Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow

Superman's mission has changed.  This past Saturday, October 16, 2021, DC Comics announced at their DC Fandome event that Superman's long-standing mission for "truth, justice, and the American way" would be changing to better reflect the current world.  

The new mission - a never-ending fight for truth, justice, and a better tomorrow.*

Moving Superman away from strictly an American icon and giving him back to the the world.  DC Comics has stated that the decision is meant “to better reflect the storylines that we are telling across DC and to honor Superman’s incredible legacy of over 80 years of building a better world.”

Unsurprisingly, like the reaction to the new Superman's recent coming out, the reaction has been mixed.  Many praising the decision for its inclusivity and broader scope.  Other's seeing it as one more anti-American sentiment.  Notably, former Superman Dean Cain expressed his disapproval to this as well.

I told you.

DC Comics ditch mention of 'The American Way' from Superman's motto https://t.co/sz1gfnlh5o

— Dean Cain (@RealDeanCain) October 17, 2021

To Cain and similar detractors, this is merely the latest in a series of ill-advised political moves seeking to pander to the left.  It would seem to reveal more of Cain's politics than DCs.

In truth, it reflects a long pattern of changes to the hero's motto and mission.  Dating back to his earliest appearances, Superman's mission has always included truth and justice.  You can find many instances of Superman's slogan only including these two items.  The award winning Fleischer theatrical animated shorts from the early 1940s only proclaimed a "never-ending battle for truth and justice."  Ironically, Dean Cain's Lois & Clark television program only included the "battle for truth and justice" part as well.

The American Way portion has come and gone a lot over the 80 year history of the character.  This tag line originated in a 1940s radio serial; but really came into prominence with the 1950 George Reeves television show.  The phrase was then dropped for the 1960s cartoon, but picked back up by Christopher Reeve in 1978's Superman film.

Not surprising, the phrases comes and goes as American patriotism (or nationalism, depending on your perspective) waxes and wanes.  With the current emphasis on diversity and inclusion that is in the zeitgeist, broadening Superman's mission makes sense.  Likewise, with the increasing globalization of our pop culture and the larger global audience for superhero comics, television, and film, a global mission makes sense.

Plus, Superman has always represented the best of us as humans, not just as Americans.  His core beliefs, his personality, his innate goodness would have come through regardless of what country he hailed from.  What nation he called home.

He's always been the "Man of Tomorrow."  Now his mission is aligned with that.

*I have had to add the Oxford comma myself. 

What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, And The American Way?

Originally posted on December 6, 2019.  Re-posted for context around a couple of Superman conversations, both preceding and following this post. 

DC Films still doesn’t know what to do with Superman, the studio reportedly is unsure how to make the character “relevant to modern audiences” https://t.co/ActQZp2O3t pic.twitter.com/EtxNICHvWT

— Forbes (@Forbes) November 29, 2019

It started with a piece in Variety outlining the future of DC Films, the subdivision of Warner Brothers focused on the DC Comics characters.  It outlined plans for The Batman and discussed in depth plans for the upcoming R-rated features like The Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey, hot on the heels of the success of Joker.  But when it came to Superman, the piece confirmed what many of us have known for a long time - DC really doesn't understand Superman any more.

“The studio has less clarity on what to do with Superman, a character who has now been rebooted two different times in the last 13 years, […] without landing on a winning strategy.”

“To help find a way to make Superman relevant to modern audiences, studio brass has been polling lots of high-profile talent. “ Like J.J. Abrams and Michael B. Jordan.

Now, this will be harsh, but if you don't understand how to make a Superman movie, perhaps you are in the wrong business.  It you cannot find enough material to understand the character, then perhaps storytelling is not your strong suit.

Superman has been continuously published since 1939.  Eighty years of material waiting to be told on the big screen.

For the Man Who Has Everything

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?

What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

Superman: For All Seasons

All-Star Superman

Really, none of those could serve as an inspiration?!?

And the character isn't relevant?!?

It's hard to fathom not thinking an illegal immigrant raised in the Midwest who moves to the big city to become a journalist to fight corruption and an egomaniacal billionaire isn't relevant today.

Or that the original social justice warrior fighting corrupt politicians and slumlords isn't relevant, as he was presented in his original stories.

Warner Brothers hesitancy reveals a problem with sincerity, with hope, with optimism.  It's the Batman problem.  Everything to them is viewed through a Batman shaped lens.  Batman is gritty, Batman is edgy and dark.  Batman sells.  Ergo, in order for other things to be successful, they need to look like Batman.

And Superman is inherently diametrically opposed from Batman.  Superman is light, Superman is bright, Superman is hope.

You can see this problem in their most recent attempts at a Superman movie.  Man of Steel, while a solid sci-fi film, is a terrible Superman film.  Randian objectivism should not be allowed anywhere near a Superman film unless it is used as a contrast.  Superman should prove objectivism fatally wrong.  He must do what is right simply because it is right and for no other reason.  He protects, he saves those where he has no personal interest, no personal stake.  He will save everyone, or at least die trying.   Superman cannot stand by and let someone die if he has the power to save them, especially if the reason for inaction is to protect his identity.  That strikes against the very core of the character.

