Current Event – Page 103 – intramuralist ™

02/04/2014

amazing grace

Amazing. Simply amazing. Can we even wrap our brains around what “amazing grace” is? Or should we start simply with “grace”? After all, we use grace in so many ways… some “grace us” with their presence; others “say grace” before a meal; and next week’s female skaters in Sochi will undoubtedly be judged on their “gracefulness.”

Grace has everything to do with unmerited favor, courteous goodwill, a simple elegance, and an attractive way of behaving. Grace has zero to do with arrogance, ego, boasting, or brashness.

What amazes me is when persons in their brightest, most publicized moments — with the microphones and cameras both rolling — embrace grace… such as in the following comments, after Super Bowl XLVIII…

When Broncos’ QB Peyton Manning was asked about the lopsided loss: “We played a great team. We needed to play really well in order to win, and we didn’t come anywhere close to that.”

Or when recent ranter, Richard Sherman, the Seahawks cornerback responded on Twitter: “Peyton is the Classiest person/player I have ever met! I could learn so much from him! Thank you for being a great Competitor and person.”

And more from Sherman on Manning on Monday: “When I was limping up to my press conference and trying to make it up the stairs, somebody taps me on the shoulder and extends their hand and asks if I’m all right. My eyes try to make it up to see who it is, and it’s Peyton … fully dressed in a suit and obviously very concerned about my well-being. You know, after a game like that, biggest stage ever — to ask how you’re doing and really be generally concerned about an opponent, that shows an incredibly different amount of humility and class.”

And from Russell Wilson the morning after: “God’s given me so much talent and my height doesn’t define my skill set. I believe that God has given me a right arm and for some reason even though I’m 5’11” to be able to make the throws and make great decisions on the field and all that. I think to be a great quarterback, you have to have a great leadership, great attention to detail, and a relentless competitive nature. And that’s what I try to bring to the table and I have a long way to go. I’m still learning and I’m still on a constant quest for knowledge.”

Then regarding the Broncos’ quarterback Manning, Wilson said he spoke to him after the game, telling him it was an honor to face-off in the game. Wilson said, “He’s one of the best quarterbacks — if not the best quarterback — to play the game. You know, it’s just truly an honor.”

Years ago I read a fantastic book entitled: What’s So Amazing About Grace? One of my conclusions was that grace is amazing because it’s unique; it’s rare; it’s not the path most travelled. Most people, most often — from the athlete to the president to the interviewer of the president — choose a lesser path. We often choose arrogance, ego, boasting, or brashness.

While each of us is capable of boastful moments, what attracts me in the above responses is the obvious grace. It’s attractive because it’s the less frequent choice. Boasting would be easier. And so the grace must stem from something deeper, something internal, from within someone who has a healthy opinion of self but yet not one who thinks too highly of self. The expression of grace is simply amazing.

Respectfully,

02/02/2014

super sunday

So we again come to this supposedly “super” day, where there exist a few facts that make me pause a little less than admiring Peyton process plays so quickly — and Richard Sherman rant at game’s end…

If we compare to last year, 108.4 million of us will sit down in front of the television at some point this evening and turn on Super Bowl XLVIII. The Seattle Seahawks will face the Denver Broncos. We will watch. We will enjoy. And we will eat. In fact, we will eat a lot…

Some of us will grill. Regardless of snow covering half the country (and the 2” – geepers – in Atlanta) Super Bowl Sunday is the second biggest grilling day of the year — the first being the 4th of July.

Dips and spreads are the top choice to eat today, followed by chicken wings and pizza. It’s the busiest day of the year for pizza restaurants, with major chains selling double what they do on a regular day. Americans will also consume an estimated 50 million cases of beer; and we’ll eat chips — an estimated 11 million pounds of them (… uh, not a ton of health food… but wait… obesity is now a “disease”).

