A HEALTH(?) UPDATE:

Home this week struggling to recover from the side-effects of a life-altering Iliostomy divergent procedure at Owen Sound Hospital as the result of a blockage (cancer tumor) in my colin. Weeks of twice-daily radiation still ahead in London. A long, arduous journey for sure, but I'm determined to persist.They shoot horses don't they? Special thanks to friends who have expressed support and well wishes.

SANTA MAKES COMEBACK FOR LEGION AUXILIARY LADIES

Millie said that she'd been a good girl all year.

Santa Claus is getting up in years...So are the kids he visits!

It is all relative, I suppose.

I was lured out of retirement last weekend to play Santa (no doubt for the last time) for a bunch of girls attending the annual Southampton Legion's Ladies Auxiliary Christmas dinner. The "girls", 45 in all, ranged between 65 and 90 years of age.

Apprehensive and a little rusty at first, it didn't take long for me to fall back into the role of the Jolly Old Gent with the hearty Ho Ho Ho belly laugh that I had portrayed countless times in the past. It's like riding a bike...You never really forget how.

The ladies, for the most part, were like little girls again, peeling back the years for a few special minutes -- waving hello and giggling with glee as Santa made his grand entrance. For the next half hour, everyone in attendance had an opportunity to receive a gift from Santa and to sit on his knee...That's were the fun really began.

A big hug for Santa.

The individual reactions to Santa were interesting. Some of the ladies did not hesitate to rush up to Santa and to give him a big hug as they snuggled into his lap. Several kept coming back just to give Santa another hug and a kiss on the beard. Others were a bit more reluctant and had to be encouraged by Santa's helper to "Go ahead, sit on his lap."

"Where do I put my legs? one woman asked sheepishly. "What do I do with my hands?" yet another asked, causing laughter from the onlookers and a few provocative answers. 

Just as I remembered kids from my experiences at Sunday School Concerts, business parties and shopping mall appearances away back when, a few of the ladies were actually shy and hesitant, preferring to just stand beside Santa while their photo was being taken. One didn't want her photo taken at all, which was completely okay.

I got a kick out of one senior lady (an acquaintance) who kind of side-stepped me as she hastily made her way to the coat room. Not wanting her to get away that easily, I put out my arms in beckoning fashion. Without breaking stride, she looked back and exclaimed almost disgustingly "I know who you are!"

I'm still not sure if she was disappointed that I was an imposter and not the real Santa Claus or that she was simply letting me know in no uncertain terms that she saw through the charade.

As I later removed Santa attire in the men's washroom, I was engulfed by a familiar sensation...and it felt good that once again the old guy had brought joy and happiness into the lives of others.

I was sent on my way with a box of mashed potatoes, dressing and gravy (the kitchen had run out of turkey).

Merry Christmas to all. And to all a good night!

Good thing Santa had two knees!

AGENDAS: ENOUGH ALREADY!

Liberal democracy is facing its greatest crisis in decades and is increasingly challenged by an agenda driven society. We elect governments consisting of otherwise normal citizens who we think/hope will represent our best interests. That, in itself, is the beginning of a problem today.

We are losing trust and have become suspicious of government in general. It is a totally unhealthy envoronment that we are living in.

When duly elected governments at all levels make decisions contrary to our beliefs or agendas, we get up in arms and become so infuriated and vocal in our scathing opposition that we go so far as to stage public protest demonstrations and deluge social media with outrage. All of which enhances social unrest and drives a wedge deeper into an already divided country. 

What went wrong?

Many analysts focus on economic problems. Slow growth, rising inequality, and welfare-state cutbacks have made life more insecure for the working and middle classes and spread economic risk, fear of the future, and social divisions throughout western societies.

Others argue social grievances are to blame. Traditional norms about religion, sexuality, family life and more have been challenged while massive immigration and the mobilization of oppressed minority groups has disrupted existing hierarchies, leaving some citizens angry and resentful. Throw the environmental issue and a transCanada pipeline into the mix and you have added fuel to the fire.

Most discussions stop here, arguing economic or social change has led inevitably to dissatisfaction with democracy and a populist backlash. But economic and social changes only become problems if politicians, parties and governments don’t recognize and respond proactively to them.

In fact, dissatisfaction with democracy is rooted in the belief that democracy is not working – that it is unable or unwilling to deal with citizens’ demands and concerns. And there is evidence the dissatisfied are right: over time, politicians, parties and governments have become less responsive to a broad cross-section of citizens.

Slow growth, rising inequality, and welfare-state cutbacks have made life more insecure for the working and middle classes

The role of money in politics has also increased, skewing who politicians pay attention to and who controls the agenda-setting process. Several political scientists have found that the interests of economic elites and the organized groups representing their interests powerfully shape government policy while less well-off North Americans and the mass-based interest groups that represent them have much less influence.

In addition, private funding of campaigns has grown, influencing who runs for office, who gets elected, and what issues candidates respond to. Perhaps because campaigns increasingly require candidates to fund raise themselves, few lower-income people run for office.

This biases economic debate in particular since politicians with working-class backgrounds are dramatically more likely than others to take progressive or pro-worker positions, even when controlling for partisanship, district characteristics and other factors. The voting system also discourages particular groups from voting, particularly the poor and minorities, shaping what voices are heard at election time and within the political sphere more generally.

Given all this, it’s unsurprising that political scientists have found that senior staff members in government ministries – the people who help their bosses decide what bills to pursue and support – have “no clue what the grass-root citizen public wants”. The more time they spend talking to big business rather than mass membership groups, the more out of touch these staffers become.

Democracy is, by definition, “rule by the people”. This does not require a perfect correspondence between some impossible to define “will of the people” and political outcomes, but it does require that the divergence between the two not be too great. In addition, political equality is the heart of democracy: some citizens cannot be systematically and permanently more powerful or impactful than others. It is hard to recognize much less solve large social and economic problems if politicians, parties and governments are primarily responsive to elites or narrow groups of voters, rather than broad, cross-sections of the population.

We are living in a time when these basic features and requirements of democracy have been eroded, leaving many citizens feeling disregarded and disempowered. As one leader of the “yellow vests” movement in France explained, “What we want above all is respect” – leaders and government should not ignore our needs and concerns. If traditional politicians and parties cannot convince citizens that they are willing and able to do this, dissatisfaction with democracy will increase" – as will support for its radical alternatives.

As opposed to 50 years ago, governments today have to be more transparent and communications conscious. The increasingly noisy public is demanding it.

