Month: July 2009

An object lesson in understanding?

While working on my post about anger, I ran across this article, which, as is typical with how my brain works, led me down this rabbit trail. So here is a post spawned by a post:

FT.com / UK – Obama retreats on police ‘stupidity’ in Gates race row:

“The furore(sic) over the Gates affair has divided opinion among US citizens, most of whom are as ignorant of all the facts of the incident as Mr Obama admitted he was”

I like the quote above from the London Financial Times article. I think it’s very telling, and in my mind reinforces one of the underlying concepts of “seek 1st”: Seek first to understand.

-President Obama made an arguably ill-considered statement when he characterized the officer’s actions as stupid. He probably did so based on a conversation with his friend (the Harvard Professor who was arrested in his own home, arguably because of his own angry behavior). Who among us hasn’t responded rashly and with righteous indignation, when one of our friends relates how they have been wronged by some powerful entity?

-The media: I first heard of this story while working in my office cafeteria, with the TV on in the background, tuned to a cable news network. The passionate anchors were nearly hyperventilating over some issue, and I was concerned, so I started listening. They did a pretty good job of trying to represent both sides of the issue, but first and foremost, they were getting wound up, and getting their audience wound up, because the President said something rash, that proved to be inflamatory.

-The American public responded (or at least that portion which was covered by the national media–did we get a true picture or not?). No matter which side each individual came down on, they landed quickly on a position, and then defended it with ferocity.

One of the fundamental truths, in my mind, that was missed, by the failure of all concerned to seek understanding first, was that the President reacted to the situation like just about any American would- he opened his mouth and stated his opinion, without performing due diligence to know all the facts. Biggest difference is that unlike most of the rest of us, Mr. Obama has a microphone under his chin 24 hours a day, and his words, rightly or wrongly, are soon broadcast to most of the world.

Aren’t you glad you don’t have to live under that kind of microscope? I think I would vacillate constantly between “I’m not saying anything, so they don’t have anything to villify me over” to “This is stupid, I’m going to say what’s on my mind, and quit worrying about what everybody thinks.”

I’ll admit: I don’t know all the details either, so I’m as guilty as the rest of us–

I guess that’s part of my point?

Why are we so angry?

A quick glance at the cable news channels, the local newspaper website (what do we call it once they stop producing a paper?), a drive around town, or a conversation with co-workers, all seem to yield a similar underlying sentiment:

anger

Have you noticed it? Am I mischaracterizing it?

It took me a while to come up with this analysis, and I acknowledge that I may be incorrect. But, here are some examples:

-The nation’s response to our President’s recent statement about the actions of a police officer in New England.

-The response of some local forum commenters to an article about ConocoPhillips’ quarterly financial statement release (they were highly offended at the “dismal” returns of $1.3 billion-never mind that it was a return on investment of less than 4%)

-The response of many in my home state of Alaska, and throughout our nation, to our recently resigned Governor’s actions of, well, everything. For those of you who missed it, she stepped into the national spotlight about 8 months ago as the Republican candidate for VP. She was adored by half the country, and despised by half.

  • Many here were angry that she left the state to campaing for VP.
  • Upon her defeat, many were angry at her for returning to be Governor.
  • After a tumultuous half-year, she resigned from being Governor, angering many (including those who were angry at her for being Governor?).
  • After being elected in part on a promise of being open and transparent, she was chastized for having a private e-mail account that she apparently used to govern in private.
  • Upon establishing a Twitter account, she was chastized by many for sharing what she was thinking.

-The reaction of a local driver the other day, who after crossing three lanes of traffic to cut me off, made it a point to LEAN OVER TO THE PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW in order to ensure I saw his one-fingered salute when I changed lanes to pass him?

As you might be able to detect from my points above, I don’t approve of these examples. Am I angry? Yeah, kinda. I guess I’m frustrated, more than angry. Why are we so angry about everything?

Why?

Because we need more rational dialog, not irrational diatribes.

Let’s talk to one another about the things that are causing misunderstanding, dissention, anger, fear, …

I’ve never read Stephen Covey’s “7 Habits of Highly Effective People”, but his quote (in the tag line at the top) has stuck with me. It’s Habit 5. A few points, if you don’t want to follow the link: Communication is critically important in almost everything we do, and most of us start by valuing our own position so much, that we want to make sure everyone else understands (and agrees with it).

I’m probablly the worst offender, but at least I’m aware of it, and will try to address it.

Back to “Why?”

My overarching goal is to get us all talking with one another. Not shouting at one another, not labeling, classifying, and condemning.

Mankind is the most complex being God created. Through the course of history, man has developed rich language to convey all the nuances of what is going on in our complex minds. We’re built to have relationships, with one another, and with God. The history of man is a history of advancing our ability to communicate, to relate, and to understand one another and God.

The last 20 years in America seems to be headed the opposite way. We try to capture complex thoughts in “sound bites”. We have taken most publications to the “People magazine” theory–reduce every concept to a story that can easily be read in one bathroom sitting (without your legs going to sleep). We try to distill complex social or economic problems to what can be fit into a 90 second debate response, or a 2.5 minute “feature story” on TV news.

The Lincoln-Douglas Senate debates of 1858 had the first candidate speak for an hour, followed by the opponent’s 90 minute response, followed by the first speaker’s 30 minute rejoinder! 3 hour debates! Seven of them! And newspapers across the nation printed complete transcripts. The primary topic of each was slavery. These two Senate candidates talked for over 21 hours primarily on ONE topic.

The issues facing our world today are arguably much more complex (not more important, but more complex) than slavery, but our politicians, our media, nor the general public are engaging in meaningful dialog. How can we hope to resolve issues if we don’t even take the time to understand them? What little time we do spend addressing them is focused with laser-like intensity on advancing our own positions.

I hope to change that. Here. And by doing so, I hope to change the world, to make it a better place. Pretty tall order, I know. Most would say “impossible”. But I serve a pretty big God. With him, all things are possible. I’m just availing myself to Him as a willing vessel, to be used for his purpose (hopefully while surpressing my own purposes and agendas!).

Plus, healthy, challenging, thought-provoking dialog is FUN!

Here goes…

Just what the world needs–another blog. I’ve been contemplating this now for a few months. I’m not exactly sure where it will go, or what it’s all about. But I’ve been told by more than one, that I should take advantage of the www to share my thoughts on people, current events, politics, economy, and world view.

Humor me, as this is a new medium for me, and I’m learning as I go (both the medium, and the message).