Second only to Thanksgiving, Americans are expected to double their food consumption to 33 million pounds of snacks (… did I mention that since last year’s Harbaugh Bros. Bowl, the American Medical Association voted to recognize obesity as a “disease”?).

Beyond the indulgence of food, how about massive amounts of money? … for a “game,” I might add?

CBS is charging advertisers an estimated $4 million dollars per 30-second spot. 30 seconds. 4 million. That equates to approximately $133,333 per second (… trying not to think about all the hungry people in the world… nor that the US national debt is increasing at a rate more than $60,000 a second — and it’s unfortunately not limited to a 30-second spot!)

How about betting? Is the Super Bowl the number one gambling day of the year? Probably. According to “Business Week” magazine, “No one knows for sure since the huge majority of the money changes hands under the table.” But last year, sports fans bet a record $98.9 million at Nevada casinos on the Super Bowl. The NCAA men’s basketball tournament, aka “March Madness,” recently surpassed the Super Bowl’s total amount wagered, but that includes 67 games. So while no one truly knows, the actual figure wagered worldwide is estimated in the low billions. Gamblers place bets on everything from the length of the national anthem to who wins the coin toss.

Acknowledging the worldwide appeal, the game will be broadcast live in over 180 countries and territories and in more than 25 different languages. Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Russia and the United Kingdom each will have crews on-site for the game.

Note that some of the world’s best-known entertainers have performed at the Super Bowl. This year’s national anthem will be performed by American soprano Renee Fleming with Grammy Award-winning singer Bruno Mars leading the halftime show. Both, no less, are hoping for no “wardrobe malfunction.”

I’m amazed at what we eat… what we spend… and how uniquely united we are…

… for a game.

Respectfully,

01/30/201401/30/2014

funny, God

What if God has a sense of humor?

Well, I can’t say anything for certain, and yes, I realize it’s not very scriptural or academic — maybe not even all that mature — but what if God has a sense of humor? I kind of like thinking of the whole big God of the universe like that…

What if somewhere — wherever somewhere is — he’s watching us, witnessing our successes and failures, subtly and sometimes not so subtly cheering us on… always rooting for us? … always in our corner? He’d be in everybody’s corner!

What if, too, as he observes — desiring for us to fully learn and grow and actually become mature — what if he also takes note of those areas in each of our lives where we don’t rely on him, acknowledge him, or give him any credit? … and so he masterfully and creatively allows for circumstances to exist, giving us added opportunity to rely, acknowledge, and give credit? … giving credit to where it is due, dare I suggest?

Friends, I must first admit that there are many areas that I don’t fully rely, acknowledge, nor credit the God of the universe. Too often I take too much credit. If I were to go back in time, for instance, remembering one of my all-time favorite moments, I would share that when I won the Purdue University intramural racquetball championship, my first thought had far more to do with how good and talented I was — than acknowledging the One who made me good and talented. We like to think we’re so good, smart, and talented, and that thinking often obstructs the opportunity to know and rely on God.

So what if he has a sense of humor? And what if he uses that to teach us?

What if?

Again Tuesday night, the climate change debate arose. Actually, let me change that. There was no debate. In fact, the President’s exact words were: “The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”

I get that lots of scientists believe man is responsible for a perceived trend that the Earth is warming. I get that many members of the Democrat Party wholeheartedly also believe the trend (note: not all; Sen. Joe Manchin [D-WVa] did not join in with his likeminded peers’ prompted applause). I also get that a lot of people believe the trend solely because the Democrats sans Manchin & co. declare it as truth. I get, too, that still more refuse to believe it solely because of those who declare it as truth.

Let me again share: I don’t know if global warming/climate change/next-most-convenient term is true or not. I don’t know. I’m not a rocket scientist. And last I heard, Pres. Obama was not one either. My point, though, today speaks not to the arguable hubris of declaring the debate over, but rather: where is God in the discussion? Where is the reliance, acknowledgement, and credit to the God of the universe? If we are having a conversation about the planet’s possible warming, shouldn’t we submit ourselves to the One who actually created the planet? … the One who obviously would know far more than the rest of us? Friends, I have said this repeatedly. No conversation about whether the world is warming or not can be had without God as part of the discussion. What do the ancient scriptures say? … about the Earth? … about our need to care for the Earth? … and about any future end?

