It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Monday, December 30, 2019
These Birds Would Get a Speeding Ticket on City Routes
When It Comes To Medical Research, How Dare You?
Feeling Smarter and Smarter:
Discovering the Inner-Ear Origins and Treatment for
Dyslexia/LD, ADD/ADHD, and Phobias/Anxiety
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Thursday, December 26, 2019
When Defense of One Makes All Suspect
The Defender of the Faith
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Old Testament Laws regarding Carcassses
The Carcasses of the Clean Animals
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Waiting For God(ot) -- No, I Mean It, It Seems Death is All that is Left
I lost my mother when she was 64. I was 35 at the time. My dad died in his 91st year. I was 59. My wife's father lived to be in his 97th year and died when my wife was 70. And now we sit daily for a long stretch of time -- feeding and making comfortable her mom who is in her 96th year.
She has signed all the required papers. They are not to resuscitate her when the time comes. In the meanwhile she breathes with the help of oxygen. I understand that the amount of oxygen is significant enough that the portable containers can no longer be used. It now comes directly from a much larger machine that is plugged into the wall.
And although this is also possible in the dining room, this resident is no longer able to sit up, let alone stand up. Thus getting her to meals in a wheelchair is not feasible. It's a struggle for two staff people to get her to the washroom or to take care of her in her bed. They are angels.
I don't mind visiting as often as I can. I do it because I love my wife. And I want to be there for her. Fortunately, the home has excellent Wi-Fi and I can get a lot of work done (including writing this blog) when I'm here.
Today is not a particularly good day. My mother-in-law does not want to eat a lot. She is hardly talking. She can barely keep her eyes open. This is no way to live. She wonders how long she has been like this and how much longer this condition will continue. We're not sure if she is hoping to get better or if she is ready to die. The verdict on that changes regularly.
For all of us, it's like waiting for Godot. You may have studied the famous but absurd play by Samuel Beckett performed first in 1953. Godot never comes for the two main characters.
But get rid of "ot" and change it to waiting for God -- and that's exactly what we have here. We tell Grandma that it's up to God now as to how long this state will continue. We are doing nothing to cut it short and there is nothing we can do to prolong it in accordance wth her wishes.
But the wait is important. Not so much for her, but more for us. Death has a way of strengthening the living.
When a parent lives into his or her late nineties, their caregiver children often range into their seventies. The toll of daily visits, feeding and just sitting next to their loved day after day (especially if due to location one child is more likely to bear the majority of the burden) often with little or no response, or signs of real life, can be taxing. Yet, children do it because of the relationship and the bond (regardless of quality) that has been established over seven decades or more.
Somehow God gives them the strength to daily set aside their own responsibilities and make that visit. It's a duty they take on even though they have no idea of how long it will need to last. The staff at the long-term care facility my wife's mother is in told me this week that in 2019 they had to say goodbye to two 108 year olds. And then of course what happens when the caregiver themselves starts to have her or his own health issues? Just imagine a parent living to 108 and the caregiver being 85.
Maybe our forefathers knew something when they all lived together in villages, taking care of their aged at home and sharing the responsibilities. Or did they?
So we wait for Godot. We wait for our loved one to die. There are no other options -- recovery has succumbed to age. If a setback occurs, any medicine or treatment can only prolong life for a day, a week, month, maybe even a year. But what does that life look like and who wants it? Does the elderly person themselves want it? Does one dare to ask him or her?
I asked my mother-in-law today, "Did you sleep well last night?" Her barely audible reply was, "That's all I do." She's right. I added, "Then you've mastered that. Maybe you can teach some of us how to do it." She smiled.
As we each take turns visiting and sitting quietly in the room, we cannot but think of our own future, our own old age, even our own last days. Will we have mastered sleep, waiting for Godot, waiting for death? I pray my personal experience will be characterized by a sense of wonderment because I will be waiting for God, not Beckett's Godot. And Love will have once again conquered all, even death.
