Diane Rehm, my favorite NPR talk show host, was interviewing reporters about the growing tension in the Syrian uprising.  One commentator said that the progress of the uprising was being hampered by the lack of media reporting, which has been shut down by the Assad government.

Diane Rehm interrupted her, however, and asked, “What about the citizen journalists?”  The others at the table had to agree that she was right.  The people on the street who have dared to send photos, emails and cell phone reports have been responsible for keeping the latest details of the Syrian situation in front of the global community.  I was taken with the term citizen journalists and recognized that we are witnessing a whole new form of journalism, thanks to the invention and global use of electronic social media instruments.

I went to Wikipedia and found that it is a fairly new term, but not as new as I had imagined.   The writer was careful to differentiate it from civic journalism which is an accepted form of reporting in which professional  journalists imbed themselves in the midst of the public to report “non-governmental” perspectives.   Citizen journalists, however are amateurs who “call in” to report incidents that are not allowed to be reported by professionals. Some professional journalists are not fond of the citizen journalists, acknowledging that too many times the material they report is biased, emotional, and not able to be substantiated.

“New media technology, such as social networking and media-sharing websites, and the increasing prevalence of cellular phones have made citizen journalism more accessible to people all over the world, who can often report breaking news much faster than traditional journalistic organs.”

The criticism expressed by those professional journalists, however, fails to acknowledge the unbelievably fresh and spontaneous reports which are able to alert the world to such things as the Egyptian riots, those in Libya, and now those in Syria long before professional journalists can get to a safe place to post their reports.   Instantaneous reporting has become acceptable to the listeners around the world, and … hopefully … people are becoming sophisticated enough to be able to distinguish between the amateur and professional reporting.

I found myself trying to imagine what would have been the case if such citizen journalism had been available during the Civil War or during the racial conflicts of the 70′s.  Maybe it’s the theme of a short story yet to come.  Imagine the person hiding behind a building reporting on the shootings, lynching, or cross-burnings.  What would that have done to the emotions of those who had no idea about the passion and fear of black people in the South until decades later when it was safe to be interviewed?   I wonder if the nation would have responded sooner and more directly?

I suppose that out of the emergence of this new phenomenon of citizen journalism there will occur standards and practices which will become acceptable universally.  But I hope the freshness and passion of the spectators to changing moments in history yet to be recorded will not lose the intensity and truth-telling that we are experiencing today.

Photo Credit:  Summary News

The discussions among the various political pundits over the past week have left me cold.

From every corner of the U.S. political campus have come prognostications about how various voting blocs will react to the latest disclosures, flubs, shots to the foot, legislative actions … whatever.   It is clear that the acceptable method of discerning such revelations is by undertaking what I have always been taught to avoid:  generalizations. 

• Conservative Republicans will vote in such and such a way.
• Liberal Democrats will vote in a predictable manner.
• Jewish women will support the following precept.
• African-American professionals will always go this way.
• Young voters will refuse to support X.
• Elderly, Jewish voters in Florida always react to Y in a predictable manner.
• Returning military veterans will demand Z from their candidate.
• Red haired, fair skinned voters of Irish descent will uphold a tradition of ….
• Latinos will not stand for ….
• Reagan Democrats will reject X, Y and Z.
• One-armed, short, college educated citizens of Ohio will ….

There’s a category for everyone.   I keep waiting to be told what I, a New England Democrat with graduate degrees, retired, with grey hair,  with a pension and Social Security, and a subscriber to the home-delivered New York Times, will do in November.  Nobody has asked me yet.

I’m tired of the categorizations.  Yesterday a brave, 50 year old, white  Assemblywoman from the State of Washington, a widow after several decades of marriage, stood and supported same gender marriage based upon information that no one would have known about her.  She defied all of the criteria postulations that the pundits might have dumped on her.   I’m happy to say that she voted in the majority.  Not many would have expected that.

