THIS USED TO BE MY PLAYGROUND

Let me share with you a sly little secret: my husband detests most reality shows. Oh, not all. “Dancing with the Stars” is fine, and “Amazing Race” passes the test, assuming the participants are not digesting too many of those odious, indigenous foods. “The Apprentice” and “The Biggest Loser,” well, they sometimes fail to maintain his attention, but both have their wholesome moments. And truthfully, “The Bachelor” and “Bachelorette” are not reality; they are only fantasized escapes from reality (which can be quite enjoyable at times if you are longing to DENY the world we live in...).

My husband does not care for shows that do 2 things: (1) manipulate people’s feelings, and (2) return us to the elementary school, kickball playground...

“Pick me! Pick me!”

“No, I should be first!”

“No, no... I play the best at short.”

“Well, whatever you do, certainly don’t pick him! He’s too fat and too slow. He’d bring our entire team down.”

“Of course, I won’t pick him. I don’t want to be seen with any of the wrong people. I want to be cool.”

“I’m cool. Pick me!”

CBS’s “Survivor” has an interesting, “elementary” flavor, if you will. In fact, this so-called reality slice originated in 1997 on Swedish television, and now attracts a loyal, global audience. In Austria and Germany, it is termed “Expedition Robinson”; in Russia, it is “Last Hero”; and in Venezuela, they call it, “Robinson: La Gran Aventura.”

Did you see the “Survivor” episode a few years ago where at its onset, 18 people arrived on a remote island, and immediately, with minimal, previous interaction, 1 was voted off? I wonder how it felt to be that 1. This was not the playground; these were adults... adults who assumed they were capable of judging someone’s strengths, weaknesses, team benefit, and even their heart - based on looks and first impressions.

But we would never do that, right?

We would never judge a person based on looks and first impression. I could suggest that we do not judge based on the color of skin, but because thankfully fewer are racist, we sometimes negate personal application on this teaching - forgetting that we actually still might judge another by something else... by their weight, by their athletic ability, by their accent, by their political standing, by their wealth, by their faith... or lack of it. We would never judge their heart. Let me be clear on the meaning of judgment. Judgment in regard to a consequence rendered for wrongful behavior is appropriate. Judgment in its colloquial definition of looking down on someone is not.

But we would never do that, right?

AR

FIRST GRADE

Make the grade. Pass a grade. Salary grade. Investment grade. Grade level. Above my pay grade. Percent grade. Grade book. GPA.

How in the name of political correctness, do we perceive ourselves with the profound proficiency to “grade” another? The capability to establish accurate, expeditious assessments?

From all 256 selections of last weekend’s NFL, 40-zillion-hour-long draft to President Obama’s first 100 days in office, somehow so many of us believe we can accurately assess a person’s performance or value instantaneously. Now it is no secret that I am not a fan of spending money not in my possession (See “Personal Finance 101”); however, a majority of Obama’s monetary spree falls into the category of “S.N.A.R.L.” -- “Spend Now And Results Later.” In other words, we have yet to net the results. Thus, a positive OR negative assessment is inconclusive at this time.

I wonder how the Boston Celtics, the NBA’s winningest championship franchise, was graded following the 1986 NBA draft. They had tremendous, birdlike returning talent, but still attained the 2nd pick in the entire draft. With our profound assessment ability going immediately into affect, any Mel-Kiper-like appraisal would have been superb. Yet less than 48 hours after the draft, the Celtics’ pick, Maryland’s Len Bias, suffered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia that resulted from a cocaine overdose. Bias was projected to be a “can’t-miss” superstar, drawing comparisons to the Airness himself, who was only in year 2 at the time. Rims shattered throughout the fragile basketball world.

Magic Johnson, 3 time NBA MVP and 12-time all-star, said the following in remembrance of Bias’s death a few years ago:

"I can't believe it's been 20 years. I thought he was going to not just be an all-star but make an incredible impact on basketball. But to leave us early and not have a chance to even put on that Boston Celtics uniform, buy his mother that house, brag to his friends that he scored on Magic and Dr. J and Michael Jordan. He didn't get a chance to do any of it. You work your whole young life to be drafted and fulfill that dream of making it in the NBA . . . and all because you experimented with drugs. . . . I think it shocked the whole sports community. And unfortunately, I don't know that we've learned. That would be the saddest part, that we didn't learn and kids in our communities are still dying, still ruining their lives by selling it... It's just on, and on."

