Month: January 2022

This week will have a bit of a foreign flavor on the Intramuralist. We’ve got a few things to cover in the week ahead that extend well beyond America’s borders — however porous those may or may not be.

The most critical situation is what’s happening in Ukraine, the Eastern European country and the second largest country size-wise in Europe. It borders Russia to the east and northeast.

So what’s the issue and why should I care?

First, a brief bit of background (… and I do mean “brief”…)

Ukraine was once a part of the Soviet Union, but became an independent country when the USSR dissolved in 1991. They declared themselves a “neutral state,” which speaks to their role in future conflict and potential military alliances (i.e. such as NATO), but have since become more aligned with the West. Multiple escalations have also occurred in the past 9 years, which have led to increased unrest in the country. Note, too, that Ukraine is marked by significant corruption.

Six months ago Russian President Vladimir Putin released a public policy declaration with the claim that Russians and Ukrainians were “one people” and part of “a single whole.” Wrote Putin, “The wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy.” Since at least November, notably, Russia has been moving troops near the border, with more than 100,000 troops now amassed there.

The speculation is whether the troops (and resulting military exercises) are a negotiating tactic with the West or Russia is planning some sort of invasion — either in eastern Ukraine or a full-scale invasion of the country. The desired outcome and the motivation for the current aggression is uncertain.

So back to why we should care — and not just because we care for the human rights of all people and specifically for the Ukrainian citizens and their right to self-determination…

Allow me to first state the obvious. I am no expert. I am a current events blogger and only an imperfect one at that. I attempt to study history and be aware of the current. Hence, allow me to share the words of David French, a widely respected writer and attorney, known for his intellect and effort to produce “factually grounded journalism”:

“First, history teaches us that Russia’s desire to dominate the nations along its border extends when Russia’s border extends. Even a glance at maps of either the immense Russian Empire of the 19th and early 20th centuries or the Soviet Union at its height demonstrates that ‘Russian interests’ and the Russian border have previously extended even to the west of Ukraine. Russia has in the past swallowed not just Ukraine but also Belarus, the Baltic states, and Poland. And with each move west, its territorial insecurity has extended with it…

Second, the reintroduction of Great Power territorial aggression would once again destabilize the world order. Since the unspeakable horror of World War I, there has been a concerted effort to essentially outlaw wars of aggression as instruments of national policy. The Kellogg-Briand Pact (combined with the League of Nations) represented the first attempt to combine treaties and international cooperation to deter and prevent great power conflict. But treaties are not self-enforcing, and the first attempt at creating global stability failed when Hitler recognized the war-weary weakness of (mainly) Britain and France…

Third, what starts in Europe rarely stays in Europe. Dating back to shortly after the founding of the nation, the United States has encountered the same pattern. Europe goes to war, we seek to remain at peace, yet ultimately we find ourselves in the fight…”

Again, while no expert, it’s no secret that the Intramuralist has been exponentially more concerned with what’s happening beyond our borders since the calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. As Michael Schuman recently wrote in The Atlantic, in regard to how China is now watching Ukraine: “China’s Xi Jinping, too, has a geopolitical grievance in his neighborhood—in his case over Taiwan, the microchip-rich island that Beijing insists is and always should be part of China. Like Putin, who is eager to bring Ukraine back under Moscow’s control, Xi worries that a former chunk of his country’s empire is growing closer with the United States and its allies. How Xi interprets (or worse, misinterprets) the outcome of the Ukraine standoff could influence whether and how China tries to reunify with Taiwan, and thus has implications for the security and stability of East Asia…

What can be said with greater certainty is that Ukraine and Taiwan both show how easily U.S. weakness—or even the mere perception of weakness—could unravel the strained networks and alliances that support the American world order and usher in a new era of global conflict and instability.”

How the U.S. responds makes a difference. Also, peace and international order are far preferable to global conflict and instability.

That’s why I care.

Respectfully…

AR

So I apologize now for maybe my clunkiest title ever. Bear with me. I promise this is not really about sports, even though for sports enthusiasts, last weekend was one of the most exciting ever on the professional gridiron.

