Other Perspectives

Hey All - February's going from a deep freeze to an early spring.  Not sure if this is Punxsatawney Phil's doing, or someone else's.

Big news in law and politics -  the death of Senior Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  As expected, for reasons to numerous to mention, this touched off a political firestorm.  However, what caught this blogger's attention was the statement made by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  In terms of how they evaluated cases before the Court, they were polar opposites.  In real life, they were, to use Justice Ginsberg's words, "best buddies."

The way our nation is so divided, this seems almost impossible.  The way arguments on social media so quickly devolve into personal attacks, the way those attacks and their responses become so acidic and vitriolic, it's an honest to goodness miracle that a civil war hasn't already started.  Say this word, you're a racist.  Say that word, you're a terrorist.  Say something I don't agree with, that somehow gives me the right to humiliate, embarrass, and insult you in public because I know everything and you need to be "taught." 

But "best buddies?"  Those whose opinions actually counted, whose findings could potentially become the law of the land, whose decisions actually had more substantial consequences than just hurt feelings . . . How on earth could they be "best buddies" under these circumstances?!?

Here are my educated guesses:

(1). Respect.  Whatever they decided did not extend beyond the four corners of the written decision that the Court issued.  They didn't taunt each other about how stupid they thought the opposing argument was over lunch.  No posturing or posing, because someone just had to be a loudmouth.  No finger pointing or name-calling at the seventh grade level.  Never making it personal.

(2).  Understanding.  Ginsberg noted that after she read Scalia's dissents, in which he ripped apart the weaknesses of Ginsberg's decisions, she was able to make the final draft that much better by becoming aware of those weaknesses and covering them.  No, it didn't mean she was bowing down to his superior intellect, it meant that she learned to write a better opinion after seeing the opposing argument.

(3). Boundaries.  To expand on what's been stated in (1), there are times you, believe it or not, keep it in check.  Maybe give it a rest sometimes.  Maybe save it for another time.  Maybe just because you feel that way is not carte blanche to start the great American debate all.  The.  Time.  Cause.  You.  Feel.  Like.  It.

As Betas, we are often intimidated into remaining silent not to offend anyone.  And then when we do work up the fortitude to say what we think, right or wrong, we are not always prepared for what could be an onslaught of opposition and criticism, because that takes even more fortitude.  

Can you hold differing opinions with friends?  If you're willing to abide by the above three suggestions, you most likely can.

But what if a friend or relative is not willing to abide by them when you are?  Welcome to Beta Male Life 101! 

They don't have to be as nice, as respectful, or as mature as a pair of Supreme Court Justices.  And you don't have to associate with them if they won't.

Don't get it twisted, if they don't hold back from personal attacks on you, especially with an audience, you shouldn't feel guilty about knocking them down a few pegs.  Nevertheless, no amount of proof will make these people change their tune, so don't expect to be a hero.  Do only what is necessary to protect yourself, leave them behind, and find better people to associate with - you shouldn't limit yourself to only those who think like you do, but you should only permit people who can respect your views the way Scalia and Ginsberg respected each other.

I EXIST.  I MATTER.  I BELONG.  I DESERVE.

I AM BOLD.  I AM BULLETPROOF.  I AM BETA.

The Opposition's Weaknesses

Hi All - Halloween is behind us, Thanksgiving may or may not be glossed over, and the Winter Holidays are just around the corner.  So what's on the docket for today?

Often times, people try to intimidate us when we say things that we're proud of or happy about.  If they're toxic enough, they'll try to say that what we like is stupid or useless, and they'll say it in the loudest, longest, and most obnoxious way.  And because they know that we're basically nicer, and are less likely to fight back, they sometimes also will say it in front of a crowd of followers and sycophants, since they need continuous reinforcement through enabling to continue living off this toxicity.

Why they do that is not as important as how to handle it.  However, some insight into their quest to silence you might reveal a few tips and pointers:

(Reason 1)  They're not secure enough to handle someone who thinks differently than they do, and can't share the floor with other voices.  
(Solution 1)   Keep voicing your opinion anyway.  The more they try to silence you, make yourself better, wiser, and more thick-skinned.  No matter how loud they get, they'll be forced to reckon with you.

(Reason 2)  They have weaknesses to protect, and the longer they allow you to talk, they're afraid you'll touch a nerve.
(Solution 2)  Keep it in your back pocket.  Don't hit them over the head out of nowhere with it, that's their game plan, and not ours.  Once they cross a line, which they always do, lock on the target and pull the trigger.  You didn't start that conflict, and they sure as heck asked for it.

(Reason 3)  They have been enabled, spoiled, and protected for so long they don't understand how it feels to be wrong, incorrect, or behind the times.  And it shakes the very foundations upon which they stand.
(Solution 3)  Keep it in lower in your back pocket.  It's not our way to fight arrogance with arrogance.  But whenever they make it a personal attack, yes you can hit them over the head with this.  The very concept of choosing not to say something, even though you can, was obviously never taught to them earlier, so teach them now.  