Do us all a favor government officials. In your zest to push your own political agendas, be conscious of the need to minimize potential for public opposition agendas and unrest. We, the onlooking public, desperately need a rest. It's driving the more pacific of us crazy!

Agendas. Agendas. Agendas. Everywhere agendas.

NOTE FROM DICK: I have an "agenda" of my own...and I'm not through with this subject yet. Make no bones about it, everyone has an agenda, even God. Sometimes we are conscious of this, mostly we are not. You'll hear more from me in a subsequent post.

ABOUT A NINE-YEAR OLD INNKEEPER WHO DIDN'T STICK TO THE SCRIPT

We're all familiar with the depiction of the night Jesus Christ was born. We have seen it in Christmas plays and pageants since we were knee high to a grasshopper. We see it in Christmas cards and religious art and nativity displays of all descriptions. Through the years artists have portrayed the nativity scene as they have imagined it. Each of us can readily visualize it -- the straw on which the baby Jesus lay, the rough-hewn wooden beams of the stable, the animals nearby, and the star-studded sky overhead.

In truth, however, no mention is made of that particular nativity scene in the Bible. It is the work of imaginative minds over the years. As long as we are clear on that fact...In reality, it is St. Francis of Assisi who was credited with staging the first nativity scene in the year 1223. According to his biography, St. Francis got permission from Pope Honorious III to set up a manger with hay and two live animals—an ox and an ass—in a cave in the Italian village of Grecio. He then invited the villagers to come gaze upon the scene while he preached about “the babe of Bethlehem.” 

With that as a clarifying introduction of sorts, I want to pass on to readers of Wrights Lane one of the most touching and meaningful stories I have ever heard about a Christmas pageant enacted by some school children, one young lad in particular.

It is a wonderful account of a nine-year-old boy by the name of Wally who played the roll of "Innkeeper."

Wally was in the second grade, though he should have been in the fourth -- but he was slow and had difficulty keeping up. He was big and rather clumsy, too, but he was well liked by the other children in his class, all of whom were smaller than he. But even though they liked him, it would irritate the kids when Wally would want to play ball with them, or to participate in any game where winning was important--and they would usually find a way to keep him out.

Wally would hang around anyway, though--not sulking, just hoping. He nearly always had a smile, and was always anxious to help any of his classmates, regardless of how they treated him. He looked out for the underdog. Sometimes, if the older boys chased the younger ones away, Wally would say, "Can't they stay? They're no bother."

Wally had his heart set on being a shepherd with a flute in the Christmas pageant that year. However, the play director, Miss Lumbard, felt that she needed to give Wally a part with not too many lines to learn, so she told Wally that she was giving him an important role--that of the Innkeeper. She also felt that Wally's size would lend forcefulness to his refusal of a room to Joseph.

A huge crowd gathered that night to see all of the children in their various costumes, with all of the extravagant props. No one on stage or off was more caught up in the magic of that night than Wally Purling. In fact, as he stood in the wings he was so fascinated with the drama that Miss Lumbard had to watch carefully to be sure he didn't wander on-stage before his cue.

But then came the time when Joseph appeared, slowly and tenderly guiding Mary to the door of the inn. Joseph knocked hard on the wooden door set into the painted backdrop. Wally the inn-keeper, swinging the door open, responded at that point just as he had been told--brusquely he said, "What do you want?"

Joseph answered, "We seek lodging." Looking straight ahead, Wally spoke awkwardly but vigorously when he said, "Seek it elsewhere. The Inn is filled."

Joseph responded, "Sir, we have asked in vain. We have traveled far and are very weary." But again, Wally looked properly stern and said, "There is no room in this inn for you."

Now Joseph was pleading. He said, "Please, good innkeeper, this is my wife, Mary. She is heavy with child and needs a place to rest. Surely you must have some small corner for her. She is so tired."

At that point, for the first time the Innkeeper relaxed his stiff stance and looked down at Mary. There was a long pause--long enough to make the audience a bit tense with embarrassment.

The prompter whispered from the wings, "No! Begone!" Stiffly and somewhat automatically, Wally repeated the words: "No! Begone."

Joseph sadly placed his arm around Mary, she laid her head on his shoulder and the two of them started to move away. But Wally the Innkeeper didn't follow the script at that point. He didn't go back inside his Inn. Rather, he stood there in the doorway watching the forlorn couple. His mouth was open, his brow furrowed with concern, and there were tears in his eyes.

And suddenly that Christmas pageant became different from all the others. Wally called out, "Don't go, Joseph! Bring Mary back!" As a big, bright smile creased his face, Wally added, "You can have my room!"

Some people in the audience thought that the pageant had been ruined. But many, many others felt it was the most meaningful and heart-warming of all the Christmas pageants they had ever seen.

I'M A TWO-TIME LOSER IN COPING WITH CHRONIC ILLNESS OF SPOUSES

This is a matter that I have wanted to write about for a long time, but lacked sufficient heart. Contrary to most Wrights Lane posts I will not edit as I write, choosing instead to just let my thoughts roll out unencumbered.

I live with the curse of being widowed, not once but twice, due to chronic, drawn-out illnesses (10 years each) of spouses. I wouldn't wish such a fate on my worst enemy. But in talking about what I have "lived" over a 30-year period, I hope that there will be significance in after-the-fact rationalization and confession that will have resonance with some and enlightenment for still others.

This will, understandably, be a one-sided retrospective that has roots in physical and emotional loss, dare I say pain.

Consider that on one side you have the chronically ill partner who has needs – sexual, physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, to mention but a few.

Unfortunately, the chronic pain that comes with inflictions like Fibromyalgia (just one of the health issues endured by second wife Rosanne) gets in the way of fulfilling not just sexual needs but physical needs in general. Even a hug or a touch is often painful, leaving the person feeling physically disconnected from those they love. That physical disconnection can often lead to a mental and emotional disconnect when loved ones (especially a husband) misinterpret the lack of physical contact.

On the other side is the healthy partner who, while they see that their partner is hurting, doesn’t always disconnect that pain from their own. Instead of stopping to think about how much pain their partner is suffering and how much their partner is missing out on because of the pain, the healthy partner will often focus on what their partner is not GIVING them. This can cause them to withdraw or even lash out in anger and resentment.

Out of frustration and desperation, I often found myself saying and doing things that I later regretted and left me with a guilt complex that exists to this day. Things that I am sure undid all the good that I otherwise intended -- the personal catering, the daily health care facilitation, food preparation and attendance to virtually every need and whim. Not to mention countless hours spent in pacification, emotional counselling and just plain listening.