I had a wonderful conversation with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Prize Laureate, in January of 1989.   He shared with me that there was a commonly-recognized factor which tended to separate “western” people from those who lived in a more “eastern” culture.  Westerners, he said, tend to think of things in broken-down, separated segments.  Easterners, however, tended more to think of things as a “whole” entity.   There wasn’t as much divisiveness and competition among easterners on most issues.  Humans were humans, not male, female, black, white, rich, poor, erudite, ignorant.   In thinking this way, he said, one is more inclined to ask the question about what would be good for all humanity, not just one segment.    In our western society, however, our tendency to break people down into small pieces of humanity pitted them against each other and undermined the ability to see the larger picture.

I have thought a lot about those wise words from the gentle Archbishop over the past weeks.   Categorization of people by their race, religion, political disposition, economic status, or potential voting bloc gets in the way of asking that big question: “What is best for America?”   Oh, there are numerous candidates who use that language, but it seems to me that they mean, “What is best for MY America, the one I have defined to meet my personal needs?”

Norman Rockwell, the great American illustrator, painted Americans with a color-blind approach.  When I look at the prints we own, or those on display in various museums around the country, I’m struck with his inclusiveness and his understanding of the American mosaic. A mosaic is a piece of art in which numerous pieces are placed side by side which are of differing colors, shapes and sizes.  Individually they are interesting but unremarkable.  But, when placed next to each other on a wall and arranged appropriately, they form a beautiful and remarkable picture of significance.  My High School had such a mosaic at the entrance to the theater entrance.  It was clear that you could walk by it and not be struck by anything you would call awesome.  But when you stood back and looked at it from a little distance you saw a scene appear which was powerful.  It depicted the movement of humankind’s evolution from darkness into light.

My suggestion for the candidates, campaign coordinators, and pundits in American politics is to stand back a little, look at the larger picture and ask the question, “What is need to propel America into the greatness that she needs at this point in history?”  The distance helps.

Photo Credit: James Fiorentino

There’s a lot of information and mis-information circulating these days about the issue of contraception.  The response to the Administration’s approval of a proposed mandate requiring all hospitals  and agencies  to provide insurance coverage for employees which includes the cost of contraception has raised the ire of religious organizations which run hospitals.  Some of those religious organizations have strong prohibitions against contraception, and believe that they should not be a part of encouraging the use of artificial methods or instruments which support the act.

It has been easy/convenient for some commentators to confuse contraception with abortion.   They are two different methods and two different issues.  It is important to separate them in order to be successful in finding a solution to the conflict being waged.

Contraception is an intentional employment of actions or instruments which prevents conception following sexual activity.   The obvious and best known examples of contraception involve the use of condoms, birth control pills, diaphragms, and IUDs.  But contraception also applies to abstinence and the “rhythm method” (in which timing of sexual intercourse is measured to prevent fertilization during peak periods of vulnerability.)

One of the tenets of reproduction methodology as seen by the Roman Catholic Church, the most outspoken opponent of contraception, is that sexual intercourse is not a recreational experience, but is intended for the specific purpose of procreation.   (There is some irony in this, however, in that it is the Roman Catholic Church that promotes the contraceptive practice of the rhythm method.)  Additionally, it was just weeks ago that the Vatican changed its position on the use of condoms in light of the growing AIDS incidence, particularly in Africa.  So what may appear to be a black and white issue regarding the use of contraceptive devices is suddenly more grey.

While many have chosen to make the Administration’s policy regarding the mandate to employers regarding the health insurance coverage provided for employees into a religious issue, the reality is that it is a legal issue.  Institutions which receive federal monies are required to abide by federal standards regarding the provision of insurance.  The point is to be consistent with all employees and not discriminate against one segment of the working population.

