Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
The longer I live, the more people I meet, the more I understand that everyone has a backstory.
Of course this is an obvious truism. If people are breathing they had to have been born and lived life somewhere. But that’s not the point.
“Backstory” is a literary device or theatrical word. It refers to the history of characters, or in our instance people, that informs and maybe forms the present personality, emotional make-up, and perhaps circumstances or potential of the character or person of present interest.
Everyone has a story—who he or she is. A backstory is the story behind the story.
So what I’ve learned is that when I meet people, however they seem to me, there’s more to them. Somehow, someway the persons I am meeting are rooted in their own backstory. They didn’t awaken one day fully formed. They—he or she—didn’t become a jerk or a mean girl overnight. Nor did overnight they become a great person you want to get to know better. So while I’m no psychologist, I’ve learned from experience (at least to try) not to judge too quickly.
Of course a person’s backstory however wonderful, not so good, or horrible does not provide a free pass to act self-indulgently. I don’t mean we should overlook questionable behavior or attitudes as soon as we learn people’s backstory. No, I mean that we’re better off not to judge until we learn more about the person’s backstory because such knowledge invariably creates understanding and often with it compassion, or at least tolerance.
One of the things I learned in years of leadership is to always check the facts when I was confronted with an issue. Why? Because “there’s always more to the story.” People filter, put their best foot forward, obfuscate, and lie. People who do their best to tell the truth are still but finite persons who may have forgotten or missed some key detail in the story. Check the facts.
Same is true for people. Engage their present story and in time and as appropriate learn their backstory. Learning their backstory tells you a lot, a whole lot, about them, helps perspective, and maybe suggests how you should interact with them. Same, by the way, can be said about a people group like, say, Palestinians.
Learning the backstory is time well spent.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
People get tired of the presidential primary election season. They get tired of pols (politicians) and polls, innumerable debates, campaigning, and the actual primaries, the political equivalent of “running for the Roses” (Garden).
I’ve read a number of articles proposing a reduction in the current number of primaries and caucuses. Some call for a limit on the time candidates can campaign. Others want to put all the primaries on one day. Still others yearn for a national primary, get it over in “one swell foop.”
But there’s value in multiple primaries over several months leading to national nominating political party conventions and ultimately the general election.
A long primary season wears us out, but more importantly it wears candidates out. We, therefore, get to see candidates under physical and emotional duress. How do they handle the stress? Are they healthy? Do they lie? What really is their character like? Do they have the stamina, the intellect, the experience to lead? Can they raise sufficient support? Are they likeable, trustworthy? Do they have a vision for the country?
In 1972, Sen. Edmund Muskie gave a speech during the presidential campaign defending his wife and demonstrating a high degree of emotion and even tears. The latter, though possibly understandable, nevertheless effectively ended his campaign. In 1992, Sen. Paul Tsongas dropped out of the Democratic primary race due to ill health. He died in 1997 at age 55, days before his first term as President would have ended had he been elected in 1992. Sen Bob Dole ran for President in 1996 as the Republican nominee. During the campaign the American public discovered the war hero and effective senator with an acerbic wit did not possess a temperament especially suited to the presidency.
In 2004, Gov. Howard Dean celebrated his good showing in the Iowa Democratic caucuses by issuing what became known as the “Dean Scream.” This bit of emotion made Dean look like a wild man and quickly eroded his support. Prior to his run for the presidency in 2008, Sen John Edwards conducted an affair, denied it when it became public, had a baby with the other woman, denied this too, and eventually admitted everything. His political future hit a dead-end. He’s still under indictment for allegedly misappropriating campaign funds to pay for the woman’s expenses. In 2011, Herman Cain suspended his campaign due to a growing list of women alleging sexual harassment and affairs.
These negative samples represent only a few examples of things we learn about candidates during presidential election primary campaigns. We also learn positive things. In 1980 and 1984 we learned even more about Ronald Reagan: that he was a leader, that he had moral courage, and that he held a well developed vision for the country.
Presidential primaries may be many and at times mundane. But they serve a purpose to democracy. They help us figure out who is who, what we want or are willing to put up with, and who might—hopefully—be a good person to whom we can entrust the future of the body politic.