Last weekend we witnessed incredibly competitive match-ups between teams hailing from the Golden City, Music City, Queen City, City of Angels, City of Fountains, City of Good Neighbors, Titletown and the Big Guava (… not to mention less reputable monikers such as Porkopolis, La-La Land, and the Toilet Paper Capital of the World).

While the nicknames never dampen our fondness for creativity, that’s not why I love the NFL playoffs.

The 49ers, Bengals, Bills, Buccaneers, Chiefs, Packers, Rams and Titans played such highly competitive games that each of the four pigskin contests was decided on the final play of the game with zero time remaining. In fact, the four Divisional round games were decided by a total of 15 points — meaning the average margin of victory was only 3.8 points per game, the lowest average margin of victory in NFL playoff history in a round with at least four games.

That’s still not why I love the NFL playoffs.

There are some fascinating personalities involved in the playoffs…

We are able to watch some growing young men, not close to their perceived athletic prime, utilize their tremendous talent to lead their team… QB’s Josh Allen, Joe Burrow, and Patrick Mahomes, for instance; they are a respective 25, 25 and 26 years old. Juxtapose the young against the skillful vets we’ve viewed for years… Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Matthew Stafford. It may actually be the last we’ve seen of “Tom Terrific,” “Tampa Tom” or the “G.O.A.T.” Tom Edward Patrick Brady Jr. might not just be the Greatest Of All Time to play football; he’s in the conversation as one of the greatest athletes of all time… all that after taken 199th in the 2000 NFL Draft.

Still… not why I love the playoffs.

The Intramuralist has long loved football. With Packer and Viking roots sharpened by a healthy splash of pre-Jerry Jones Cowboys, I’ve found the game fun and entertaining to watch; it’s strategically complex, and the promotion of players has taken on a life of its own.

Yet my love for the playoffs can best be exemplified in the totality of a few hours late, last Saturday afternoon. I must first confess… yes, I admit… I am a Bengals fan.

There were years when such a public admission was akin to the way some feel emboldened to ridicule or shame various political loyalties… How could you support the flamboyant antics of Chad Ochocinco Johnson?! … You’re really ok with Vontaze B. losing his cool one more time?… And another? Another guy in trouble with the law?…

I learned something through those less-admired, not-so-fun years. When your team isn’t winning, there’s a lot more scrutiny. Let us make no excuses for poor behavior; let us also acknowledge that Cincinnati was rarely, consistently winning. Winning matters.

On Saturday in Cincinnati, I was traveling through and made a point to watch the game with some I knew, some I did not. There were all sorts of people in the room — a variety of age, stage and demographics. We gathered also amidst the bitter cold; it, too — external circumstances — did not matter.

Granted, we were each part of the Cincinnati/Queen City/Porkopolis faithful, but there was no insult nor disdain of the other team. All due respect to the Titans of Tennessee.

When the game began, we were eager together. When the game looked like we might go down in yet another, not-so-fun-years-reminder defeat, we expressed more subdued regret together. And when victory came with emphatic surprise, we jubilantly celebrated together.

Together.

They say the culture is different in the Cincinnati locker room this year. The town seems different, too. Maybe it’s just that I’ve been gone too long.

Or maybe instead it’s because with wise and talented leaders, they’ve magnified what they have in common, minimized the different, and learned that joy and success are contagious when we respectfully share eagerness, regret and celebration so freely together.

It was a good day in Cincinnati. 

I sure do love those playoffs…

Respectfully…

AR

Last weekend there was an awful event in Colleyville, Texas. A man took four persons hostage at a Jewish synagogue in the Dallas-Fort Worth area — including the rabbi — demanding the release of Aafia Siddiqui from federal prison. Siddiqui — who is sometimes referred to as “Lady al Qaeda” or in the eyes of NBC News, “a cause célèbre in the terrorist world.” Also according to NBC, “Her lawyer says she opposes violence, but prosecutors said she yelled ‘I am going to kill all you Americans’ after she opened fire on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.”