For those who believe solidly in climate change (and may actually be rocket scientists), they contend the Earth has warmed approximately 1.53°F in the last 130 years; they don’t have tons of data prior to 1880. Yet here with the Earth warming, the United States has experienced an unprecedented, freezing cold winter; it’s snowing in New Orleans!

Doesn’t God have a sense of humor?!

I mean no disrespect. I don’t know if climate change is real. What I do believe is that God masterfully and creatively allows for circumstances to exist, giving us added opportunity to rely, acknowledge, and give credit to him. When we omit him from the debate, maybe he gets our attention by allowing snow in New Orleans.

Just maybe.

Respectfully,

01/28/2014

state of the government

Today marks our 5th annual State of the Government address. In our initial analysis, we made the following primary observations:

The State of the Government is too partisan.

The State of the Government is too influenced by money.

The State of the Government is too big.

The State of the Government is financially imbalanced.

The State of the Government is too far removed from the Constitution.

Allow me first a few brief notes on each state…

Government is too partisan. So first just the facts… House Republicans stymie the President’s major policy initiatives; Senate Democrats stymie the Republicans; the President utilizes Executive Orders to bypass Congress; and each of them complain about the other. So which came first: the House Republicans, Senate Democrats, the President, the chicken, or the egg? The point is that each always blames their partisan behavior on someone else.

Government is too influenced by money. Again, people blame someone else or a single judicial decision for this issue, focusing on the speck in another while ignoring the log in their own eye. Based on objective research, it’s my conclusion that the moral digression due to money increased exponentially during the Carter administration, when lobbyist restrictions were significantly eased.

Government is too big. Let’s make this metaphorically simple. Who watches their pennies more: a small business on a tight budget or a massive business with no budget? In 2014 the federal government is expected to spend near $4 trillion — and they have no budget holding them accountable. There is no way all those pennies are being spent efficiently… or probably, even counted.

Government is financially imbalanced. Whether monies are spent on war, Obamacare, or wars on Obamacare, the government continues to make no attempt to balance their budget. Any entity with this much deficit spending this long with no repayment plan would cease to exist. However, the elect keep kicking the financial can down the road paved by future generations.

Government is too far removed from the Constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Our founders desired a country that would be just, internally peaceful, and externally protected. Too many today, though, feel omnisciently justified dictating exactly how all should prosper, how our tranquility is insured, and what a union that’s perfect should be.

So where do we start? Where do we go in order to truly, respectfully find solution for a government that’s broken? Is it by the President enacting more Executive Orders, as some say he will pledge tonight? Or does that only make government more partisan, “more big,” and “more-you-get-my-point”? In an interactive November series, Intramuralist readers affirmed that solution begins with the following: term limits and money limits… limits! And next — and always — our leaders must embrace respect… for us… for one another… for varied opinion… in public and private… in all interactions… cameras on or off.

These past 5 years, the Intramuralist has concluded that while the State of the Government has digressed over several decades, until we responsibly address partisanship, special interests, size, spending, and straying from the Constitution, we will be challenged to admit the Union is strong. I don’t believe our Union is permanently broken. I do believe, though, that ordinary people need to be more involved.

Respectfully,

01/23/2014

do you care?

My current sense is this will not be a very popular post. Sorry. It’s never my intent to alarm or offend; it is, however, my desire to handle all topics honestly — regardless of controversy — and to handle them well.

I’ve been watching. (Surprise, surprise.) We learn much from watching; we learn more from listening and observing than from hearing our own selves speak. But I’ve recently been watching and have thus concluded that we are a society of “selective carers.” Many will push back on that — perhaps the most compassionate among us — but even the most compassionate have that place in their rear view mirror that serves as a significant blind spot. Each of us is a “selective carer.”

