Debate moderators completely failed millennials -- and everyone else By John D. Sutter, CNN

(CNN)In 2016, likely the hottest year on record, there's one question US presidential debate moderators had a moral obligation to ask Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: How do you plan to address climate change and rid the economy of fossil fuels?

Yet they never did.

That's just unbelievable.

We're already seeing seas rising in Miami, wildfires worsening in the West and deaths related to swollen rainstorms in Louisiana. The effects in the future, if we don't curb emissions, will be much worse, including drowned coastal cities, supercharged droughts in the Southwest, mass extinction in the natural world and the likely end of the coral reefs.

Trump and Clinton couldn't be farther apart on this issue, with Trump calling global warming a "hoax" masterminded by the Chinese and Clinton (while not bold enough) saying she will work to curb emissions and build on the progress of December's Paris Agreement.

Everyone knows what the science requires: Zero-net carbon emissions by 2100, at the latest. Neither candidate would get us there, but Clinton would keep walking in the right direction while Trump would run back toward the coal era with eyes closed and ears plugged.

This is the most critical issue of our time. Future generations will look back perplexed at why it escaped our focus.

I bet millennial voters already feel that way. As an old-ish millennial (I was born in 1982, so I meet Pew's definition, but barely) I can say the debate moderators and their questions largely failed to address my biggest concerns and those of my peers. Climate change, LGBT rights, education, student debt -- all of that got shortchanged for (repeat) discussions of the national debt, Medicare, Social Security, etc.

Debate moderators, of course, have the unenviable task to trying to represent the awesomely diverse patchwork of interests that is the United States. But climate, particularly, is far too pressing for any of us to ignore. More tactically, it's baffling that the interests of millennials were sidelined when the moderators surely must know we represent the largest age group in the country. Media companies love to pander to our tastes and wallets. So why then would they largely exclude us from these critical conversations about the future of America?

Vox's Brad Plumer identified a few reasons they avoid climate, specifically.

"It's possible the debate moderators don't understand what's at stake. It's possible they don't care. Or it's possible they're afraid that any question on the topic might seem too partisan. After all, Clinton thinks the issue is pretty serious and has a bunch of proposals to address it, whereas Trump says it's all a hoax invented by the Chinese. Under the circumstances, even a halfway intelligent question about climate policy would sound 'biased.'"

Some of those theories also make sense when applied to LGBT rights. I was stunned when Elaine Quijano -- who, at 42, is the youngest debate moderator in decades -- failed to ask the vice presidential candidates about their stances on LGBT issues.

Mike Pence, Trump's running mate, voted against legislation to prevent LGBT people from being fired because of who they are (that's legal in most states); wanted to use government money for "gay conversion therapy"; and called anti-LGBT-hate-crime legislation "radical." He deserved to be interrogated on those bigoted stances. Maybe moderators, as Plumer suggests, are worried about being labeled partisan for telling it like it is.

That's a shame because we millennials tend see these issues on moral terms.

As one of my Facebook friends suggested, perhaps younger-focused issues didn't come up in the debates because we are in an unprecedented election, with Trump facing allegations of sexual assault and waffling on whether he supports the democratic process. "This wasn't a normal series of debates so let's not pretend," he wrote. "One existential crisis at a time."

That's a fair point, but there was ample time to address climate, LGBT rights and education. According to Grist, the candidates only spent 5 minutes and 27 seconds on climate and environmental issues -- mostly because Hillary Clinton brought it up on a couple of occasions. Out of 270 minutes, that's so little time it's inexcusable.

The moderators -- ages 69, 63, 57, 49 and 42 -- largely failed to reflect key concerns of younger voters.

In doing so, they missed an opportunity to bring younger people, who are far less likely to vote than older generations, into this process. And they failed hold the presidential candidates accountable for their views on climate, LGBT rights and education -- three key issues that will shape this country many generations into the future.

Be happy no matter what happens

From my FaceBook Friend - Roland Colson from

Dr. Dale Henry is a friend of mine. He is an author, a teacher, a lecturer, a friend and a Christian. He told me one time to never let anyone take your happiness away. You can be happy no matter what happens in your life if you don’t let others control your attitude.

Paul told us in Philippians there were people who affected his ministry while he was in prison in Rome. There were some he considered comrades and encouraged him in his ministry. Others were criticizing, competin...g with, or conspiring against his ministry.

“It’s true that some are preaching out of jealousy and rivalry. But others preach about Christ with pure motives. They preach because they love me, for they know I have been appointed to defend the Good News. Those others do not have pure motives as they preach about Christ. They preach with selfish ambition, not sincerely, intending to make my chains more painful to me.” (Philippians 1:15-17)

Few things can steal your happiness faster than being criticized or feeling like others are working against you behind your back. We all want to be loved. We all want approval. We want people to like us.