Hear not from me; hear from Bari Weiss, the former contributor to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, who left both, eventually in pursuit of a less manipulated approach to journalism… (amen, Bari…)

“Last week, I met a rabbi in Los Angeles. We talked about surfing where to get the best pizza in the city and her kids and politics. At the end of the evening, she was making plans with a colleague, and they extended an invitation. Would I want to go to the shooting range with them next weekend?

I thought about the rabbi with her guns a lot over this Shabbat, as Jews who had gathered for services at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas, were taken hostage by a man named Malik Faisal Akram. After nearly 11 hours, thanks to earthly miracles of law enforcement and perhaps heavenly ones as well, they were freed unharmed. Akram, who had predicted his own death in his rantings captured on Facebook livestream, was dead. 

The bad guy was killed. The good guys were saved. It doesn’t often turn out that way. All the Jews I know—even the atheists—are thanking God. 

But why, despite my gratitude, do I feel so much rage? Why does it feel like there is so little comfort to be found? What has changed?

I did not feel this way in the horrific aftermath of the Tree of Life massacre—the most lethal in all of American Jewish history.

Back then, in October 2018, it felt like the whole country grasped that a wound to the Tree of Life was a wound to the Tree of Liberty itself. That the monstrous attack in my hometown was not simply an attack on Jews, but an attack on our collective home. And that what was at stake in standing up against the deranged, conspiratorial mindset that led a neo-Nazi to the synagogue that morning was nothing less than America itself. 

What I now see is this: In America captured by tribalism and dehumanization, in an America swept up by ideologies that pit us against one another in a zero-sum game, in an America enthralled with the poisonous idea that some groups matter more than others, not all Jews—and not all Jewish victims—are treated equally. What seems to matter most to media pundits and politicians is not the Jews themselves, but the identities of their attackers.

And it scares me…”

[Emphasis above is mine.]

Weiss continues by discussing the anti-Semitism that she sees in this country. She points out that Siddiqui is a “committed Jew hater.” She also points out that so much of even the so-called mainstream press and our elect made no mention of such. They omitted the hatred specifically targeting our Jewish friends. There were claims of insufficient information.

As we follow the week of Martin Luther King Day and Dr. King’s call that all people are seen as created in the image of God and treated no more nor lesser — this was hard to stomach. I keep thinking of Weiss’s comment, that we’re “in an America swept up by ideologies that pit us against one another in a zero-sum game, in an America enthralled with the poisonous idea that some groups matter more than others.”

That makes no sense. That makes no sense when juxtaposed against the plumb line of each of us created in the image of God. 

I think both He — and Dr. King — would want more from us.

Respectfully…

AR

We walked. Talked. Spent time together. 

We walked and talked together.

Martin Luther King Jr. Day was this past Monday. It’s a day that celebrates the Christian faith, call for justice and equality, and nonviolent approach of Dr. Martin Luther King. I’m no expert. And I don’t know that I’m really all that qualified to speak on this subject. But I’d like to believe that if a person doesn’t support all three of the above, then they’re not speaking for Dr. King.

I, too, am not capable of speaking for Dr. King. I’m simply an admiring student from afar.

I love many things Dr. King said…

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

“Forgiveness is not an occasional act. It is a permanent attitude.”

Hope. Light. Forgiveness… I think about when I justify something lesser…

Thinking of his 1965 speech in “Our God is Marching On!”…

“…It is normalcy all over our country which leaves the Negro perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of vast ocean of material prosperity. It is normalcy all over Alabama that prevents the Negro from becoming a registered voter. No, we will not allow Alabama to return to normalcy. The only normalcy that we will settle for is the normalcy that recognizes the dignity and worth of all of God’s children…”

All of God’s children. King never saw justice and equality outside the framework of absolutely each of us being created in the image of God.