Presidential election primaries are messy, but other non-democratic countries should be so blessed.
I like the primary season. It’s political theater and political sport. It’s like a long political playoff leading to the political Super Bowl every four years on Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
Mr. Terence Ascott is the recipient of the Honorary Doctor of Christian Ministries from Belhaven University. Mr. Ascott also gave the commencement address at the university’s IXth Orlando Commencement, December 8, 2011.
Dr. Ascott was recognized for his pioneering service in Christian satellite television in the Middle East and North Africa, for his contribution as Founder of SAT-7, and for his continuing service in advancing the cause of Christ in a region highly resistant to Christianity, the Church, and at times individual Christians. Dr. Ascott helped craft a new model of ministry and missions, one that strategically communicates theology through a technology providentially available for such a time as this.
Dr. Ascott saw the spiritual need in the Middle East and developed a vision for fulfilling that need using satellite television. In a region characterized by violent reaction to religious ideas and activities different from those of domineering religious regimes, Dr. Ascott recognized that satellite television could enable broadcasters to bypass such obstacles and reach directly into the homes of the people.
In 1995, Dr. Ascott and regional Christian leaders founded SAT-7, a Christian satellite television ministry that began with two hours of Arabic programming per week. In the early years, the ministry’s progress was slowed by potential Middle East actors’ and hosts’ fear of appearing on screen, a dearth of television on and off-camera talent, and limited funds.
Today, SAT-7 broadcasts 24/7 over 5 channels across 7 time zones throughout 22 countries of the Middle East and North Africa, along with some 50 countries in Europe. One of the channels, SAT-7 KIDS, is the only Arabic Christian television channel in the world. Production values are high, the Christian faith is effectively communicated via almost every genre of television programming, and 80% of what airs has been produced in the Middle East by Middle Easterners. Support offices exist in Canada, Europe, the UK, and the US.
From the beginning, Dr. Ascott’s vision included the three dominant languages of the region: Arabic, Persian (Farsi), and Turkish. These languages include a population of more than 500 million living in some of the most religiously or socially closed or largely closed countries of the world. Yet the region has been historically neglected by Christian outreach and remains so today. This is SAT-7’s opportunity and niche.
Dr. Ascott helped define SAT-7’s distinctive ministry model. SAT-7’s “Ethos”—it’s core values—requires the ministry to remain thoroughly Christian but non-political and non-partisan, to not request funds on air, to never attack or demean other religions, and to be culturally sensitive (respectful) in the Middle East context. This Ethos helped SAT-7 develop programming that opens doors to Middle Eastern homes and hearts.
Dr. Ascott has lived in the Middle East and served as the leader for indigenous media ministries for more than 35 years. In 1973 he and his family moved to Beirut, Lebanon and helped launch an Arabic Christian publishing ministry. After the start of the Lebanese Civil War, he and his family evacuated to Egypt where he helped begin the Arabic youth magazine, Magalla. This was the first Christian magazine to be successfully distributed on Egyptian newsstands. Magalla was published for 20 years and, according to many Arab Christians, was instrumental in bringing many people to Christ.
Following this, Dr. Ascott focused upon SAT-7. In a video shown during the commencement, university president Dr. Roger Parrott expressed his high regard for SAT-7 and Mr. Ascott.
Dr. Ascott holds a B.S. degree in civil engineering with honors from the Middlesex University, England. He and his wife Jacqueline live in Cyprus and have three adult children and one grandchild.
Dr. Ascott continues as the International CEO of SAT-7.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
"There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law."
Remember that one? Vice President Al Gore repeated variations of this interesting ethical argument several times during a press conference in March 1997. The issue was whether the Vice President had violated any laws by making partisan calls in the White House to solicit campaign funds. The Vice President’s against-the-wall defense was, to paraphrase, “It’s not specifically illegal (which by the way wasn’t true), so it must be OK.”
I thought of this last week listening to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain announce he was “suspending”—a soft word for quitting, running for cover, or I have no idea what may come out next—his campaign for the Republican nomination.
Why did Cain suspend his campaign? “I’ve got to think about my family first. That is absolutely my #1 priority.” Really? Since when?