We don’t truly care about all things… we don’t truly care about all people.

Yes, I hear the rants and raves. I hear the noble, contradictory proclamations. And truthfully, it’s probably more an issue of empathy than of caring. We don’t empathize truly well until the experience directly affects us…

We don’t care about the sick… until someone we know is sick.

We don’t care about the poor… unless someone we know is poor.

We don’t care about HIV/AIDS research… until someone we know tests positive for HIV.

We don’t care about gun control… until someone we know is shot and killed.

We don’t care about unemployment… until someone we know loses their job.

After the rousing “right on’s” from those of us immediate to empathize, let’s continue…

We don’t care about extracting money from the wealthy… unless someone we know is wealthy.

We don’t care about Obamacare causing many to lose their insurance… until someone we know has lost theirs and must now pay more.

We don’t care about entitlement abuse… unless we know someone who is receiving unemployment benefits but making no effort to look for a job.

In other words, we selectively care. We typically only best care for “one side of an equation.” Pick your issue. Pick your person. Even to the most compassionate among us: do we only care about who or what we’ve determined to be the biggest victim or injustice?

Let’s try further examples… do we care so much about pro-life, that we forget about the young woman actually wrestling with the decision? … do we care so much about the woman, that we forget about the babe inside of her? Do we care so much about LGBT activism, that we forget about the good people who sincerely believe it’s immoral? … do we care so much about the lifestyle being immoral, that we forget about the good people in that community? What about race? … do we care so much about one race, we forget about another?

Do we remember only the poor but not the wealthy? … only the sick and not the healthy? Do we… selectively care?

Friends, I am not saying that we cannot be passionate about one issue or side. I am simply stating that sometimes in our passion we glaringly omit empathy for another. We quit caring about other sides and situations that affect us less. We are more numb to the news.

On Tuesday of this past week, a 23 year old gunman shot and killed his fellow teaching assistant on the campus of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. Purdue is my respected and beloved alma mater… a place with people I know. While I have always been sobered by the acts of violence at every institution, this one hurt a little more. I pray for all those affected… for the students, for the family of the 21 year old who died… and for the man who pulled the trigger and for his family. I pray for wisdom for each of them… for peace to those whose lives were seemingly shattered… for repentance for the gunman… for justice and mercy… and for wisdom for all to know what is good and right and true.

I care.

Respectfully,

01/21/2014

humility

“People with humility don’t think less of themselves; they just think about themselves less.” — Ken Blanchard

It may be a minority opinion, but to this current events observer, thinking about oneself less is always more attractive — humility is more attractive… more attractive than boasting, more attractive than ego, more attractive than any criticism or lessening of others. Any among us can swagger and swoon, directing all eyes to “look at me… look at who I am… look at what I’ve done.” It seems the rarer, wiser man, however, who knows that the more attractive, influential approach is to be humble, especially when chosen amid the display of distinct ability, accomplishment, influence, or intellect… especially when the cameras are on…

It was hard not to notice Richard Sherman’s rant Sunday night after his Seattle Seahawks earned their position in Super Bowl XLVIII. After sealing a Seahawk victory by making a fantastic, late-in-the-game play that denied what could have been the winning touchdown for the opposition, cornerback Sherman was interviewed on the sidelines by FOX reporter, Erin Andrews.

ANDREWS: “Richard, let me ask you. The final play — take me through it.”

SHERMAN: (loudly) “Well, I’m the best corner in the game! When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that’s the result you gonna get! Don’t you ever talk about me!”

ANDREWS: (gently — geepers — seemingly working extra hard to maintain her composure on national television) “Who was talking about you?”

SHERMAN: “Crabtree! Don’t you open your mouth about the best, or I’m gonna settle it for you real quick! L.O.B.!”

