AR – Page 103 – intramuralist ™

09/17/201509/17/2015

wanted: better leaders

Three were land surveyors.
Six were one time farmers.
Many more served honorably in our country’s military.

Yet somewhere over the course of our nation’s history, we have come to value — and perhaps “trump” (bwa ha ha) — the resume of a career politician. I’m wondering if that’s wise. I don’t think I’m alone.

With the 21 persons currently running for the 2016 Presidency of the United States of America (both major parties combined), I am especially struck by a unique three: Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Donald Trump. Please don’t mistake my fascination for advocacy. But even before last night’s second active, insightful debate, I have been struck by the fact that none of the three boast a resume touting political experience — and each has a formidable following in these continued early polls. Trump and Fiorina have successful business track records. Carson is a respected neurosurgeon. The fact that many are increasingly attracted to these three candidates in particular tells us that there exists something within a growing set of voters that wants something other than a career politician in the White House.

Note…

Warren Harding ran a newspaper.
Herbert Hoover was an engineer.
Truman spent years as a men’s clothing retailer.

Lyndon Johnson was a teacher.
So were Chester Arthur and James Garfield; Garfield doubled as a minister.
And Ronald Reagan — revered by many on both sides of the proverbial partisan aisle — and before serving as California’s governor — was best known previously as an actor and President of the Screen Actors Guild.

We have long been attracted to persons of diverse, varied, life experience.

But somewhere along the line, we began valuing not only career politicians, but also, attorneys. 24 — yes, 24 — current or former U.S. Presidents are or were lawyers at one time. No doubt the ability to navigate through lawsuits and a fluency in legalese are helpful skills to bring to the Oval Office, but what have we sacrificed by valuing these skills so highly? Are we missing something? Are we trumping the wrong things within leadership?

I’m thinking we need something more…

… more than the ability to splice and couch words and navigate through legalese…

And … far more than someone who simply uses one election to propel them to the next…

Where is, my friends, is the servant leader?

A servant leader is a person who always enriches the lives of other people. “I/me/my/myself” are not routine nor frequent words in their vocabulary. It’s not about them gaining more influence or power. It’s not about them doing all the directing. It’s not about them proclaiming how wonderful or altruistic they are. It’s not about them and all they alone have to give. It’s not about them and how brilliant and omniscient they are. It’s not about their programs, their policies, or their self-proclaimed political giftedness. In other words, it’s not — and never — about them. A servant leader knows that. A servant leader never confuses serving the people with the propelling of self.

My sense — and I could be wrong — is that the career politician has trouble recognizing that it’s not (and never has been) about them. Maybe that’s harsh; that’s not my intent. But it’s almost as if the career politician feels they have to serve; they must do this — as if we can’t survive without them. I would add that after years of obvious, ongoing futility and ineffective government — a problem caused and contributed to by both parties — the public is tired; we are looking for something more.

We want authenticity. I think we want servanthood, too.

Can that be found in a businessman/woman or neurosurgeon? Who knows. Some of the more loquacious candidates (or at least one in particular 🙂 ) still seem way too comfortable with those “I/me/my/myself” pronouns.

But the rise of the non-politician — and the non-attorney — tells me many are searching for something better and more… and more effective.

Respectfully…
AR

09/15/201509/15/2015

more law?

In our last post we referenced society’s selective adherence to the laws of the land — and our inconsistencies in advocating the adhering or breaking of law, pending what law we’re actually talking about. Truthfully, I think we’re collectively pretty bad at that (… shhh… no speeding conversations, please).

That then reminded me of the below; we shared something similar several years ago, but it felt time to revisit — as best as I can discern, the following are still the law of their so-called lands…

In North Carolina, bingo games are not allowed to last over 5 hours unless held at a fair.

Embracing the sacred riddle, in Quitman, Georgia, chickens are not allowed to cross the road (… no matter why).

Be careful in the Lone Star State. In Texas it’s illegal to sell your eyeballs.