-- Ken B. Godevenos writing from Toronto.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Saturday, December 07, 2019
How Assistant, Siri, Alexa, and Cortana Could Contribute to Society
My daughter and her husband went out to a dinner the other night and brought home a gift from the host -- a Google Home system. (Nice friends if you can find them.) We already had an earlier, less sophisticated model (a Google Nest Mini, now in my grandson's room) and others in the family (not in our house) have Alexa. Of course, all of us already have Siri on our phones.
teach us courtesy, so at least we'll be polite in prison.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Thursday, December 05, 2019
Disagreeing Without Hard Feelings (& the 5 Levels of Friendship)
The other day I attended a monthly meeting of a group -- the nature of the group does not matter at this point. During the break, a "casual friend" of mine started telling me, much to his satisfaction, about a recent trip he took and how 9 out of 10 people he met could not stand a particular leader. I indicated that I would have been the 10th. When I explained why, he started challenging me and I countered with some direct but strong rebuttal for which he had nothing to say. I told him I was sick and tired of how so many people like he and I in so many other respects, could dislike someone so much without any valid and contextual reason. Again he had no answer and I slid away to others in the group.
Before the break was over, he called me over and said, "Hey Ken, no hard feelings, right? We're still friends, right?" To which I replied, "No, no hard feelings." As I was heading home that evening I wondered to myself, "Is that really the case?" Is it possible for such an interaction and such strong, yet divergent feelings, to be verbalized, and acknowledged in such a way where there would be "no hard feelings" and that next time we met, it would be as if this interaction never happened?
As I started to write [which for me is great therapy for a) expressing one's frustration while at the same time b) developing one's position on a matter], it hit me that much depended on the level of friendship that two people had. That led me to an article by Jermaine Tucker. You can read it here. There you will find the Friendship Pyramind (see picture above) that he developed based on some of the ideas adapted from Waiting and Dating by Dr. Myles Munroe.
The Friendship Pyramid lists 5 levels of Friendship:
5. Strangers (at the bottom and thus containing the most people)
4. Acquaintances
3. Casual Friends
2. Close Friends
1. Intimate Friends (at the top and thus containing a more limited number of people)
The Pyramid also suggests what characterizes each of the levels. We would all do well to think about these and perhaps take the trouble to both list people we know by category and then consider whether or not there are sufficient individuals in each category.
Personally, I think there should be a 6th category between Close Friends and Casual Friends -- maybe called Good Friends. But for our purposes let's stick wth the five Tucker has provided. Take the time to look at the characteristics of each category before proceeding to read the rest of this article.
So, what can we say about the likelihood of "no hard feelings, we're still friends, right?" when what happened to me happens in conjunction with someone in any of the five levels of friendship? Here's my take. You are free to disagree -- no hard feelings.
With Strangers: The first thing we need to address here is whether our 'contacts' on our various social media (for the most part) are simply 'strangers' for all intents and purposes, or are they 'acquaintances'? I'll go with the fact that the "majority" of our contacts are really strangers. Based on that, the answer here is simple -- it is what it is. I have found that depending on the issue, such 'strangers' will either block you or ignore you going forward. On the odd occasion, someone may slowly return to a humane reaction to your posts if you continue to be fair and honest, not attack them personally, and comment positively on their posts where it is merited. Otherwise, it is their choice (or yours) and it really doesn't matter, does it?
With Acquaintances: I consider acquaintances to be those that I run into in the course of carrying out my work or my life. They happen to be where I am. Or I have to deal with them in order to accomplish what I need to do (buy groceries, clothes, do my banking, get my vacuum repaired, etc.). Sadly, or maybe providentially, we don't often get to the point of having a "difference of opinions" on anything controversial. Especially in the West, we stick to the weather and our local sport team when seeking a small-talk subject. Moving towards more meaningful topics like politics or religion takes a lot of careful posturing and the ability to read any clues as to a particular view that may emanate from an acquaintance. Even then, proceed with caution. But let's say a difference does come up -- can you both get over it? I think the answer is "yes" -- after all, in most cases, you need their expertise and they need your business. At best, you'll both know enough not to broach the topic in the future. At worse, you will find another provider of what you need, and he/she will find another customer.
With Casual Friends: Casual friends are those that you meet up with regularly because you both choose to attend events or activities that are of interest to both of you. Club meetings or church services are two good examples. Or perhaps you both get invited to the same parties. And if you are like me, this is where the agitation of an interaction like the one I mentioned above starts to kick in and the occurrence requires more thought and discussion afterwards, perhaps with close or intimate friends (the next two levels of friendship). And this is where you really have a meaningful choice to either let it get to you or to let it go -- because either a) you value the activity you both participate in more than winning this argument with this person or b) the person has some other qualities, and it is not worth you convincing them to change their opinions. The relationship can be saved. Hopefully, he or she would do the same. If not, the next time you meet, may be more awkward and a further, perhaps more consequential decision, will need to be made.