And then from one of my favorites, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” a letter written to the nation’s religious leaders in 1963. Remember that at the time, black persons were not allowed to vote. Heck, they weren’t even allowed to sit on the same place on a bus. How does such equate to “all men are created equal”? Yes, we have made some grievous errors; we have corrected some of those errors. But King got our attention… especially when he addressed the question of whether or not he was an extremist in his call to get us to love and respect all people…

“… Was not Jesus an extremist in love? — ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.’ Was not Amos an extremist for justice? — ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.’ Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? — ‘I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.’ Was not Martin Luther an extremist? — ‘Here I stand; I can do no other so help me God.’ Was not John Bunyan an extremist? — ‘I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience.’ Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? — ‘This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.’ Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? — ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?”

On Monday I took part with some friends along with our mayor, civic leaders and multiple others, just cleaning up a more impoverished area of our city. We walked and talked. Spent time together. 

The goal was to promote Dr. King’s legacy of service… his Christian faith, call for justice and equality, and nonviolent approach.

May we never omit one of the above.

Respectfully…

AR

One of the causes of the current, clearly adverse political divide is that we don’t necessarily understand all issues and incidents. In fact, we don’t even know what we don’t know. That’s true for you. Me. Pretty much all of us. I wish that truth kept us humble. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t. We unfortunately each error.

One of the current issues pushed by some is the focus on voting rights. So let’s examine and make today’s post primarily informative. My goal is not to promote any perspective; my goal is to eradicate the rhetoric and sift through fact. Know, too, that it is completely valid to have different opinions regarding different ballot/voting provisions. But it’s difficult to discuss when we are unknowingly ill-informed.

Voting rights are “a set of legal and constitutional protections designed to ensure the opportunity to vote in local, state, and federal elections.”¹ In order to ensure “consent of the governed” — that government’s authority is derived from the will of the people, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence — two equal priorities exist: every eligible voter should have access to vote and no ineligible vote should be cast. If either priority is diminished, “consent of the governed” is potentially negated.

Part of ensuring said consent was setting a single date to appoint presidential electors. In 1792, the 2nd Congress decided there would exist 34 days to vote. However, “as travel and communication methods became faster in the 19th century, potential manipulation and fraud concerns grew.”² The 1844 election — in which Democrat James K. Polk defeated Whig Henry Clay — was rife with fraud allegations. Hence, when debating a bill that would set a uniform presidential Election Day, House members declared the goal was “to guard against frauds in the elections of President and Vice President.”³

Noting that states have made various, legitimate exceptions in the years since, changes were necessary to the voting process in the midst of the pandemic in 2020 in order to make it easier to maintain the distancing and isolation that the health crisis necessitated. The state-led efforts, though, prioritized voter access. Now that the pandemic is evolving into an endemic, states have made efforts to again adhere to both priorities: access and eligibility.

Recorrecting after the pandemic’s climax, some states are perceived to have expanded their approach; some are perceived to have restricted it — each learning from the pandemic provisions. The state of Georgia enacted SB 202, a 98 page bill entitled the “Election Integrity Act of 2021.” One can agree or disagree as to which parts are good or bad; remember our goal today is not to advocate or reject. Here, no less, is a brief synopsis of the bill with context included — as speeches absent of context often promote the ill-informed nature of which we speak. As authored primarily by Declan Garvey, associate editor at The Dispatch, which strives to produce “factually grounded journalism”⁴:

“For starters, the bill actually expands voting access for most Georgians, mandating precincts hold at least 17 days of early voting—including two Saturdays, with Sundays optional—leading up to the election. Voting locations during this period must be open for at least eight hours, and can operate between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Several states (including Biden’s home state of Delaware, which will not implement it until 2022) do not currently allow any in-person early voting, and plenty, like New Jersey, offer far fewer than 17 days.

Despite Biden saying the bill implements absentee voting restrictions that ‘effectively deny’ the franchise to ‘countless’ voters, SB 202 leaves in place no-excuse absentee voting with a few tweaks. It tightens the window to apply for an absentee ballot to ‘just’ 67 days, and mandates applications—which can now be completed online—be received by election officials at least 11 days before an election to ensure a ballot can be mailed and returned by Election Day. The bill requires Georgia’s secretary of state to make a blank absentee ballot application available online, but prohibits government agencies from mailing one to voters unsolicited—and requires third-party groups doing so to include a variety of disclaimers.

