation. I am neither a committed Democrat or Republican. I will support ideas that seem good to me and oppose ideas that seem bad to me.

And I do tend to like an underdog. So if someone’s voice seems to be falling on deaf ears and their ideas are being misrepresented, I’ll be inclined to side with the person who is in need of some respect.

The current hot topic is healthcare reform. There are a babillion things that need reform, but the headline getter at the moment is healthcare. Apparently, tens of millions of people do not have insurance and among the folks who do have insurance, there is a great deal of unrest about the cost of it and the lack of good service. People who need medical attention are either going without the needed attention or creating a burden on the system by receiving care and not paying for it. I am only scratching the surface of a summary here, but I am sufficiently convinced that there is a real problem in need of a real solution.

It seems that most if not all congressional delegates, regardless of party affiliation, agree that there is a real problem in need of a real solution. However, the tension lies in the fact that decision makers on different sides of the aisle can’t agree on how to get there from here.

If you have an interest or opinion on this matter at all, I encourage you to review President Obama’s speech from Wednesday night (and actually pay attention). His ideas seem good to me, while the primary and loudest criticisms seem unfounded. The bottom line is that a lot of people really do need help and the government can help. While I generally favor the notion that government should not unnecessarily grow larger, and people should help one another voluntarily, it is an unavoidable fact that people don’t voluntarily help one another enough.

I made this comment yesterday on Facebook and it fits here: There is a real problem that needs a real solution. Being opposed to solutions is not a solution. Saying citizens should be left to themselves to figure out a solution is not a solution, since "we" are absolute deadbeats when it comes to helping one another in times of need. It's easy to say, "I'd rather help someone out of my pocket directly than through taxes," but then actually helping someone doesn't happen...at least not 46 million times. I think Obama's point to the congressmen who represent your point of view was, "Okay, you agree something needs to happen and you have an issue with the way I propose to get there, so come forward with an actual, thoughtful point on how to move forward. Let's be done with the boo and hiss." I certainly don't have a plan. But I agree with the President that leaving it at "I disagree" is not constructive.

Actions Speak Louder

I am not opposed to activism. Essentially, it is simply the refusal of people with ideas to allow those ideas to go unheard. Of course it is good to actively pursue the improvement of the world we live in. And there are so many aspects of this life that have room for improvement that activism does not need to be limited to national political headlines or local recycling programs. What is important to you? What issues do you think deserve immediate attention? Does it matter whether the end goal is possible to achieve in your lifetime or are you content to contribute toward a goal that only your great-grandchildren and future generations will see?

My hobby horse of late on this blog and on my Facebook page has been the matter of being respectful and thoughtful as we pursue whatever it is that we pursue. It is a distraction from the point of activism when people do not respect one another and do not invest the mental energy to understand opposing viewpoints. So be active and be nice.

Avoiding the temptation to act like a jerk, Part 2

Hello jhg63, thank you for your response.

The intent of my last post is not so much related to Christianity as it is about how people deal with other people. The sociological angle is what I’m getting at.

Christianity obviously provides a good and easy example, but there are also many other ways to illustrate the situation where one person believes he has a handle on a truth and then finds himself in an encounter with someone who holds a contradictory view. And the story doesn’t even have to be about truth vs. opposition. For instance, if you see a friend at a convenience store counter buying lunch for his children and it consists solely of three Twinkies for each of them, this may seem like a really bad idea to you, but there is a way of interacting with your friend that doesn’t necessitate being a jerk. The good health and long life of your friend and his children are “worth fighting for”, but “fighting” doesn’t have to actually involve fighting.

The truth can hurt like a “sword” in all sorts of scenarios. A chain smoking friend can be “cut” by the presentation of information about the negative effects of his habit, but saying “the truth hurts” does not provide license to be a bull in a china shop if the friend really only needs some encouragement and accountability.

Some people see societal progress where others see societal breakdown. Some people see heresy where others see orthodoxy. Some people see very plain clarity in the Bible where others can’t make any sense of it. Some people crave Twinkies and cigarettes while others love exercise and broccoli.

Interactions require patience and sensitivity when disagreement is involved. Certainly, things are not always sweet and easy, but it is possible to discuss family planning and sexuality and “soul matters” and all sorts of things without verbally punching people in the nose.