The words "Dick, I just don't want to talk about it!" also linger in my ears. Ill people sometimes resist attempts by others to draw them out...To express what they are really thinking, but in their mind it would do no good so why bother getting further upset.

The withdrawal by the healthy partner can and does lead to a vicious circle where the ill partner withdraws to protect themselves, leading to resentment on both sides. In many cases healthy partners withdraw completely -- from the marriage that it is.

In the cases of my two wives, I followed my heart and stubbornly stayed the course out of sheer dedication. Toward the end(s) however, I pretty much withdrew from society in general in order to singlemindedly cope with my lone steadfast priority. Laterly, I was a total mess and near the end of my rope, exhausted, hopeless and dangerously close to giving up the ghost.

It was God's will, I guess, that I survived and my wives were given Heavenly release. In essense, you will not understand any of this unless you have lived through it at least once.

So, what can be done to reduce the impact of chronic illness on marriage? Good question.

There is, of course, always counselling. But I'm here to tell you that is the last thing you welcome when your life is already turned upside down and invaded by doctors, nurses and health care providers of various descriptions. In the role of primary caregiver, it is all you can do to just get through most days. You are simply exhausted in all ways imagineable.

In my experience, and in retrospect, it is important that each spouse try to understand their partner’s point of view. The healthy spouse needs to take time to realize that the ill partner is also missing out on life. The ill spouse also needs to realize that their illness does affect everyone around them, and again in my experience my two wives did and it caused them great sadness, even depression. They were both outstanding girls in their own individual ways, unfairly gone too soon.

It is also important to remind ourselves that our partners did not stop loving us...they just lost their ability to demonstrate it in the previous ways of normal life. Intimacy, as difficult as it may be, is important even when you live with chronic illness such as the one brought on by the dreaded "C" word.

The need for intimacy never leaves us. I now struggle to supress the need, knowing full well that it is too much to expect ever again. Life as I knew it, for all intents and purposes, is over and I just fill in the time doing with it what I can -- and in the best way that I can.

And when all is said and done, you are left with devastating grief in the loss of a purpose in life -- the one person who stood by you through thick and thin and who loved you in a way that no one else could.

Yes, life does go on...but it is never the same.

And we cannot do it over again. That's the sad part!

I'm not sure that I would want to, even if I could.

JUST A THOUGHT FOR TODAY...LIKE IT OR LUMP IT

There is an expression currently circulating on Facebook to the effect: "Not everyone is going to understand you. So don't let what they don't know change what you do..."

That quote reminds me of several others:

"I stopped explaining myself when I realized people only understand from their own level of perception."

"Not everyone has to understand you...As long as you understand yourself." 

We often try to change the people around us. We want them to understand our feelings and we want them to know what is on our mind. But when you recognize that not everyone can understand how you are feeling, the reality sets in. 

Life is a journey we take on our own. Along this journey there will be people who feel similar to us or who can understand what we are all about, and those are the ones that we ideally keep around us. Those are the people that we marry even, God love them.

If you are on a spiritual journey, and you are trying to make others understand what you are experiencing, it will be difficult. In retrospect, if we remember the times before we were on this journey, we wouldn’t have understood any of it either. There are countless other examples to reinforce that reality.

Whatever journey we are on at this moment, it is ours to experience. I started  Wrights Lane some 15 years ago not only to share my experiences with others but to pass on gleanings of a human interest and (hopefully) inspirational nature. The people who resonate with my work will keep reading while others who do not have an interest will take a pass because what I write simply does not fit their life plan. 

It has taken a while, but I have learned to accept the things I cannot change and that in itself has taken a heavy burden off my shoulders.

As much as I would wish it otherwise, I accept the fact that ya can't win em all.

Life is just that way!

GOOGLE REPORT: SEARCHERS ARE "HITTING" ON ME!

As energy wains, I have been re-thinking the whole idea of online communications in recent weeks, particularly as it pertains to my Wrights Lane blog. The overriding thought being, who cares? What am I really achieving in the countless hours spent with the seat of my pants firmly planted in front of a computer keyboard and monitor striving to churn out meaningful commentary?

In reality, am I only disguising a suppressed need within myself to connect and be connected; something lacking in real life -- a need to express myself and, just as importantly, to be heard? In truth it can become an addiction -- an itch that needs to be scratched.

Interestingly enough, Google has implemented a new search performance report for bloggers like me and this morning (Dec. 4) I received the following data for "hits" on https://dicktheblogster.blogspot.com during the period Nov. 1 to Nov. 30. The numbers were extremely interesting and somewhat revealing.

"Hits" represent individuals looking for certain subject matter through their Google search engine. Not counted in that number are direct hits, or "viewers", by regular Wrights Lane followers and links through Facebook and other social media. Unbelievably, the hits in my initial monthly report were representative of 23 countries, with the United States topping the list as follows:

U.S. 103
Canada 52
UK 12
Australia 5
Ireland 3
Greece 2

Single (1) hits for the same period came from an additional 17 other countries. I would never have believed it.

This on top of the fact that Wrights Lane has had in excess of 142,000 views in the nine years that I have been publishing it. Add in 18 other companion sites included in the Wrights Lane roster and you are talking well over 10,000,000 viewers. Not bad, in retrospect!

It is rather ironic to acknowledge that all of this has been going on without me really knowing about it and it comes in the form of encouragement.

While I readily admit that through my writing I am filling a narcissistic need within me, there are demonstrated numbers sufficient to prove that there are people out there (around the world) who are actually reading my stuff and I consider that a win-win.

Writing what "wants to be written" is antithetical to writing for external validation. There is nothing that will freeze you more before a blank page than needing others to approve of and like what comes out, even you.

I’m not saying that having other people like my gleanings isn’t great, it is. Who doesn’t want to be liked and admired for their creative endeavors? Yes! I’ll be the first to admit that I do regularly check my recommends, comments and followers. We all want to be seen and acknowledged. But there is a difference between needing it and enjoying it as a badass bonus when it comes my way because I did what my expressive heart loves to do.

As one writing coach explains it: "When you allow yourself to simply follow your creative expression without it needing to do or be anything other than what it is, you experience your own divinity. You actually become a Creator. You, like God or Goddess or Source or Creator or Creatrix—whatever term you use—commit the act of bringing essence into form so that it may live a life of its own. That’s Creation."

And the truth is, you have no control over what happens to it after that, especially once you’ve pressed the “submit” button and published it in some form. You have no control over how you exist in other people’s imaginations.