Yet Paul says in Philippians 1:18, “But that doesn’t matter. Whether their motives are false or genuine, the message about Christ is being preached either way, so I rejoice. And I will continue to rejoice.”

You will always be as happy as you choose to be! If others are unhappy, that’s their choice. If you haven’t got someone’s approval by now, you’re probably not going to get it. And you’re going to be miserable if you try to live for the approval of others.

Philippians 1:28-30 - Don’t be intimidated in any way by your enemies. This will be a sign to them that they are going to be destroyed, but that you are going to be saved, even by God himself. For you have been given not only the privilege of trusting in Christ but also the privilege of suffering for him.

We are in this struggle together. You have seen my struggle in the past, and you know that I am still in the midst of it.

You can be happy no matter what happens in life if you look at your problems from God’s viewpoint and never let what other people say or do control your happiness.

God wanted you to know this today.

TGIF – Today God Is First

Reality - complex technology is hard

From Deep Work by Cal Newport:

The complex reality of the the technologies that real companies leverage to get ahead emphasizes the absurdity of the now common idea that exposure to simplistic, consumer-facing products - especially in schools - somehow prepares people to succeed in a high-tech economy.  Giving students iPads or allowing them to film homework assignments on YouTube prepares them for a high-tech economy about as much as playing with Hot Wheels would prepare them to thrive as auto mechanics.

Foot note on page 31

Trimble Campground

From Angelia Roberts - Editor of the Batesville Guard from her FaceBook Page.

When Sunday rolls around my family will again arrive at the little country church to honor my parents, who today have marked six decades together.

A good portion of that time has been spent within the walls of what was once a tiny building that was cold in the winter and hot in the summer. And with the passing of 60 years so many of those familiar faces have long gone and new ones have taken their place.

But one thing remains constant and that is the spirit of love that neverchanges. Each time I gather there the memories flood my soul and as if on cue my last two visits the same song has been sung that I became notorious for. It’s hard to stay on track and not belt out, “I have a new bonnet,” instead of body, but I couldn’t help but grin when my Dad whispered, “Was this Tina’s song?” and I told him it was mine.

My parents love telling of how I would stand with my fat little legs on those old wooden pews and sing the wrong words. And, while I don’t recall them, I do remember the hundreds of songs I had to stand up there and sing because my mom was convinced I had talent.

She was wrong.

While she won’t admit that she will place the blame on me saying I had the talent but I didn’t use it, which meant I would lose it.

Either way, the singing is best left to someone else.

So, Sunday when Darlis, my childhood friend, sang a special it was apparent who got the musical ability out of our bunch. My cousin Tina doesn’t count because she just stood there, looked cute and lip-synced.

I never grace the doors I don’t think of my first trip down that aisle to the altar in hopes that I would live a good enough life to head up instead of down. Like my wedding vows, I made more than one trip out of necessity and once I just hurried on down and took one for the team because I knew the preacher wasn’t turning us lose until some poor schmuck was saved. I didn’t figure an extra trip — -like extra insurance — hurt anything.

For me, the ghosts of Trimble past always come calling and I realize how blessed I was that my parents chose this church to be their church of choice.

No doubt when they decided to start their journey they had no real idea of the pitfalls ahead. After all, they were still both teenagers who thought they were probably on some big adventure that would always be filled with happy endings.

But life dishes out detours and no matter how rough the road they held fast to their church family and their faith.

Like my parents, this little country church is a testament to longevity.

Come Sunday, I will be heading back down that gravel road, see the spring where I once tried to drown my baby brother, hear the laughter of childhood friends from vacation Bible school and add one more memory not only with my parents who stood the test of time, but a church that has as well.

Angelia Roberts

Best parents ever. Happy Anniversary to my Todd and Trigg. (Nickname compliments of grandpa Rand)

Multipliers:  How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter

By Liz Wiseman & Greg McKeown

Published 2010

Recommendation: Worth the read.

Liz Wiseman teaches leadership to executives around the world.   She is president of The Wiseman Group, a leadership research and development center based in Silicon Valley, CA.   She is a former executive at Oracle.

Greg McKeown is a partner at The Wiseman Group.

Foreword by Stephen R Covey

The premise of this book is that every organization has its Multipliers and Diminishers.   It is as research based book much like Good to Great and other Jim Collins books.  The research focus was to define the question: “What are the vital differences between intelligence Diminishers and intelligence Multipliers, and what impact do they have on the organization?”