Rather than signature matching—which is time-intensive for election officials—voters will verify their identity in absentee ballot applications by including the identification number on their driver’s license or voter identification card, which is free. If a Georgian has neither, he or she can, pursuant to Georgia Code Section 21-2-417, include a photocopy or digital picture of a ‘current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document’ that includes his or her name and address. When mailing back their ballots, voters must print their driver’s license number (or the last four digits of their social security number) on an inner envelope. (An August 2016 Gallup survey found photo ID requirements for voting were overwhelmingly popular: 80 percent of voters supported them, including 77 percent of nonwhite voters.) SB 202 also codifies ballot drop boxes into law; Georgia added them for the first time in 2020 as a pandemic measure, and the law now stipulates that there be one for every 100,000 registered voters or advance voting locations in a county, whichever is smaller.”

When the Georgia law was crafted, a few state lawmakers proposed ending all no-excuse absentee voting and early voting on Sundays, the latter seemingly targeting voter drives at black churches. Those provisions, however, were cut from the final bill. One restriction that was not cut prohibits outside groups from distributing money, gifts, food, or drinks within 25 feet of voters standing in line to vote. Polling places may still provide self-serving water receptacles.

That’s the primary significance of the law in my opinion. (Sorry for the length; I tried to be as brief as necessary.)

Note, nonetheless, that our two most recent Presidents have travelled to Georgia in successive Januarys to focus on the state election process. (Note: it was really tempting to find a creative way to quote the Charlie Daniels classic here). Both tried to convince us in sensationalized, (and in this encourager of respectful dialogue’s opinion) divisive rhetoric that something was/is deeply wrong. 

Let me suggest that both — us, too — are entitled to their opinions, but not to their own facts. One can believe what’s happening in Georgia and other states is good, bad, necessary or unnecessary. But after (1) studying the law, (2) recognizing allowances were made solely for the pandemic, and (3) prioritizing equally both voter access and eligibility, one can logically question whether claims of illegality, inaccuracy, or worse are based on fact.

We can legitimately disagree, friends. But it’s also important to be accurately informed.

Respectfully…

AR

¹ Britannica, Brian Duignan, www.britannica.com/topic/voting-rights, December 17, 2021)

² Ben Leubsdorf, Election Day: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service report prepared for Members and Committees of Congress, January 6,2021, p. 2.

³ “Election Bill,” Congressional Globe, December 13, 1844, p. 29.

⁴ Coppins, McKay (January 31, 2020). “The Conservatives Trying to Ditch Fake News”. The Atlantic. Retrieved 12 April 2021.

We’ve said it before; we’ll say it again: this COVID stuff is confusing… multiple variants, mixed messages, changing conditions, changing approaches, and way too much politics. I continue to attempt to empathize with our healthcare workers; no wonder so many are increasingly exhausted! Amid the serious health concerns, there remain tons of questions.

As the Intramuralist oft scans a broad spectrum of news sources in order to discern what we’re wondering and potentially promoting, note the following, recent forty, all about Covid…