...And that is what bothers me at times.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, FRIDAY WAS ST. ANDREW'S DAY

Saint Andrew's cathedral and the relics within were destroyed during the reformation. 

It isn't religiously followed in Canada but today, November 30, was St. Andrew's Day.

St. Andrew

While Hogmanay and Burns Night are big celebrations on Scotland’s calendar, Saint Andrew’s Day has always been a rather low-key affair.

St Andrew officially became Scotland’s patron saint in 1320, when the Declaration of Arbroath affirmed Scotland’s status as an independent nation. But he’s not just Scotland’s patron saint. Saint Andrew, who was born in Israel between 5 and 10 AD, holds the same honour in Amalfi, Barbados, Greece, Poland, Russia, Romania and Ukraine.

He was a fisherman who converted to Christianity and became one of Jesus Christ’s original disciples, so perhaps it's no surprise he's also the patron saint of fishermen and fishmongers. Why he's the patron saint of singers and pregnant woman and is believed to offer protection against sore throats and gout is not so clear.

Saint Andrew never actually visited Scotland during his lifetime but his kneecap, arm and finger bone did arrive in Scotland, among other relics, after his death. Fourth century monk Saint Rule was instructed to take them and sail west until he became shipwrecked and to establish a church wherever he landed.

St. Rule ended up in the small coastal village of Kilrymont, which we now know as St Andrews. St Andrews Cathedral was built to house the relics in 1318, but both were destroyed during the Scottish Reformation.

St Andrews Day: 10 myths and traditions: To help restore the sanctity of St Andrews, the Archbishop of Amalfi donated a piece of the saint’s shoulder blade, ensuring that a part of him would remain in Scotland. His brother was the first Pope.

Andrew’s brother, Simon Peter, worked with him as a fisherman in Galilee until they both became disciples of Jesus as two of the Twelve Apostles. Some accounts have Andrew bringing Peter to Jesus, while others say that Peter witnessed Jesus perform a miracle while he was fishing, which convinced him of his divinity. He is recognized as the first bishop of Rome, with each subsequent Pope named as the successor of Saint Peter.

Whether or not Peter ever actually went to Rome is also a matter of some debate.

Like many of Jesus’ disciples, Andrew was ultimately executed for his beliefs, becoming a martyr for his refusal to denounce Christ.

However, when it came time for him to be crucified, he requested his cross be turned diagonally, forming an “X” rather than a “T”. He did not feel worthy of the same death as Jesus Christ, and wished for his cross to reflect this.

He was crucified in Greece on a slanted cross as per his request on 30 November 60AD, from which is taken both the date of his special day, and the cross on the Scottish flag. The Cross of St. Andrew was later combined with the Cross of St. Patrick (Ireland) and the Cross of St. George (England) to form the flag of Great Britain.

It was not until the 18th century that St Andrew’s Day became an annually celebrated event, and the practice actually began south of the Canadian border in the United States.

In Charleston, North Carolina, a group of well-off Scottish immigrants formed the St Andrew’s Society of Charleston in 1729 in an attempt to reconnect with their Scottish heritage, while also raising money for charity. Their November 30 parties quickly became popular, and other branches began springing up all over the USA, eventually arriving back on Scottish shores.

TIS THE "WAITING" SEASON OF ADVENT

"The vision will be fulfilled in its own time. If it seems slow in coming, wait for it, for it will surely come."

I dare say that the upcoming Season of Advent goes unobserved by the majority in today's society, yet it is as significant and as old as the Christmas day that we celebrate on the 25th of December. The first Sunday of Advent this year falls on December 1st.

The general topic of Advent in our churches today is the coming of Jesus, both in the manger in Bethlehem and in the clouds of glory. Roughly speaking, the Western Church celebrating Advent, consists of Protestants, Catholics and Anglicans.

Advent candles symbolize the light of God coming into the world through the birth of Jesus. The candles are lit in churches every Sunday during the Advent period so that the last week before Christmas all four candles are lit. The remaining central candle, representing Christ, is then lit on Christmas day.

Advent originated as a period during which Christian converts prepared themselves for baptism through instruction, prayer, fasting and, much like Lent. The length of Advent varied from three days to six weeks, or approximately the 40 days that Jesus Christ spent in the wilderness preparing for His ministry.

In the west during the Middle Ages, Advent became a time to prepare for the Second Coming, because in those days many people were convinced that all signs pointed to the imminent return of Christ. In time, Advent spread throughout the western world and became fixed at its present length. Over the last 50 years, Advent has come to anticipate the Nativity as well. For many people today however, especially those in the commercial world, Advent is simply a ramp-up to Christmas.

I think is is fair to say that almost everyone in our society experiences the weeks leading up to Christmas as a time of waiting. Waiting for a parking space. Waiting for a bargain. Waiting for a visiting relative. Waiting for a treasured Christmas greeting. Waiting for a quiet evening. Waiting for the holidays. Waiting for social gatherings. It is little wonder that waiting for the birth of Jesus has lost its impact. It has been lost in the hustle and bustle of the shuffle. After the turkey has been cleared away and gifts exchanged on Christmas day, most experience a letdown feeling like "after all that preparation and it is over in a flash!"

A minister shares a recent experience when she gathered with the young folk of her congregation for the children's time a the front of the church. She asked the intent little ones: "Who here likes to wait?" One innovative and confident young fellow put up his hand, and, when acknowledged, replied: "I like to wait when I am facing something I don't like."

How profound. Out of the mouths of youngsters often come the most insightful truths we will ever learn.

If you are not eager to experience the "waiting season' of Advent, maybe there is something in your life that you simply do not want to face. Is it the end of a school semester and the uncertainty about what comes next? Is it the struggles around health, or the interminable wait for results from recent medical tests? Do you fear a performance evaluation at work, or a retirement that looms on the horizon? Do you fear getting a job at all? Do you fear the future with a partner who has been abusive and mean, or the future of your child who seems too timid and shy to make it in the world?

Often, how we act in the face of our fears determines how we cope with the challenges of life. It is no wonder that the angel's message whispered in Mary's ear was a simple one: "Don't be afraid." Even our joys are made more real when we know what it is like to face and conquer adversity without fear and loathing.

Advent, the waiting and hoping time leading up to Christmas, is a time when various stories of the birth of Jesus get retold and relived. Jesus' birth was hardly an easy one. The experience of the main characters within that story, whichever biblical verses are deemed closest to the reality of the times, understandably was filled with anxiety and fear. Through it all, however, Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the other main characters managed to find their way through it. They often waited -- waited for a clear message that would remove their doubts and fears.