The grades were wrong. Instantaneous assessment is full of loopholes. From athletic drafts to presidential activity, we “grade” based on superstardom and public perception. The conflict is that superstardom and perception do not dictate long term performance. Performance cannot be accurately assessed via public opinion.

Chances are we will be wrong again. Probably already are.

AR

OUTRAGE

Rumor has it a funny thing happened at last weekend’s Miss USA pageant. I am not certain my facts are correct, but here is the grapevine version not currently found via mainstream sources...

The beautiful and talented Miss California, 22 year old Carrie Prejean, gracefully ambled her way before the microphone, in preparation for the used-to-be-softball question, this one from judge, Mario Lavandeira, better known as Perez Hilton. Hilton has long been known in celebrity circles for his tremendous tameness, modest appearance, and respect for all peoples, especially for those who disagree with him.

Prejean is ready, and Hilton asks, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"

Prejean hesitates for a minute, perhaps knowing that there exists no win/win answer to the controversial inquiry... perhaps wondering why she, too, failed to receive a chance to instead declare her abundant affinity for world peace. Then, with the eager audience on the edge of their seats, she offers the following:

”We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between whoever you want it to be - man, boy, woman, girl, animal, you-name-it. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

Hilton, a blogger who proclaims to speak “what is on everyone’s minds,” is obviously uncomfortable and outraged. He scored Prejean a zero for her response, and later called her a “dumb b**ch,” one who offered the "worst answer in pageant history." (Never mind that the contestants are not to be judged on the position of their opinion - but rather on the articulation of it.)

Following the pageant, the celebrities (who seem to think that because they are celebrities, their public opinions are also necessary to articulate) chimed in. From E! News anchor, Giuliana Rancic, on twitter.com: "I know I'm a journalist, and I should be objective ... but she is an ignorant disgrace and she makes me sick to my stomach."

An ignorant disgrace. A dumb you-know-what. All because the prepossessing Prejean supported gay marriage.

What would happen in our country if someone publicly expressed support for homosexual marriage and the response was outrage? The response was name-calling? ...and “how dare you have that opinion!” Tell me: is outrage only allowed in one direction?

Just a question... and just a rumor, of course.

AR

CHOOSING WISELY

It is always interesting when a story is retold... the lessons repeated... often stories of good and evil... stories with great moral dilemmas... wise truth presented.

Never will I forget the 1982 drama, “Sophie’s Choice,” starring the Academy Award winning Meryl Streep. Streep portrays Sophie Zawistowski, a beautiful Polish immigrant from the post-World War II era, fragilely displaying the remnants of serial number “111379” tattooed into her forearm. In a story of love, tragedy, and attention-attracting triangles, Streep’s character reveals a history of tremendous heartache, walking through the perils of Auschwitz, tormented by having to choose which of her two children will live... and which one will die.

At the movie’s climax, Sophie pleads, "Don't make me choose. I can't choose!" Horrifically, the Nazi soldiers share no sympathy. Without the articulation of her choice, the soldier seizes both. Hence, Sophie screams, "Take my little girl!" Her moment of harrowing decision shapes the rest of her life, concluding she is an unfit and cruel mother, as at the last moment, she actually chose between her children.

The story’s origin lies in a 2000 year old dialogue between two prostitutes and their king...

The one woman said, "My master, this woman and I live in the same house. While we were living together, I had a baby. Three days after I gave birth, this woman also had a baby. We were alone—there wasn't anyone else in the house except for the two of us. The infant son of this woman died one night when she rolled over on him in her sleep. She got up in the middle of the night and took my son—I was sound asleep, mind you!—and put him at her breast and put her dead son at my breast. When I got up in the morning to nurse my son, here was this dead baby! But when I looked at him in the morning light, I saw immediately that he wasn't my baby."
 
"Not so!" said the other woman. "The living one's mine; the dead one's yours."
   
The first woman countered, "No! Your son's the dead one; mine's the living one." They went back and forth this way in front of the king.

The king said, "What are we to do? This woman says, 'The living son is mine and the dead one is yours,' and this woman says, 'No, the dead one's yours and the living one's mine.'" After a moment the king said, "Bring me a sword." They brought the sword to the king. Then he said, "Cut the living baby in two—give half to one and half to the other."

The real mother of the living baby was overcome with emotion for her son and said, "Oh no, master! Give her the whole baby alive; don't kill him!" But the other one said, "If I can't have him, you can't have him—cut away!"

The king gave his decision: "Give the living baby to the first woman. Nobody is going to kill this baby. She is the real mother."

