neighbors

photo-1428190415133-29b766b213d1

I’ve realized I’m not always very good at something. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not down on myself. I am instead wrestling with the realization that there is something I passionately desire to always do well, and yet, I routinely fail in its application…

What’s the greatest commandment? What are we each most called to?
Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.
And the second?
Love your neighbor as yourself.

I get that we are not all adherents to historical scripture. My sense is we are each responsible for how we respond to such. What strikes me, no less, is even for those among us who choose not to embrace the teaching, so much of what’s there we still tend to believe… (i.e. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. etc…) Each of us embraces some aspect of the scriptures, even if unintendedly so.

What I wrestle with this day is the concept of “loving my neighbor as myself.” I then think of two questions…

First, who exactly is our “neighbor”?

I don’t think it’s a stretch to extend our “neighbor” well beyond the isolating definition of simply the person who physically lives next door. The idea seems more that it’s someone nearby, not living in our specific household, who thus may not share the same circumstances, lifestyle, or beliefs that we have embraced. That makes sense to me. Therefore, our neighbor seems more encompassing of all people. Such leads me to question #2…

What’s our consistency like?

We seem to live in a day and age when we are encouraged to only embrace the likeminded… to only love and respect those who think and act like we do…

We are encouraged to identify all sorts of person as our adversaries, enemies, and opposition. And every time we engage in such a discourse — falling prey to such a seductive lingo — we justify labeling a person or people group as something other than a “neighbor.” If they aren’t a “neighbor,” then we don’t have to love them.

Note that at the 2nd most recent presidential debate, CNN’s Anderson Cooper said the following:

“Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, ‘I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.’ You’ve all made a few people upset over your political careers, which enemy are you most proud of?”

With no candidate suggesting the answer was a radical terrorist group (which truly desires to take our heads off and thus seems to actually qualify), let us not find too much fault in any one candidate; it was a foolish question. No person — simply because they do not share your political or other core beliefs — is thus your “enemy.”

Yes, even the intelligent justify the inconsistency.

But still don’t let me pick on either the candidates or the questioner; my realization this day is I am not much better…

Too many times I have muttered something mean or sarcastic under my breath when exposed to a seemingly stupid statement… too many times I have thought the worst when a slow car has pulled right out in front of me… and too many times I have been disrespectfully steaming, furious at a Facebook or Twitter rant that has seemed so incredibly frustrating. Sometimes I’ve even ranted right back — loud enough for others to see and hear!

It’s not always what I’ve said; it’s sometimes what I’ve thought.

If we are going to “love my neighbor,” so-to-speak, we must quit justifying our disrespectful responses. Discussion and dialogue surrounding tense topics is fine. Disagreement is totally acceptable. But the allowing of differences of opinion to evolve into disdain of one another is where we totally fail in in loving our neighbor well.

Always wishing for something better and more… respectfully…
AR

it’s the economy, uh, ______.

970ca55213 years ago, a sign hung on the wall of one prominent, presidential candidate’s headquarters. There were three lines on the sign. The first read, “Change vs. more of the same.” The last said, “Don’t forget health care.” It was the middle line which soon became the de facto slogan of Bill Clinton’s eventually successful campaign:

“The economy, stupid” … or as modified, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The phrase was coined by Clinton’s chief strategist, James Carville. His point was that of all the issues, of all the things that concern the American people, of all things pressing on a person’s mind and thus relevant to their vote, it all comes down to how Americans are affected by the flow of money throughout society — how it affects their individual pocketbook. Carville’s colloquial cliché simplistically refined the presidential campaign. It’s so simplistic, so basic yet profound, that it uniquely mirrored a major motivation for our individual vote.

How does money flow through society? How are we affected by that?

I hear that in a lot of us. It makes sense. It affects us… how will I pay for college… how can I get ahead… how can I get a positive return on my investments… when will government quit taxing me so much… From the left and the right, even from the moderate middle, we are each concerned about the economy and how government handles our money.

As the 4th 2016 presidential debate occurred last evening — and as candidates again articulated newfound promises — the Intramuralist is keenly aware that a reasonable voting public must wrestle with the truth. The truth is that we must look at the logic behind the promises. In other words, a populist strategy — meaning basically, a person promises lots of things that lots of people like — does not make logical sense if it cannot be economically supported. It is not enough for a promise to simply sound good… regardless of how fond any of us are of the idea…

Free college. Free cell phones. Free you name it… Climate change initiatives. Corporate regulations. Even balancing the budget has some kind of cost.

