I think that’s a very good point, thanks for sharing your perspective and suggestion.

Best,

Raz

It’s rare that I won’t post comments, but a few were a bit polarizing–one in particular that would generate a bit of good fodder and more engagement on this blog. But I didn’t post several . because, simply, these comments were comprised of pro and anti-Rove personalities and philosophies, which didn’t have anything to do with the point of my posting the article. For the purposes of this blog entry, I have neither rebuke nor commendation of Rove, or the Iraq war for that matter. Ultimately, the article had very little to do with either.

What I do admire, respect, and appreciate, which was the very point of the WSJ article, is that there are some very determined people out there serving us in ways we can’t imagine. And when they come back, particularly those who have been injured by the brutality of war, there exist some incredible stories of commitment and determination to bring back their own personal renewal.

Oftentimes, we lose sight of the message because of the messenger. In this particular case and for some it was Karl Rove’s article in the Journal. Yet, how you perceive the world–and also messenger–can directly determine your outlook and life’s experiences.

My blog is a personal one, yet it’s also deliberately apolitical–or politically agnostic.

In my corporate role I have made my own decision to remain very private in political matters. This isn’t something that’s required. In fact, I find many Executives at many companies that are vocal about their political beliefs–and I offer them no criticism either, even though I try to subscribe to a different approach.

I would expect that most people, even at the highest levels of leadership inside and outside Univera, have very little knowledge of my personal political beliefs.

At times I’ll take various stories or learnings from authors on either side of poiltics. Political debate and discussion is important to all countries and parties, yet here’s one perspective that I will acknowledge: bitter and non-collaborative partisanship is destructive. Within and outside of politics.

See, in many cases the messenger is largely irrelevant. I wouldn’t take the leap to make that a generalization across the board in every case, and even still sometimes the messenger IS the message.

But it’s interesting that, oftentimes, we become so fixated on the messenger that we refuse to hear the message, or we interpret the message the wrong way. Forget politics and this particular WSJ article, this applies to nearly anything.

Take most every subject, philanthropy, religion/spirituality, the environment, poverty, or even Univera–and too often people get so fixated on who is delivering the message that they lose the opportunity to understand the message.

I think of all the people that consider Univera but they can’t get beyond the fact that this is a mission bigger than a single person who might be the messenger to them, or grapple with the fact that this is both credible and real opportunity that also is within the Relationship Marketing industry, or that they simply don’t like how someone presented or shared the gift with them. And we all know those people who actually have to work to find reasons not to get engaged in this business.

And when we’re so narrowly fixated on the messenger, or perhaps our own judgment, that we miss out on some great lessons and experiences in life.

http://www.brianclayville.wordpress.com