"Are you going to help everyone?
No.  But I'm going to try."
Superman: Up in the Sky #6

Likewise, Batman v Superman fails because it provides no contrast between the two characters.  In the film, we are shown no difference between Batman and Superman.  Two characters filmed through the same dark lenses, literally and metaphorically, battling each other because the plot requires it to be so.  And in Justice League, Superman is more of a plot device than an actual character in the film.  The adjustments to the film at least brought forth a few moments which showed what Henry Cavill might be able to do with the character under the right pen, but the disjointed production of that particular movie did no one any favors.

It's a puzzle why Warner Brothers has such a hard time with an appropriate tone for Superman.  Marvel's Captain America: The First Avenger, showed that an earnest approach to superhero film would work.  That character has formed the backbone of their MCU and has benefited from playing off the different personalities in that universe.

Likewise, a film like A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood showcasing an optimistic hero and contrasting him with the cynical world is earning critical acclaim.  And while it is not burning up the box office charts, it has still recouped its costs, nearing $40 million in ticket sales.

We need Warner Brothers to get this right.  We need Superman again, as everything he stands for seems to be under attack.

"To best be in a position to use his amazing powers in a never-ending battle for truth and justice, Superman has assumed the disguise of Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper."

The American Way was later added to Superman's fight, making the better-known phrase "Truth, Justice, and the American Way."

But what is truth when unpopular realities can be dismissed as "fake news" or when documented record can simply be denied?  When the images we see must be evaluated for their level of manipulation?  When scripted dramas are passed off as reality television?  What is truth when feelings and opinions matter more than facts?

What is justice when it seems to be applied unevenly at best?  When the color of ones skin can be the difference in a business meeting in a coffee shop and an arrest at a coffee shop or between life and death in a traffic stop?  When antisemitic, white power, and alt-right groups are on the rise?  When the gender pay gap still exists?  When affluenza is a recognized condition?  What is justice if it is not blind?

What does the American Way mean anymore?  Whose American Way? Especially when our country is as fractured as it is.

Sadly, even the "reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper" part is going away in our society.  Under attack from declining sales and partisan politics alike.

Superman has always existed to be our ideal.  The hero of heroes.  The greatest.  He has been a social-justice warrior before the term ever existed (look back to those initial comics where he was beating up slum lords and corrupt business men).  The Blue Boy Scout.  A father figure figuratively and literally.  The leader of gods and men.

He has been portrayed as a Messiah figure of late, though that is a little misguided in my opinion.  He is much more of a representation of Moses, the leader-deliverer.  A child sent away in a vessel, raised by adopted parents who discovers his heritage and becomes a leader and inspiration.  An important distinction given the heritage of Siegel and Shuster, two Jewish kids growing up in the Depression, with a war raging in Europe.  Into these dark times, these two guys created a beacon of hope.  A strong man who could stop all the bullies and protect the little guy.

Over time, Superman's character continued to solidify.  Powers and weaknesses came and went; some of them very, very strange.  But the core of the character remained.  Superman is honest, fair, and decent.  He is a paragon of virtue who knows and does what is right.  He is the strongest one their is, but uses that strength to protect only, not to intimidate or bully.  Strength with responsibility.

And through the years, we have seen him bubble to the surface when he is needed.  Christopher Reeves fully embodying the character more than any other actor, making us "believe a man could fly."  More than any actor, Christopher Reeve gave the character a lightness, a comfort in his own skin than shone brightly through the screen.  The movies may be a little corny and only two of the four really work, but there is no denying the sincerity of the portrayal that would define the character.

It's that character we need again.

We need that paragon, that beacon of hope to inspire us again.  The example that causes us to find a better way.

We need to believe a man can fly.

Friendly Reminder, Q Isn't Real

With Marjorie Taylor Greene, the QAnon aligned Representative from Georgia, having to defend herself today and to acknowledge the conspiracy theories she has peddled in her past, this seemed an appropriate time to post this reminder:

Q isn't real.

For those of you who are fortunate enough to have no idea what I'm referring to, Q is the pseudonym of a supposed "Q Clearance Patriot" who claims to be a US intelligence official leaking classified information.  The leaks began on 4Chan, one of the darker corners of the worldwide web on October 2017 and later moved to 8kun, an even darker hole, where it continued to promote a vast conspiracy theory largely centered around President Trump.  The movement became known as QAnon, and the messages from Q were labeled Q drops.  The conspiracy positioned Donald Trump as the lead combatant fighting a secret war against a global liberal cult of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. 

QAnon commonly asserts that Trump has been planning a day of reckoning known as the "Storm", when thousands of members of the cabal will be arrested.  Q's supporters have accused many liberal Hollywood actors, Democratic politicians, and high-ranking government officials of being members of the cabal.  The conspiracy theories have been amplified by Russian state-backed troll accounts on social media, as well as Russian state-backed traditional media.

Q became a conservative Nostradamus with a track record for prophecy and revelation that is just as spotty.  Most centered around when the Storm would occur or when certain liberal or at least not conservative enough figures would be taken down.  Q continued to insist that Donald Trump would be re-inaugurated despite losing the election.  There are certain circles in the Q sphere that continue to spread that the Storm will happen in March and that's when Trump will be reinstated.

The scary impact of Q is the number of people that have bought into the lie.  Particularly within Christian circles.  Poll your contacts in particularly conservative evangelical circles and you would be surprised to find the number of people who have bought into some part of the Q and Q-adjacent conspiracies.  

So, it's important to dispel them now and to call them out.

Q isn't real.

The world is not flat.