Wisdom to ponder for the day... recognizing we are always in need of wisdom...

AR

GREEN HAM (aka "Pork")

(Note: Today's creativity is dedicated to the Congressmen toying this week with the idea of abolishing the internet sales tax moratorium... thereby increasing the taxes of persons of ALL income levels.)


That plethora of taxes!
That plethora of taxes!
I do not like
that plethora of taxes!

Do you like a plethora of taxes?

I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.
I do not like a plethora of taxes.

Would you like them here or there?

I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like a plethora of taxes.

I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.

Would you like them from your city?
Would you like them as huge government spending pity?

I do not like them from my city.
I do not like them as huge government spending pity.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like a plethora of taxes.
I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.

Would you like them from your state?
Would you like them to pay for our polarized campaign slate?

Not from my state.
Not for your slate.
Not from my city.
Not for government pity.
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I will not pay a plethora of taxes.
I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.

How about our new tax - taxing internet sales?
Or to pay more before another school fails?

I do not like taxing internet sales.
It’s not my fault if another school fails.
I do not like a plethora of taxes.
I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.

But in Seuss’s story, you try it and see,
That trying something new is a great way to be.

A capitalist government should not try it and see
For it is not a great way to be.
It creates everlasting programs and helps not the debt
As investing incentives will no longer be kept...
I do not like a plethora of taxes.
I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man!

AR

PICK A WING

Here we go again... call it the politics of the politically correct. Call it a positive spin. Call it a half full glass approach.

In February, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano, made her initial congressional appearance and intentionally refrained from utilizing the word, “terrorism.” She was questioned by many thereafter in regard to her word choice. In fact, when asked by a foreign reporter if Islamic terrorism suddenly no longer poses a threat to our country, Napolitano said:

“Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Truthfully, to debate Napolitano’s vernacular seems fruitless to me. Despite the distinct, vocabulary difference from her predecessors, as long as she recognizes that 9/11 was an attack spurred on by people motivated by evil, I care not if she cleverly calls it something other than “terrorism,” thinking somehow it will make for better politics. Hence, I will take her at her word... attempting to move away from these “politics of fear.”

Last week Napolitano’s department then released the following report: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” I heard the buzz outside the beltway and thus decided to read the 9 page, McCarthyistic document myself. It is a broad, fascinating document, which singles out those who oppose abortion and immigration, gun owners, and returning veterans as potential “extremists,” primarily due to a slowed economy and the “historic election of our first African American President.” The generalized categories do not necessarily have a history of violence; the report asserts that the holding of such opinions alone may lead to violence. It is not specific, unlike the previous 7 page DHS report, “Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade” (yes, which I also so joyfully read in my free time this week). The “leftwing” report named specific extremist groups with violent histories, their planned targets, and proposed intentional strategies.

The stark contrast between the two reports is most revealing, and before any of us begin to crow about the appropriateness of either winged report, we need to read the other, also. Thankfully, Napolitano has already publicly apologized to our veterans, recognizing that uniformly lumping them into potential extremist groups upon their return to civilian life, was perhaps not the best means of expressing the government’s gratitude for their service.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat with congressional DHS oversight said he was “dumbfounded” by Napolitano’s assertions. To her, Thompson wrote: "This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans. As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans — whether a person’s beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are ‘extremist’ or not.” Believing an opinion different than another does not substantiate extremism... or terrorism for that matter either.

Excuse me...what again does it mean to avoid the politics of fear?

AR

AYE, AYE...

“Psst! Avast there! It be too late to alter course, mateys. And there be plundering pirates lurkin' in ev'ry cove, waitin' to board. Sit closer together and keep your ruddy hands in board. That be the best way to repel boarders. And mark well me words, mateys: Dead men tell no tales! Ye come seekin' adventure with salty old pirates, eh? Sure you've come to the proper place. But keep a weather eye open mates, and hold on tight. With both hands, if you please. Thar be squalls ahead, and Davy Jones waiting for them what don't obey.”

Next in Disneyland, the ride’s chilling sounds echo even more audibly, as the guests plunge down a thundering waterfall. When they reach the bottom of the waterfall, guests actually are entitled to a brief respite - albeit however briefly... "Dead men tell no tales!"

“Pirates of the Caribbean” was the the last attraction in which Walt Disney himself participated in designing; it premiered 3 months after his death. If only it was still 1966... and still simply a theme park ride.