1. A 4th Shot? 
2. Are hospital workers running out of sympathy for unvaccinated COVID patients?
3. CNN wonders: Is the media out of touch with the public on COVID?
4. Confused By The CDC’s New COVID Isolation Rules?
5. COVID vaccines for ages 5 to 11 start today but can schools open safely in the shadow of Omicron?
6. Do Masks Protect Against the Omicron COVID-19 Variant?
7. Do you have a cold, the flu or Covid-19?
8. Do you need a booster shot to be ‘fully vaccinated’ against COVID? What does ‘up to date’ mean?
9. Fox to Psaki: How is this still a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” if the boosted are getting sick?
10. Has COVID Testing Declined Under Joe Biden?
11. Has Covid vaccine efficacy turned negative?
12. How did the 1918 pandemic end, and could the same thing happen with coronavirus?
13. How effective are COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron?
14. How Effective Is a Face Mask Against COVID-19 if You’re the Only One Wearing It?
15. How Is a Third of the Population Being Hypnotized?
16. How is COVID going to end?
17. How is Omicron impacting your life?
18. How long should you isolate if you’re fully vaccinated but have Covid-19? 
19. How Reliable Are Covid-19 Rapid Tests for Detecting Omicron?
20. How Soon Will Covid Be ‘Normal’?
21. How Will The Pandemic End?
22. If It’s Really a ‘Pandemic of the Unvaccinated,’ Mr. President, Why Is My Vaccinated 6-Year-Old Wearing a Mask?
23. Is Covid Causing Decision Fatigue?
24. Is COVID here to stay?
25. Is COVID-19 a Disability?
26. Is COVID-19 driving our teens to drugs, alcohol?
27. Is COVID-19 ever going to go away?
28. Omicron: Do travel bans work against new Covid variants?
29. Omicron is here. What are your treatment options if you get Covid-19?
30. Omicron-specific vaccines could be ready by March. Will we need them?
31. So When Does the Emergency End?
32. Vaccinated and test positive?
33. Vaccine choice follows politics in US. Why doesn’t it in Germany?
34. Vaccine Passports Are Here to Stay. Why Worry?
35. What exactly is today’s status of the vaccine mandate in the federal space?
36. Why are so many vaccinated people getting COVID-19 lately?
37. Why Did the CDC Change Its Mind About COVID Isolation, Quarantine Rules?
38. Will 2022 Be the Year We Put the Pandemic Behind Us?
39. Will history judge Trump as harshly as his critics on COVID-19?
40. 2 Years of COVID: What Comes Next?

This is hard, friends. On many…

So many questions continue…

Respectfully…

AR

[Source list: AARP, ABC, American Greatness, Associated Press, The Atlantic, BBC, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Christian Science Monitor, CNet, CNN, Deseret News, Federal News Network, FOX News, Health Magazine, Hot Air, Huffington Post, The Intercept, The Jerusalem Post, Joe Rogan Show, Miami Herald, MSNBC, National Law Review, NBC News, New York Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Newsweek, NPR, PBS, The Post Millennial, Reason, Substack, USA Today, VeryWell Health, VOX, and The Wall Street Journal.]

“We’ve got spirit — yes, we do! We’ve got spirit! How ‘bout you?!”

Then went the other side…

“We’ve got spirit — yes, we do! We’ve got spirit! How ‘bout you?!”

And after a few more back-and-forths of the familiar, middle school cheer, one side would boldly break into…

“We’ve got more! We’ve got more!”

To which the opponent would equally, brashly retort…

“That’s what they all say!”

Forgive me. We were only 12. Maybe 13, 14… 15 at best. While we cheered in zest for our Falcons and Stars, there typically wasn’t that much animosity. Emphasis on “that much.”

The implication, no less, was that “we” — aka “me” or “my team” — had definitively more spirit than the opposition. In fact, sometimes — especially if we played those perceived vicious Cardinals (sorry, remember our frontal lobes weren’t fully formed yet) — the implication was not just that we had more, but that we were the only ones who had it. In our support, loyalty, fandom or whatever you want to call it, we simply assumed in our passion that because spirit was important to us — we had it, felt it, and ardently believed in it — that there was no possible way it could manifest itself in our opposition. This wasn’t even a debate, friends. At the very least, we had more.

Sometimes I feel as if middle school has somehow magically transported itself to current culture… only now we have more money and use bigger words. Because we feel something strongly, we assume our perceived vicious opposition doesn’t have what we have… there’s no way it could manifest itself differently…

Note the following…

Republicans dispute Democrats’ belief in patriotism; we heard it much during the candidacy and tenure of Pres. Obama. Democrats dispute Republicans’ belief in democracy; we hear it now in promotion of their desired legislative agenda.

Please.