On Sundays, no less, in the state of Rhode Island, you may not sell toothpaste and a toothbrush to the same customer.

Gainesville, Georgia does not allow for the eating of fried chicken with anything other than your hands.

In Utah’s defense of marriage, there are to be no marital unions between cousins — except, that is, if a Utahn is 65 or older.

Carrizozo, New Mexico requires all women to be shaven if appearing in public.

Eureka, Nevada has a similar challenge with hair; If you have a mustache, it’s illegal to kiss a woman.

Alabama prohibits all wrestling between bears (…shew).

Alaska prohibits viewing moose from an airplane.

Wyoming protects the sensitivity of its rabbits; no picture taking is allowed from January to April — without a permit, that is.

In the state of my birth (gotta’ love those Hoosiers), should you desire to utilize public transportation, you must be sure to wait 4 hours after eating an onion or garlic.

In another favorite state of mine, for the record, it’s illegal to get a fish drunk in the great state of Ohio.

Also for the record, flirting is against the law in San Antonio (oops).

Idaho trumps health over chivalry; an Idahoan man is not allowed to give his fiancé a box of candy that weighs more than 50 lbs.

Idaho’s neighboring state of Washington is so honorable; a motorist with criminal intentions must stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town.

Also in Washington, you can be arrested or fined for harassing the legend of Bigfoot.

In Arizona, if you are found stealing soap, you must wash yourself until the bar of soap has been completely used up.

And in Hawaii, it’s illegal to put a coin in your ear.

Hmmmm… Maybe it’s no wonder we’re so selective.

Respectfully…
AR

[Note: special thanks to JustSomething.com and DumbLaws.com. Who knew?]

09/13/201509/13/2015

law of the land

Sometimes I’m quiet. Sometimes being quiet is good. Sometimes sitting back, taking time to reflect upon more angles of an issue instead of instantaneously reacting is a wise and wonderful thing. As mentioned multiple times, there is no issue the Intramuralist is unwilling to discuss. Sometimes, however, we will wait for the right time. Let’s discuss Kim Davis.

Actually, no. Let’s not discuss Kim Davis — the county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses and instead went to jail. Let’s not make it about the person — the individual who had her so-called 15 minutes of fame; let’s focus on the issue. Way too many people made it about the individual… and truthfully, that bothered me a bit…

I was bothered by those who made Davis into some sort of profound heroine… “Finally, a person who’s had enough and not going to take it anymore!”… a person who’s finally standing up to an over-reaching government. I wasn’t too keen on those who seemed to utilize standing with her as a personal, political opportunity…

I was also bothered by those who portrayed Davis as some sort of ignorant imbecile… those who justified the mocking and vilification — mocking her hair, her past, her physical appearance. I was bothered by the many who mocked her who often preach compassion and tolerance — but then, justified totally no compassion directed toward Davis… no tolerance either…

Same-sex marriages are the current law of this land; it is the law in Kentucky. We can like it, love it, or want no more of it. We can also change it, if desired. We can enthusiastically agree with the summer Supreme Court decision — or we can vehemently disagree with the court’s opinion that the Constitution provides any right to marry. We can be emphatically joyous that five black-robed justices decided the law of the land; we can also be disturbed that a mere five justices determined that law. We can be either. Good people are either. It is still the law of the land.

As a human resource professional, I have long hired persons to do their job. If they don’t do their job — or can’t do their job — then the reality is that the person should have another job; they can resign, be let go, or serve in another capacity. That is not heartless nor cruel nor lacking any compassion. I simply believe that it is the employer who decides what the job is — not the employee. Public or private, profit or non-profit, too many believe they can be the deciders of what they will and will not do. They ignore aspects of the job for which they were hired, elected, or assigned.

That said,   I deeply admire persons whose faith affects their entire being — whose behavior is so obviously prompted by their authentic belief in the one, true, amazing, almighty God. There is just something within that depth of faith that is admirable, contagious, and good.