It is clear that health organizations throughout the world have identified the provision of contraceptive instruments as vital to the health of employees (particularly women employees)  as a major factor in reducing, not only unwanted pregnancy, but the health issues related to pregnancy.  The portion of the population which is most affected by this issue is the under-employed.   Health care facilities are famous for employing minimally-educated  and minimally-skilled men and women who work at difficult jobs for very little compensation. Hospitals and health care agencies are dependent upon care aides, housekeeping, dietary and maintenance employees. $10 an hour, $400 dollars a week (before taxes), $20,000 a year (also before taxes)  places these employees at or below the poverty level for married persons in a family with two children.  And they are the most vulnerable when it comes to discharge when the finances of a health agency become challenged.   The cost of out-of-pocket purchase of birth control devices is as prohibitive as the possibility of pregnancy.

There clearly exists the possibility of providing this coverage to employees (many of whom are not Roman Catholic) without jeopardizing the spiritual beliefs of the management of the hospitals and other agencies.   A grace period exists in the legislation to provide an opportunity for the exploration of alternatives.  Once the heated argumentation has simmered and clearer heads are empowered to explore those alternatives, a sacred understanding of the Church and the responsible action of the government will be able to find a common ground.

Photo Credit: family health diary

It sounds like an old-fashioned word to me, but I love the word opine. (/oh-PINE/)  As you would have guessed, it means to offer one’s own opinion on something.  It isn’t a negative word; neither is it a positive word.  It is neutral.  It just describes the act of expressing an opinion.

So, today is one of those days when I want to simply opine about several issues that have come up in the news this past week or so.

1. I think Tom Brady’s wife, Gisele Bundchen, was okay with her comments after the Super Bowl game.   She was acting as a wife, not a sports commentator.  The people around her were pelting her with negative comments about Tom, and she defended him.  Her commentary on the receivers having messed up may have been on the mark, or maybe not.  But it doesn’t matter.  She was stepping up to defend Tom.   Good for her.
2. It’s okay that the Giants won.  I would have preferred to have the Patriots win, but they didn’t.  It’s only a game, and both teams were capable of winning.  Somebody had to lose, and we ended up being the losers.  Okay, as Bostonians are wont to say, “Wait ’til  next yeaah!”
3. I think it is unfortunate that President Obama’s administration chose to fight the “Catholic Hospital” battle right now, in the midst of the election season.  But I think they’re right.   It’s a labor issue, not a religious issue.   There are solutions to the conflict, and there’s time to work them out.  But to label him or his administration as “anti-Catholic” is ridiculous and disingenuous.    It smacks of too much heat and not enough light.  Do your homework.
4. The horror of the situation in Syria is far too serious to let it become a political football.  The explosive quality of middle-eastern politics is too fragile to withstand ideological game-playing, especially  by politicians. I agree with Dr. Brzezinski, shore up our relationships with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.  They hold the key to a diplomatic solution.
5. Super PACS stink, regardless of whether they are pro-Republican or pro-Democratic.   The election process needs to return to being a possession of the public, not wealthy corporations or wealthy power-brokers.
6. I’m proud of the auto industry.  Having lived in the hub of that industry for several years, I’m awed by the effective leadership that has turned the industry around and made it productive.  And I’m proud of the President for having had the fortitude to back them when others called for letting them fail.  I don’t see this as Chicago-style politics.  It’s good sense.
7. The mild winter in New England has been wonderful.   We may still get some snow accumulation, but, hey folks, it’s February!  Puxtahawny Phil says “six more weeks of winter.”  So?  Isn’t that what we usually get at this point in the calendar?  There are already buds on trees.
8. There have been some great movies this winter.  I still resent paying big bucks for popcorn and snacks at theaters, but hasn’t it been fun to be there when these magnificent productions have unfolded before us on the big screen?  It’s not quite the same thing on a television.
9. I know we’re no longer part of the British Empire, but I’m still happy for Queen Elizabeth II.   She’s a class act.
10. “American Idol”, “Glee”, and “Smash” aren’t quite doing it for me this year.  Even great, home-made bread gets stale after a while, and this style of reality TV feels old and crusty to me.
11. I loved Stephen King’s book, “11/23/63″ and Chris Matthew’s book, “Jack Kennedy, American Hero.“    Opening “Mark Twain: A Life” by Ron Powers  this afternoon.  The primary task of a writer:  read, read, read!
12. 200th production  of NCIS this week!   I think I’ve seen about 175 of them.  I can remember when I became attracted to the show in its first year in 2003, my friends thought I was wacko.   The characters are real and I have absorbed them in my circle of friends.  I still don’t know how Jethro gets the boats out of his cellar, though.