We really landed on the moon.

Vaccines don't cause autism.

9/11 happened and was not an inside job.

Sandy Hook and Parkland were not false flag events, they are tragedies.

Comet Ping Pong is a pizza restaurant and was not selling children.

Wayfair did not traffic children through the sale of office furniture.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not actual demons and do not smell of sulfur.

Michelle Obama was not born male.

Barack Obama was not born in Kenya.

George Soros was not a Nazi collaborator.

The Democratic party is not part of a massive international child sex-trafficking ring.

The Rothschild family are not the ringleaders of a Satanic cult.

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 did not make the United States into a corporation that could be disbanded.

John F. Kennedy, Jr. is dead and did not fake his death.

There was not massive fraud in the 2020 election on a scale that would change the outcome of the election.  Joe Biden won the election because there were that many people who were fed up with Trump and/or wanted to promote Democratic principles.

COVID-19 is real.

5G doesn't cause COVID-19, Alzheimers, autism, infertility...

Q isn't real.

Stay sane out there my friends.  The dis- and mis-information is only going to continue to spread.  

Media Bias; A Reminder

 

Today is time for a couple of reminders.  Particularly regarding media bias and our responsibilities.  This will be of a great import over the next couple of months, as we get closer and closer to perhaps one of the most important elections of our lifetimes.

Both charts are designed to be aids in our personal navigation of the news and the world around us.  Designed for how we process information and how we do it better.

The chart above is an updated version of the Media Bias chart.  It can be found here.  The idea is to prefer to obtain news primarily from sources in the green box.  The Most Reliable news sources.  Or at least to recognize the bias of the news organization when you uses sources lower down and farther to the sides.

Likewise, the following infographic is a reminder on our own responsibility to check the information that you are receiving.  To do your own research, still a truth worth sharing no matter how much it has been misused and abused by Q and his followers in QAnon.

The goal of both images is not to shame us for falling into the traps of less reputable news.  The goal is to help us move to information more trustworthy.  To help us share more truthful information.  To help us believe more truthful information.

It is for us to change, to grow, and to improve.

What should be the goal for us all.

Opinions - A Reminder

I'm convinced the four most dangerous words in America are "It's just my opinion."

In prior ages, when this phrase was uttered, it was said with a complete understanding of where opinions rank in the grand scheme of things.  It was considered an "humble" opinion for a reason.  They were regulated to Editorial or Opinion sections of the newspaper.  Especially because it was recognized that opinions could and very potentially would be changed.

In society now, opinions are treated as immutable, unchangeable statements of identity.  They are often most loudly and proudly proclaimed when they are in defiance of all other available information.

It's what makes the scene in Inside Out funny.  Where Joy, Sadness, and Bing Bong are on the Train of Thought and get facts and opinions mixed up, quite literally.

Joy: Oh no! These facts and opinions look so similar!
Bing Bong: Don't worry about it.  Happens all the time.

I blame the invention of 24-hour news stations.  Put simply, true news is consisted of facts, verifiable facts, and just the facts.  And the truth about news is that if 24-hour "news" stations only reported news, they would run out of content very early in the day.  To fill time and to provide something that is entertaining and a ratings draw (and therefore a sponsor's dream), such stations fill their days with opinions.  What should be correctly labeled as Editorials.

Let's take a popular context.   If Congress passes a bill, the only thing that is truly news is that the exact words "Congress passed a bill named ...".  Whether the bill is good for the country, whether it has terrible consequences for a certain segment, whether or not you should support your Congressmen for his vote - these are all opinions, not facts.

The constant stream of opinion and the passing of opinion as fact has led us as a society to have a terrible relation with opinions and the truth.  To put it as I have seen written elsewhere, a diet 24-hour news has led to a truth decay in our society.  And lets be honest, all of the 24-hour news channels have contributed to this.  There is not a single one that has truly benefited our understanding as a whole, not even the one that is "fair and balanced."  If you believe this is only a problem for one network or the other, or that there is a major news station that is truly telling only pertinent facts without editorial, you might as well stop reading now and we can talk about a bridge in Arizona I have to sell you.

Our problem is now compounded through the rise of Facebook and "like culture."  The need to create and cultivate our pages where we control the information and surround ourselves by people who affirm our opinions.  That psychological need to see the number of likes we are receiving and to watch that number grow.  It's a constant validation of our opinion and those like us.  Electronic echo chambers, that can continually suck us in.

This has led us to a culture where opinion is king.  To the point of being actually combative to facts.  To the recognition of "alternate facts" (as opposed to outright lies).  "We are creating a world of dummies.  Angry dummies who feel they have the right, the authority and the need not only to comment on everything, but to make sure their voice is heard above the rest and to drag down any opposing views through personal attacks, loud repetition and confrontation."  (Anti-Intellectualism and the Dumbing Down of America).

In light of where we are at as a society, there are a few important things we need to remember about opinions

1) Opinions can be wrong - 
There's the old joke about opinions and how they are similar to a body part.  We all have one and they all stink.  Now while there can be good opinions, it is generally viewed that it is impossible to have a bad opinion or for an opinion to be wrong.  This is not true. You can certainly have a bad opinion.   Your opinion can be wrong.

In this day an age, if you believe the world is flat, your opinion is wrong.  Flat wrong.  It can be easily disproved and there is no rational reason to hold that opinion.  It is in direct contradiction to all available information and facts.  It's a bad opinion.