I also believe it’s true that religious freedom is a serious issue in this country. I think we need to find a way to address it absent of cruelty and hypocrisy. Let’s face it: this is tough for us; it’s tough for our entire country. We tend to support or oppose religious freedom depending on how it fits the angle and issue we’re coming from at that time…

Can we force the baker to bake? … the photographer to take? … how about the florist? Have you heard, too, about the current case before the court in which our federal government is actually suing an Illinois trucking company that requires Islamic truck drivers to deliver alcohol? The feds are fighting for their religious freedom. Why is freedom allowed one place but chastised elsewhere? Why are we not consistent?

Friends, this is messy. Religious freedom is messy. This can also be understandably, highly-emotionally charged. But we have to figure it out — and not just support or oppose it when it fits with the issues about which we are individually most passionate.

In my semi-humble opinion, the issue that arose in that Kentucky county last week was not about religious freedom. It was also not about Kim Davis; she was just the easiest target to attack. The issue that arose was the selective adherence to the law of the land.  Is it ok to be selectively adherent?

… what about persons who justify breaking other laws? … what about those who broke Prop 8 when it was law in California? … what about those who continue to support illegal rioting and destruction?

In other words, do we get to decide what laws to adhere to?

Are we thus ever inconsistent or (God-forbid) hypocritical in our adherence?

Like I said, this is not about Kim Davis. It’s about following the law of the land… which each of us is sometimes good at… and sometimes not.

Respectfully…
AR

09/10/201509/10/2015

immigration aspects & angles

Some propose a wall. Others say no wall is necessary.

Some propose amnesty. Others say amnesty isn’t appropriate.

Some believe no immigrants should ever be let in. Others believe all should be welcomed any place, any time… the more, the merrier…

Your tired, your poor… those huddled masses yearning to be free… oh, what to do…

Here. There. In the U.S. and Europe… oh yes, what to do.

When we attempt to decipher the different aspects and angles, I think the challenge comes in that we each trump one aspect of the argument (fun to use that word there, by the way); one angle means more to us than another.

As referenced in Tuesday’s post, for example, it’s very difficult to see the limp, lifeless body of 3 year old migrant, Aylan Kurdi, and not want to turn around and scream, “Let ‘em in! Let them all in!” I admire the compassion of those who immediately wish to aid and abet all yearning, huddled masses. The empathy… the compassion… the desire to help the seemingly least of these in securing a solid, stable life is a beautiful thing.

Also embedded within the masses, no less, are those who desire to destroy us. Make no mistake about it: there are many people on this planet intent on strategically sneaking into our country for the sole purpose of destruction. As the 14th anniversary approaches Friday of arguably, the most contemporary “date which will live in infamy,” many persons want to make certain terrorism never again happens on American soil. I admire the resolve of those who work tirelessly in those efforts. To protect… to defend… the desire to limit terrorism is an honorable thing.

Still more within the masses are persons who wish to make a better life for others. Years ago, when living in Southeast Florida, I had much contact with legal and illegal aliens. Perhaps it was Pepe who touched me most. Pepe was here in this country legally, working two totally non-glamourous jobs, 80 hours per week, paying taxes, and sending more than half his check to his family in another country. He never complained. He was a law-abiding citizen of one country — and a law-abiding resident of the other. I admire the kindness of those who generously pave the way for people like Pepe. The generosity… the humility… the genuine helping of a brother or sister in need is a wonderful thing.

Others included within the migrants are persons who have no intention of ever contributing positively to the totality of society. They don’t pay taxes; they don’t give back. They’re not terrorists, but they do intend to take advantage of the welfare assistance and social services our government abundantly provides. I admire the persons who are thus concerned about the strain on a system that doesn’t support itself fiscally. Life isn’t free; someone has to pay for it. The fiscal-responsibility… the proven business practice… the logic of ensuring a process or program is financially solvent is a prudent thing.

