|
|
October 8, 2012 · By Carrie K. Hutchens · 2 Comments
Dana turned, pushed past a young employee, and walked back into the clothing store all bristled and ready for a fight. How dare that middle age woman challenge her honesty?
Approaching the counter, Dana began telling the surprised woman just what she thought of her and it wasn’t too awfully nice. She suggested she get new glasses and that she better know what she was talking about before accusing her of anything. Just who did she think she was? She was nothing but a low-life clerk that couldn’t get a better job if it was handed to her.
Another woman rushed over and tried to indicate she thought there must be a problem. Dana rudely and fiercely shook her finger at the target of her fury. “That woman. That woman dared to accuse me of stealing.”
“What?” The intercepting woman exclaimed? “You think she accused you of stealing? You misunderstood.”
“No, I didn’t,” the red-faced young woman continued to scream. “Don’t try to protect this stupid, irrelevant change collector.”
The mediator abruptly stepped back and eyed Dana with disgust. “That’s enough. It’s time you leave.”
Still lost in her fury, she exclaimed, “Me leave? I’m the customer. She better not be here when I come back.”
“I don’t think you understand. You are no longer welcome here. Do not come back.”
“What? You’re taking her side over mine? I’m the customer and she is nobody and this ignorant nobody accused me of stealing.” Dana continued screaming and pointing her finger at the focus of her anger. “And don’t try to defend her. She said I was the one that had the blouse.”
“The woman you are so rudely and wrongly insulting, happens to be the owner of this and many other stores. Secondly, if you had paid attention, you would have noticed that we have a promotion going on. The first person to try on a particular blouse was to be the winner of $500 merchandise and dinner out. You were that winner. She was indicating you were the one that won.” The impatient manager responded. “If you had paid attention to what was going on around you and listened to what was actually said, we would all be celebrating your win. Instead, you reacted inappropriately based upon a false perception. Worse, you refused to listen when I tried to clarify and instead went on reacting to what you wrongly thought happened at the hands of this lady you viciously attacked with your false accusations and wrongful insults.”
The incident above is a composite of things I have seen in life and meant merely as an example to make a point. People do tend to react to what they think they know… what they think they saw… what they think they heard… rather than what actually transpired. They just don’t always make it so obvious and they don’t always get called on it. Sometimes, it is a pack thing, with everyone responding to the same incorrect belief. It’s never right and it is never good.
I’ve often written about the Sara and Gary Harvey case. It’s an ongoing saga that has its ups and downs as to the intensity of wrong that is transpiring and it always leaves me feeling like the woman who rushed over and kept trying to explain there was a misunderstanding and that the reaction has been to a false perception, rather than to what was actually taking place. You see, like Dana, those who should be slowing down and taking a good look at what is going on — seem too busy reacting to a wrongful perception and closing all else out. Some simply will not listen. Some simply will not consider they made a mistake. Some simply seem to feel the woman behind the counter is a nobody that freely deserves all their anger and insults. Sometimes though, the nobodies aren’t the bad guys they are assumed to be. Sometimes they are, instead, actually somebodies who were merely trying to do something good for someone else and that good got misunderstood and blown out of portion and into a rage that never should have been. Sometimes those nobodies, that are actually somebodies, are people like Sara Harvey, who were wrongly labeled by someone like our story’s Dana. The difference is… in our story… someone was there to defend and clarify. In actual life, those wrongful labels sometimes never get shaken and too often all (or most) things to follow are reactions to those inaccurate perceptions that continue to define all that happens.
Sara Harvey was accused, for example, of breaking the rules because she took Gary outside. Except she always took Gary outside. How was she to know the rules had changed, when no one bothered to tell her?
Sara Harvey was accused of going against medical advice. She was accused of trying to feed Gary jello. Except there was no evidence of this. So, just where did this jello go? Either Gary swallowed it, which they say was impossible, or it never happened.
In spite of the fact that distortions and allegations were simply thrown out there (and to remain folk-lore to be passed along throughout the years) without evidence and without the rest of the story, Sara Harvey has been accused of being a danger to her husband. It seems as though the accusers were, and are, a bit too quick to point a finger and fail to tell that those in charge attempted to have Gary Harvey starved and dehydrated to death. That’s right. The ones who act so righteous and claim to be trying to protect Gary from the allegedly dangerous wife are actually the ones — not her — who tried to kill him. Bit of irony there, wouldn’t you say?
There are many more examples of this upside situation that never should have been. There are many reactions that make no sense, but instead are used to suggest proof of what was never proven. One of those reactions is a camera setup in Gary’s room.
The police received a phone call suggesting that Gary was in danger from staff. Sara had no part in that call and was as surprised as anyone else when she learned of it. However, though there was absolutely no reason to believe Sara had knowledge or a part in that call, it was her “supervised” visits that were stopped during an investigation. When she was FINALLY permitted to visit again, it was with not only a guard in the room but a camera. Now, it is not only with a guard but with two cameras and the door open.
Let’s see…
Who was it that tried to have Gary starved and dehydrated to death and put a DNR on him? And they are scared of Sara doing what that requires a guard, two cameras and the door open so they can look in?
What if their perception has been pre-disposed to deceptive reasoning by false allegations and misunderstandings? What if they are over-reacting due to unwarranted expectations, based upon the tainted folk-lore that began years ago and continues to be passed along? What if they are wrongly using their weapon of power to accuse and punish those who did nothing to deserve to be treated as has been?
Dana of our story was wrong and should feel shame for her inappropriate behavior. She is not alone. There is a great deal of shame to go around and much of it is in Chemung County.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
Ryan T. Anderson has a great series of articles about marriage at Ricochet, released in conjunction with his new book, co-authored with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. Anderson discusses why marriage matters, what marriage is, and why government has a role in protecting marriage from being undermined or counterfeited.
Last Friday, an 84-year-old President Reagan appointee, North Carolina Federal Judge James C. Fox, issued a ruling declaring the state’s “Choose Life” license plates to be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, giving the ACLU its desired victory against the message, “Please don’t choose to kill your pre-born baby.”
Phillips Brooks was born DECEMBER 13, 1835. The bishop of the Episcopal Church in Massachusetts, Phillips Brooks took a trip to the Holy Land in 1865, and wrote home: "After an early dinner, we took our horses and rode to Bethlehem...Before dark, we rode out of town to the field where they say the shepherds saw the star. It is a fenced piece of ground with a cave in it (all the Holy Places are caves here), in which, strangely enough, they put the shepherds..."
In 2013, $2.2 trillion of the $3.65 trillion budget will be on so-called “mandatory” spending — a Washingtonian euphemism for automatic spending. It just operates on autopilot, and even increases of its own accord as a function of the rising population that qualifies for benefits and built-in cost-of-living adjustments. But is such a design constitutional?
Taxpayers are footing the bill for thirty five union officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation, which spent $4.8 million dollars in union salaries in 2012, paying an average salary of $138,175 per year according to a report released by Americans for Limited Government today.
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964 |