There, I’ve opined on a dozen of my accumulated biases.  Time to get serious again tomorrow.

Illustration Credit: johnbarban

When the Department of Health and Human Services of the U.S. Government announced that it was going to require all hospitals (including Roman Catholic hospitals) to provide health coverage for employees which included contraception, it was the beginning of a fierce and passionate battle between the hospitals and the federal government.   The action exposes the word mandate which is from the same Latin root word, mandata, as is the word mandatory.  It means that their announcement will be required and not optional.

You can imagine the uproar which has come forth from the Roman Catholic (and other) hospitals that have previously refused to administer any form of contraception since it is against the moral and ethical standards of their faith.   Until now those hospitals have been given a waiver on the matter, but this recent mandate removes that waiver.  The point being made by the government is that any institution that receives and uses federal money must abide by the regulations that are spelled out in health law.   In this case, the law is clear:  employees must receive insurance benefits that include the option to access forms of contraception.   The exception would be that if the hospital employed only (or almost only) Roman Catholic employees they could continue to refuse to abide by the mandate.  It is clear to anyone who has studied the situation that Roman Catholic hospitals vary from that norm and hire people of a wide range of religious traditions.

While some have chosen to make this sound like a church and state issue, it is actually a legal and labor issue. Employees of Roman Catholic hospitals have complained that they are being denied a benefit that is provided for them by nature of the law.

It is a boondoggle of issues, opinions , attitudes, and politics.  Obviously, in a political year like 2012 the Republicans and conservatives among independents and Democrats will choose to make it a thorny criticism of the current administration … and of President Obama, who says the mandate must be observed.   Even some more moderate or liberal Democrats who are Roman Catholics who have supported the President are incensed and threatening not to support him.    Their opinions are based upon the thought that the Administration is crossing the line and dictating what Roman Catholics must believe.

That is a perfect example of a matter being “more heat than light.”

While it may not be a wise political gesture in an election year, the President is simply pointing out that his health advisers have chosen to follow the law, which is clear on the issue.  It is not a religious issue, per se.  It demonstrates the thorny situation that arises when a not-for-profit/non-pr0fit organization chooses to apply for and accept federal money.   They may expect to be exempted from uncomfortable regulations, but unless they meet the strict criteria for exemption, they aren’t exempt.

If looking at the matter in a simplistic way, there are gestures the Roman Catholic Church could take:

• they could stop taking federal money
• they could hire only Roman Catholics
• they could stop providing the services they offer

None of these is a good answer, however.   Roman Catholic hospitals provide a huge amount of health care for this country, as do hospitals sponsored by other religious communities that might agree with the Roman Catholic position.  If they were to close the burden on secular hospitals would be overwhelming.   Federal money represents the belief on the part of the government that this service is necessary and incapable of being deleted.  To try to keep abreast of the most current practices in health care, the money from the government is crucial.

Hospitals try their best to hire the best people available for providing health care.    If they were to limit their employment so that all those employed by the hospital were Roman Catholic they would face the possibility of losing the advantage of quality workers who might not qualify by religious standards.