As I've stated before, the way for us Betas to improve our lives, be happier, and attain greater successes is to be Bold and Bulletproof.  That means not letting people bully us into silence just because they don't know how to respectfully disagree.  That means shoring up our feelings airtight so nothing they say can wound us, stun us, or make us feel ashamed of ourselves.  And yes, when warranted, that means take a shot at them to show them what is acceptable and what is not.

Unfortunately, there are still more alpholes out there than there are of us.  For now.

I EXIST.  I MATTER.  I BELONG.  I DESERVE.

I AM BOLD.  I AM BULLETPROOF.  I AM BETA.

Who Matters More?

Hi All:

Time for the weekly biblical analysis.

Remember that annoying nephew Abraham had?  Well, he stayed behind in the infamous Twin Cities.  And Abraham was told by a few messengers from On High that not only will his wife give birth to a son at a ripe old age, but those Twin Cities are gonna get flattened.

So Abraham bargains a bit to look out for his boy Lot.  Almost reminding G-D of His promise to Noah not to annihilate an entire population when not everyone deserves it, he persuades G-D not to drop the sulphur on them if there are just 10 decent people in both cities.  Apparently the quota wasn't met, notwithstanding these negotiations.

So the messengers from On High walk right into Sodom to warn Lot that it's all gonna go down, and the local gangsters and miscreants pick up on it.  Lot, in a sorry show of cowardice, offers to let them all have their way with his daughters, so they'd leave him alone, to no avail.  Those messengers, in a display not unlike Qui-Gon Jinn and young Obi-Wan in Episode I, blind the crowd so they can't bust down Lot's door.

Just in time, Lot and his family escapes from Sodom before it's destroyed, although at least one member of his household just can't help but look back at the Strip one last time, only to be vaporized.  And then, feeling that they won't be able to find suitable mates, Lot's daughters get their father drunk so he'll perform a most unnatural act.  More on that below.

And what of Abraham?  Sarah tells him to boot Hagar and Ishmael out of the family for good.  This time, instead of blindly following her orders, he's actually feeling wrong about doing it.  But then G-D actually tells him to do what Sarah says, because Ishmael is not only going to survive, but be the father of his own "great nation," while Isaac gets the covenant.  So is a consolation prize meant to be enough?

And what does he do with the son he kept?  He almost kills him for G-D.  Volumes have already been written about that whole sorry affair.

What this selection shows is a major-league demonstration of misguided loyalty.  Prime examples of how not to respond to desperate times, even if the choices really are that difficult.

Abraham knew that his nephew, whom he already saved once, was going to be in worse trouble than before.  At that time, he had no problem bargaining with G-D to consider even the possibility of sparing the innocent.  He didn't know whether there were 10 people in Sodom and Gomorrah who were worthy enough to justify the cities' survival, but at that time, he wasn't afraid to ask G-D to reconsider a severe decree.  But that same urgency was gone for both of his sons.  His first son was getting evicted, and forced to fend for himself, with assurances from On High, that he'd be just fine, and not to worry about him.  He was already showing some strength of character by not merely accepting these circumstances without question, but showing real concern, as this was his son.  But where was his bargaining power then?  Why did he not ask G-D to just put Hagar and Ishmael in the Guest House?  Or maybe check out a new apartment for them?  Just to make sure he'd be OK by making the provisions -- how could he plead for Lot and not for his son?

Same issue with Isaac, but better known.  Where was his power of persuasion then?  He pleaded for Lot to be kept safe, but he didn't object when directed to slaughter his son on the altar.

And Lot's not that much better.  He was willing to let those low-lifes have their way with his daughters to prevent a worse rumble, and then later he allows his daughters to get him drunk and have him impregnate them?  True, the Ten Commandments had not yet come down at the time, so maybe it was technically okay to do that, but why did they have to get him drunk to make it happen?  And why couldn't he be a good enough father to say no?  It could be that his daughters had some corruption issues of their own, having grown up in Sodom, but this might have been his chance to set them straight now that they were out of that city.

It seems to me that we're taught to recognize lessons from these errors in judgment.  Unlike Abraham and Lot, we can use the right tactics for the right situation.  Abraham could have still stood up for Lot, there was nothing wrong with that choice, but he could have also stood up for both of his sons, and pleaded against the eviction and the sacrifice.  As gracious as it was of him to be a good uncle, he also needed to be a good father, because his powers of persuasion were needed by his sons even more than they were needed by his extended family.

Sometimes you have to think about it.  Consider the consequences and risks, and weigh which choice brings the greater benefit.  Don't waste your all of your smarts and arguments on issues that will effect you less, and don't "pass" or give up on issues that affect you more.  Just because some higher authority, divine or otherwise, demands that you do something that feels wrong, that doesn't mean you can't speak up and at least explain why you feel it might be wrong.  Choose your battles wisely.  Someone may thank you for it one day.

I EXIST.  I MATTER.  I BELONG.  I DESERVE.