So we have the following:

Compassion & empathy
Protection & defense
Kindness & generosity
Fiscal-responsibility & prudence

Each of those motivating aspects is valid. The challenge and dissension arise when we trump (there’s that word again) one aspect over another.   I get it. One aspect often means more to us. Sometimes we can only see a single side.  That one aspect, however, does not allow us to negate the validity of another angle or opinion. It also does not allow us to omit the legitimacy that lies within other angles.

Compassion, protection, kindness, and fiscal-responsibility are each valid, pursued priorities.   While no doubt it’s harder, if we are committed to coming up with a wise, comprehensive way to address all immigration issues, we must consider each of the above.

And… dare I say… let go of the trump…

Respectfully…
AR

09/08/201509/08/2015

him…

Have you seen it?
Have you seen it?
I ask twice because if you’ve seen it — if you’ve seen him — you would not forget.

No, I do not believe we can forget…

Last week 3 year old Aylan Kurdi and his family attempted to flee from Syria to Europe. The fighting is so bad between the Islamic State terrorists and Syrian-Kurdish forces that his family was desperate to get out of Syria. Of his mother, father, and 5 year old brother, only Aylan’s father survived the treacherous trek across the great Mediterranean Sea.

These are desperate people — caught up in a major migrant crisis, as Europe attempts to discern how to respond.

This crisis existed long before last week. But what happened Wednesday? Aylan’s picture surfaced… this precious, innocent boy, a dark-haired toddler, wearing a t-shirt and shorts, was found lifeless, laying face down in the shallow, Turkish shore.

Sometimes we don’t care about something until we see it. Sometimes we don’t think too much until we experience it for ourselves; there’s a little bit of outta-sight/outta-mind mentality that permeates each of our thinking.

After seeing Aylan — and then later, a second image of a sober-faced policeman, who gently cradled Aylan’s limp body and carried him away — I care. I can’t get that picture out of my mind.

Not only is this a tough story to write about, but it’s a tough story to even follow — lots of angles, lots of motives, lots of countries, and all sorts of varied responses. Hence, what are the basics about the migrants’ massive flight?

The majority of immigrants are coming from Afghanistan and Syria; they are fleeing war, torture, and persecution.
Migrants are also fleeing from Africa, with the majority coming from Eritrea, Nigeria, and Libya; they are fleeing due to poverty and abuse.
While the European migrant or “refugee” crisis has been going on for some time, increased Islamic militant violence has also increased the urgency for many to move now.
Germany and Austria have said that they will welcome the migrants; in fact, in the most recent development, the German Vice Chancellor said his country would accept 500,000 annually for the next several years.
Many other European countries will not allow the migration — as they already face significant economic challenges of their own. Hungary, for instance, has called for Germany to end its perceived “open door” policy.
Funding is an issue — how to pay and care for the migrants; tensions and disagreement seem rising within the various governments within the European Union.
Simultaneously, the migration is becoming seemingly riskier; there have been multiple reports of dangerously, over-packed boats — also, of boats sinking.

Desperate people dying.

So what should we do?

Great question… hard question… and the answer is probably not some nice, easy, simple answer. If it was easy, it would already be fixed.
Still, it is something we must address — even if outta-sight/outta-mind… even if on the other side of the world…

Have you seen the picture of Aylan?

Respectfully…
AR

09/06/201509/06/2015

learning from more than the likeminded

Previous to these past 10 days and the excellent ensuing, daily dialogue, we heard the respectfully-articulated insights and perspectives from persons other than me in our annual summer Guest Writers Series. (P.S. I thought it was great!) Thank you, friends, for writing and listening. I have learned from you!

I believe that we grow when we are willing to listen and dialogue regarding diverse perspective. Far too many are only able to converse with the likeminded. Hence, we end up with a lot of really smart people — who are still very blind. They never allow their mind to be altered from where it is right now. They still may be smart, but their pursuit of wisdom is sadly, severely hampered.   In the weeks I was away, I pondered the thoughts of our guest writers… Like you, I listened and learned. Like you, I often read certain portions of posts twice. Like you, I didn’t necessarily agree with every opinion embedded, but also like you, I desire to be stretched and challenged. Agreement and consensus are secondary to active listening.