I mean no disrespect. I simply refuse to believe the Democrats or Republicans as a whole don’t belief in either patriotism or democracy; certainly there are some outliers in each party; certainly, too, a biased media cannot be trusted to promote accurate representations of what each party/party member believes. Hence, who/what we listen to matters. So why then do multiple leaders of each party continue to attempt to convince us that the opposition is either unpatriotic or undemocratic?

I’ll take a brief stab…

Because patriotism — defined as a devotion to and support of our country — is a good thing… Because democracy — defined as a system of government in which everyone is treated equally — is a good thing… And if one party can convince us that the opposition is null and void of such a good thing, then maybe, just maybe they can convince us to only support and vote for them — to put/keep them in power. Maybe we’ll be so disturbed, enraged, or fill-in-the-negative-adjective-here, that we’ll never take the time to notice the lack of integrity in the accusing party.

That’s key to the current voting rights question. In this country, two things are true: one, every eligible voter should have access to vote, and two, no ineligible vote should be cast; both work in conjunction with one another in order to ensure the “consent of the governed” occurs.

The competing challenge, however, is that party victory is often prioritized more than the above “one” or “two.” Hence, rather than wrestling honestly with one party’s own incongruity, inconsistency and undeniable contradictions pending their position when in or out of power, it’s often easier to instead valiantly work to get others to perceive the opposition as vicious…

… acting like they have none of those good things… acting like we’ve got more… and acting as if we’re all back in middle school again.

Respectfully… and wanting what’s better and best…

AR

Ah, yes, it’s a new year… time to make or not make resolutions. No pressure, friends. While we may hear bold pronouncements of wanting to eat healthier, hit the gym, or maybe even ensuring we end no more phone conversations by adding an accidental “love you” to a random person (or Verizon sales rep — ugh), resolutions are not something we make for anyone other than self.

Here, no less, my primary annual resolution in recent years has been to read more — reading from diverse authors of varied perspective, believing growth is oft prompted via the written word.

But if I respectfully strayed from the conviction that resolutions are only to be made for self — and if I could semi-humbly suggest a resolution for far more than me, I think I know what it would be…

We are a people quick to criticize. To be clear, criticism isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it’s sincere, solicited and respectfully stated. Unfortunately, much of the criticism that rampantly flows throughout today’s culture is only the first of the three.

We’ve watched people attempt to respond to such criticism — constructive or not. And even more unfortunately, we’ve watched them respond poorly…

We’ve watched people become immediately defensive…

I get it; this is easy — sometimes even our immediate, “go-to” reaction… How dare anyone would think so poorly of me?!… And just like that we stop asking questions; we stop seeking to understand; and because we’re defensive and reject whatever the other has to say, we never earnestly wrestle with any potential validity of the other’s concern.

We’ve watched the deferring of blame, pointing the finger at somebody else…

Oh, my… sign our politicians up!… One of the things that is respectfully near the top of my disappointment list in many of our elect, is that they are very slow (if that) at admitting wrongdoing. If I allow myself to be a bit facetious, I would argue that too many politicians are quick to take credit for all that is good and quicker to blame their opponent or predecessor for all that is bad. That makes no sense to me. When we defer all blame and point the finger elsewhere, we lack self-awareness. Maybe humility, too. But we again never wrestle with the potential validity of the other’s concern.

We’ve watched the tit-for-tat, Twitter fights ensue…

Yuck. Not sure quite what else to say here. Especially when leaders and celebrities fall prey to utilizing this poor method of interaction and response. When wrestling with a wise response to criticism, solid communication is important in regard to understanding what the criticism actually is and if there is any validity to it. Social media and texting are not helpful; they typically only facilitate insult faster. It is thus always disappointing to see otherwise seemingly intelligent people believe that social media rants are a prudent means in response to criticism.

So yes, if I could suggest a resolution for far more than me, it would be that we handle criticism in a wiser way…

… listen… ask questions… seek to understand… resist defensiveness… always…

… communicate in person, FaceTime, or on the phone… own what’s ours/not what’s not…

… stay calm… be respectful… apologize when necessary…

Let me be honest: I haven’t always been consistently good at this. And many/maybe most times, when the criticism was offered — especially when it was sincere, solicited and respectfully stated — it had at least some validity to it. Sometimes I handled it well; sometimes I did not. But I know, too, that apology is a strength… and a necessary skill.