So tell me, candidate: how will you pay for it? Where will you get the money? What will you cut? Or how will you generate more revenue? (And could we all quit hiding behind the cutting of some negative-sounding “loophole”? Be specific. Back it up. Make it make sense.) The promise is simply not enough.

One of the things, no less, that I respect about candidate Bernie Sanders is that he is well aware that his self-described, socialist policies cannot survive solely via promise; policies must be paid for; campaign rhetoric is insufficient, as promises can’t fund policy. Where I find equally, respectful concern is that Sanders has minimal restraint in utilizing “Peter to pay for Paul,” so-to-speak. He sees wealth as finite; he thus uses one person to pay for another — saying, in fact, that he will support a 90% top marginal tax rate…  90% (yikes). The Intramuralist believes that individuals are capable of creating wealth; we are capable of creating goods and services of value and worth to others. In other words, there is not some finite, proverbial “pie” out there that each of us is waiting to claim our rightful piece of. We can create “more pie.”

The point, no less, is that regardless of candidate, regardless of partisan side, a populist promise is not enough. It must be paid for; there are populist policies on all sides. With full acknowledgement that the word “stupid” does not resonate within Intramuralist vocabulary, the bottom line is that the economy is significant. It must make economic sense. Promises must be paid for — from whichever Democrat or Republican advocates for the cause.

Can they financially back up that for which they advocate? Is it economically feasible?

Sounding good, friends, is simply not enough.

We can’t just vote with our hearts. Our heads must also align. It is the economy… no stupid… just what’s economically sound.

Respectfully…
AR

EQ

IMG_5136We did a crazy thing last Thursday. After a full day of work and regularly scheduled activities — even including a sweet, high school choral concert right before we headed out — we hopped in our car a little after 9 p.m. and drove the 814 miles to see our oldest, newly- indoctrinated college freshman. We spent approximately 39 hours with him (that’s if you count sleep time, too). So it obviously wasn’t our most practical of trips, but the benefit far surpassed the cost.

As we reflected upon the weekend, one thought stood out that seemed incredibly “blog worthy.” I mean, when seeing him for the first time in two months, it was well apparent that our boy was now a man. Certainly, like each of us, he has areas to grow in, but his growth was obvious — that direct turn into adulthood, with all the independence, joy, responsibility and awareness that accompanies the movement. I was immediately, humbly proud… and aware, too, of something bigger. Follow me here…

So many of us are concerned regarding society’s seemingly, downward sloping spiral; it’s as if as a world, we are quickly, morally digressing. We may vary in our perception of the cause of that spiral — be it a loss of virtue, faith, or respect for one another — or be it instead an embracing of humanism, individualism, or an “if-it-feels-good-it-must-be-right” mentality. But a clear majority of the country consistently vocalizes an impression that as a society, we’re on the wrong track.

I wonder if part of that perceived, wrongful direction is because of what we have modeled for the younger generation. I wonder if we have embraced and taught the wrong things which have thus led us down the wrong track. Have we taught our kids poorly — encouraging the embracing of lesser things? Have we been negligent role models? Have we embraced intelligence instead of wisdom? …material success instead of emotional health? … self-promotion instead of selflessly loving our neighbor?

Years ago my spouse and I read a fantastic book together, no doubt instrumental in our parenting. We read “Raising An Emotionally Intelligent Child,” written by John Gottman, Ph.D.

In it Gottman challenges parents to foster and develop the “intelligence that comes from the heart.” Instead of advocating for the best grades, best schools, and or best materialistic something, Gottman focuses on what’s better. He encourages parents to coach the following:

– Be aware of a child’s emotions.
– Recognize emotional expression as an opportunity for intimacy and teaching.
– Listen empathetically and validate a child’s feelings.
– Label emotions in words a child can understand; and…
– Help a child come up with an appropriate way to solve a problem or deal with an upsetting issue or situation.

Such is the core of emotional coaching — leading to emotional intelligence in the younger generation.

Emotional intelligence (EQ) is a term that gained prominence after the 1995 so titled book by Daniel Goleman. EQ refers to the ability to recognize and distinguish different feelings in oneself and in others. That awareness then guides a person’s thinking and behavior.