(Note: “L.O.B.” refers to “Legion of Boom,” Seattle’s nickname for its defense.)

For the record, Sherman is inarguably considered one of the best cornerbacks in the NFL today. But the message the Intramuralist has for Sherman — and it’s the same message I attempt to remember myself, teaching my kids as well — is to act like you’ve been there before. When you accomplish something great — when you win a competition, an election or award, even a spot in the Super Bowl — no matter the magnitude of the accomplishment, act like you’ve been there before. Act like you know how to win with grace and humility. Don’t use the moment to say “look at me… look at who I am… look at what I’ve done.” Use the moment wisely; use it humbly. Remember that humility is the more attractive, influential approach.

It’s the same message I would suggest each time a politician feels need to tell us that “I won” the election. There’s no need to announce one’s status. There’s no need to ostentatiously vocalize victory nor boast about being the best; that approach typically solely serves to lesson someone else. Using one’s own ability or accomplishment to lessen someone else only lessens the accomplishment.

Perhaps then the primary point is found in author Blanchard’s quote, that humble people actually “think about themselves less.” They don’t have to boast or brag or announce victory because it’s simply not the way they think; those words aren’t routinely uttered because they aren’t on the tip of their tongue; they aren’t actually thinking about how wonderful or powerful they are. They aren’t focused on self.

Not focused on self. Perhaps a minority opinion. Still wise.

Respectfully,

01/11/2014

association

For some reason, we seem to find great joy in the often ostentatious pronouncement that another is “one of us” — or actually, even, “not one of us.” It’s as if the declaration is accompanied by a significance that will somehow indeed sway others to our side. For example…

Prior to their Christmas recess, the Senate Democratic caucus gathered, discussing what issues that could promote, especially to deflect focus from Obamacare. When Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) suggested inequality as a populist motivator, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reportedly responded with the following: “You know, we have a strong ally on our side in this issue — and that is the Pope.”

In other words, “he’s one of us.”

Also…

As some have noticed, there is a current debate over the extension of unemployment benefits — whether we should add the expense to the deficit or figure out how to pay for the benefit prior to distribution. (Note: ask me later about the effectiveness of ongoing unlimited unemployment extensions.) Nonetheless, Pres. Obama had this to say about the issue: “Just a few days after Christmas, more than one million of our fellow Americans lost a vital economic lifeline – the temporary insurance that helps folks make ends meet while they look for a job. Republicans in Congress went home for the holidays and let that lifeline expire. And for many of their constituents who are unemployed through no fault of their own, that decision will leave them with no income at all.”

In other words, “they’re not one of us.”

From my limited perspective, it seems as if persons of all persuasions attempt to add to the perceived validity of their point by the association or the intentional disassociation with other people. It’s the same reason Michael Phelps sells Subway sandwiches, Aaron Rodgers does his infamous discount double check, and Tea Partiers are rhetorically cast as extremists. We enjoy the idea of eating like Michael; Aaron makes us look at car insurance differently; and who wants to be labeled an extremist?

The Intramuralist’s observation today is that such intentional associations are often unfortunately manipulative and/or dripping of minimal hypocrisy at best. For example…

While Pope Francis may articulate compassion for the impoverished better than most, he is certainly “not one of us” when comparing his abortion stance with that of the Senate Democratic caucus.

While congressional Republicans went home without enacting continued legislation on unemployment, congressional Democrats also went home under the Democratic leadership of Sen. Reid. Note that Pres. Obama declared his message during his vacation in Hawaii.

Know that I am not opining any specific stance on any of the above issues. I am simply stating that averred associations with specific other people — and averred disassociations — are intentional, but they are not always genuine nor sincere. Too often the association is solely designed to persuade.

May we continue to be wise, looking past persuasion and rhetoric, observing what is good and true and right.