Additionally, if you have a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. opinion falling into the "all X are ..." camp, your opinion is bad.  If you think that white people are inherently better than black people, brown people, or anyone else, your opinion is wrong.  Or Kanye, if you think that "slavery was a choice" for the African Americans involved, your opinion is wrong.

Opinions can even be wrong in art, where most everything is subjective.  To clarify, an opinion whether a particular piece of art is "good" or "bad" can be wrong, but an opinion on whether you enjoyed a particular piece can not.  "Good" or "bad" can involve identifiable metrics.  Technique, style, composition, form.  There are facts there that can be measured.  Personal enjoyment is just that, personal.  It can only belong to you, whether you enjoy something or not.  So be careful in your movie reviews.

We have to recognize bad opinions and to be able to call people out when they try to hide behind them.  "It's just my opinion" should not cut it anymore.

2) Not all opinions are created equal -
There are levels opinion.  An unsupported opinion is worth less than an informed opinion.  Informed opinions are based on facts, they are based on truths.  Those facts are gathered and synthesized to create the opinion.  Opinions that have no basis in the facts are inherently suspect.  Again, if it is your opinion that the earth is flat, though you have never left your hometown, have not studied the issue, and are only relaying what you observe when you look at the horizon, your opinion is worth less than someone who has flown all around the Earth.

We recognize this with professionals.  There is a reason a doctor's diagnosis is referred to as his or her "professional opinion."   After all, what a doctor does is collect the facts (the symptoms you are relaying and the measurements obtained from tests and lab work in the office) and come to an opinion on the most likely diagnosis.  We recognize that a doctor's opinion is worth more than the average person's on medical issues.  And we afford them that amount of trust.

Or at least we used to.

Our anti-intellectualism is also expressing itself in a demonization of the expert.  We no longer want the person who has the most facts, the most knowledge, the most expertise on the subject because they will be the ones most likely to tell us something we disagree with.  Something that runs counter to our personal biases.  We instead look for someone that just confirms what we already believe.  Confirmation bias.  It's how we get our news.  It's how we share information on social media.  And it's how we are sifting through expert opinion in this time of crisis.

We have to get back to listening to experts.  To appreciating those with more knowledge on the subject.

This also holds true in most every other form of opinion as well, unless it is truly personal preference.  You will likely encounter people who possess more information and knowledge than you do about a particular subject.  Their opinions should have weight.  They are not always right and do not always have to be followed or agreed with, but they should be given space to be heard, absorbed, and considered.

Which brings me to ...

3) Opinions should be constantly evaluated to see if they need be changed -
Opinions are designed to be changed.  Again, the old joke about politicians and diapers seems to fit here as well.  They should be changed and often for the same reason.

Our opinions are designed to be impacted by the information we surround ourselves well.  If you are only ingesting information that affirms your current opinions, that is called stagnation.  It's the opposite of growth.  We are designed as people to be challenged by new ideas, by new data points, new information, and then grow from it.

Our true beliefs, true opinions only gel when they have been tested.  "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." (Proverbs 27:17).  The two only sharpen each other when they meet in conflict - blades don't sharpen each other when they are pointed in the same direction.  They have to meet at an angle, from a different perspective, to challenge each other.  To firm up what you truly believe and to change what you do not.  To cut away that which is no longer needed.

If you are only getting your news or information from one source, please start branching out and getting information from a wide net.  I've circulated this infographic before, but it provides a breakdown of news organizations by particular bias.   This page also provides a detailed breakdown of how the original designer came up with the chart and the datapoints that went into it.

At the very least, please recognize the particular bias that your information sources have and start identifying when you are getting facts and when the news personality goes into opinion.

If your circle of friends agree on everything and are all alike, expand and add new friends to your circle.  We need people in our lives that challenge us.  That disagree with us in certain areas, so that we can challenge our own ideas and continue to develop them.  Democrats need Republicans and vice versa.  Calvinists need Arminians and vice versa.  Longhorns need Aggies.

We have to do something now.  We can combat this and we can start to value the truth and facts again.  We just need work at it and keep working.

Just my humble opinion.

Plandemic Problem

I've seen a lot of people sharing or attempting to share a video entitled Plandemic.  The video, a 26 minute preview for their upcoming feature documentary, purports to reveal the truth about the Covid-19 pandemic, from the point of view of a suppressed scientist, Judy Mikovits.  I won't link to it here, because I refuse to spread dubious information.

The video is clearly conspiracy theory fodder.  It paints Judy Mikovits as a hero who has been jailed and silenced for her opposition to a global conspiracy of Big Pharma, national governments, and health organizations.  She is supposedly now able to speak because the five year ban has been lifted.  And she would have us believe that Covid-19 has been planned, it has been released to profit Big Pharma particularly through a yet undeveloped vaccine, and that governments, the World Health Organization, Dr. Fauci, etc., etc., etc. are all implicated.  And of course, it's been going on for years.

She goes on to add beliefs that autism is connected to viruses, to vaccines, and could be cured.  That chronic fatigue syndrome is caused by a virus.  That getting the flu vaccine make you more susceptible to Covid-19.  That our immune systems will crater because of stay in place orders (even after just a couple of weeks).  That there are healing microbes in the beach.

IT'S JUNK SCIENCE.

IT'S CONSPIRACY THEORY.