Here were some of the articulations that struck me most from our summer series:

“If you don’t like the law, elect different representatives, and they can pass new laws. That’s democracy.”

“Think again about who you would want to speak at your funeral. What do you want them to say?”

“During those formative years when we were transitioning from girlhood to womanhood, our society and media wasn’t telling us that our physically displays of affection with our peers had sexual connotations. We were free to hug, touch, and run arm and arm. We were free to accept each other no matter how we were made. We learned how to be good friends, strong and reliable, and that love had very little to do with sex, but with our willingness to be there for one another.”

“What is best in a society: personal freedom to choose no matter the consequences or personal freedom to choose with possible financial penalty if you choose the socially-selfish option? Perhaps a mix of the two is best.”

“I will give examples of ‘dignity squashers’ first — then move on to the ‘dignity encouragers.’ Let me give the exact definition of dignity so we’re on the same page. Dignity is pride in oneself, self-respect, self-worth. By not teaching our children life skills that evoke dignity, we as parents are setting them up to fail.”

“What we should do instead is develop a ‘live and let live’ legal framework.”

“Ironically, it is often the overlooked seeds who soar after high school. They have already played in a tough game environment and are well equipped to take on a new road to the big dance. They don’t have to rely on their past bracket to define them. It’s a clean slate and they chart their X’s and O’s.”

“A favorite tactic in today’s debates over anything controversial is to question your right to hold a belief, or to label your opinion itself as ‘bigoted’.”

“How many of us will let our passion trump our reason? How many of us will lose friendships over words we type on our keyboards? Think about that before you hit post. Maybe you think it doesn’t matter, that if someone disagrees with your opinion you are better off without their friendship. But what about their respect? When did we become a country where people either agree with you or they are wrong?”

“Do you want to be right or do you want to be righteous? Do we always have to be right? … or will we allow for our character to be carved and to grow?”

[And quite possibly, my personal favorite…]

“I listen to the music now… with tears, for she taught me so much more than I ever taught her.”

There is so much we can learn when we shelve our deeply entrenched stances — and actually listen to other people, too.

So thankful to be back… cheers, too, to each of our guest writers…

Respectfully…
AR

09/03/201509/03/2015

perceptions

As most of you know, we have been wrestling with some tough issues here. Thank you. I have always said there is no topic the Intramuralist will intentionally avoid. Some topics are tougher than others to discuss — some will have far less consensus and prompt many more angles and tangents and potentially messy opinions — but we won’t shy away. As long as we are respectful — as long as we are willing to articulate thought and opinion in way that is sensitive to those who may not agree — we can talk about all things. I believe learning to talk about all things is key to making progress and crafting solution.

One of my greatest gripes about Washington (and wherever), in fact, is that we make so little progress together; we are not unified. Why? Because instead of learning to humbly listen and speak respectfully — in a way that makes us actually want to work together — we simply justify shouting louder. Note to all: that never works.

Hence, returning briefly to Tuesday’s topic surrounding the #BlackLivesMatter movement, I found the ensuing discussion incredibly insightful and thought-provoking… that is… for those who were willing to soberly listen and consider all that was said.

Later that day I engaged in another conversation regarding a transgender teen, at the heart of a controversy in Missouri. The teen desires to use the high school girls’ bathroom even though he is physiologically still male. Again, this is a tough topic to be sensitive to all people and perspectives. It’s often tough to have empathy for people who think different than “we” or “me.”

So as I wrestled with what is good and true and right, I began to think about the whole idea of “lives mattering” — a beautiful concept, no doubt, as we are each uniquely and wonderfully made.

Is our challenge that in all of our life mattering issues, there exists at least a perception (not necessarily a reality) that one life is more valuable than another?

Hear me here; there is zero harshness in my voice. I am attempting to process this together…

At the heart of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, is there a general perception in those genuinely advocating, that the lives of white people mean more — hence the motivation for the movement?