There is no simple answer to this dilemma.  It is expected that a move will be forthcoming from the Obama administration to avoid a major battle on this issue.  But it remains to be seen what shape or form that relief will take.   But the issue of the meaning of legislation and the mandates it calls for won’t go away.   The medical profession is clear about the benefits of access to contraception.   And the Roman Catholic Church is not about to set aside its prohibitions.   The stalemate should prove to be interesting.

Photo Credit: Wendy Maeda

For decades  now I have pronounced the word formidable with the accent on the second syllable, as in [fowr-MID- ah-buhl.]   I have no idea where that idea came from, probably from a teacher or other mentor who pronounced it that way.  But it was time to check the word out the other day, after hearing it pronounced in what was the correct way: [FOWR-mid-ah-buhl] with the accent on the first syllable.  It isn’t a big deal, and I think I can adjust easily.  I’m just shocked that I’ve gone all this time without someone correcting me.

The word is a good and useful one.  It indicates that an opponent is someone who possesses unusual strength and, in all likelihood, cannot be defeated.  Over the past week it was applied in politics to either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, who are seeking the Republican nomination for President, and either the Giants or the Patriots, depending upon where your allegiances lie.   Obviously, it was an unwise choice of words for some, the results of the Nebraska caucuses and the Super Bowl now being known.

The David and Goliath story is the classic, bottom-line reference for the term, as demonstrated in the photo above.   Even in the biblical story the money was on massive Goliath.   But nobody counted on David’s practiced accuracy with a sling and the divine assistance which came to play a part in the story.    In the photo above a well-placed head-butt could temporarily cripple the sumo wrestler, despite the lack of physical size and strength of the young contender.   My point:  there is seldom a “given” without an “exception.”

Power, prestige, money and public pressure may seem like a sure thing in the case of a candidate, but a late-breaking rumor or scandal can undo everything that a well-finance, well-organized campaign has accomplished.  And the early-game loss of a star player can reverse the odds on a favored team.  More than one formidable-labeled team has experienced a shocking loss which could not be seen coming.

In  Big East NCAA basketball , for instance, we have occasionally seen a league-leading team stumble in the first game of the Madison Square Garden annual championship and be eliminated on day one.  A team of lesser strength and quality goes on to earn the trophy.   What was formidable turned out to be vulnerable.

There are times when being labeled as the formidable leader in a race is a jinx.  Horse races are never a “sure thing.”   That’s why gambling is so popular among spectators.   Wagering on a “long shot” pays off on occasion, making the fun of the bet worth taking.   A slip at the gate, a wide turn, being bumped by another horse, or any number of factors can change the course of a race in a split second.

What formidable does accomplish as a label, however, is intimidation.    Being able to shake an opponent into believing that (she) is incapable of winning destroys her confidence and improves the chances for the front-runner to be successful.   Good campaign workers have the responsibility to constantly encourage the candidate, reminding her that “you never know” what is going to happen in the voting booths at the last minute.   A mis-spoken word or side comment from a leading candidate on the night before an election can sweep through the electorate with the speed of lightening, especially given the social media instruments at play in today’s world.

Formidable is a good descriptive word, but, like anything else, can be fickle.

Photo Credit: iamthe musicindustry.com

The Occupy movement has caused a number of thinking people to scratch their heads and ask, “What is this all about?”   There are tons of easy answers out there, most of which miss the mark.

The Occupy movement is a part of a much larger, global action that didn’t begin in 2011 with the economic stresses on Americans.   It is actually a  graphic image of what has been growing on a number of fronts which can be identified as anti-institutionalism.  That is to say, there is a growing amount of activity in many parts of the world which has as its primary purpose  a demonstration of lack of faith in institutions.   Not just political institutions, but economic, religious, educational, and a variety of other social and governmental institutions.