IT'S FALSE.

A quick google search on Mikovits would reveal that her one study was discredited because no one else could replicate her results.  That is how actual science works - through peer review and confirmation.  She was arrested and jailed for theft from her laboratory, though she would claim her innocence and that it was planted as part of the coverup.

I get it, conspiracy theories are appealing because they bring order to chaos.  They make things sound appealing because it provides a reason why everything is happening.  Even though it is a frightening reason when you consider the possibilities and implications, it still provides a reason compared to our reality where reasons are hard to find.

If you take just one minute to think through the implications, it all falls apart.

Let's put aside the profit angle that this video has.  I mean, it is a preview designed to get people to buy an upcoming documentary on the subject.  It's really trying to sell you on watching.  To scare you into watching, so that you know the "truth."

Just looking at the conspiracy claimed, it's too unbelievable.  Too outlandish.  It claims a global conspiracy - cross governmental, worldwide conspiracy and coverup.  Remember, we are not the only country that is reacting in this manner to this virus.  Lockdowns and stay in place orders are occurring on every continent across the globe.  Why would governments that are politically opposed to our government act in the same fashion, under the same conspiracy?  If this was really occurring, surely there would be countries that would be acting in opposition, right?  I mean, Dr. Fauci couldn't influence Iran?  Russia?  China?  You mean to have me believe everyone is united in this, when they can't be united anywhere else?  And no one else is going to leak it?

Occam's Razor most often wins out.  The simplest answer is usually the right one. What's more likely - all governments acting together under some great Big Pharma conspiracy?  Or all governments not knowing what to do and reacting how they see best given the information they have, looking at other countries for example?  It's scary to think that everyone is just doing their best to adjust and deal with something they were not prepared for, but that's most likely the truest answer.

Conspiracy relies on pointing to topics where we should have a healthy skepticism and stretches that beyond credibility.  Videos like this work, they make you start to accept even their outlandish claims, because they make you latch on to about 20% of the information in them that posits genuine questions.

It's one thing to question.  We should be cautious about the eventual vaccine.*  We need to make sure that it has been thoroughly tested and that its potential side effects are well known before administering it to a population.  That does not equate with believing that any vaccine will be some sort of control mechanism.   Nor does it make all of their other statements in the video true.

Please, please, please, think through these.  Look at them critically.  There will always be people who try to convince you that someone is out to get you.  One of the most disastrous trends in American society is this belief that experts are out to get us.  A distrust of intellectualism.  These people are not on your side.  The will continue to stoke fear, for their own gain, to divide us further, to make us reliant on them.

We can do better.

* Side note - What really bugs me about their vaccine skepticism is that they don't have any internal consistency in their argument.  They would have us distrust any vaccine, because the people that are making it are bad, but we should jump on hydroxychloroquine because of anecdotal evidence and it needs no further testing.

Living Paradoxically

"Here's the thing: I'm friends with George Bush.  In fact, I'm friends with a lot of people who don't share the same beliefs that I have.  We're all different and I think that we've forgotten that we're all different.

But because I don't agree with someone on everything doesn't mean I'm not gonna be friends with them.  When I say be kind to one another, I don't mean only the people that think the same way you do.  I mean be kind to everyone.  It doesn't matter."

Ellen DeGeneres

Ellen found herself in a little bit of a Twitter controversy over the weekend, following pictures of her at the Dallas Cowboys game on Sunday seated next to President George W. Bush.  Ellen responded today on her show with the statement above, outlining a very straightforward principle:  the idea that we can disagree with other people, even on fundamental issues, but still be civil and friendly.

This is certainly an idea that I've championed in the past.  We all need to broaden our friendship circles.   We as a society cannot survive if we keep segregating ourselves and circling the wagons, surrounding ourselves with only like minded people.  It's bad enough media is doing it for us.  News media is presenting us with only one opinion, generally confirming our existing biases.  Social media does the same, bringing only certain stories to our attention.

If we are not in the business of regularly interacting with people that we disagree with, that challenge us, that push us out of our comfort zone, we will continue to exist in wind tunnels, amplifying our worst impulses.

How can we ever grow, how can we ever change, if we do not have any voices in our lives that push us to do so?

So, I'll repeat my urging from the 2016 election - if you do not have people in your friend circle that are not the same political allegiance as you, you need a bigger friend circle.  If you do not have people in your friend circle that are not the same religion as you, you need a bigger friend circle.  If you do not have people in your friend circle that are not the same race as you, you need a bigger friend circle.  The same for sexual orientation, gender, nationality, creed.

Generally, we all need a bigger friend circle.  A bigger neighborhood.

That does not mean the controversy did not have merit.

To many, W. represents the epitome of the opposition to Ellen's very existence, particularly focusing on his strategy in the 2004 re-election campaign to put anti-gay marriage Constitutional Amendments in as many states as possible.  It's a distinction between Ellen being friends with someone who merely disagreed with her and one who actively made her life more difficult.  It's the level of "disagreement" that is the issue.

There's also the issue of the symbolism.  Is Ellen supposed to represent the whole LGBT community and somehow absolve Bush for the anti-gay marriage stance and Amendments?  Does it make it better?   Likewise, why does it fall to someone like Ellen to be the one to rise above?  Why does the member of the minority need to be the one to rise above instead of the majority?