It seems to me that much of our society struggles with exactly that. We struggle with appropriate ways to solve problems; we struggle when wrestling with upsetting issues or situations; we struggle to listen to one another empathetically. And while many may be incredibly gifted or academically intelligent, we are not necessarily emotionally intelligent. The fact that our society and our leaders do not consistently treat one another with empathy and respect — or only treat a select, like few with such grace — shows a glaring scarcity of emotional intelligence.

Back then, to last weekend…

It was great to see my son adjusting to his new surroundings. While undoubtedly aware of the potential hurdles along his current path, I see in him a man who has sweetly grown… a man embracing the reality of where he is… a man more sensitive to and respectful of those around him… a man learning how to listen… a man who is working positively through challenging situations… a man who is intelligent, who was emotionally prepared to go to college.

It was a beautiful, reflective drive home… all 814 miles.

Respectfully…
AR

socialism

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. listens to testimony. Over two hundred member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars attended a joint meeting of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. listens to testimony. Over two hundred member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars attended a joint meeting of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

As socialism has fascinatingly made its way into more of our national conversation — due to the impression that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders seems an authentic, affable candidate — I thought it would be wise to begin to discuss what socialism actually is. Note that such is not a simple nor easily contained discussion. There are multiple angles possible from which people perch.

According to Oxford Dictionaries, socialism is “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Oxford includes the following synonyms: “leftism, welfarism, radicalism, progressivism, social democracy, communism, Marxism, and labor movement.”

According to the Free Dictionary, socialism is “(1) any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Or… (2) the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.”

According to Investopedia, socialism is “an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. China, Vietnam and Cuba are examples of modern-day socialist societies. Twentieth-century socialist governments were overthrown in Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the U.S.S.R.”

Note that there exist multiple varieties of socialism, and there does not seem a singular definition that encapsulates every aspect. Just as there exist varied Republicans and Democrats — such as “Reagan Democrats,” “Log Cabin Republicans,” the “Agnostic Left,” and “Values Voters” — there are varied kinds of socialists, emphasizing varied aspects and/or political priorities.

Hence, also similar to Republicans and Democrats, there exist some common priorities among socialists: increased government ownership and control, increased social welfare, less competition, individual equality, and some level of redistribution of income. Note that under a fully socialist system, there would be no private property, no varied individual, economic status, and the government would be responsible for the basic necessities of our lives — therefore being responsible for the distribution of our wealth.

In addition to these common priorities among the varied strands of socialism, it is also wise to examine the effect of socialism throughout history. Russian mathematician, Igor Shafarevich, shared such in his iconic work,“The Socialist Phenomenon,” 35 years ago. In his much publicized research, one of the unique aspects of socialism that each of us should examine is the existence of three persistent abolition themes across the decades of varied socialist approaches:

(1) The abolition of private property
(2) The abolition of the family; and…
(3) The abolition of religion.

Friends, let me be very clear. Current day socialists may not agree with the common threads above; such, however, has been historically true of nations when socialism is implemented and embraced.

Let me also again state that Sen. Sanders seems an authentic, affable candidate. Yet similar to the understandable claims that the Tea Party pulled Republicans to a fringe right in 2008, claims can be equally asserted that socialism supporters are currently pulling Democrats to a fringe left.

Hence, my desire is not to criticize a candidate; rather, I believe it’s important to evaluate the wisdom of the system. What are the benefits of socialism? What are the pitfalls? Why are a significant many in the United States currently accepting of a historically, more oppressive system? And how can we be certain the extremes will not be executed nor embraced?

Just asking questions, friends… it’s always good to ask the questions.

Respectfully…
AR

a few good men

UnknownWith Joe Biden finally, officially bowing out of the 2016 presidential race that he was never officially in (much to the semi-contained, private glee of the Hillary Clinton campaign), I’m reminded of a fantastic question I read a few weeks ago: why do good men pause?

Here we are — a country in desperate need of wise, courageous leadership… strong, humble, ethical leadership… leadership marked most not by consensus or agreement, but rather, leadership marked by its unquestionable integrity.

I’ve watched my loyal Democratic friends, wanting in general to support a more progressive policy agenda, but cringing at the thought of an ethically-challenged, candidate Clinton. I’ve also watched my loyal Republican friends, wanting in general to support a more conservative policy agenda, but unsure if they could ever get on board for a President Trump.