Piracy has existed since the onset of oceanic trade routes. Julius Caesar was even kidnapped once by Cilician pirates. The story is told that the pirates demanded a ransom of 20 talents of gold, to which Caesar, humble as he was, declared he was worth at least 50. When the ante was upped, the sum was paid, and Caesar was released.

Currently, piracy has escalated off Somalia’s Horn of Africa and in the Indian Ocean. U.S. Secretaries Gates and Clinton are huddling to address this both efficiently and well. Yet while this criminal, maritime activity may be as old as the seas themselves, current events should not be equated with Disney or Johnny Depp. The International Marine Bureau, in their most recent statistics, report 263 attacks in 2007; that does not account for the resulting hostages and/or murders. Somalian rebels have posed a threat to international shipping since the country’s civil war began in the early 1990’s. The state of Somalia is treacherous; children, refugees, and Christians are dying daily. But piracy is not a war between countries; the pirates have no national authority to attack either last week’s Maersk Alabama or this week’s MV Liberty Sun. They are simply men acting maliciously.

The pirates are also not easily governed nor deterred. Note pirate Omar Dahir Idle’s words to The Associated Press, in response to a U.S. warning and the death of 5 of his unscrupulous cohorts: “Our latest hijackings are meant to show that no one can deter us from protecting our waters from the enemy because we believe in dying for our land. Our guns do not fire water. I am sure we will avenge.“ It would seem as if the pirates have confused the enemy’s true identity.

Following heroic efforts instead - and the Easter rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips, President Obama vowed to “halt the rise of piracy.” Following his own renewed freedom, Julius Caesar also executed an aggressive course of action; he hawkishly pursued his captors and then had them put to death. Guess he assumed 50 talents was also not enough.

There may be plundering pirates “lurkin,” but in order to truly keep the peace, the United States should be waiting for them that “don’t obey.”

AR

THE PARTY LINE

Let’s start today with a word of caution: today’s blog will upset many. My apologies. I have no desire to upset you. My goal is simply to handle truth well and to dialogue respectfully. Sometimes truth upsets us, as it forces us to examine our thinking. Some of that thinking we’ve long held with solid, strong, seemingly confidently clenched fists; it is painful to admit some ideals have been wrongly - or perhaps, stubbornly - clenched.

Contrasting that pain, sometimes we are instead angered by truth, which usually reveals we may have most to learn. The wise man realizes there is always more to learn; the wise man knows his thinking should never be free from examination. Thus, I humbly offer one more nugget of wisdom: belief alone does not make something right.

In our inaugural November 4th posting, the following election learning was presented: “Jesus would not be a Democrat OR a Republican.” I was delighted to hear the echoing “amens”... even from those for whom “amen” is not included in their accustomed Sunday morning rhetoric.

Yet I wonder if we realized what truth our amens were affirming...

The paradox undoubtedly develops as each of us enjoys the public declaration that our so-called opposing party has yet to corner the market on righteousness (... note that self-righteousness also remains up for grabs). The clever sneer emerging from our un-pried lips forgets that our party falls into the same bracket of untruth. Some of us are so loyal to one political party, we ignore the fact that Jesus would most likely have a few issues with our platform as well.

For Democrats, my sensitive stab is Jesus would have a few problems with how they handle certain social issues. For Republicans, my equally sensitive stab is Jesus would have a few problems with how they handle certain social issues. And for both established parties, my not-so-sensitive stab is Jesus would be disgusted with the lack of respect they offer one another.

Let me not suggest that any of us have the thinking of Jesus entirely deciphered. That is exactly the point we tend to miss. But it sometimes seems as if we sell our souls for a decidedly greater good, instead of having the courage, integrity, and humility to admit that “it’s not all good.” For example, we know now that political earmarks are spending directives subtly inserted into legislation, designed to avoid both congressional debate and public scrutiny. We are outraged when millions of dollars are inserted by a member of the opposing party! But when the inserter is supposedly “one of our own,” we tend to either ignore or divert attention. Remind me what courage it takes to ignore.

We have failed to realize that loyalty sometimes obstructs integrity. Party loyalty often breeds both ignorance and polarization. Ignorance and polarization fail to comply with those who ask “What Would Jesus Do.”

What would Jesus do? Great question. Perhaps we should ask.

AR

LOGIC

I am not normally one to be accused of being too “churchy” or religious. To me, religion is very logical. It makes sense... especially when you consider this day. Today is a day celebrated by billions around the world. It is the one thing that separates a belief in Jesus from all other faiths. Most reputed religions possess some degree of wise teaching and a wise leader. Jesus, however, is the only leader who appeared in bodily form, whose body is currently not decaying in a tomb.