The same arguments were made with Brandt Jean and his offer of forgiveness to Amber Guyger.  While it is the most noble and most divine gesture, why does it continually fall to the minority to forgive and not the majority?

These aren't easy situations.  When do the needs of the group outweigh the needs of the individual?  Especially when they implicate such important truths?  Shouldn't the individual character control?

Ultimately, I feel most of the issue lies in the over publicity of such things.  Brandt Jean's apology would never have caused any controversy were it made in private.   Had the camera's not been in the courtroom.  There it would be what it was, the private outcrying of the soul.

Likewise, Ellen's fellowship with Bush during the Cowboys game would be what it was, a private friendship between a President who prides himself on his congeniality and a person who is most openly kind.

And when you think about it, wouldn't the world be a better place if those were more regular occurrences?

When You Cannot Admit You Are Wrong

One of the marks of maturity is being able to admit when you are wrong.  When you make mistakes.  When you do something you should not.  It is the essence of a being a functional adult.  Of being a functional human being.

It is an acknowledgement of responsibility.  An acknowledgement of the harm and caring to rectify it.

It is a skill that seems to be largely lacking of late.

Perhaps, we are in an epidemic of infallibility, as some have wrote.  Perhaps we are all just suffering from extreme narcissistic personality complexes.

Or, perhaps it is just one, very high profile individual.

The recent NOAA-Hurricane Dorian scandal seems to be a great exemplar of this problem.

Like most things in our modern American society, it started with a tweet.

In addition to Florida - South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2019

The information provided was largely correct, apart from the inclusion of Alabama.  The National Weather Service of Birmingham had to followup with a correction just twenty minutes later.

Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east. #alwx

— NWS Birmingham (@NWSBirmingham) September 1, 2019

Out president, undeterred, dug in his heels on his assertion.  Following an unrelated announcement, he reiterated his statement that the storm could have struck Alabama, with a weather map dated August 29, tracking the hurricane's path with an additional potential impact section added in black pen/marker.  "I know that Alabama was in the original forecast.  They thought it would get it."

Mr. Trump continued to dig in his heels, and on September 7, 2019, NOAA appeared to backup the president's assertions.  In its released statement, "From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama."

The National Weather Service Employees Organization would push back against this statement from NOAA.

Let me assure you the hard working employees of the NWS had nothing to do with the utterly disgusting and disingenuous tweet sent out by NOAA management tonight #NOAA

— Dan Sobien (@pres_nwseo) September 6, 2019

On September 9, 2019, Craig McLean, the chief scientist of NOAA released a letter indicating his intention to investigate potential violations of the scientific integrity of the NOAA based on the September 7, 2019 press release being "political" and a "danger to the public health and safety."   McLean argued the previous press released compromised trust in the integrity of the organization.  "If the public cannot trust our information, or we debase our forecaster's warnings and products, that specific danger arises."

By this week, the story has become more convoluted, with allegations of tampering.  A senior administration official told The Associated Press that White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to have NOAA publicly disavow the position that Alabama was not at risk.  According to a New York Times report, the Commerce Secretary threatened firings of the NOAA political staff if the situation was not fixed, leading to NOAA's eventual press release later that day.  While Mulvaney was acting to help Trump, it is not clear whether Trump actually asked him to act.

The president, of course, has denied any involvement and called the story a hoax.

So we have a known exaggerator at best and liar at worst (whose misleading statement tally is up over 12,000 - and that's a month behind) and a team around him that is constantly enabling and protecting this behavior on one side, and a litany of scientist on the other.  I know which side I would tend to believe based on past experience.

But it raises the question - does the truth even matter anymore?  Are we really in a post-truth era?  After all, 39% of the country still supports the president no matter what news comes out about him.  He has been able to convince them that the very news is not trustworthy and that he is to be believed above all.

That is only one example of controversy from the past weeks.  We could also look at the investigation into events around Trump's resorts.  The investigation surrounds repeated military spending at Prestwick Airport, the closest airport to Turnberry, and into stays and spending at the Turnberry resort.

The military has spent $11 million on fuel at Prestwick Airport since October 2017, fuel that would be cheaper from a military base.  The airport has provided cut-rate rooms and free rounds of gold at Turnberry for select airline crews.  Early spring of 2019, an Air National Guard crew made a routine trip from the U.S. to Kuwait to deliver supplies, with unusual stops and stays both ways at the Turnberry resort.  This is apparently highly unusual as the crews have typically stayed at military bases.

"The crew were so confused by what was happening when they were rerouted to Scotland to refuel at this tiny airport outside of Trump Turnberry because they had never done that before in the fifty-plus trips they had taken to do these routine supply trips.  They didn't have enough money; their per diem allowance didn't even allow them to buy food or drinks there.  They felt totally out of place."  Natasha Betrand, who broke the story with Bryan Bender on The Rachel Maddow Show.

Combine this with Vice-President Pence's stay at the Trump National in Doonbeg, Ireland.  Pence was visiting Ireland for sit-downs with the countries leaders in Dublin. The resort in Doonbeg is 180 miles away from the locations of these talks.  A top aide for Pence, Marc Short, has indicated that Pence's stay was at the suggestion of the president.  According to State Department receipts, Pence's detour to Doonbeg cost taxpayers nearly $600,000 in ground transportation fees.

The president, of course, has denied involvement in either situation.