I’m not suggesting I know whether Herman Cain is a philanderer. I don’t, at least not for sure. But there was a lot of smoke and more coming: his wife apparently didn’t know anything about the woman (an alleged 13-year affair) to whom Cain had given money and spoken on the phone repeatedly over months, he apparently never talked to his wife about all this until he made a trek home to “reassess” his campaign, and his wife, perhaps tellingly, never publicly came to his defense. Sad.
What’s worse, like “no controlling legal authority,” before Cain threw in the towel, Cain’s lawyer issued this statement in an attempt to defend him: “...This appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults—a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life….”
Are you kidding me? If this were you, do you really want your lawyer making a lawyerly statement like this? Why didn’t Cain or his wife or his lawyer scream to the high heavens, “It ain’t so”?
Now we have a new one: “Sex between consenting adults is no one’s business.” OK. I can buy the freedom and privacy part of this argument. But I can’t buy the implication that anything two people decide to do is by definition “right” or “moral” and, by the way, no one else’s business. And oh by the way, society, morality, children, family, friends, organizations, and nation-states that happened to be affected by these consenting adults be hanged.
Bill Clinton tried this. He said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” lying through his teeth to the American people as he said it. Later under oath he debated the definition of “is.” Look in the dictionary under “weasel words” and you’ll see a picture of Bill Clinton, or maybe Al Gore, or maybe Herman Cain—I know, I know, we don’t know for sure about Cain. OK. If he didn’t conduct an illicit affair(s), then why did he suspend his campaign?
Not illegal doesn’t make something right, moral, or necessarily even advisable. Vice presidents, presidents, and candidates don’t seem to have learned this along the way. Ask John Edwards. For that matter, if he were still around, ask Ted Kennedy. Ask too many American political leaders. Will Newt Gingrich be next? I don’t know, but I do know his personal past is checkered at best.
Sex, lies, and presidential politics are becoming an all-too-common evil triumvirate. Wonder what it would be like to listen to presidential candidates who had high principles of ethics and actually held to them?
Wonder what it would be like to hear presidential candidates who actually told the truth? Especially to their spouses.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
It bothers me when presidential candidates talk about immigrants as if they’re all terrorists. Or at least riff-raff we should keep out of America at all costs.
It bothers me when politicians and pundits refer to immigrants as some kind of blight. In a recent article on the "immigrant problem," I said, "We didn't awaken one morning to discover millions of illegal immigrants had entered the country overnight. Porous borders, ineffective policy, lack of leadership--and will, and sporadic enforcement have co-existed for a long time." We don't have an "immigrant problem." We have a "political decision-making problem."
It bothers me when political leaders make ridiculous proposals like building a two thousand mile electrified fence between the United States and Mexico.
It bothers me when immigrants are referenced in the same breath with “the criminal element,” especially when the people making the references are conservatives who supposedly embrace the American ideal of freedom of opportunity and justice for all. Yes, it is true, we have a border enforcement problem and a huge number (estimated 12 million) internationals living on U.S. soil without benefit of legal recognition as immigrants-in-process-toward-citizenship. But it’s frankly not immigrants’ fault our border enforcement and citizenship policies and processes haven’t worked well. It’s our political leadership's—or the lack thereof—fault.
Especially in a culture that's committed to having fewer children and aborting others, immigrants are an important source of future vitality, ideas, productivity, and output for this nation’s future. If we insist upon demonizing them for wanting what everyone wants—freedom—than they will not be as inclined to take correct legal steps toward citizenship. Nor will they be as inclined to work productively.
Both the Republican and Democratic politicians running for high offices must come to grips with this challenge. Candidate Newt Gingrich is taking some heat for recent comments that seemed to offer a bit of common sense and compassion about immigrants. Perhaps his comments were merely a politician’s ploy and an appeal for votes, but hopefully his attitude is authentic. If so, it’s a step in the right direction.
Immigrants are not the enemy. They’re part of our future, so we need to provide them with a doable process toward legal recognition. And of course they need to take this step. They will if what we offer them is a path to meaningful American citizenship and not a road to second-class status.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.