And then we see VP Joe Biden and House Rep. Paul Ryan — a Democrat and a Republican — but two men regardless of partisan agreement who are best known for their authenticity and integrity. They are good men. However, Biden bowed out of a potential presidential run… and Ryan is reluctantly willing to run for Speaker of the House only after weeks of prodding and still with conditions. Good men/women are avoiding the higher office. Good men are pausing.

Read the words of Salena Zito, a writer for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s blog. Her insight is excellent… why are good people pausing?

“ ‘One hesitates because of the grief of a family broken by loss, the other because of the commitment to a new family’s bright future,’ [Bruce] Haynes [GOP media expert] said, adding both are good and noble reasons for reluctance.

At the same time, these hesitations, coming from both sides of the aisle, serve as glaring symbols of another problem: Too many good people don’t want to be in politics anymore.

Haynes said that’s because they are turned off by what they see and hear.

The best do not want to put their families through the over-reactive, faux outrage ridiculousness of social media, which too often bleeds into regular media coverage. If you look at someone cross-eyed, it’s going to become a thing.

The zealots – both on the hard right and the hard left – are intent upon destroying anyone for anything that might be considered a slight to their cause. This all-or-nothing online thuggery expects every candidate to agree all of the time – and it’s ruining governing for us all. Governing actually does matter.

Our system no longer bestows distinction upon those who serve. It devours them…

Biden and Ryan are two of the quintessential good guys in American politics, said Haynes: ‘Politics aside, no one questions whether or not they are good people.’ They are the kind of good people we want to run into the fire and help.

There was a time in this country when folks like this set aside personal considerations and accepted what they believed to be the honor of serving.

But the personal considerations have become more fraught. The take-no-prisoners mentality evident among the zealots on both sides extends past once-common professional boundaries. The honor of serving may now be counterbalanced by the burden of almost certain character assassination and unwarranted family stress.

Good people have reason to pause. That, perhaps, is the greatest indictment of our system today.”

Such is a sad, sobering reality.

Said Biden in his Wednesday announcement, “While I will not be candidate, I will not be silent. I intend to speak out clearly and forcefully to influence as much as I can where we stand as a party and where we need to go as a nation.”

Go Joe, go. Go Ryan, too. While we need men like each of you, we understand why you pause. That makes us sad.

Respectfully…
AR

keystroke mentality

awhCbhLqRceCdjcPQUnn_IMG_0249“I fear we might be close to teetering on total, civility failure. The idiots are getting far too big a voice nowadays,” said Joe Tessitore of ESPN.

Tessitore spoke this weekend in regard to the college gridiron. He was speaking of how fans reacted to a student on the University of Michigan football team, whose error led directly to a win by the opponent in the closing seconds of the game. I wonder… where else are his words applicable?

“Fueled by irrational hate, and numb by a far too easy to kill by keystroke mentality,” continued Tessitore.

So many of us sit behind the cowardice of our keyboards — as opposed to meeting and dealing with people face-to-face — and we make all sorts of bold statements… except… the statements are not always factual and true — and while they may be factual, they may also be pointedly disrespectful of other people.

Our society continues to too often assert opinion in such a bold way, believing that what we say is good and true and right — and then justify insult if others feel differently. Friends, if our opinion evolves into the justification for insult, there is no such thing as equating to, at least the “good” or “right” part. We must quit using our perspective as a weapon. Such is the harm of the keystroke mentality.

Just because… I can type it… say it… post it on a placard… doesn’t make it true nor necessarily wise to post or say. Ah, yes… the cowardice of our keyboards. I’m reminded of the insight from one of our summer guest writers…

“… Turns out Facebook confrontations are the same thing as real confrontations-go figure? Those arguments I was typing with the distant relatives of my best friend from nursery school? Turns out they were actual people and not just dialog boxes and the ‘discussions’ we were having were being read and judged by all of our friends. And you know what else? The only opinions any of that critical closed-minded dialog changed were of me and the others who participated in it. No one suddenly changed their entire belief system based on a Facebook argument. Shocker right?”

Shocker. Joe Tessitore made his statements this past weekend in regard a punter who is only 22 years old. It matters not; the young man has been verbally eviscerated on Facebook and elsewhere…

“I fear we might be close to teetering on total, civility failure. The idiots are getting far too big a voice nowadays.”