As a culture, we seek instant answers. We might be better off waiting every now and then: looking for new insights, prepared to listen to wise counsel from mentors and elders, eager to accept the fact that there may be, indeed, a new and better way to proceed.

Can we wait for those peace-filled, quiet moments where truth will be revealed, and a still, small voice will speak to us in profound ways? If we can, then we have figured out at least part of the message of Advent. At the very least, the journey to Christmas should be more hopeful and less stressful when we can find moments for renewal and rest within this time of year.

DISCIPLINE TODAY VS. 1940s: IT'S ALL RELEVANT, BUT DIFFERENT

I was lazing over a late breakfast this morning/afternoon (why get up early in the a.m. when you don't have too?...that's my philosophy) when, for absolutely no apparent reason, I began to think about discipline administered by parents today as opposed to when I was growing up in the 1940s.

End result? Very little similarity.

Disciplining children in the 1940s is now often regarded as strict, harsh and oppressive. In fact, children generally were meant to be "seen but not heard." Benjamin Spock’s "Baby and Child Care," which was first published in 1946, greatly influenced how children should be raised. His was one of the first works to promote a scientific view of child-rearing, and parents increasingly turned to advanced theories on parenthood to know how to discipline their children instead of turning to their friends or relatives for parenting advice.

In the '40s, teachers and parents thought that punishing children reduced bad behavior. However, research that came later seemed to prove that this was not the case. Nevertheless, there does seem to be agreement among eyewitness accounts of what it was like to be a child in the '40s that discipline produced a greater fear of authority than what exists today. There was a greater consensus that good manners were more important in society back then and this impacted how people disciplined their children.

The general thinking was "spare the rod and spoil the child." The studies that came out of institutionalized environments for children at that time also suggested that mothers should be with their children 24 hours a day and that anything else could prove damaging for the child’s development. So, the phrase "when your father gets home" was used by housewives frequently across the country when they tried to discipline their child.

Grace Wright, however, never found it necessary to issue that threat to her only child. She handed out her style of discipline on the spot by utilizing whatever weapon was nearest at hand -- a yard stick, a broom, a fly swatter, a wooden spoon; and sometimes (for dramatic effect) taking the time to retrieve my dad's razor strap from the bathroom. I knew what was coming and the anguished anticipation of waiting for that first stinging whack of the strap on any exposed area of my body was the worst part of enduring the punishment. My mind was generally a blank after that.

Funny thing, I do not remember my mother ever threatening to discipline me. She either did, or she didn't. And I do not remember her actually using her bare hand. One thing for sure, I do not recall ever repeating a particular act of bad behaviour...I wasn't that dumb!

My father Ken was more of a softee and I seemed to respect that in him. There was one exception, however, and I have never forgotten it. For the life of me, I do not remember what I had done wrong, but whatever it was it occurred when I was in the bath tub. My dad became so frustrated with my antics that he took the bath brush and applied it amply to my bare bottom, not once but at least a half dozen times. 

I would have taken at least three of my mother's razor strappings to that one scrub brush episode with my dad. My mother told me after Ken's death not many years later, that he came downstairs with tears in his eyes after that one spanking and exclaimed to her: "There, I've done it...And the boy will  probably hate me for the rest of his life."

I was a lot like my dad with my two daughters. Their mother Anne was the main disciplinarian and she did a wonderful job. Generally, she laid down the law and the girls respected her enough to accept the way it was to be in the Wright household.  In the end, I honestly believe that the girls loved their mother and father equally, perhaps in different ways and for different reasons.

Today, many look back at the '40s and '50s and see the corporal punishments that adults inflicted on children as unnecessary and unfair. However, elders who look back at what life was like when they were growing up see a lack of morals in today’s society that affects how children are reared --negative influences on children that did not exist in the past.

Nevertheless, kids of any age act up and become unruly, especially when not getting their way. One way or another they have to learn what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.  In a perfect world they are punished for bad behaviour and acknowledged (rewarded or praised) when they are "good".

It logically follows that we can choose to pick out the "good" parts about what it was like to be a child in the 1940s and avoid the "bad" parts and integrate them into what it means to be a child today. A healthy dose of discipline and structure and a general respect toward society are all important lessons we can take from the discipline of yesteryear.

I truly believe that, done properly, it is a tough job being a parent in today's society, just as it was in the past...And it is equally as tough being a kid, but for possible different reasons.

In retrospect, I've been there and experienced all of that. And I'm kind of glad that it's all history now.

If I had it to live over again however, I would. And I wouldn't wish for anything different.

It all worked for me and I'm still here to talk about it, little the worse for wear.

OLD HUMPHREY USED THOUGHTS OF A TOOTHACHE TO ADDRESS MY CONCERNS

From Wikipedia: An alter ego (Latin for "other I") means alternative self, which is believed to be distinct from a person's normal or true original personality. Finding one's alter ego will require finding one's other self, one with different personality. A distinct meaning of alter ego is found in literary analysis used when referring to fictional literature and other narrative forms, describing a key character in a story who is perceived to be intentionally representative of the work's author (or creator), by virtue of oblique similarities, in terms of psychology, behavior, speech, or thoughts, often used to convey the author's own thoughts. The term is also sometimes, but less frequently, used to designate a hypothetical "twin" or "best friend" to a character in a story. Similarly, the term alter ego may be applied to the role or persona taken on by an actor or by other types of performers.

It's been a while since I communicated with my alter ego "Old Humphrey".

I've been having some thoughts about health issues lately and they have weighed heavily one me. Good Old Humphrey to the rescue once again. Speaking with his 18th and 19th century English turn of phrase, I never for the life of me thought that he would use his recall of "a tooth-ache" from his childhood in the late 1700s to elaborate on "thoughts" for my benefit today.

"Good and bad thoughts are the seeds of good and bad words and deeds: they multiply, also our joys and our sorrows," Humphrey began. "Every day has its shine and its shade; and the same remark may be made of all our griefs. Our pleasures are not exempt from inconvenience, nor are our pains unaccompanied with advantage. This ought to be borne in mind more constantly than it is." Up to that point I was on the same wave length as Humphrey.

"Old Humphrey"

But then he really grabbed my attention with a reminiscent about-turn that is so typical of the old 19th century scribe who has come to symbolize my other self.