With Close Friends: These are the individuals that are supposed to have the same values, ideals, and worldview as you do. Your interests and life goals match and you're working together in one way or another to achieve the common goal(s) you both thought you had. Close friends are supposed to be connected in mind and spirit, if not also, body. First, we recognize that we have very few individuals at this level of friendship. Clearly many of our family members may well be in that category. People in our inner circle or church small groups may be there too. Long-time friends may be in this group. Business partners may be there. So when there is a disagreement in our values, ideals, or worldview, we first need to ask ourselves "Is this really a difference at that level, or is our disagreement w.r.t. methodology?" If the former, it may be time to either rethink the "closeness" of the relationship, or to decide that the relationship is so important, that the difference in values does not matter. One example that comes to mind is having an adult child that is totally at different ends of the political spectrum than you are. And yet when it comes to family matters, work, and life in general, you and he/she have a very close relationship that won't be thrown away because of your differences. Again the choice is yours but the stakes are much higher.
With Intimate Friends: First, I must admit, somewhat to my chagrin, that I only really have one individual in that category. You guessed it -- my spouse. We (well her more than I) are committed to developing each other's characters. We are committed to mutual honesty. After decades of living together the only thing we really disagree on is how we verbalize our disappointments. I wear my feelings on 'her' sleeves. She considers such 'wearing' as being critical, especially when it comes to my feelings about our children and grandchildren. And I admit, she is usually right, always helping me to look on the bright side of things, pointing out how blessed we are. All that to say that the kind of disagreement I experienced with my casual friend would not likely occur between my wife and me. But it appears that many couples are indeed giving up their relationships these days because of political and religious reasons, among many others. Still, I've seen some, who really love each other, some younger than I am, learn to accept each other's political and religious views where they differ strongly with their own. And that's the way it should be. No hard feelings.
So, where are we? What can we learn from looking at disagreements in the light of who exactly the disagreement is with?
For starters, think about what category of "friendship" the person disagreeing with you is in. Secondly, weigh the disagreement against the value of the "friendship" or involvement you have with that person. Third, when in doubt, let it go. Life is too short.
But most importantly, especially if you are a person of faith, consider whether your reaction will make you a better follower of your faith, or take you in the opposite direction.
I want to hear from you with your thoughts.
-- Ken Godevenos, writing from Toronto.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Sunday, December 01, 2019
Black Friday Came and Went, but Global Warming Syndrome Will Hang Around.
A new survey reported on by WND on November 28, 2019 indicates that about six in 10 Americans say they are at least "somewhat worried" about global warming and 23 percent say they are "very worried." Meanwhile, Washington-based psychiatrist Lise Van Susteren who has studied the mental health impacts of climate change for a decade and a half, says it is affecting us all.
And what kind of impact may that be? She lists ""conflict avoidance, fatalism, fear, helplessness and resignation." The latest survey was conducted by a joint venture of Yale and George Mason universities. It found it is not just "only upper-middle-class, white, well-educated, latte-sipping liberals" that care about climate change. Meanwhile the "dismissives" are mostly "well-educated conservative white men." (I guess the researcher had people like me in mind when reporting that finding.)
What does this generic "climate change anxiety" look like for some? Here are two examples reported by WND:
Kate Schapira, a senior lecturer at Brown University, operates a "climate anxiety" booth, just like Lucy's counselling booth in "Peanuts." She's so concerned that she and her husband are not having children. She wants her "sense of responsibility to the world to shrink down to the size of one person." And she's not flying again.
So, why all this anxiety? One lobbyist (Alicia Cannon) says it has to do with the fact that climate change is such a "large-scale issue and it's overwhelming and you feel that it's overwhelming because of helplessness."
Okay, here are my thoughts. Don't ever say I'm not sharing.
First, climate-change is not a large-scale issue for many millions of people. In fact, millions around the world just worry about making it through the day, let alone worry about what may happen a decade from now.
Second, it's not over-whelming unless we want it to be. We are not breathing less because of climate change. No one or nothing is choking us. Why then, on a practical level, are we so much more anxious now?