I know nothing about an Air Force plane landing at an airport (which I do not own and have nothing to do with) near Turnberry Resort (which I do own) in Scotland, and filling up with fuel, with the crew staying overnight at Turnberry (they have good taste!). NOTHING TO DO WITH ME

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 9, 2019

I had nothing to do with the decision of our great @VP Mike Pence to stay overnight at one of the Trump owned resorts in Doonbeg, Ireland. Mike’s family has lived in Doonbeg for many years, and he thought that during his very busy European visit, he would stop and see his family!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 9, 2019

This seems very clearly the reason we have the emoluments clauses in the Constitution.  Why there has been an unwritten rule that presidents divest their private companies while in office or at least place them in a blind trust.  It seems like common sense, but perhaps it should have been codified.  As House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings wrote, "The committee does not believe that U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to personally enrich President Trump, his family, and his companies."

We all should feel that way.

When are we fed up with this denial of responsibility?

When are we tired of the constant enabling and protectionism of the people around him?

When do we hold him accountable?

At what point does the corruption, the con, the lies, and the narcissism outweigh whatever perceived good he may have done?

Shouldn't we expect a baseline level of maturity in our commander in chief?

Won't You Be My Neighbor?

"I believe that Jesus gave us an eternal truth about the universality of feelings.  Jesus was truthful about his feelings:  Jesus wept, he got sad; Jesus got discouraged; he got scared; and he reveled in the things that pleased him.  For Jesus, the greatest sin was hypocrisy. ... Jesus had much greater hope for someone like [a tax collector or prostitute] than for someone who always pretended to be something he wasn't."

Fred Rogers

Jamie and I recently watched the documentary Won't You Be My Neighbor? regarding the life and work of Fred Rogers, better known as Mr. Rogers, of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood fame.  And I cannot recommend this documentary enough.  I was never a Mr. Rogers kid, but as I've mentioned before, I wished I could have been.  We didn't have access to PBS in Buna and only got to watch it when we would go on trips.  As a young child, I know I would have been more drawn to Sesame Street, but I'm becoming more and more of a fan of Mr. Rogers.  The more I learn about him, the more I appreciate him and see what I missed.

If you do watch Won't You Be My Neighbor? make sure to have a handkerchief ready.  Now I know I'm a sentimentalist, but everyone I watched the film with admitted that they were at the point where if they made a noise, it was going to be a full on ugly cry.  What fascinates me about this is that there is not the typical format of building to an emotional climax.  There's not that one moment that makes you cry.  The payoff of the emotional storyline built through the film.  Rather, you cry at the little moments. You cry because of how pure his life and mission was.  At how much of a truly extraordinary human being he was.  As the New York Times editorial review put it, "Often people are moved to tears by sadness, but occasionally people are moved to tears by goodness."  Such is the case with this film and his life.

One thing I greatly appreciated in the film was how it handled Mr. Rogers' faith.  An ordained minister, Mr. Rogers viewed his television program as the outlet for his mission.  He was fiercely protective of children.  They were his mission in life and he saw television as a great medium to reach them.

In research after the film, I came across the quote above from Mr. Rogers, which stood out to me, particularly in light of our continued study around the Prodigal Son.  How the divide even goes to how we handle feelings.  The divide in truth and hypocrisy.  Of emotional intelligence versus emotional hypocrisy.

Emotional intelligence is a term that has been gaining strength over the past twenty-plus years.  It refers to the capability of individuals to recognize their own emotions and those of others, to discern between different feelings and to label them appropriately, to use that information to guide their behavior, and to be able to manage or adjust one's emotions to adapt to changes and achieve one's goals.  It's emotional honesty and empathy.  The idea of recognizing emotions as an important part of our lives and working with them, not pretending that they don't exist or suppressing them so far down as to never surface.  And over this period of twenty-plus years, there have been many studies showing the benefits of a higher emotional intelligence including greater mental and physical health.

It's that idea of tearing down the mask we present to society and getting to the true person underneath.  Of working to reach the point where the mask is no longer necessary.  To where there is no pretense.  I think that's why Mr. Rogers liked working with children.  There is no pretense there.  No guile.  Children are honest to a fault, and emotionally expressive to a fault, though they may not know how to process it.  It was this honesty that he celebrated.

"And here is the radicalism that infused the show: that the child is closer to God than the adult; that the sick are closer than the healthy; that the poor are closer than the rich and the marginalized closer than the celebrated."

Jesus would even indicate this. "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."  "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God."  "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."  "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

The older brother and the pharisee so often forget this.  The are so concerned with appearances, with not lowering themselves, not debasing themselves, that their own refusal to bend gets in their own way and the way of others.  You see this in the film where Mr. Roger's insistence that every child be told that they were deserving of love and attention simply because they existed was seen as the root of the problems with the modern generation.  He was blamed for the "everyone gets a trophy" and entitlement mentality.   A reminder that from the perspective of the older brother or pharisee, works are the ultimate measure.  You have to do something that merits praise or affection.  That merits kindness or attention.

And this is so hard to break through and so damaging, for it requires a complete reversal of the mentality of the elder brother.  It requires an understanding that what they did would never be good enough.  That such works were never the standard.

That's why Mr. Rogers would say that Jesus had more hope for the tax collector or prostitute.  It was easier to show them their need.  When someone starts reaching bottom, they tend to look up, to look for assistance.  When someone believes they are already at the top, they are already good enough, they tend to only look down or inward.