The reality is that the words said about the Michigan punter are the same words said about many in office or running for office. Friends, the 2016 Presidential election is over a year away; the thought of this keyboard cowardice continuing for another 385 days is exhausting!

Said again by my trusted friend… “Another Presidential election is upon us… Editorials are being printed in our newspapers and opinions, lots and lots of opinions. And slowly but surely, those one sided political posts are starting to make their way into my newsfeed. I shudder to think how this one will go. After all, we’ve had years to sharpen our blades and our social media skills. How many of us will let our passion trump our reason?”

I share in the shuddering — allowing our passion to trump our reason. When did we become a country that justifies such disrespect? When did we become a country where so many of us began either intentionally or unintentionally fueling this culture of irrational hate? When did we become a country where we couldn’t see the big picture? … where we couldn’t recognize that a game is just a game? … that political opponents are not enemies? … that we are called to love our neighbor? … and when we justify such disrespect?

I close with the recognition that the Intramuralist, for one, is thankful for the many fancy-dancy techno gadgets of this information age; I love my iPad, MacBook, and all things Apple. But when any of these impersonal keyboards provide the place for us to hide behind and the impetus for disrespect, something is wrong not with the gadgets — but with us.

Respectfully…
AR

intent

oGLumRxPRmemKujIVuEG_LongExposure_i84
Let’s begin with 2 examples (I promise to quickly get to the point)…

Example #1: Years ago I was driving across the interstate in a state which was not my own, when I noticed two police cars parked off on the upcoming shoulder. No other traffic was near nor behind me. I slowed down and moved over in my lane, but while I hugged the dotted white line, I did not physically move my car into the other lane.

Within moments, one of the two squad cars hailed me down with those sick-to-your-stomach, bright flashing lights. When the officer first arrived at my car, asking for my license and registration, he also asked if I knew what I did wrong. I honestly said, “No.” He then said, “You failed to move over into the other lane.” I agreed — being ignorant at the time of which states had that law — as all 50 states did not. I sincerely appealed, saying, “Sir, I slowed down. I moved over. I made sure not to get close to you.” He did not care; he correctly repeated that I “failed to move over into the other lane.”

In other words, a rule was passed to protect emergency personnel on the side of the road. I moved over with the intent to protect the men, but because I broke the actual written words of the law, my intent did not matter. I was fined $300 and given a mandatory court appearance multiple states away. My intent did not affect the consequence.

Example #2: (involving one a little more noteworthy than moi) Last week the University of Florida’s starting QB, Will Grier, tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug. (Note: for full disclosure, the Intramuralist is a blossoming Florida fan. 🙂 ) According to Gator coach Jim McElwain, Grier took an over-the-counter supplement that included a banned NCAA substance.

Two weeks ago, witnesses raved about Grier because he played on game day, having the flu — still performing solidly; nine Gators total were diagnosed with the flu that game. Grier remorsefully said this week that the over-the-counter drug he took was in response to being sick and trying to play. Such was not allowed.

In other words, a rule exists that bans performance-enhancing drugs in college athletics. Grier unknowingly took a banned substance with the intent to make it through the game — not to get an advantage on all other players. But again, his intent did not matter. Grier has been suspended an entire calendar year by the NCAA.

(Assuming Will Grier is telling the truth) Grier and I received the same consequences that would be given to anyone else who willfully and purposefully broke the law.

The point, therefore, of today’s post is not to compare moi to such a talented, increasingly accomplished athlete (although selfishly speaking, that is kind of fun). My point is that intent should matter. And intent should be considered in the administration of consequences…

What was the accused attempting to do?
What was their motive?
Were they attempting to deceive?
Were they intending to skirt the law?
Were they trying to illegally benefit?
Was there something to hide?
Why to each of the above?

This question goes far beyond me and Will Grier. It goes far beyond the breaking of law. It’s also the underlying question behind Donald Trump’s candidacy and Hillary Clinton’s emails. It’s the same question behind George W.’s never-found weapons of mass destruction and Obama’s “if you like your healthcare, you can keep it.” It’s even at the root of last year’s NFL “Deflategate” brouhaha and other ambiguous sport controversies.