Third, if you have a feeling of helplessness, it is because you have bought into the lie that the world will end soon. People have been proposing this event at least for the last 2,000 years (that's 200 times longer than the current prediction says we have left). Check out the details here. You don't need to feel helpless on this account any more than you do believing that Santa Claus is real and you've been naughty all year. [I don't venture to guess the correlation between being a climate change fearer and believing in Santa Claus.]
Fourth, isn't it amazing that an increase in climate change anxiety or syndrome goes hand in hand with an increase in Trump Derangement Syndrome victims. I am convinced that if ever the Democrats are in power again, you will notice the climate change anxiety symptoms will die down a lot if not totally disappear. There will always be a few carriers of it around that have suffered beyond repair. But the point is that this is a political "anti-Trump" epedimic like so many other things these days. Things like violence on airlines and restaurants and elsewhere because people happen to be wearing red hats with a certain four capital letters on them.
So, where do I stand on the issue of climate change?
I believe God created this earth in such a way that He could say, "it is good." I believe we have not taken care of it as well as we should have. I believe God is perfectly aware of the state of His creation and He cares much more for it than all the tree huggers in the world combined.
I believe I have a responsibility to do my part in keeping 'me' from harming the earth. But I also believe that God cares as much if not more about our lack of humaneness that we have shown towards our fellow men (as we kill them, get them addicted, sexually abuse them, torture them, hate them, even cheat them or take advantage of them) and to babies in their mothers' wombs (as we abort them). And probably a lot more things that we have a direct "up or down" impact on.
Let's start working on these things and let Him worry more about the the weather -- after-all, that's His Natural realm. Our purpose is to love all life -- especially where our actual actions would otherwise eliminate it outright. Now get out there and take a deep breath.
-- Ken Godevenos, writing to do form Toronto, Ontario.
p.s. I would like to have your view on this. Share a comment on the blog. Please sign up to receive my next blog. Just fill out the "subscribe by email" section on the right. And feel free to share this blog with others.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Want My Vote? Camouflage Your Faith.
The poll was conducted one month after the recent Canadian federal election and focused on the leader of the Conservatives, Andrew Scheer, who lost to Liberal Justin Trudeau even though many thought Pierre's son had screwed up so badly that there was no way he could win. But win he did.
Among those polled who knew Scheer was Catholic, 51% said his religious beliefs had a negative impact on their view of him. But did all 51% translate that into voting for his opponent? We don't know. It is true that the two key issues were his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion rights. It is also true that Trudeau and the Liberals emphasized that more than anything they had to offer.
It's also possible that Scheer had a non-positive (or at the very least a non-exciting) image to begin with. He certainly wasn't prepared to take on those who would argue his faith was the problem.
Interestingly, the poll found that 67% of Canadians knew about the deep religious beliefs of both Scheer the Conservative and NDP (New Democratic Party) leader Jagmeet Singh, a devoted Sikh. But they treated them differently. While 51% counted it against Scheer, only 24% counted it against Singh. Why? Maybe it wasn't the person after all, but rather the specific faith that made a difference. These days, if it looks, swims, and quacks like a Christian, it must be a Christian -- and it's unacceptable to have a Christian behaving like a Christian in government, especially in the ruling party. However, if the leader can camouflage his/her Christianity, say like Justin Trudeau does, then only 31% would even know about his Catholic faith (same faith as Scheer's) and only 36% deemed it as a negative impact on their views towards him.
And of course, the liberal, left-leaning, media does not help a candidate like Scheer. They continuously pelt questions at him about his stand on the two issues mentioned above knowing his responses would likely cause more voters to move away from him. And this goes on even while 55% of Canadians believe that questions about a person's faith or religion should be "off-limits" during election campaigns (and only 45% say it should not). But since when does the media today listen to the majority when it doesn't suit their agenda?
The fact Scheer promised he would never allow legislation that would change the status quo of the federal government's position on the issues did not matter. I mean after all how can you trust a politician when he won't stick by his own ethical and religious beliefs? [An excellent question by the way.]. And the poll actually bears that out -- 32% believe a politician who makes those kind of promises, but 41% doubt its truth, and 27% say there's no way they'd keep their word.
And we can argue all we want that having faith as a guiding light is much more than having a position on same-sex marriage or abortion and that politicians with faith are much better for society than those without -- it doesn't matter because these days it's all about those two issues and those two issues almost exclusively.
In fact, among Liberal and NDP supporters, over 80% said that a candidate's views on those two issues had a strong impact on their vote. For Conservatives, it was only 46%.