From a classic, Josh McDowell’s More Than a Carpenter:

“Dr. Simon Greenleaf was one of the greatest legal minds we have had in this country. He was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. H.W.H. Knotts in the Dictionary of American Biography says of him: ‘To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among legal schools of the United States.’ While professor of law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume in which he examined the legal value of the apostles’ testimony to the resurrection of Christ. He observed that it was impossible that the apostles ‘could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.’ Greenleaf concluded that the resurrection of Christ was one of the best supported events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence administered in courts of justice.”

(For the record, famous Harvard law graduates include Rutherford B. Hayes, Barack Obama, 5 sitting Supreme Court justices, and even notables such as the former NBA player Len Elmore and Basil O’Connor, the former polio research advocate and president of the American Red Cross.)

But the point is this, again borrowing from the articulate McDowell:

“...What do you think of the empty tomb? After examining the evidence from a judicial perspective, Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, concluded that ‘there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.’”

That truth makes following Jesus quite logical.

AR

COLORED GLASSES

Wow... and to think I thought so many embraced a world of black and white, with random protrusions of gray. Examine a sampling of persuasive headlines from recent months:

How Green Is Your Cell Phone?

How Green Are Plastic and Wire Coat Hangers?

How Green Was the Inauguration of Barack Obama?

How Green Is Thy Stimulus?

How Green Is Energy From Pond Scum?


How Green Are 'Organic' Shoes?

How Green Are Low-Flow Toilets?

How Green Is Green?

You can find web sites encouraging us to “Go Green,” “Think Green,” and “Vote for a Green Hero.” In fact, there are now “green celebrities,” “green politicians,” and “green-collar workers.” Excellent! No longer must the Grinch and Yoda live in isolation!

Truthfully, I appreciate the eco-encouragement. Each of us needs to be responsible for the planet we inhabit. What more causes question are operations that are either intentionally covert or intrinsically arrogant. Case in point... Today’s web article entitled “10 Ways to Convince People To Go Green Without Mentioning the Environment.” Please mention the environment. We need to care for the world in which our children hope to dwell; however, not all wish to belong to an arguably almost-religious movement analyzing our toilets and pond scum. (Did I mention the “organic shoes”?) We should never let caring for the Earth and worshipping the Earth be equated with one another.

Also, I am concerned about the lack of respect given to a person who neglects the bandwagon jump and views the Earth via different colored glasses. Responsible people disagree on what harms the Earth and what does not. To assume one has every malevolent angle deciphered - and thus conclude those who feel differently are either ignorant or abusive, seems to ignite an arrogant perspective.

I would write more, but I need to reflect a few minutes, assessing how I can be a better steward of this Earth, and thus not begin any sarcastic barrage. Time to hit the piano and play a few notes. I think I’ll start in the “Wicked” songbook - with a song from the so-called “wicked witch,” Elphaba’s “The Wizard and I,” singing: “...And since folks here to an absurd degree, seem fixated on your verdigris, Would it be all right by you, If I de-greenify you?”

We can start with my shoes.

AR

FEELIN' GOOD

Have you noticed the new, liberating mentality embraced by current culture? If it feels good, do it! Go for it! It must be good! It must be ok! It must be right.

This type of logical processing is a derivative of “emotivism,” the prominent 20th century meta-ethical viewpoint, developed 3 centuries earlier by George Berkeley. Emotivism states that (1) ethical principles do not need propositions, content, and/or meaning; and (2) ethical principles express emotional attitudes. In more simplistic terms, moral behavior is primarily determined as an expression of personal desire.

At this notion, perhaps some quietly mutter an “Amen, brother.” However, lest you respond too hastily in your concurrence, note existing establishments in this country, specifically designed to promote unique, personal desires. For example:

Meet NAMBLA... The North American Man/Boy Love Association is a New York City and San Francisco-based organization that advocates the liberalization of laws against sexual relations between boys and men. Their stated goal is to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships." They believe male children should be “free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences." (Intramuralist’s Creative Word of Wisdom: see definition of the word “pedophile.”) While NAMBLA’s numbers are both secretive and small, a rocket scientist is unnecessary to depict the healthiness of the desire forming the foundation for this organization.

Yes, but if it feels good, do it! Go for it! It must be good! It must be ok! It must be right.

So today’s question is this: what are our laws based upon? Should we substantiate governing based on something greater? On historical precedent? Something more? Or should we substantiate governing based upon how we feel? On feelings that have the potential to merely sway with the wind?