Regarding the accompanying mantra that cops’ lives matter — is there a perception that cops’ lives don’t matter as much as the grass roots’ movement?

Let’s extend this further…

In regard to the disabled — an issue near and dear to my heart — is there a perception that the life of a special needs individual is less valued and/or capable of contributing to our society?

And to the elderly, because they are old, are they perceived to have any less to give?

What about the delicate issue dealing with the unborn — is there a perception that the baby’s life is less valuable than the mother’s?

Or regarding that mother — is there a perception that her life matters less?

Friends, I am not attempting to set off any fresh, new hot button. I desire to wrestle with all that is good and true and right. And as I hear you and your many diverse, excellent insights, I wonder if there are multiple perceptions surrounding the quality of life that some of us — perhaps none of us — totally get. I appreciated, for example, the comment of a friend who respectfully offered that in regard to #BlackLivesMatter, there are some aspects white people simply don’t comprehend; just as when we consider the increasing violence against police, there are some aspects that those so emotionally entwined in the Black Lives movement also miss.

I wonder: is there some separate aspect of empathy each of us is missing when it comes to black lives, cops, the disabled, elderly, unborn, transgender, etc. etc. etc.?

What are we missing? What perceptions may be slightly skewed?

And can we… can we talk about it?

Respectfully…
AR

09/01/201509/01/2015

everyone counts

(Next in my series of observations while away last month…)

Roll up your sleeves. Take off those partisan hats. Exhale any opinion ready to pounce. Let’s talk about what we’ve observed regarding #BlackLivesMatter.

Originating in the wake of the acquittal of George Zimmerman in 2013, the #BlackLivesMatter movement campaigns against perceived police brutality in the United States. Note that according to Wikipedia and The Daily Beast, the movement is reportedly a decentralized network, with no formal hierarchy or structure in place. As summer has progressed, we have seemingly still witnessed an uptick in activity.

Many have felt oppressed. Many are frustrated. Many have experienced grievous injustice. Many cry out. At the very least, they/we deserve to be heard.

The danger for any of us, friends, based on our own experience and the depth of our individual passions, is when we conclude that we deserve to be heard more than anyone else — that it’s completely acceptable for us to drown out all other voices… all other perspectives… be rude, disrespectful, you-name-it.

In Houston, Texas last Friday night, 47 year old policeman Darren Goforth was off duty but still in uniform. He was innocently pumping gas at a Chevron station in a northwest suburb. A young African-American male came up and shot him from behind — with no known provocation — killing the officer — also, gut-wrenchingly, continuing to fire even after Goforth had fallen to the ground.

Ironically, planned ahead of time — and unrelated to Goforth’s murder — the very next day, 350-500 #BlackLivesMatter protesters shut down multiple entrances to the Minnesota State Fair. While their stated aim in this instance was to draw more attention to economic and social disparities, many of the activists still chanted, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” — all while receiving a police escort for their protection.

Protests in Minnesota. A murder in Texas. Unrelated. But what can we observe?

On Saturday, in response to the death of his deputy, Sheriff Ron Hickman explained that investigators currently believe a “dangerous national rhetoric” against police officers led to the seemingly unprovoked attack. Hickman then, soberly added this:

“We’ve heard ‘black lives matter’ — ‘all lives matter.’ Well, cops’ lives matter, too. So why don’t we drop the qualifier and just say: Lives Matter. And take that to the bank.”

The reality is that all lives really do matter. If we’re all created equal, then yes, we all matter… black lives matter… white lives matter… cops’ lives matter… Hispanic lives matter… Muslim lives matter… evangelical Christian lives matter… Jewish lives matter… women’s lives matter… men’s lives matter… gay lives matter… elderly lives matter… babies’ lives matter… transgender lives matter… special needs’ lives matter… young lives matter… deaf lives matter… lives matter. Period.

