Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8)
There are some people who look at Huma Abedin and think she’s crazy; others think she’s crazy like a fox. I don’t fall into either camp. Based on what I can tell from her resume, she appears to be an intelligent woman: graduate of George Washington University and long-time aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since the second scandal with her husband, mayoral candidate, Anthony Weiner, people have been asking ‘why’ non-stop. Why would a common sense woman forgive her husband after committing such an egregious act? Publicly embarrassing her, not once, but twice? And worse still, making her look like a liar (to some, co-conspirator), cheerfully posing in People magazine as a ‘normal family,’ while he continued sexting. Some have posited that Abedin has political aspirations for herself and for her family that trump the stain of any scandal. That doesn’t make much sense to me. She’s been in the political world long enough to know how hard it can be to come back from minor missteps, let alone major ones and to do so twice is practically unheard of. No, I think this is a woman who is married to a man who has a problem, possibly an addiction, and has decided to stick it out. This is admirable to me, but mine is the minority voice in the court of public opinion.
Apparently, you’re only supposed to forgive your spouse interminably for minor offensives: the sporadic snide remarks or forgotten special occasions. But the big stuff? The painful stuff, the actions which test the concept of unconditional love, that’s the stuff you kick them to the curb for. Marriage is incredibly difficult, not just because of the merging of two separate lives, but because of the commitment to love this person, ‘for better or worse.’ What does ‘worse’ mean? And once you define it, can you love someone through that? And whatever your ‘worse’ is, would you want someone to love you through it?
Sushi Yasuda, in NYC, is the only place that I know of which doesn’t allow tipping. That’s right, doesn’t ALLOW IT AT ALL. Staff and chefs are salaried employees. And no sneaky service charge either, which is just synonymous for mandatory tipping. The food was good (though a tad pricey), service exceptional and the tip-independent system is one that should be copied nationwide.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I read an article today that woke me up to a very stark reality…I’m am a recovering people pleaser. Sure, I knew that I like to make others happy or comfortable, but the wake up call was when I started assuaging others to my own detriment. Nodding along with the co-worker taking credit for something she had no hand in, pretending that the joke thinly disguised as a insult was no big deal…There have been more times than I would like to remember where I held back because I didn’t want to make someone feel bad or because I was too embarrassed to say something. My family would undoubtedly find it hard to believe, but in my outside relationships (platonic and otherwise), I was selling myself way too short. Crazy to say this now, considering that I’m in my 30s, but I had no clue how to speak up for myself and still be a good Christian. I was stuck in scripture that taught me to turn the other cheek, that celebrated self-control and doing onto others as you would have them do onto you, but at what cost? My self-esteem? I am much better than I was, but I am haunted by ghosts of years’ past, the things I should have said and done; I find myself reliving moments like if I was in a time machine, maybe I can go back and do things ‘right’. But these ghosts are dead, only occasionally revived by by twisted need to torture myself. And for what? People-pleasing doesn’t please me; it doesn’t please God; it doesn’t even please the people I’m trying to please…so now what?
If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.
I can’t say I’m surprised or disappointed by the verdict (which is sad). Trayvon Martin joins what seems to be an endless list of black men murdered on suspicion: Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, Kimani Gray, Kendrec McDade, Ramarley Graham…
Graham’s case was an interesting one; the officer gave chase, breaking down the door to his home, following him into the bathroom, shooting him dead. The lack of search warrant and a weapon (on Graham), as well as security footage presented the opportunity to charge the officer with, at the very least, unlawful entry. Officer Haste ended up being charged with manslaughter only to have the indictment tossed out by the judge on a technicality. Prosecution of an officer is rare. Rarer still is a trial and although George Zimmerman is no police officer, the fact that this charge was brought before a judge and jury is a small victory. In the cases mentioned above, only two (Bell and Diallo) went to trial (all officers were acquitted in each case).
The only reason Trayvon Martin’s story went beyond the typical news cycle was because of the public outcry and grassroots efforts to have Zimmerman prosecuted. The next step is to galvanize support for the repeal of the various ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws in this country. The maxim that an individual has no duty to retreat from a place where he is lawfully allowed to be, encourages ‘shoot first’ logic and the inconsistent application of the law provides justification to those who have malicious intent (and no witnesses).