I think we see an interesting variation on this idea in the story of the Good Samaritan.  For me, it always helps to remember that this parable came in direct response to someone asking Jesus what they greatest commandment was.  And Jesus would answer to love God and to love your neighbor. While that generally sounded appropriate to everyone listening, the pharisees in the audience wanted one point of clarification - "who is my neighbor?"

The pharisees wanted a neat box tied around who their responsibility to love covered.  Fellow Israelites would be certain.  Showing hospitality to foreigners and travelers was to be expected.  But surely Jesus could not expect them to love a Samaritan, or worse, a Roman.

Jesus responds with a familiar story that I've written about before.  He tells of a Levite and a priest that pass by the injured man and worry more about themselves. What will happen to me if I touch this man?  Will I be defiled?  What has he done to deserve such a fate?  It's important to note that both the Levite and the priest could not imagine themselves in the man's position.  They could not empathize enough to see his need for assistance, so they crossed on the other side of the road to avoid him.

The Samaritan on the other hand worried about what would happen to the man if he did nothing.  Perhaps, the Samaritan could imagine himself in a similar situation.  He knew the treachery of the road and saw how it could have easily been him in that fate.

From the story, we see that the only response to Jesus' question at the end, asking who was the neighbor to the man who feel to robbers, is "he who showed mercy on him."  We see that all we come in contact with are people who are our neighbors.  And we have the opportunity to be neighborly in response by being the ones who show mercy and love.

Fred Rogers always asked "won't you be my neighbor?"  It's an invitation to be one of the people he cared about and prayed for.  From my research into his life, once you came into his circle, you were continually in his thoughts and prayers.  You were in his life.  You were his neighbor and he was going to be the one who showed mercy and love.  It was a deliberate and thoughtful choice on his part.  And it should be for each of us.

So for my part, I ask you - won't you be my neighbor?

Truth

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

John 8:32

We have a bit of a strained relationship with the truth in our country.  This can be attributed to the rising cult of opinion, but it goes deeper.  We've even named the times the post-truth age.  We evaluate information for its truthiness.  And we are on the lookout for alternative facts and fake news.

Certainly, this is not something new, rather it is something we are much more aware of.  We are drowning in a flood of information and hear of far more instances of it.  But that does not make it any less troubling.

To me this has caused us to split into two different groups regarding where the fundamental problem lies.  The first group sees that the problem revolves around the refusal of absolute truths.  To them, the greatest problem is relativism.  The answer is easy.  Things are black or white, with very little, if any, grey.  And the world would be better off if these absolutes were enforced.

The second group sees only grey.  Every situation must be evaluated for its particular context and for the particular feelings and consequences that will be implicated.  There is a greater concern for the people and things involved than in upholding any absolute.

Life, of course, is somewhere in the middle.  We must recognize that there are absolute truths in this universe.   Just as there are certain absolute facts that must be upheld in order for our universe to function, there are similar moral absolutes that must be maintained in order for our society to function.

It's like the discussion of the purpose of the church from Sunday; the balance of truth and love.   Some churches like to focus only on the truth, just the truth, and only the truth.  No grace, no assistance in the struggle, just constant reminders of all the things that are a sin.  All the ways that people are going to hell.  We can think of the very extreme versions of this like Westboro, but it happens on a much more subtle way in churches all across the country in every city and town.  You can even see it in the way the Southern Baptist Convention is having to struggle with interpretations on the requirements of staying in marriages versus love and grace to those impacted in abusive relationships of various forms in the wake of the controversy surrounding Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson and his comments.  It's the desire to be right above all else.

A church that is all truth is like a smoothie that is all water, beets, celery, kale, ginger, etc.  It might be good for you, but its a little bitter and tough to swallow.  Like trying to take castor oil.

Other churches come down on all love.  Avoiding the parts of the Bible that might hurt someone or be offensive, avoiding any controversy at all.  Rather focusing only on "God is Love."  And again, while we can jump to various Universalists, it happens to a larger degree than we would imagine.  Pastors afraid to confront anyone in their church for fear of running them off.   Continuing the example, like a smoothie made of cola, sugar, candy, and chocolate.  Too sicky sweet, no substance, no benefit beyond comfort.  The syrup without the medicine.

The ideal is truth in love.  A church that loves so much, they are not afraid to correct each other in love to make sure that they grow and sharpen each other.  A smoothie that has a little spinach, almond milk, bananas, and peanut butter.  A spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.

Because we know the reality is that the churches that focus only on truth are most often focusing only on a partial truth.  Cherry picking the truths that they wish to enforce.  Or more specifically, ignoring the truths that require them to love, to be generous, to be kind, to avoid judging, etc.  Focusing on specific, absolute truths can often blind them to smaller truths as well.

Let's use another example.  The dress controversy.  An absolute truth would be that "the dress as bought in a store was black and blue".  Many people used this fact to justify their view of what was visible in the picture of the dress.  Armed with this fact, there was no way that the dress could be any other combination of color.  This would blind them to the fact of another truth - "a picture of the dress where the color saturation is off, the lighting is dark, and the exposure is different can make the dress appear white and gold."

So while it is true that we should 'have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them," it is also true that we should "first take the plank out of our own eye" and that we should "do everything in love."

That said, the sound clip is very clearly saying "Laurel" and if you are hearing "Yanny", you need to have your hearing or equipment checked.