Hence, from my observations — politically incorrect as they may or may not be — when we’re at the point where we can only acknowledge that one (or some) of the above lives matter — when we are no longer listening to any reasoning other than our own — we are then missing a vital, dire aspect of wisdom. A society that is unable to admit that all lives matter is a society that will forever suffer from oppression and inequality — as individual people groups only advocate for their own.

I think of my oldest son. Recently, he trekked off for his freshman year of college (yes, more observations coming here quite soon). He, no less, by all accounts, is quite proud to now be a Florida Gator (…insert appropriate chomping sound here…).   I’m reminded even more of the University of Florida’s extensive, summer orientation — an informative, encouraging time when one of their programs was arguably emphasized above all others: “U Matter, We Care.”

Instead of the focus being on how much “I” matter, the university boldly proclaims how they care for all people; they know that everyone counts.

There’s a beauty and freedom in acknowledging all who count. If only we knew… and only believed…

Respectfully…
AR

08/30/201508/30/2015

the rise of trump

During our excellent, annual Guest Writer Series (a topic upon which I will soon more reflect), I made multiple observations. In all honesty, such is one of my favorite things to do — sit back, be silent, just watch and learn. Too many seem to fill their surrounding air time most with the sound of their own voice. It’s often far more fun (and uh, wise) to be intentional in our observations.

Hence, one of my observations comes in the political arena… yes, I speak of the controversial, mind-boggling, oft-fascinating, to-some-infuriating, at-times-funny, rise of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President of the United States in 2016.

Ok, first things first. Take a deep breath. Take off your partisan hats. This is not an endorsement nor any show of opposition or support. We are making observations. We are simply attempting to watch what’s happening and examine potentially why. There is very little emotion embedded in the process of making observations.

Over the past month, we have observed the following:

Donald Trump’s support increasing.
Hillary Clinton’s support decreasing.
Growing interest in candidates Carson, Fiorina, Kasich, and Sanders.

In a head-to-head match-up (which — by the way — is way too early), in June, Clinton held a 24% lead over Trump; now, it’s less than 6% (per CNN).

So back to our observations. Why the attraction to Trump? I understand that many of us are not attracted to him, but the reality is that many people are; that’s what I’m attempting to observe. Here is a man, with all due respect, who has made some preposterous statements. He has been rude. He has flip-flopped. He has evolved. Sometimes I question his comprehension of the Constitution. He comes off as incredibly arrogant, and without a doubt, he really seems to like the sound of his own voice. And yet, for some reason, he has been surging. The media has been eating it up. What is it about Donald Trump?

There is one trait Trump exhibits as a potential President, that this country has not seen consistently manifest for over two decades. Note the following:

While in the White House, Bill Clinton’s grand jury comments about his behavior with women damaged his credibility with many.
While in the White House, George W. Bush’s stated motives for pursuing Saddam Hussein damaged his credibility with many.
Still in the White House, Barack Obama’s multiple misstatements about ObamaCare damaged his credibility with many.

My point is that whether we agreed or disagreed with the motives of the man in the office, we have had valid reason to believe whether or not the sitting President of the United States was telling the truth. Are they being honest with us? Or are they assuming we are stupid and/or undiscerning of what they really think and mean?

Enter Hillary Clinton — a candidate with a reasonable resume to run for the highest office in the land; she has extensive political, legal, and foreign policy experience (although personally, I’m thinking we need fewer lawyers in the White House). But Hillary seems to struggle before cameras, press conferences, and large groups — especially when her notes are removed. She seems stiff — a little robotic; her answers seem proven and poll-tested. And on that whole, yukky, ongoing, emaily thing, she keeps hedging and contradicting herself. In other words, there’s a growing sense we are not getting the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth from her. I thus find myself always wondering if what candidate Clinton is saying has been filtered and edited, and if everyone on her campaign team has sat around and said, “Ok, good one; let’s go with that!” It just doesn’t feel authentic.

Why? Because authenticity means saying what you mean and meaning what you say.

We crave authenticity.