Multipliers

Here are some quotes from the book that briefly define a Multiplier:

¹It isn’t how much you know that matters. What matters is how much access you have to what other people know. It isn’t just how intelligent your team members are; it is how much of that intelligence you can draw out and put to use. We’ve all experienced these two types of leaders. What type of leader are you right now? Are you a genius, or are you a genius maker?

²Because Multipliers are leaders who look beyond their own genius and focus their energy on extracting and extending the genius of others, they get more from their people. They don’t get a little more; they get vastly more.

³The impact of a Multiplier can be seen in two ways: first, from the point of view of the people they work with and second, from the point of view of the organizations they shape and create.

⁴Our research confirmed that Multipliers not only access people’s current capability, they stretch it. They get more from people than they knew they had to give. People reported actually getting smarter around Multipliers. The implication is that intelligence itself can grow.

Diminishers

A diminisher is the opposite of a Multiplier:

⁵The Diminisher’s view of intelligence is based on elitism and scarcity.  Diminshers appear to believe that really intelligent people are a rare breed and I am one of the few really smart people.  They then conclude, other people will never figure things out without me.

⁶Diminishers’ two-step logic appears to be people who don’t “get it” now, never will; therefore, I’ll need to keep doing the thinking for everyone. In the Diminisher world, there is no vacation for the smart people!

The difference:

⁷Multipliers look at the complex opportunities and challenges swirling around them and assume: there are smart people everywhere who will figure this out and get even smarter in the process . Therefore, they conclude that their job is to bring the right people together in an environment that liberates people’s best thinking and then to get out of their way.

Multipliers are Talent Magnets, Liberators and Investors.   They look for talent everywhere, find people’s native genius, utilize people to their fullest and remove the road blocks

A Diminisher is an Empire Builder not a Talent Magnet.   The book had the following chart to emphasis this point:

Empire Builders What They Do:

Hoard resources and underutilize talent

What They Get:

·         A reputation as the person A players should avoid working for (“ the place you go to die”)

·         Underutilized people whose capability atrophies

·         Disillusioned A players who don’t reach out to other A players

·         A stagnation of talent where disillusioned A players quit and stay

·          

Talent Magnets What They Do:

Attract talent and deploy it at its highest point of contribution

What They Get:

·         A reputation as the person A players should work for (“ the place you go to grow”)

·         Fully utilized people whose genius continues to expand

·         Inspired A players who attract other A players into the organization

·         A flow of A players attracting other A players as they then move up and out of the organization

Becoming a Multiplier:

1.       Become a Talent Magnet

a.       Become a Genius Watcher

b.      Don’t be afraid to “pull some weeds”

c.       Up and to the right

⁸Talent Magnets encourage people to grow and leave. They write letters of recommendation and they help people find their next stage to perform on. And when people leave their group, they celebrate their departures and shout their success to everyone. You see, these celebrations become their best recruiting tool. Jack and Suzy Welch wrote, “The best thing about being a preferred employer is that it gets you good people, and this launches a virtuous cycle. The best team attracts the best team, and winning often leads to more winning. That’s a ride that you and your employees will never want to get off.” 4 Talent Magnets create a cycle of attraction that is exhilarating for employer and employee alike. Their organizations are coveted places of employment, and people flock to work for them knowing the Talent Magnet will stretch them, grow them, and accelerate their careers. It is a thrill ride with the speed and exhilaration of a roller coaster but one that, like the revenue chart of every CFO’s dreams, moves constantly “up and to the right.”

2.       Become a Liberator

The opposite of a Liberator is a Tyrant.  Multipliers create an intense environment in which superior thinking and work can flourish.  Tyrants create a tense environment that suppresses people’s thinking and capability.

3.       Become a Challenger

The opposite of a Challenger is a Know-it-all.   Challengers define opportunities that challenge people to go beyond what they know how to do.   As a result they get an organization that understands the challenge and has the focus and energy to take it on.   A Know-it-all gives directives that showcase how much they know.   As a result they limit what their organization can achieve to what they themselves know how to do.  The organization uses its energy to deduce what the boss thinks.

4.       Become a Debate Maker

The opposite of a Debate Maker is a Decision Maker.  A Debate Maker accesses a wide spectrum of thinking in a rigorous debate before making decisions.   A Decision Maker engages a select inner circle in the decision making process underutilizing the bulk of their resources.

Decision makers decide efficiently with a small inner circle, but they leave the broader organization in the dark to debate the soundness of the decision instead of executing it.   Debate Makers engage people in debating the issues up front, which lead to sound decisions that people understand and can execute efficiently.

5.       Become an Investor

The opposite of an Investor is a Micromanager.