Respectfully,

12/31/201312/31/2013

year end 2013

So there’s all this focus on annual acknowledgements… the man of the year, woman of the year, person of the year, sportsman of the year, singer of the year, celebrity of the year, year in review, year of yada yada yada… Prior then to the onset of 2014 and the opportunity to start anew, allow me to add my own year end musings and acknowledgements…

First of all, if the Intramuralist was to acknowledge any one person for superlative notoriety, let me tell you who it would not be. While I have tremendous respect for each of them, it would not be either Peyton Manning or the Pope (not that Sports Illustrated or Time made unwarranted selections). I simply believe that Peyton’s societal influence is limited, and the extent of the Pope’s influence will be more evident over the course of his tenure than in the mere, initial 9 months of his papacy.

It would not be Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker who seemed to be a “runner up” on many year end lists. I still can’t discern if Snowden is a hero or hoodlum — or perhaps a little of both. Sorry, but the Intramuralist simply does not believe in paying attention to those who may not deserve the attention.

It would not be any politician. It would not be Pres. Obama, who has not been the honest, uniting president he promised us he would be. It would also not be any of his political counterparts, for whom so many, honesty is also in question. Sorry, but if you can’t be honest, you can’t be my person or sportsman or whatever of the year.

I suppose as far as people are concerned, the Intramuralist is incapable of making a selection this year. The reality is that each candidate would pale in comparison to one of my siblings, who currently, totally, amazingly inspires and spurs me on. None of the above are capable of coming close. It makes me wonder… makes me wonder who in each of our lives truly spurs us on.

I think then, too, of the events of the year gone past… the tragedy in Boston, Syria, and in Nairobi’s Westgate Mall… the downfall of the Obamacare rollout, Miley Cyrus, and our relationship with Russia… the controversy in federal surveillance, NFL officiating, and George Zimmerman’s acquittal… the attraction to zombies, hashtags, and the Harlem Shake… the dominance of Alabama football, the Miami Heat, and the brothers Harbaugh… the fascination with “Duck Dynasty,” selfies, and William and Kate’s new kid… the introduction of Elizabeth Warren, Ted Cruz, and bearded Boston baseball players… the loss of Paul Walker, James Gandolfini, and Nelson Mandela… not to mention Margaret Thatcher, Peter O’Toole, and Tom Clancy.

It’s easy to sometimes think the routine events of our days are so dramatic… so intense and burdensome… allowing personal passion to blind us to the sobering significance of some of the events listed above. Maybe in the year to come we’ll be better at that — better at not being blinded by the things of lesser importance… then again, maybe not.

And so we say goodbye to 2013 not with a whimper or bang but with honest reflection. Consistent with our mantra, we look both back and forward with a desire to dialogue, a willingness to tackle the tough subjects, and a commitment to gird all conversation with respect.

While we start anew in 2014 — with new musings, acknowledgements, perspective, and reflection — thanks for joining us in the year now passed. It was a blessed and banner year.

Respectfully… always…

12/29/201312/29/2013

end of year questions

As is no secret, the Intramuralist’s favorite punctuation mark is the question. It’s the only grammatical device that requires a response. In fact, if I were to momentarily embrace a tangent perspective, I would humbly suggest that the exclamation point and period are generously overused, as they invite no further conversation — and only allow for the continuance of self-focus or unchallenged opinion.

And so we find ourselves at the close of another year, with this semi-humble blogger holding onto several lingering questions, questions which may provoke strong opinion, but questions that could and should be asked, as we invite continued conversation. It is the wise, I believe, who invite conversation, knowing that respectful challenge does not dissipate truth; respectful challenge and interaction perhaps more effectively actually unveil what is true. Thus, we ask…

What will happen to Obamacare in 2014? Will it be effective? Will it be economically solvent? Or will it drive our federal government deeper into debt, simultaneously, exponentially expanding the size of government?

Was the cancellation of individual policies and steering of persons onto government controlled plans all part of Pres. Obama’s original plan? If not, how did he not foresee such a significant ramification?