In each of the above — be it their mistake, mistreatment, mistruth, or actual rule-breaking — the intent matters. Their motive matters… was it innocent or intentional? And if intentional, why?

I must admit it was a painful day, sending that $300 check away. It’s far more fun comparing myself to a star athlete.

Respectfully…
AR

do all lives matter?

BandWOne question struck me arguably most during this week’s debate: “Do black lives matter? OR… do all lives matter?”

We have had some excellent conversations regarding the #BlackLivesMatter movement, the sensitivity of the issue, and the difficulty of those from varied vantage points seeing any other side. I have grown and learned much in these discussions about this challenging, controversial issue.

I have also sincerely appreciated those who have respectfully proclaimed the validity of the #BlackLivesMatter movement because for so long — and sometimes still — persons of diverse creed and color have felt that their lives did not matter… or… that their lives somehow mattered less.

Friends, no life matters less than another…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Amen. Agreed. We are all created equal. We are created with diverse skills and unique gifting, but we each have certain, unalienable rights. And while the Intramuralist previously expressed discomfort at the inability to propose that other lives actually also matter, I empathetically understand the respectfully-articulated passion of the person who feels there is valid reason to at this time, in this season, promote the value of only black lives.

What struck me about the question in Tuesday night’s debate, no less, was not whether or not at this time, in this season, it’s appropriate to promote the mattering of only one kind of life; what struck me was the word “or.” I was astounded that the two “types” of life were juxtaposed squarely against one another. A candidate could only answer one.

“Do black lives matter? OR… do all lives matter?”

In other words — what I heard — perhaps wrongly — is that only one can be true.

Follow me here… I’m concerned…

I learned much last August from the respectful dialogue surrounding a post after the innocent policeman was shot and killed in Houston, Texas simply while pumping gas; we published the quote from his county sheriff, in which the officer said in response, “We’ve heard black lives matter; all lives matter. Well, cops’ lives matter, too.”

What I heard in response then from several respectful dissenters — who I believe stated their opinions incredibly, logically and compassionately well — was that of course all lives matter”… “of course cops’ lives matter.” And that just because persons are passionately proclaiming “black lives matter,” that does not mean that other lives do not.

But for the first time Tuesday night, I didn’t hear any “of course.” I didn’t hear an “or.” I heard “we can only pick one.”

Friends, if our society has digressed to a point where we must omit the “of course” — where we have to choose which lives matter and which lives don’t — my strong sense is that we are treading on nothing less than treacherous waters.

Let’s be clear; the #BlackLivesMatter movement has validity. Black lives matter and that’s ok to be shouted from the rooftops. I also have no problem with similar shouts of significance proclaimed by others who perceive unfairness and/or oppression… the police… Christians… the disabled… the unborn… the elderly. Each has a right to passionately, respectfully, and nonviolently proclaim their uniqueness — in addition to their unmistakable worth, endowed by our Creator.

The problem arises when we are encouraged to pick only one.

There is no such thing as only one life mattering. There is no such thing as one life mattering more than another. There is no such thing as the “or.” There is such a time to shout the meaning of one life. But when we pit lives against one another, trumping one over the other, making people choose — we are advocating for oppression comparable to what we cry out against.

Of course, all lives matter. None of us should have to deny that.

Respectfully…
AR

the next debate

Carter_and_Ford_in_a_debate,_September_23,_1976Tonight in Las Vegas is the first Democratic Party debate for the 2016 Presidential nomination. Just as during the thus far, two Republican presidential debates, the Intramuralist will be watching. We plan to watch each debate, as we care deeply about who becomes President — and what each candidate says and believes in. We watch because we want to know; we want to understand; and we want as much information as possible — especially embracing any info which has not been manipulated via the editorialized efforts of any media or by the hands of any intentionally crafted campaign.

I must admit, I was a little dismayed by the many who took to the tweets and airwaves after the initial Republican debate turns. I heard some cries in regard to what “fools” or “losers” they were/are — with no candidate deserving their attention — none having anything worthwhile to contribute or say. I wondered if those observers had watched the same few hours I did… I wondered if such is appropriate to say about any person or party… I also wondered if some had their minds made up before they ever started watching…

Oh, we can be such an arrogant people… we each can… we all can… I so crave humility and objectivity…

I thus look forward to tonight’s debate. I look forward to what the following will say…

— Former Sec. of State/First Lady Hillary Clinton
— Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont
— Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley
— Former U.S. Senator from Virginia Jim Webb
— And Republican-turned-Democrat, Gov. Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island

Coverage begins at 8:30 p.m. EST on CNN.