Still growing. That’s why we make resolutions.

Now time to go back to reading more books.

Respectfully…

AR

As a question advocate — asking questions for the purpose of solution — let us begin with five significantly pressing questions for the year ahead… questions that are respectively asked… but granted, still aren’t all that easy to answer…

Question #1: What’s an effective, next step approach to Covid? Let’s be real… This is hard. On all of us. On the sick, on the dying, on the healthcare workers, on those making protective decisions, on the varied vaccination decisions; there’s an element of challenge for us all. As has been long stated here, what’s best to do in rural, big, blue sky Montana is not the same as what’s best in the dense, urban metropolis of New York City; it simply doesn’t make sense. So how do we move forward in a way that doesn’t start from a ready-to-pounce, defensive position? Are we capable of giving generous grace to those who come from a different perspective? Can we learn to treat the variants with the wisest approach each needs, recognizing that the severity of each strand is different? Can we also recognize that maybe the endgame isn’t good riddance of all; hence, what does moving from a pandemic to an endemic look like — and have we already done so?

Question #2: Is Joe Biden physically and mentally ok? Zero ill will, folks. I genuinely wish to know what decisions is he making and what decisions people are making for him; the reality is that the public can’t tell. I don’t believe Pres. Biden is a bad person in any way whatsoever. However, I do have candid questions about his competency and his current clarity of thought. His repeated gaffes, misstatements and avoidance of the free press are increasingly concerning. He has difficulty handling conversations which are typically routine for a sitting President of the United States. Those are not character issues; those also cannot be dismissed as a speech disorder. Something seems off.

Question #3: When will Donald Trump relinquish his political ambitions? Again, honestly, sincerely, and still zero ill will… I realize there are many who love and many who loathe (and no doubt a zillion who fall somewhere in between). I also think we make way too many assumptions and even judgments about those who love or loathe. To be clear, I am neither. However, I do believe his Oval Office tenure was especially divisive. And it’s no secret the Intramuralist is not a fan of divisiveness. I believe our country’s highest leadership should be marked by unquestionable compassion and competency. I am disturbed that both have been uncertain for years. 

Question #4: What happens in the near future to the legislative branch? The purpose of the legislative branch is to make laws; contrary to the desires of some, that is not the role of either the executive or judicial branch. The purpose of a sitting congressperson, therefore, is to represent their district or state in crafting those laws. And yet, as we’ve witnessed from recent singular party debates, there is a tendency to shame the one who doesn’t “get in line” with the national party. But if the responsibility is to represent one’s geographic region accurately, why would we assume that an urban, coastal region has the same wants/needs as a rural, midwest region? Why would we think all Democrats or Republicans would think the same way, especially, logically, if there are varied priorities in those geographic areas? My question is whether Congress can move forward in a healthy way if partisans continue to vehemently pursue a sole party perspective, convinced only their party knows best. There is way too much focus on party — party over people, so-to-speak. That, to me, is not wise leadership. I don’t care whose party it is.

Question #5: And lastly, what about us? When will we as a people realize that if we’re not kind to those who don’t think like us, then we’re not really all that kind… if we won’t engage in discourse with those who respectfully disagree, then we are the ones not very good at discourse… and if we as a people believe that reconciliation only happens when the others finally realize the error of their ways and come to agree with us, then we don’t really understand reconciliation? Friends, when will we as a body politic recognize the humbling truth that each of us have played a part in the current division?

Just questions, my friends, but honest ones at that. As a current events blogger, I deeply value honesty, sincerity and integrity. I will continue to advocate for such.

And so we ask these questions not so to embolden what we already think, but rather, so that we can make healthy strivings going forward.

Let us always pursue what is wisest and best. 

Respectfully… happy new year, too…

AR