Multipliers don’t act as Investors because it makes people feel good.  They invest because they value the return on their investment.   They believe that people perform their best when they have a natural accountability.  So they define ownership, invest resources and hold people accountable.

Micromanagers manage every detail of the work to ensure it is completed the way they would do it

Corporate culture can encourage a Diminisher.  Often, either your boss is one or you are, and you’re just too busy to consider changing your mindset, your relationship to your colleagues or how you do your job.   Fortunately, you can deploy a few lazy methods to become a leader more closely aligned with the qualities of a Multiplier.   The book suggests the following steps.

1.       Work the extremes

If you’re trying to be good at every positive leadership quality, stop.  If you have a single, huge, glaring weakness, stop indulging that too.  Take the best thing that you do and do it better.   Get rid of the worst thing that you do, or at least bring it into the range where it isn’t harmful.

2.       Start with assumptions

The ideas you assume to be true guide your actions.   If you think everyone around you is unintelligent or incompetent, you will likely manage in ways that create a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Practice the chief assumption Multipliers hold: “people are smart and will figure it out,” and watch how this belief proves itself true.

3.       Give yourself 30 days

To start behaving like a Multiplier, in any category, practice a new approach for 30 days.  It will become a positive habit.

This process will get you started.   Adding layers over time and working with others on similar goals will move you from being a “genius” to being a “genius maker.”

^{____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________}

¹Wiseman, Liz; McKeown, Greg (2010-06-03). Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (Kindle Locations 254-257). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

²Wiseman, Liz; McKeown, Greg (2010-06-03). Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (Kindle Locations 264-266). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

³Wiseman, Liz; McKeown, Greg (2010-06-03). Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (Kindle Locations 267-268). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

⁴Wiseman, Liz; McKeown, Greg (2010-06-03). Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (Kindle Locations 287-288). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

⁵Wiseman, Liz; McKeown, Greg (2010-06-03). Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (Kindle Locations 379-382). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

⁶Wiseman, Liz; McKeown, Greg (2010-06-03). Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (Kindle Locations 394-396). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

⁷Wiseman, Liz; McKeown, Greg (2010-06-03). Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (Kindle Locations 410-413). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

⁸Wiseman, Liz; McKeown, Greg (2010-06-03). Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (Kindle Locations 1088-1096). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

8 Things the Church Needs to Say

by Tom Ehrich [2] 07-15-2014 | 1:45pm

Web version of this article 

If Christians stopped bickering about church, presenting sex as a first-order concern, telling other people how to lead their lives, and lending our name to minor-league politicians, what would we have to say?

We need to figure that out, because we are wearing out our welcome as tax-avoiding, sex-obsessed moral scolds and amateur politicians.

In fact, I think we are getting tired of ourselves. Who wants to devote life and loyalty to a religion that debates trifles and bullies the outsider?

So what would we say and do? No one thing, of course, because we are an extraordinarily diverse assembly of believers. But I think there are a few common words we would say.

1. We would say the name “Jesus.” We might mean different things by that name, but he is the center, the reason we exist.
2. Allowing ample room for our diversity, we would say what we mean by faith in God. Not how right we are and how wrong others are, but an I-message: Here’s why I believe in God.
3. We would tell stories about God’s impact on our lives. Not grand doctrines, not airtight theories, not definitions of who’s inside the circle and who’s outside, but stories of personal encounter.
4. We would listen to other stories, respectfully, not defensively, eager to hear what our fellow Christian has to say.
5. We would each tell as honestly as we can how we are trying to lead our lives in the light of our encounters and stories. We would sketch the bridge between faith and action.
6. We would tell what we see in the world — not in the woe-is-me, sky-is-falling, Satan-is-winning manner people expect from us, but just what we see and how we think God cares about it.
7. We would speak of hope, a durable, solid-rock hope that God is God, and God can use us to make a difference.
8. We would talk of joy. Not giddiness, not even happiness, as the world understands happiness, but that deeper response to God that feels whole and peaceful.

Personally, I think these eight things are what we ache to say. They are why we walked in the door of a church in the first place. They are why we stay, despite abundant reasons for leaving.

Everyone has a theory about “why people are leaving the church,” “why millennials don’t come to church,” “why churches are dying,” and “what’s wrong with society.”

Personally, I think we should stop worrying about institutional outcomes — especially outcomes that we hope will prove we were right all along — and try instead just to be hopeful, joyful, active people of faith.
I think we should take our parts in the great political debates — power and wealth, after all, were Jesus’ primary concern — but then agree that, whether X or Y gets elected, God will still grieve our cruelties and sufferings, and we will all have much work to do as believers.