"No! No! It is not all shadow when we have this tooth-ache.(?) Think of the luxurious feeling when the warm handkerchief, so wistfully regarded, as it is hung airing at the fire, comes at last, to be laid across your cheek and tied in a becoming bow under your ear. Think of the liberty you enjoy, the cessation from all employment, the exemption from all complaints but your own, and the kind attention you receive.

"No one requires from you the smallest service: while one stirs the fire to make the room warm,  another runs to fetch a pillow; a third toasts the bread for your gruel; and a fourth asks if anything can be done to make you better? 

"Say what you will of the tooth-ache, but these concomitants, these gentle alleviations, are dear to us all (well at least those of us old enough to have lived through those good old days). We soon find the difference in our position when we get well again; and we know this, and are not always in haste to proclaim our convalescence.

"No sooner is it known that our malady has subsided, than the handkerchief is withdrawn, and we must set to work again. No one assists us; no one speaks gently to us; and hardly anyone takes notice of us. It is true that our tooth-ache is gone; but it is equally true that with it have disappeared a hundred sources of comforts and complacency." 

As I attempted to wrap my mind around what he had just told me, Old Humph wrapped it all up in a neat package for me.

"Let us apply this to our afflictions generally, looking less at our bodily ailments, and more at the spiritual advantages that attend them.

"God's mercy can make even his judgments a blessing; and by wounding the body, He can heal the soul. 'Our light affliction, which is but for a moment,' may lay a weight of gloom on our minds; but yet it may, by the blessing of our heavenly Father, 'work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 2 Cor.5:17'."

"Thanks for that, old friend. Never thought of it that way, but I get it. You never fail to help me," I hastened to interject. "I think that I'll be alright now!"

"Just one more question though..."

A sudden sense of aloneness permeated the air.

Old Humphrey was gone...Maybe next time.

George Mogridge "Old Humphrey" (17 February 1787 – 2 November 1854), born in Ashted, Birmingham, England, was a prolific 19th century writer, poet and author of children's books and religious tracts. He is chiefly known by his pseudonym of 'Old Humphrey', under which name he published 46 works, but also used the pen-names 'Jeremy Jaunt', 'Ephraim Holding', 'Peter Parley' and 'Old Father Thames'. He wrote approximately 200 published works, many of which are still in publication today, and at the time of his death it was estimated that over 15 million copies of his writings were in circulation. I was first introduced to my now alter ego when I was about 10 years of age. He came to me through one of his books "Thoughts for the Thoughtful", handed down to me from my grandmother Harriet (Pyke) Perry. The book was a gift to her when she was also 10 years of age in 1870. My affinity to Old Humphrey has lasted a lifetime.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS: CRUCIAL TO CHRISTIAN FAITH

"The virgin birth of Jesus, his substitutionary death, his bodily resurrection and his second coming are a package of deity. You cannot isolate any one of those and accept only one and leave the rest or vice versa accept them all but one." ~~ Words of a religous study professor

Claiming to be Christiam but with reservations about the authenticity of the virgin birth of Jesus the Christ, is a little like being half pregnant. Either you are or you're not -- either you do or you don't. You can't be half-Christian!

The virgin birth—like Jesus' resurrection from the dead—ranks as one of the Bible's more amazing miracles. Many people reject the idea outright, while others shrug it off as nonessential to their understanding of the Savior. But a person can't believe the Word of God while rejecting its claim that the Lord was born to a virgin.

In my last Wrights Lane post I alluded to an old friend newspaper columnist who upheld Christian beliefs with the exception of the virgin birth. More recently, TV evangelist Alan Stanley said in a shocking and unsurprising turn that the virgin birth of Jesus isn’t a big deal. 

Two direct quotes from Stanley: 1) “If somebody can predict their own death and their own resurrection, I’m not all that concerned about how they got into the world.” 2) “Christianity doesn’t hinge on the truth or the stories around the birth of Jesus.” It is interesting to note that Stanley has since modified his contention, yet I sense his views are shared by many who still call themselves Christian.

It would seem that Stanley, an extremely effective orator, is embracing the theological Liberalism movement.

Scripture is emphatic about the nature of Jesus' unusual conception. It is mentioned in both the Old Testament and the Gospels. In Genesis 3:15, God warned the serpent that enmity would exist between Eve's seed and his. The choice of words is meant to catch the reader's attention since a woman does not have "seed." Later, through Isaiah, God speaks a clear prophecy: "Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son" (Isaiah 7:14).

When Matthew recorded Jesus' genealogy, he crafted a sentence that paid tribute to Mary—not Joseph—as Jesus' biological parent (Matthew 1:16). Then, Luke's gospel relates Mary's encounter with the angel Gabriel, who explained that the Holy Spirit would place God's Son in her womb (Matthew 1:35).

Simply stated, rejecting the virgin birth is the equivalent of calling God a liar. The Bible is His revealed Word (2 Timothy 3:15). Suggesting one portion is false places the whole document under suspicion. So, yes, belief in the virgin birth is essential to the Christian faith.

Understanding the Virgin Birth

Whatever the Word of God proclaims -- and the virgin birth is emphatically acknowledged throughout Scripture -- Christians are to believe it. We are not free to pick and choose which portions of the Bible we will believe or interpret for our own benefit.

We do not have to fully understand the virgin birth in order to be saved i.e. teenagers. Certainly, there is a difference between being ignorant or uneducated and deliberately rejecting Scripture's testimony about who Jesus was. When a person dismisses the Jesus presented to us in the Word of God, they cannot be saved in the true Bibical sense of the word.

People who deny the truth of the virgin birth also reject other foundational truths in the Bible. Some find it more comfortable to select the parts of Scripture that suit their lifestyle or opinions rather than to apply the entire Word of God to their life. When we limit which passages we will consider true, our susceptibility to Satan's lies grows. We drift further and further from the narrow path of obedience to God.

To believe in the Jesus of the Bible is to accept Him as the virgin-born Son of God -- the sinless Christ who gave His life at Calvary in order to take our sin upon Himself. Our freedom is greater when we accept God's truth instead of fighting for our own opinions.

Jesus Christ did not have His beginning in Bethlehem. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word (Jesus). And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus was the One who spoke the world into existence. And then God translated deity into humanity. That little baby in a manger is the great God who created the universe. The little baby of Luke 2 is the great God of Genesis 1. God became flesh.

You may say, "I don't understand that." Well, I'd be surprise if you said you did understand it. None of us understand it. You see, the miracle of the ages is the virgin conception of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But you don't have to understand it to believe it. If you have difficulty believing in the virgin birth, you really have difficulty believing in God. Why would you have difficulty believing that a child could come into this world without an earthly father when God made the first woman and the first man out of nothing?