Angus Reid polls also provide an index on "public faith" for Canadians -- the degree to which those polled believe that having, knowing, and sharing faith and its importance in society. Currently 36% are for it; 30% are uncertain; and about 35% dead against it. That's the election mentality field in which anyone tries to win an election.
Nevertheless, the fact remains -- faith worn on your sleeve is not a vote-getter these days. How then shall the Christian run for office, or should he?
First, I believe we need more Christians in office, not fewer. But Christians running for office must realize that winning is not the be all purpose of their life. God can use your run for office to open other doors and touch the lives of individuals and groups in new ways.
Second, as a body of believers, the Church of Christ must realize that while God is fully aware of who wins and who loses in elections and who forms the governments of the world, He does not need the political playing field to conquer sin and set up His Kingdom.
Third, and most importantly, if God has given us strong convictions about the various issues causing division in our society today, we should stick with those convictions, being very careful to demonstrate total love towards those that disagree with us. We have not done that well as Christians to this point. If we are to make a difference, we need to.
Fourth, our votes should go to people who have faith and are willing to tell their voters that their faith will indeed guide their actions and decisions. And let's leave the results to God.
-- Ken Godevenos, writing from Murrells Inlet, South Carolina.
p.s. please tell me what you think by leaving a comment below. And also if you haven't already, please subscribe to the blog on the right so you won't miss a single issue. And feel free to pass this one long.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Some Praying May Be Counter-Productive And Other Tips on "Thoughts & Prayers"
A recent report from Newswise (Nov. 27/19) reported on some research at the University of Wyoming which found prayers can crowd out donations for disaster victims. The researcher found that people who offer prayers for victims of natural disasters may be less likely to donate to those victims.
The researcher (Linda Thunstrom) believes the results "suggest that the act of praying is a substitute for material help." Her research is now available online here and will appear in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in early 2020. The study's methodology is most interesting for those who care about research methods.
As I have noticed recently in the media's treatment of prayer -- Christians see prayer on their behalf as a significant contribution to their need whereas "atheists and agnostics were actually 'prayer-averse,' placing a negative monetary value on prayers on their behalf by others."
Furthermore, the study found (in general) that those who indicated they would pray or had prayed, donated smaller amounts of money to relieve the hardship that victims (in this case, victims of a hurricane disaster) faced, than those who did not pray and only thought about the victims.
This topic and research takes on more significance these days when some are objecting to many politicians offering only "thoughts and prayers" to victims of mass shootings or natural disasters, and their families, and doing very little else to help them practically. Some see this as a cop-out alternative, excusing them from taking meaningful action. [Not to be confused with politicians who claim they pray daily for their opponent and then proceed to stab them in the back and never co-operate with them in any way. But we'll save that for another blog, another time.]
Thunstrom herself admits that 'religiosity' is a positive force for volunteering to help victims and that even prayers increase the awareness and empathy of the one doing the praying for the victims and the circumstances. However, the co-relation between prayer and charitable donations may be negative -- more praying, less donating.
So what can we make of all this and how can we, as Christians, respond to the research?
First, I suggest that we never tell a person that we are praying for them unless we are confident they believe in prayer (at least in us praying) and they would welcome our prayers on their behalf. A good rule of thumb is if in doubt, either don't tell them or ask them for permission to do so. Of course, asking and then having them say "no" or "no thank you" may well leave you in a greater ethical dilemma as to whether or not you do pray for them. For that reason alone, I would treat my praying for others for whom I am not certain would appreciate it, as something I do on my own, secretly, in my own prayer closet, so to speak.
Second, we would do well to consider the research and see if we fit the findings -- collectively, and individually. And now it's time for true confessions. Or, is it full disclosure? I can only speak for myself, however. It is a fact that my charitable dollars do not easily go to non-Christian causes whereas my prayers have a much broader spectrum of beneficiaries. I leave the financial assistance to non-Christian causes to non-Christians feeling there are many more of them than there are of us. But I also believe that may not always be right. Each of us has to decide for ourselves.
Third, the problem we have as a society is that too many of us have way more than we really need. Don't get me wrong, I am a capitalist. But I do believe that we (those of us reading this blog) could all afford to give more, do more, than we are doing right now. We have been blessed to be a blessing to others. And we can do much better in that category. Maybe we can even change the results of future similar research.