How far does the government surveillance/spying extend? Where is the ethical line between security and privacy?

What will the Tea Party do in 2014? Are their ambitions all bad? … or is it more an issue of poor articulation of opinion? Is it both?

How can White House Press Secretary Jay Carney sleep at night? The former Time Magazine reporter’s responses often fail to answer the question and seem like scripted rhetoric or mistruth. (Note: regardless of party or president, I’ve decided this may be the most obvious, public service position in which unethical behavior is tempting…)

Will “Duck Dynasty” last? (Note: how does a ZZ Top-ish, Louisiana, duck-loving family even qualify as “reality tv”?)

Who, no less, will be the next celebrity or star we deem the need to silence? How outlandish will be his or her opinion? Why do opinions have need to be controlled?

Which activist groups will work most to squelch opinion — and which will instead embrace respectful, educating debate?

Who will run for president? Hillary? (yes…) Chris Christie? (yes…) (Note: nonprofessional advice to Gov. Christie… since the public is often swayed most — positively and negatively — by aspects that have nothing to do with actual, political issues — i.e. gender, ethnicity, appearance, etc. — what would happen to the voters’ mass perception if Christie lost significant weight?)

How large will the federal debt climb? Better question: who within government has the “guts” to attempt to stop it?

In 2014, what will happen in Iran, Syria, and in other volatile nations? Where will it be volatile?

AND… what topics will the Intramuralist cover in 2014?

Now that’s a good question…

Respectfully,

12/10/201312/10/2013

mandela

Isn’t it interesting, when someone passes away, how so many seem to rush to claim him as “one of our own”?

When we observed even the anniversary of JFK’s death 2 and a half weeks ago, politicians and pundits and authors and activists again averred how Kennedy would undoubtedly be a staunch liberal leader or would have converted to strict conservatism if still alive today. As initially addressed here, JFK advocated for a variety of positions, none wholly consistent with either contemporary party’s platform.

When respected “Fast & Furious” actor, Paul Walker, passed away in a tragic accident 2 weeks ago, fans rushed to express their adoration in their grief. The massive outpouring made me wonder if Walker felt that strong connection with so many fans when still alive.

Once more, no less, in the death of former South African leader, Nelson Mandela, we see the inherent claims of Mandela being “one of our own.”

Mandela was unique… an educated man… originally embracing non-violent protests… for a time associated with communism… serving 27 years in prison… working to extinguish apartheid, South Africa’s intentional system of racial segregation… becoming president… inviting other parties to help him govern… promoting forgiveness… mediating between other nations — such as between Libya and the United Kingdom in regard to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103… developing a full and free democracy in his country… advocating for charity… respected by many… inspiring even more…

On par with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Mandela was one of the great moral leaders of the past century. His significant, perceived positive, global influence is considered comparable to Churchill, Reagan, and FDR. His consistent message of unity and forgiveness in a racially-charged world spoke volumes.

After passing away at 95 last Thursday, many have seemed quick to identify with Mandela, claiming him as their so-called own. The challenge is that to identify with him, one must not only weigh — but also practice — the wisdom within the complete spectrum of his teaching. In other words, his message of racial reconciliation is hollow without the accompanying forgiveness and humility. To identify with the man means to believe and practice his actual words…

I stand here before you not as a prophet, but as a humble servant of you, the people.

Money won’t create success; the freedom to make it will.

A good leader can engage in a debate frankly and thoroughly, knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer, and thus emerge stronger. You don’t have that idea when you are arrogant, superficial, and uninformed.

I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or a white man.

Does anybody really think that they didn’t get what they had because they didn’t have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment?

I was not a messiah, but an ordinary man who had become a leader because of extraordinary circumstances.

Unlike some politicians, I can admit to a mistake.

With the wide number who claim to either identify with or revere Nelson Mandela mightily, we should perhaps first take stock of his words, humbly recognizing that some of his words may subtly — or sharply — rebuke us instead.

Respectfully,