If you doubt the virgin birth, you really have difficulty with the character of the Word of God that plainly teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin.

You see, if there was no virgin birth, there would be no sinless Christ. No sinless Christ ... no atonement. No atonement ... no forgiveness. No forgiveness ... no hope of heaven. No hope of heaven ... we would all die and go to hell. If you take away the virgin birth, the whole house of Christianity collapses like a house of cards.

There were no other examples of virgin births and no reason for the early Christians to make up the story. Some might think that this was a mythological addition to the Christian faith or something that was embellished over time, but when we look at other somewhat similar things in mythology, most all of them seem to assume some sort of a physical union of a god perhaps with a woman. This is not what we find in Christianity. The accounts are very simple, very understated, and very simply stated that this happened through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of all the objections that can be raised to the virgin birth, we should point to the truthfulness of scriptures in showing us that this was surprising to those in the first century too. It would certainly have been a hard thing for both Mary and Joseph to accept, but they trusted what God said by faith because it was an amazing thing for Him to speak into this world and not just to speak but to send his own son. In fact, it was the most remarkable thing that had happened in human history to that point.

That's the same message of trust that confronts us today and the same response is in a call of faith to believe that God sent his Son in a supernatural way to redeem us from our sins.

The Bible is full of miracles. We simply cannot believe the Gospel and edit, or dilute, the miraculous. 

"To remove the miraculous from Christmas is to remove this central story of Christianity," said Gary Burge, a professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. "It would dismantle the very center of Christian thought and take away the keystone of the arch of Christian theology."

For Burge, an evangelical and author of Theology Questions Everyone Asks, the virgin birth is essential. His thinking goes like this: If Jesus was not virgin-born, then he was not the son of God; if he was not the son of God, then he was just another crucified man and not the sacrifice that would redeem the sins of the world.

THE CHRISTMAS THAT WAS SHOULD STILL BE THE CHRISTMAS THAT IS

Only 52 shopping days before Christmas...including Sundays now, of course.

The late Pat Soloman, a newspaper columnist friend, wrote that it seemed to him that the word "Christmas" had become synonymous with shopping and our most sacred Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus had been reduced to "Tis the season to be jolly."

I've never forgotten his line: "Too many of us think that Christmas Spirit is a product sold by the LCBO."

"In our rush to please everyone, we are losing our heritage," he contended. "I know that Canada is not a 100 per cent Christian nation, but on other festive occasions like the Feast of Eid or Ramaddam or Channakuh or Roshashanna, no one tries to water down the tradition. I am sure that no religion in the world objects to the simple message of Christmas -- 'Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards men'."

And I completely agreed with Pat on that. (We often exchanged notes on what each other had written.)

Almost a decade older than me, Pat made no secret that he doubted the Virgin Birth, but did believe a very special prophet was born in Bethlehem at that time and He had a special message for us all. "That message has been confused by theologians over the ages," he said. "The Golden Rule has been turned into 'he who has the gold makes the rules' and 'do unto others before they do it to you'." He simply felt that cynicism should not stop decent people from being decent. "The detraction from the message given so long ago points to a major malaise in our material national thinking."

We also agreed that society was becoming molecular in as much as our current philosophy was one of listening to single purpose viewpoints. Fashion a decade or so ago, as is the case even more so now, dictates that if one molecule in a mass objects to the behavior of any other molecule (or the mass itself), the the objecting molecule is right. That means the mass as a whole is wrong.

I am especially offended, too, by the fringe few who take up causes simply because of some sick self-serving need to be heard. They delight in upsetting tradition and the beliefs of others. In taking away, they contribute nothing in return.

This new law of behavior allows single purpose groups to prevail over established customs without regard for the good of the whole. Kind of like the tail wagging the dog. This establishes the dangerous tyranny of the minority and imprisons the thinking and voice of the majority. How many cases of this happening today can you think of?

Our so-called leaders, in their haste to displease no one, end up pleasing only a few. We have no leader with a genuine opinion; we only have elected mutes who are paranoid about having their say for fear of a tirade of objections from a vocal minority. They exclusively spew scripted party lines. Political oneupmanship is the dominate modus operandi.

For the majority of the country that was founded on Christian faith, we should be celebrating Christmas as the religious festival that it is and not the commercial binge that is taking over this most sacred time of year. Pat Salmon truly had a single purpose cause and it was called "Canada". He wrote always in favor of his adopted country. He demonstrated his love and did not care who knew it. He believed that developed potential in this country is enormous if only the current populace would view the mass and not the molecule.

NOTE FROM DICK: While I allowed Pat's doubt about the Virgin Birth, in my next Wrights Lane post I will attempt to address the subject from an essentially Christian viewpoint. 

THE LOST ART OF LISTENING TO HEAR

I get the sad impression that I am a poor communicator because I seem to have trouble in getting people to listen to me. It may have something to do with my mannerisms, style of delivery, tone of voice or more precisely, what I actually have to say. It is indeed a perplexing admission perhaps fueled by insecurity with a dash of sensitivity thrown in for good measure.

Could be too, that I simply do not have a demanding-enough presence to command desired attention...I'm grasping at straws here.

In my defense, however, it can be stated, with practically no qualification, that people in general do not know how to listen. They have ears that hear very well, but seldom have they acquired the necessary aural skills which would allow those ears to be used effectively for what is called listening.

Anyway, that's my excuse -- and I'm sticking to it! Allow me to elaborate.

It is curious that silent and listen are spelled with the same six letters. There is merit in restraining comment until you have heard what the other person has to say. As far as I am concerned, listening to reply and interrupting when someone is in the middle of expressing themselves are always a sign of disrespect and disinterest in hearing out the other person.  

Behind this widespread inability to listen lies, in my opinion, a major oversight in our system of classroom instruction. We have focused attention on reading, considering it the primary medium by which we learn, and we have practically forgotten the art of listening. About six years are devoted to formal reading instruction in our school systems. Little emphasis is placed on speaking, and almost no attention has been given to the skill of listening, strange as this may be in view of the fact that so much lecturing is done in college. Listening training—if it could be called training—has often consisted merely of a series of admonitions extending from the first grade through college: “Pay attention!” “Now get this!” “Open your ears!” “Listen!”