Let’s be clear: Donald Trump says some of the darnedest things. I don’t get how he does it. But he doesn’t need notes; he doesn’t need a TelePrompter; and his campaign staff hasn’t filtered everything he says. He at least appears to be authentic — even in his often rude, preposterous statements; we know what he means. From my initial observations, that authenticity seems a similar reason driving the growing interest in candidates Carson, Fiorina, Kasich, and Sanders. They may not be totally authentic, but there’s something in their individual speaking styles and interactions that’s attractive and refreshing to many.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Let the rest of us decide from there.

Respectfully…
AR

08/27/201508/27/2015

something like this

I’m back.

(Note: I had a post ready to publish, but the events of yesterday altered my thoughts — and thus my plans and our ensuing, respectful dialogue.)

On Wednesday morning, as the Virginia dawn was breaking and many more were waking, a television reporter and a photo journalist were shot and killed during a live broadcast. They were shot by a former, said to be “disgruntled” employee. It was intentional. The very initial investigation seems to indicate the murders were premeditated.

Heinous. Horrific. Give me whatever word you want. As my longtime, sweet school friend shared with me — a friend who is also an accomplished photo journalist — I’m “numb. Just numb.” She told me about yesterday’s newsroom… how their typically bustling set was only quiet and devastated. There is “no ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, or CNN” on days like yesterday; our newsrooms are a close knit community. There are so many emotions — for them, for us — yet so few words to adequately describe.

It seems true on this planet, when bad things happen, we really struggle with how to respond… wisely. I get it. If we’re not numb, we’re outraged. Maybe, often… both. And when we’re outraged, we react immediately. We are a reactionary people.

I thus paused, observing the plethora of instant, varied reactions to Wednesday’s awful event…

Some immediately adopting the eye-for-an-eye verdict (although their words aren’t quite as nice as mine).
Others decrying gun violence.
Still more denouncing all private gun ownership.
Others ranting about racism.
More, too, demanding new policy initiatives.

… all in the seemingly immediate, initial instant after the awful event.

I get it. Does America have a gun problem? … a violence problem? … a racism problem? We certainly struggle with each of the above; many people are legitimately passionate about these issues. Let me first add a related concept. I believe we also have a significant problem in this country with mental illness; we’re not good at acknowledging it nor discussing it — a topic the Intramuralist believes gets way too little air time.

My sense, no less, is that each of the above conflicts are topics on which we could/should undoubtedly host a longer, respectful dialogue. My sense is also that our instantaneous outrage in these areas often impedes us from seeing a far bigger, bottom line.

Bigger than the problems with guns, violence, and race, America seems to have a “sin” problem (… sorry… I know we have trouble and great discomfort acknowledging and discussing this; I just don’t like to avoid any topic). Hence, allow me to explain…

If sin is “an immoral act considered to be a transgression of divine law,” we need to at least attempt to discern what “divine law” is. What does God actually require of us?

Yikes. I must confess that the Intramuralist was never blessed with some ultra-omniscience capable of articulating exactly what God requires and does not; in fact, I’m pretty confident no human has been so seemingly blessed. But if asked, I would start with something like this…

The great big God of the Universe wants us to love him and love other people (… let me repeat that…). Love him and love other people. He wants us to be humble, act justly, and love mercy. If each of us simply started with that, my even keener sense is that there would be less problems on this planet — yes, less of a gun problem… less of a violence problem… and less of a racism problem.

If yesterday’s killer had humbled himself before God — submitting in some semblance of prayer his emotions, experience, and so obvious (to us) wrongful belief system — before the living God — he would not have killed Allison Parker and Adam Ward. Instead, this killer was seemingly “mad as hell and not going to take it any more.” He knew no divine law at that time.

I think of the two innocent people who died Wednesday morning… two people, doing their jobs.   As my dear friend said, I’m “numb. Just numb.” Maybe that humble pause should be the first reaction for each of us… accompanied by tear-laced prayers for the families of Parker and Ward. May God be with you now.

(P.S. I’m back.)

Respectfully…
AR