Fourth, when we offer to only pray instead of giving as well, we may well be hindering God's intended way of meeting the need of the person or persons we are offering to pray for. He may very well want you to meet that need. And that goes for Christians and non-Christians in need. Not giving in these situations, may well be hurting the ones you are praying for.
Fifth, when you actually tell someone you will pray for them and you don't -- well, that hurts you. You have failed to keep your word. You feel badly. Don't tell anyone you will pray for them unless you really will. In fact, when someone writes to me in an email or a text that they would appreciate my praying for something, I have dropped whatever I was doing and prayed for them. [It happened moments ago when a friend asked for prayer for his homeland of Albania which had just suffered a devastating earthquake two days ago.] Then I write back and tell them I did so. And will do so again as "God brings them to mind". When He does, I do my part.
Prayer is not an option. It works. It's needed. But use it responsibly.
-- Ken Godevenos, writing today from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
p.s. please leave your thoughts as a comment below; and better still, join those who get notified each time a new Epistoli blog goes on-line. Subscribe to the right.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
I welcome the "OK Boomer" label. But think twice before you say I'm "out of touch".
Why even Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz (age 37) hit back at White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway's (age 52) concerns about the legalization of marijuana with a flippant "OK Boomer" and indicating her to be "out of touch".
Well, first of all, Mr. Gaetz doesn't know his generations. Ms. Conway is a Generation X'er, not a Boomer. But hey that's indicative of young, whippersnappers who may think they know it all, or a lot of it.
Secondly, not sure what we are all so "out of touch" with. Or, as Kurt Anderson said in the Morning Brew recently, put another way, if we're so "out of touch" how is it that if we go back to the times when the average age of boomers was 35 (that was in 1989), we owned 21% of all of America's wealth? And compare that with the year (2008) when Generation X'ers had an average age of 35, they owned only 8% of America's wealth. But it gets better. Millennials who soon (2023) will have an average age of 35, only own 3% of America's wealth. I don't mind being out of touch.
Others have said my generation is out-of-touch, reactionary, and complicit in destroying the planet. Really? I remember my generation as the one that had backyard gardens where we grew our own vegetables and fruits. We were the ones that drove regular cars, not Ford F-150's, -250's, and -350's, or their sister trucks from the other manufacturers that leave big carbon footprints.
At best, station-wagons were all we needed, not SUV's. We didn't eat out as often and washed our dishes each night. We didn't order in as much and weren't killing as many trees to provide us with Chinese food and pizza containers that have to be thrown out. We didn't fly all over the world whenever we felt like it because we had to see everything there was to see. In fact, some would argue that we did more to keep our planet going than the average millennial does today.
If we are "out of touch" maybe it's because we chose not to grow and be attached to a virtual electronic umbilical cord connecting us to all the latest craziness around the world. If we are "out of touch" maybe it's because we talked with real people around the dinner table rather than surf the net or watch Netflix while eating. If we are "out of touch" maybe it is because while we appreciated the films celebrities made, we didn't feel obliged to obey their every commands when it comes to issues beyond their expertise.
If we are "out of touch" with those who disagree with us on many issues, maybe it's because we spent more time with Someone Who really matters -- God. And maybe as a result we didn't need to be so dependent on drugs or psychotherapists. We were not (and are not) at the end of our rope because we have homework from three teachers in the same night, or two assignments due on the boss's desk in two days. Maybe because we were "out of touch" we did not "burnout" as easily as the generations that came after us do.
Maybe our being "out of touch" meant millions of fewer babies were being murdered by abortion than they are today.
And maybe because we were "out of touch" we weren't freaking out when the party we supported didn't win an election. And we weren't afraid that the world would end in a decade. And we didn't have to live with our parents when we grew up. In fact, maybe because we were "out of touch" -- we could grow up.
Hey, Millennials, sure we can be blamed for a lot of things we introduced to the world, but I assure you those things didn't come about because we were "out of touch". Some of them came about because we were wrong and we'd be the first to admit it. As Millennials, you have a lot going for you and some of us are willing to work with you. But you are making a big mistake when you dismiss us being "out of touch". Now, the "OK Boomer" label, well, bring it on. It just helps us remember (with pride) what we've contributed to your world while we wait for you to make your first donation to the cause.
-- Ken Godevenos, writing today from South Carolina
p.s. you can leave your comments below and better still, sign up to get all my blogs.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.