Some of the movement has been subtle and other aspects of it are highly visible and well-known:

• More and more people declare themselves to be “spiritual but not religious.”   What they are saying is that they have faith, sometimes even deep, profound faith.  But the religious institutions available to them do not adequately demonstrate that faith, and sometimes even fight against it.
• An increasing number of young people choose not to go on to higher education despite the fact that they have the finances to afford it and the grades to support it.  They see educational institutions as failures in providing the kind of intellectual and practical tools necessary to function in this complex world they are inheriting.
• Government is more and more suspect as an agency capable of leading a nation or other political entity in the ways of providing security, progress, economic safety, etc.
• Political parties are increasingly under fire for failing to represent the political, moral, ethical and constitutional needs of voters.   The growth of the independent movement is no longer incidental; it is massive.
• Skepticism, cynicism and outright rejection are commonly cited as the “mood of the voters” of a particular entity.
• Economic institutions are seen as morally corrupt and incapable of guaranteeing economic security for investors.
• Faith in hospitals, insurance companies, and medical schools to provide for the health needs of a population is at an all-time low.

As Jefferson Bethke , an artist from Tacoma, Washington, stipulates in his recently-released video, “Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus,”

“…This seems to be a moment when many people–in religion, economics and politics–are disgusted by current institutions, but then are vague about what sorts of institutions should replace them….”

Bethke’s video commentary was the springboard for an op-ed piece in Friday’s New York Times by David  Brooks.   Brooks points out the potential legitimacy of the anti-institutional movement, but makes the point that it falls short by not having alternative suggestions to make to replace the existing institutions.

“Bethke’s passionate polemic and subsequent retreat are symptomatic of a lot of the protest cries we hear these days… This seems to be a moment of fervent protest movements that are ultimately vague and ineffectual….rebellion without rigorous alternative vision is just a feeble spasm.”*

If this issue were simply about the Occupy movement, or Bethke’s video Mr. Brooks might be correct.   But the vastness and diversity of anti-institutionalism is far more complex.  In some cases, the alternative is expressed, as in the spiritual community.   Individualism, as expressed by devotion to Eastern religious practices, meditation, contemplation, and other forms of non-traditional spiritual practices is an alternative to organized religion which is common.  People who have chosen to express their faith by participation in social causes is hardly a minimalist experience.  Their abandonment of traditional faith communities is rampant.  Euphemisms such as “non-practicing Roman Catholics,” “Recovering Episcopalians,” and “Secular Jews” are common.

This is a time in history when we could easily lose an opportunity to grow by rejecting or ignoring the messages being given by those who have lost faith in traditional institutions.  A knee-jerk reaction of abandoning all institutions is not called for, but a careful ear and a tolerance for diverse opinion would be welcome, as would a willingness to accept and participate in the reform needed to regain the trust of those who have lost it.  That’s a lot to hope for.  But the alternative is not acceptable.

Photo Credit:  John Manchillo (AP)

*NYT( 2/3/2012, p. A23)

An article by Gail Sheehy, author of Passages, appeared in the New York Times this week, the headline reading, “That Vague, Crepuscular Time When Youth Has Passed: What Is It?”*   I folded the page over, took another sip of my coffee and said to myself, Okay, you got my attention.  What the heck is crepuscular?

It turns out that the article is about middle age, that vaporous period of time which comes someplace between youth and senior citizen ages.  Sheehy does a good job of describing the confusion about the meaning of middle age, calling it a “cultural fiction, eternally reinvented.”

I’ve always heard the same thing about the term adolescence, and that it is a phenomenon created in America to describe an awkward period of time in the life of young people between childhood and young adulthood.   There are clearly social, physical, emotional and familial characteristics of adolescence, some of which apply to some kids, and some of which are missing.  But there is no question that it is an awful period of adjustment for the kids and for those responsible for them (including not only parents, but teachers.)  Some psychologists argue that kids in other parts of the world pass from childhood to young adulthood without the need to lay over in something called adolescence.  I have a feeling that it may have been true at other times in history, but that globalization of social illnesses has injected adolescence into other cultures as well as in America.