I look especially forward to insights from O’Malley, Webb, and Chafee. They seem somewhat drowned out by the current sounds of mainstream media; I want to hear the candidates speak for themselves. I’d like to hear what they have to say and attempt to sense what’s most important to them.

I also look forward to the comments from Clinton and Sanders. Hillary seems potentially, significantly ethically scarred. I mean no disrespect. I simply can’t discern what she most believes in and whether or not she is honest with us; I sense too many responses that seem overtly calculated. She’s certainly not alone in being intentional in how she responds, yet her perceived, detailed calculation makes this semi-humble observer uncomfortable. Granted, my perception may be inaccurate; it also is a perception shared by many across the country. Authenticity is a problem.

Then there’s (“Feel the Bern?”) Sanders, who is obviously the “anti-Hillary” candidate — meaning he’s admirably authentic and we know what he believes in; we aren’t questioning whether or not he’s being honest with us (… I like that in whom I vote for!). The challenge is that Bernie is a self-identified Socialist (his words — not mine). He believes in a Socialist approach to solving our already heavily debt-laden economy, even though Socialism has historically led to an oppressive, economically-destructive form of government — as good as all the populist free stuff sounds. To be fair, Bernie says he is a “democratic socialist,” meaning he is not expressing a desire to replace capitalism nor confiscate private property. He instead lauds Scandinavian social democracy. Such still serves as a far more extensive role of government in the American citizen’s life — something each of us attracted to his authenticity should also work to comprehend. We need to research. We need to listen well.

So let’s listen. Maybe we’re wrong. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m sure I’m wrong about something… maybe lots.

But I have a feeling I will be sitting back tonight, keeping an open mind, still craving something more.

Where is Joe, anyway?

There’s just something about Biden’s gaffes that President-or-not, is relatable and endearing. I kind of like that.

… yes… desiring for relatable, endearing, authentic, and economically sound.

Can someone find the remote?

Respectfully…
AR

all this

IMG_5117

In light of my youngest celebrating a birthday over the weekend (which I might add, began notably, unintentionally, incredibly enthusiastically early, at 4:30 Friday morning — due to an extremely high, off-the-charts exuberance level) — there is one, brief aspect I felt necessary to expand upon here.

You see, a long standing premise of the Intramuralist is to consistently advocate for a focus on all that is good and true and right. In fact, one of our cultural challenges it seems, is that both individually and corporately, we spend so much energy and attention on that which is not good and true and right… division… strife… evil… impurity… a lack of loyalty and/or faithfulness, etc. Such takes up way too much of our time, minds, and airwaves.

“… whatever is true, whatever is worthy of respect, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if something is excellent or praiseworthy, think about these things…”

My now 14 year old son, Josh — that child born years ago with an extra special need, chromosome, and a wall missing in is heart — is one of the best, most effective ways God teaches me now in regard to all that is good and true and right.

As expected, no less, this joy-filled teen’s birthday included music and dancing, cake and cookies, and multiple friends and family. He received many day-brightening gifts, calls, texts, and visits that made his heart so obviously overflow with thanks. (It made this parent even need a nap.)

Yet the moment that seemed most “blog-worthy” was seemingly small in comparison. It was just a singular sentence — a comment Josh made before the festivities were in full swing; yet it was a moment that is still making me think…

Standing outside briefly before the sunrise, in between our daily repertoire of song and dance preceding the much anticipated school bus arrival, Josh stopped his singing, pausing for a moment of thanks. He wanted to give God thanks for the celebration of the day — and more.

And in the middle of that moment — in this conversation I felt deeply privileged to overhear — Josh stopped, leaned somewhat backwards, grinning from ear to ear, and pointing meekly to himself said:

“And God, thanks for all this.”

Thanks for all this.

There was no focus on what some may see as missing.
There was no ignoring of current circumstances.
There was no dismissal of having Down syndrome.
There was no wishing he was someone or something else.
There was no desire to be any different.
There was only a joy-laced expression of gratitude for who he is…

Thanks for all this.

Whatever is true… whatever is lovely… think about these things…

Respectfully…
AR