It must be right, right?

Opponents of governing based on something greater are not guilty of a “God-intoxicating bigotry,” as coined by Rod Dreher in this week’s Dallas Morning News editorials; they have simply chosen differently. They have determined that feelings will not substantiate their basis for contemporary cultural debate. They have intentionally chosen a more lasting moral compass. Research the fate of cultures who have based their belief system and their government on more emotive principles; they no longer exist. Hence, one may consider the tenet that just because it feels good, does not make it right.

What serves as your moral compass? Better yet... is it something that will last?

AR

RARE

“Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected.” — M.Ghandi

Mahatma Ghandi was undoubtedly a man of tremendous wisdom. His teaching of “satyagraha” — resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience — was firmly founded upon non-violence, which prompted authentic change throughout the world. If we have gained any knowledge from the most recent election cycle, we have learned that a belief in change that precipitates hope is an attractive, motivating message.

Ghandi’s promotion of non-violence was sometimes, seemingly extreme. For example, after World War II, he gently but publicly offered the following: "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." He was advocating not fighting back with one’s fist. But Ghandi also knew that such level of principled commitment requires incredible faith and courage. Problem: incredible faith and courage is rare. Very rare. Such is/was not possessed by the following:

...the Binghampton, New York gunman...
...the G20 summit protesters...
...the pie-in-the-face PETA people (although sometimes they are really funny)...
...the abortion clinic bombers...
...the Proposition 8 supporting vandals...
...the 9/11 hijackers...

I know their message is significant; their passion seems purposeful. But if any promotion of message is attempted via violence and vandalism, no one will hear what is actually trying to be articulated. Both the messenger and the message will be rejected. It seems often as if protesters are clamoring for tolerance and respect... while simultaneously engaging in intolerance and disrespect.

So what does it take to think rightly? To present passion respectfully? In a way others can hear it?

Incredible faith and courage. Yes, such is rare.

AR

DEAR ABBY

For years I have been enamored with her. Somewhere between harmless, fictitious stalking and an admiration from afar - very far, something about the one and only Dr. Abby Lockhart has always grabbed my attention (yes, yes, I can hear the initial snorts of some of you snickering).

Dr. Lockhart was not your most venerated doctor who had a professional pathway smoothly paved in front of her. In fact, even as a third year med student, she did not possess the finances to finish paying for school; hence, she resigned from the program, despondently becoming a full time obstetrics nurse instead, in order to make family, financial ends meet. Years later, when school was intentionally returned to, completed, and her MCAT’s solidly scored, those of us in the audience cheered her on with tears of elation... even though she could not hear us through that blue screen which separates the great expanses of fiction and reality.

Personally, Abby was also fairly flawed. Her innate grit and/or stubbornness - however one desires to spin it - combined with her desire to “always do the right thing,” conflicted her at times... especially in regard to relationships. From Carter to Kovac to her mother and brother, she made both foolish and wise decisions. She struggled with alcohol, infidelity, and alcohol again, which only seemed to somehow add to her extreme expressions of both wit and pain; surely it also enhanced NBC’s ratings. But listen to her words to a hurting teen this season: “I know you think you’re a bad person, but you’re not. You just did a bad thing.” Such was a glimpse into Abby’s heart; she was learning to forgive herself.

Abby had a magnanimous, sensitive heart, but as with each of us, the scars of disappointment and unforgiveness had hardened her; they produced a guardedness that impacted and sometimes repelled future relationships. Thus, when Abby finally let not only her guard down but extinguished it as well, we cried again. Our fictionally flawed, adult character was growing up.

In her last episode as a regular character, “ER’s” Dr. Abby Lockhart, portrayed by the talented Maura Tierney, unveiled that no longer religiously guarded heart, realizing that in spite of her flaws - perhaps because of her flaws - she was still able to grow. Reading from the book of Job, she quoted, “Why is light given to those in misery?” Her misery enabled her to see the world in a more humble, healthier way.

Tonight after 15 seasons, the most Emmy-nominated series in the history of television, “ER,” will come to its end. After moments of laughing at Romano and with Frank, the door to the supply closet’s brick wall will finally be sealed. No more adhered locker plate names will be added... no more Greene, Gallant, even Hathaway or Lockhart.

I will probably cry again. It’s that sentimental part of me... with my head somewhere between the expanses of fiction and reality... reminded of a heart less guarded.

Thanks, Abby. You were dear.

AR