But, getting back to the term crepuscular, it is fascinating to see the dancing around the meaning of that ambiguous period we choose to call middle age.  If we take the term literally, we must calculate the average age expectancy of people, which is somewhere between 75 and 85 years of age, depending upon gender.  That being said, middle age would then mean the period between 35 and fifty.  Those figures, however, are aptly described as “elastic” by one expert.

It turns out that the term “middle age” is self-described, depending upon how one defines their life.  Our society is more willing than ever to define stages of life by age.   Ms. Sheehy is one of the people who has helped define the meaning of life stages, and has always avoided using age as the determinant.  Rather, she looks at events in life (college, marriage, parenting, retirement, etc.) as being better determinants of one’s life situation.  Health, economics, and external factors such as the global economy have much more to do with the determination of one’s “age.”   If someone is physically active, socially involved, and  intellectually stimulated they are less likely to see themselves as “aging” and more inclined to identify their life as “middle aged,” even though they may be 60 years old!   But a person who is physically limited, struggling economically, and feeling isolated from others may see themselves as having passed through the stage of “middle age.”

On the other end of the spectrum, a person who is 35 may see themself as “middle aged” if they have been limited by health, lack of upward mobility, and only minimal access to social activity.  Some 35-year-olds still see themselves as young adults.

The way in which the term crepuscular comes into play in this discussion is the recognition that it middle age and senior citizenship is not something that is entirely within the naming province of the person involved.   As the sun and its daily movement describe dusk, twilight, evening and night, so the “hours” of one’s life are subject to some degree of objective definition.  Factors somewhat beyond our control, such as menopause, retirement, and social security benefits have a role to play in definition, although they need not be seen as limiting.  The 72 year old woman who skis, plays golf, and travels alone is less likely to embrace traditional language defining age.  At the same time, the man who has been forced to retire from his career because of an archaic rule may absorb the defeatist attitude that ages him prematurely.

To be literal for a moment, crepuscular describes the phenomenon of twilight.  It is not dark out and one can still move about without the need for illumination assistance.  The day is not over; a vibrant social life  may be just beginning.  In many ways, it may be the most beautiful part of a day.   Along the west coast of Florida people gather at the shore to watch the sun set over the Gulf of Mexico and greet the “green flash” that occurs when the sun dips below the horizon as the beginning of the best part of the day.  Glasses clink.

Photo Credit: ken geiger

*(2/2/12, p. C4)

My favorite movie of all time is Philadelphia, starring Tom Hanks.  It hit the theaters in 1993, the story of a young attorney who contracts AIDS  and brings suit against his law firm when they fire him because of his illness.   At one point in the movie he is in his apartment with his lawyer, played by Denzel Washington.  He is dying, dramatized by his attachment to a pole on which his medicines hang.   A piece of music is playing in the background, and suddenly Hanks’ character stops talking and becomes absorbed in the beauty of the music.   It is the aria, “La Momma Morta” from Umberto Giordano’s opera Andre Chenier.  Operatic soprano Maria Callas is singing.  His medicine pole becomes an operatic prop, almost a stage mike,  as he describes to his attorney the powerful scene being depicted by the aria.

The words contain phrases which directly relate to Hanks’ character’s situation:

“Live still, I am life.”

“It was during this sorrow that love came to me….”

It is poignant to the point of tears and even the stellar attorney played by Washington is moved to silence and emotion.   I believe it is the most powerful movie moment Tom Hanks has ever performed.   I have seen the movie several times, and each time I come to this piece of the film I find my chest tighten and my eyes moisten.   It is a magnificent moment of cinematography.

I’m not a great lover of opera, more from being ignorant of its genre than anything else.   But this moment in Philadelphia makes me a believer.   There is a similar moment in the movie, Pretty Woman, starring Julia Roberts and Richard Gere.  Roberts plays the part of a call girl who is hired by Gere, and a Pygmalian story erupts.  At one point Gere’s character takes Roberts to the opera where Verdi’s  La Traviata is playing.   Roberts is overcome by the beauty of the production to the point of tears.  It is a phenomenon not to be overlooked.