Certainly teachers feel the need for good listening, in fact they insist on it with their students. Why then have so many years passed without educators developing formal methods of teaching students to listen? Perhaps we have been faced with several false assumptions which have blocked the teaching of listening. For example:

(1) We have assumed that listening ability depends largely on intelligence, that “bright” people listen well, and “dull” ones poorly. There is no denying that low intelligence has something to do with inability to listen, but we have greatly exaggerated its importance. A poor listener is not necessarily an unintelligent person. To be good listeners we must apply certain skills that are acquired through either experience or training. If a person has not acquired these listening skills, his ability to understand and retain what he hears will be low. This can happen to people with both high and low levels of intelligence.

(2) We have assumed that learning to read will automatically teach one to listen. While some of the skills attained through reading apply to listening, the assumption is far from completely valid. Listening is a different activity from reading and requires different skills. Research has shown that reading and listening skills do not improve at the same rate when only reading is taught.

This means that in our schools, where little attention is paid to the aural element of communication, reading ability is continually upgraded while listening ability, left to falter along on its own, actually degenerates. As a fair reader and a bad listener, the typical student is graduated into a society where the chances are high that he will have to listen about three times as much as he reads.

In general, people feel that concentration while listening is a greater problem than concentration during any other form of personal communication. Actually, listening concentration is more difficult. When we listen, concentration must be achieved despite a factor that is peculiar to aural communication, one of which few people are aware.

Basically, the problem is caused by the fact that we think much faster than we talk. (I should use the word generally here because in my case I speak as slowly as my mind thinks -- but that's my problem) The average rate of speech for most people is around 125 words per minute. This rate is slow going for the human brain, which is made up of more than 13 billion cells and operates in such a complicated but efficient manner that it makes the great, modern digital computers seem slow-witted. 

People who study the brain are not in complete agreement on how it functions when we think, but most psychologists believe that the basic medium of thought is language. Certainly words play a large part in our thinking processes, and the words race through our brains at speeds much higher than 125 words per minute. This means that, when we listen, we ask our brain to receive words at an extremely slow pace compared with its capabilities.

It might seem logical to slow down our thinking when we listen so as to coincide with the 125-word-per-minute speech rate, but slowing down thought processes seems to be a very difficult thing to do. When we listen, therefore, we continue thinking at high speed while the spoken words arrive at low speed. In the act of listening, the differential between thinking and speaking rates means that our brain works with hundreds of words in addition to those that we hear, assembling thoughts other than those spoken to us. To phrase it another way, we can listen and still have some spare time for thinking.

The use, or misuse, of this spare thinking time could well hold the answer to how effectively a person can concentrate on the spoken word.

The speed at which we think compared to that at which people talk allows plenty of time to accomplish these four mental tasks when we listen; however, they do require practice before they can become part of the mental agility that makes for good listening. Recent business training courses have devised aural exercises designed to give people this practice and thereby build up good habits of aural concentration.

Another factor that affects listening ability concerns the reconstruction of orally communicated thoughts once they have been received by the listener. 

Newspapers reported not too long ago that a church was torn down in Europe and shipped stone by stone to America, where it was reassembled in its original form. The moving of the church is analogous to what happens when a person speaks and is understood by a listener. The talker has a thought. To transmit his thought, he takes it apart by putting it into words. The words, sent through the air to the listener, must then be mentally reassembled into the original thought if they are to be thoroughly understood. But most people do not know what to listen for, and so cannot reconstruct the thought.

For some reason many people take great pride in being able to say that above all they try to “get the facts” when they listen. It seems logical enough to do so. If a person gets all the facts, they should certainly understand what is said to them. Therefore, many people try to memorize every single fact that is spoken but do so at the risk of developing bad listening habit.

When people talk, they want listeners to understand their ideas. The facts are useful chiefly for constructing the ideas. Grasping ideas is the skill on which the good listener concentrates. They remember facts only long enough to understand the ideas that are built from them. But then, almost miraculously, grasping an idea will help the listener to remember the supporting facts more effectively than does the person who goes after facts alone. 

Surely this listening skill is one which can be taught in our school systems, one in which people can build experience leading toward improved aural communication.

In different degrees and in many different ways, listening ability is affected by our emotions. Figuratively we reach up and mentally turn off what we do not want to hear. Or, on the other hand, when someone says what we especially want to hear, we open our ears wide, accepting everything—truths, half-truths, or fiction. We might say, then, that our emotions act as aural filters. At times they in effect cause deafness, and at other times they make listening altogether too easy.

If we hear something that opposes our most deeply rooted prejudices, notions, convictions, mores, or complexes, our brains may become over-stimulated, and not in a direction that leads to good listening. We mentally plan a rebuttal to what we hear, formulate a question designed to embarrass the talker, or perhaps simply turn to thoughts that support our own feelings on the subject at hand.

When emotions make listening too easy, it usually results from hearing something which supports the deeply rooted inner feelings that we hold. When we hear such support, our mental barriers are dropped and everything is welcomed. We ask few questions about what we hear; our critical faculties are put out of commission by our emotions. Thinking drops to a minimum because we are hearing thoughts that we have harbored for years in support of our inner feelings. It is good to hear someone else think those thoughts, so we lazily enjoy the whole experience.

What can we do about these emotional filters? The solution is not easy in practice, although it can be summed up in this simple admonition: hear the person out. Following are two pointers that often help in becoming a good listener

(1) Withhold evaluation—This is one of the most important principles of learning, especially learning through the ear. It requires self-control, sometimes more than many of us can muster, but with persistent practice it can be turned into a valuable habit. While listening, the main object is to comprehend each point made by the talker. Judgments and decisions should be reserved until after the talker has finished. At that time, and only then, review main ideas and assess them.

(2) Hunt for negative evidence—When we listen, it is human to go on a militant search for evidence which proves us right in what we believe. Seldom do we make a search for evidence to prove ourselves wrong. The latter type of effort is not easy, for behind its application must lie a generous spirit and real breadth of outlook. However, an important part of listening comprehension is found in the search for negative evidence in what we hear. If we make up our minds to seek out the ideas that might prove us wrong, as well as those that might prove us right, we are less in danger of missing what people have to say.

I do not hesitate to consider myself a good listener...sometimes out of courtesy, I must admit. At the risk of being judged a poor conversationalist, I am sensitive to foisting my thoughts on others, preferring instead to fully ingest what I am hearing said to me.

In practise, I save my serious thoughts, ideals -- even the odd opinion -- for Wrights Lane and the church pulpit. Still, I have reason to believe very few really listen -- to me.

Maybe this is a personal shortcoming...I also listen to what I think I see, by any other name -- inhabitions.