Whatever the label — progressive or conservative, contemporary or traditional, denominational or nondenominational — we will each have something unique and necessary to contribute.

There is more binding us than dividing us. For division comes from our small and selfish places. Binding comes from God.

Tom Ehrich is a writer, church consultant and Episcopal priest based in New York. He is the president of Morning Walk Media and publisher of Fresh Day online magazine. Get the new Fresh Day mobile app here [7]. His website is www.morningwalkmedia.com [8]. Via RNS [9].

Can the voters change the GOP? by E.J. Dionne JR

Can the voters change the GOP?

From the Washington Post

By E.J. Dionne Jr. August 3 at 7:46 PM

Read the article as published here.

The central issue in this fall’s elections could turn out to
be a sleeper: What kind of Republican Party does the
country want?

It is, to be sure, a strange question to put to an electorate
in which independents and Democrats constitute a
majority. Yet there is no getting around this: The single
biggest change in Washington over the last five years has
been a GOP shift to a more radical form of conservatism.
This, in turn, has led to a kind of rejectionism that views
cooperation with President Obama as inherently
unprincipled.

Solving the country’s problems requires, above all,
turning the Republican Party back into a political
enterprise willing to share the burdens of governing, even
when a Democrat is in the White House.
For those looking for a different, more constructive
Republicanism, this is not a great year to stage the battle.
Because of gerrymandering, knocking the current band of
Republicans out of control of the House is a Herculean
task. And most of the competitive seats in the fight for the
Senate are held by Democrats in Republican states. The
GOP needs to win six currently Democratic seats to take
over, and it appears already to have nailed down two or
three of these. Republicans are now favored in the open
seats of South Dakota and West Virginia, and probably
also in Montana.

Nonetheless, there is as yet no sense of the sort of tide
that in 2010 gave a Republicanism inflected with tea party
sensibilities dominance in the House. The core narrative
of the campaign has yet to be established. Democrats
seeking reelection are holding their own in Senate races in
which they are seen as vulnerable.
And then there was last week’s House fiasco over
resolving the refugee crisis at our border. It served as a
reminder that Republican leaders are handcuffing
themselves by choosing to appease their most right-wing
members rather than pursuing middle-ground legislation
by collaborating with Democrats.

The bill that House Speaker John Boehner was trying to
pass last Thursday already tilted well rightward. It
provided Obama with only a fraction of what he said was
needed to deal with the crisis — $659 million, compared
with the president’s request for $3.7 billion. It also
included provisions to put deportations on such a fast
track that Obama threatened to veto it. A White House
statement said that its “arbitrary timelines” were both
impractical and inhumane.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi happened to be
meeting with a group of journalists when the bill
meeting with a group of journalists when the bill
collapsed. “In order for them to pass a bill, they had to
make it worse and worse and worse,” she said, referring to
Boehner’s efforts to placate members who have entered
into an unusual cross-chamber alliance with Sen. Ted
Cruz (R-Tex.) to foil even conservative legislation if they
regard it as insufficiently pure. When the bill was pulled
back, Pelosi observed: “They couldn’t make it bad
enough.”

On Friday, the GOP leadership pushed the measure still
further right and added $35 million for border states to
get it passed at an unusual evening session — but not
before Republicans themselves had complained loudly
about dysfunction in their own ranks.

In the meantime, the Senate was paralyzed on the issue
by filibusters and other procedural hurdles that have
rendered majority rule an antique notion in what once
proudly proclaimed itself “the world’s greatest deliberative
body.”

As the House was preparing to pass its bill, Obama told a
news conference on Friday that GOP leaders were well
aware that he’d veto it if it came to him and bemoaned the
fact that “even basic, commonsense, plain vanilla
legislation” can’t get through because Republicans fear
“giving Obama a victory.”

Last week’s legislative commotion could change the
political winds by putting the costs of the GOP’s flight
from moderation into stark relief. House Republicans
found themselves in the peculiar position of
simultaneously suing Obama for executive overreach and
then insisting that he could act unilaterally to solve the
border crisis.

Pelosi, for her part, went out of her way to praise “the
Grand Old Party that did so much and has done so much
for our country.” Commending the opposing party is not
an election year habit, but her point was to underscore
that Republicans had been “hijacked” by a “radical right
wing” that is not simply “anti-government” but also “antigovernance.”

On balance, Washington gridlock has hurt Democrats
more than Republicans by dispiriting moderate and
progressive constituencies that had hoped Obama could
usher in an era of reform. The key to the election will be
whether Democrats can persuade these voters that the
radical right is the real culprit in their disappointment —
and get them to act accordingly on Election Day.