In an age in which popular music has so dramatically changed to become rap and hard rock, it is important to remember that loud and discordant … even that without tune … is not the only vehicle of musical expression.   I have no doubt that there are those for whom the words and emotion of a well-performed rap tune can touch the heart and bring forth unexpected feelings.

But it is awesome to have seen theaters filled with unsuspecting audiences of all stripes and colors who were moved to deep emotion by these two examples of classic, tonal expression.  I will never forget my emotion the first time I saw Philadelphia and the sense of being drained by this powerful moment of an aria sung as I have never heard it sung before.

Photo Credit: halohost

There are some people who seem to be  contentious by nature.  That is to say, they are people who jump to argument, skipping right over the idea of discussion,   It doesn’t seem to matter what the topic is.   The only response is to jump in with both barrels blazing and move the discussion or disagreement to the realm of open battle.

It has amazed me throughout my life to watch a contentious person at work.  They actually seem to listen for a few moments, trying to find the latch key they can use to turn the matter from a reasonable difference of opinion to an out-and-out battle.

They miss the point that there is nothing wrong with differences of opinion.  I happen not to be able to tolerate the taste of cilantro.   It is a really offensive taste to me.   Obviously, most people like it.  It is perfectly reasonable for me to be able to say that I would prefer that there be no cilantro on my salad without it becoming a big issue.  But a contentious person will jump on my comment, declaring me to be insulting to the host or the restaurant, and pound on me to try to get me to relent.   Sound silly?   It actually happened to me.

My point is that it doesn’t have to be a big issue for a contentious person to find the opening for anger and dispute.  If you then move the discussion from salad ingredients to the discussion of the Keystone Pipeline you can imagine the magnification of the emotions and the anger.  It is a marvelous playground for contentious personalities.  This sort of person just hangs around interesting places waiting for a good stimulus to a food fight.   Family gatherings, office parties, sports bars … they are all candidates for this person’s vitriol to be exercised.

It doesn’t take a lot to spot  contentious persons.  They don’t hang a sign around their neck or wear a lapel pin signifying that they belong to the ACS (American Contentious Society.)    But they have a look in their eye, a flush to their cheek, and a twisting of their mouth that is a dead give-away.  If you watch a good discussion begin, particularly one with a potentially volatile subject, just gaze around the people gathered.   You’ll spot the contender.    Then count to 10 and by the time you reach 8 your person will have snuck into the attack position.

It’s not at all impossible for a contentious person to change positions in a flash.   You see, the subject matter isn’t important.  It’s all about the fight.  A truly contentious person will be able to get angry about any given topic and will snoop out the more volatile side of the argument.  If you know the person from other contests you may be surprised to find the previously animated ultra-conservative arguing the post-liberal position.  Again, it’s not about the issue … it’s about the fight.

A friend who practices family therapy told me once that there is almost an addiction to the adrenaline created by arguing which motivates the contentious person.   Like any addict, the contender is not satisfied with a taste of the “fight.”   (He) cannot satisfy his hunger for the “anger high” by simply disagreeing and letting it go.   The fight must be to the death.  He must drink from the keg of adrenaline and it must be a deep draft.    Others will tire of the argument and move on, sometimes literally.  But the contender will stay with it until there is a concession by the opponent, or the opponents have left the scene, unwilling to draw blood over a sometimes silly issue.  The contentious person will count either as a victory.

It remains to be seen if a contentious person knows that (he) is contentious.  It may, or may not, be a planned battle.  I’m more inclined to believe that it is spontaneous, but that it draws upon a history of contentious behavior and is incapable of being flushed from the being.  It amazes me that some contentious people actually get married, rise to the top of the corporate ladder, or get elected to responsible positions in government.

Photo Credit:  shareislam.com