spreading strife

Hate.  That’s a hard concept for me.  Truthfully, I think it’s a hard concept for most of us.  We find things that make us mad, things that annoy us, things that drive us crazy, and then we often justify hate.  I’ll quote my kids… “I hate spiders, English… and pickles.”  Yeah, we don’t quite have an accurate concept of hate.

 

But there’s something about the current Washington scenario that drives us crazy.  All these supposedly smart people… the President… Congress… regardless of party…  And they say all these disrespectful things to one another…

 

… “taking hostage,” “gun to the head,” “ransom,” “blackmail,” “arsonists,” oh, my…

 

I hate that.

 

I hate the hypocrisy.

 

It wasn’t that long ago that our country mourned the tragedy in Tucson…

 

Pres. Obama seemed so wise…  “At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

 

Talking to each other in a way that heals…

 

All that seems gone now.  It seems unimportant.  That hurts me.  Do I hate it?

 

As I wrestle with this concept of hate — noting that I hate hypocrisy — part of me wonders what’s actually appropriate to hate.

 

Deep within the historical scriptures, we find the following:

 

There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood, 

A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,

A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

 

So I see the following…

 

Arrogance.  Lies.  The killing of the innocent.

A heart that plots wicked. Running to evil.  Exaggeration about those lies.

 

And one who spreads strife among the brothers.

 

I think that’s what I hate so much about the current government shut down.  I hate that we have persons amongst both parties — the President and Congress — who are actively spreading strife.  Smart as they may be, they encourage dissension and disagreement, as they work first to win people to their side, and only then to solve the situation.

 

I hate this.

 

For the record, I also hate pickles.

 

Respectfully,

AR

the games we play

Once again there was a full weekend slate of games, with each earnestly attempting to win.  The challenge is that such an account could easily depict either the National Football League or the President and Congress.  At least in the NFL, a struggling team takes more responsibility for the situation they’re in.  The President and Congress — regardless of party — spend more time blaming the situation on the other than they do in solving the problem.  They spend too much time in front of the cameras.  Too much time rallying the troops.  Too much time playing games!  They play political games.

 

Unfortunately, we, the public, too often camp in front of biased, un-objective “news” sources, allowing them to rhetorically seduce us, as we join in the reindeer games.

 

Geepers.  With all due respect (and “due” seems temptingly relative at the moment), the President and Congress need to halt the insults, turn away the cameras, roll up their sleeves, and learn to work together.  If we can negotiate with Syria, we can negotiate with senators and representatives.  I don’t care if their offensive lines are depleted.  I want our leaders of both parties to realize this is not a game.

 

As of midnight last night, a Republican-led House and a Democrat-led Senate and a Democrat-led White House hadn’t passed and enacted a law allowing the federal government to spend more money.  Constitutionally, if Congress doesn’t pass a law to spend money, the government isn’t allowed to spend it.  Hence, government is required to “shut down,” thereby no longer funding “non-essential” functions or personnel.

 

At this time, 3 observations in particular exist from the Intramuralist’s perspective…

 

One, hypocrisy is rampant in this situation.

 

As pointed out in Sunday’s post, how parties feel about spending more or less is often directly tied to their majority or minority position.  See Pres. Obama’s quotes as a president and senator; they are strikingly different.  The hypocrisy is central to each party’s game-playing.

 

Two, government shut downs have happened 17 times since 1976…

 

From a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate under Republican President Gerald Ford… to a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate under Democrat President Jimmy Carter (5 times)… to a Democrat-led House and a Republican-led Senate under Republican President Ronald Reagan (7 times)… to a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate also under Reagan… to a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate under Republican President George H.W. Bush… to a Republican-led House and a Republican-led Senate under Democrat President Bill Clinton (2 times)

 

(Did I mention that hypocrisy was rampant?)

 

And finally, three, there’s a quick way to solve this shutdown…

 

Remember that only “non-essentials” go unfunded during a shut down; however, all lawmakers — including the President, representatives, and senators — continue to be paid.  Let’s withhold their paychecks.  Let’s refrain from funding them if they cannot or refuse to compromise and forgo the cameras.  Let’s watch then if they still engage in such a dysfunctional, political game.

 

Allow me to briefly recall a childhood memory…  My brothers will tell you that I used to consistently cheat when playing “Monopoly.”  I wasn’t very good at it — nor did I have the patience to play it well — so I would quietly and yes, oh-so deviously steal money from the bank when my older brother turned his head away.  Granted, my brothers will also gleefully add that I still couldn’t manage to win.  It wasn’t fun.  I had to steal to play.   At least when I engaged in disrespectful, hypocritical activity, I realized it was a game.

 

Respectfully,

AR

respect vs. rhetoric

Last week I had a tough conversation with a leader in my church.  It was tough because of the subject matter, as we disagree on a way to solve a current challenge.  It was not tough in the way we related.  It was not tough because there was a lack of respect. It was not tough in our means nor manner of communicating; neither of us worked to rally more to our side.  Respect trumped rhetoric.

 

Last week we witnessed our government’s leaders do exactly the opposite.  We watched way too many seemingly smart people employ rhetoric and disrespect, and work more to rally others to their side.  Friends, political affiliation did not — and sadly, does not — matter.

 

Once again, our federal government has spent the maximum amount of money it is legally allowed to borrow.  They have maxed out their credit cards, so-to-speak.  Funny, but regardless of party, the majority always wants to spend more; and regardless of party, the minority always desires to spend less.  Such is evidenced in the following, amazingly insightful comment:

 

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

 

The above quote is from Barack Obama, when he was a senator — and voted against raising the debt ceiling.

 

Nonetheless, as President, Obama and others now desire more freedom to spend.  This is a tough conversation.  But the Intramuralist would propose that asking to increase our credit limit is not primarily tough because of subject matter; it’s tough because of how leadership feels justified in communicating…

 

“If you go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany.  Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them.’”  — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), comparing Nazi Germany to not standing up to debt and Obamacare

 

“The reason Ted Cruz stood up and asked for a delay is so that he could have a vote during today when the ‘tea baggers’ in his Tea Party were going to watch.”  — Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

 

”We are for cutting spending. We are for reforming out tax codes, reforming out entitlements.  What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.”  — White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer

 

Or the other phrases utilized… “political terrorism” by Al Gore… “tea party anarchists” and “stupid” by Harry Reid… “legislative arsonists” by Nancy Pelosi… “holding hostage” by multiple Republicans and Democrats… “raping the American people” by television commentator Tamara Holder… even “blackmail” by Obama.

 

My point is this… this conversation is going to remain tough because our leaders have allowed rhetoric to trump respect.  They chide instead of humbly communicate and consider; they insult instead of respect and submit.  We can’t keep spending more then we take in, but we also can’t tackle the problem when our leaders continue to stand in front of the cameras and work most to rally others to their side.  They should instead be meeting one-on-one, face-to-face, listening and submitting to one another, resisting the cameras and campaign stops…  just as I did with the leader in my church last week.

 

In my meeting, I will share that we did not end by agreeing on a singular solution and then living happily ever after.  But we heard one another; we each felt respected.  We vowed to work together, listen, and go forward together, recognizing that we are on the same team.  Our leaders need to do the same.  In fact, with their generous use of disrespect, perhaps they would first benefit by going back to church.

 

Respectfully,

AR

religious freedom

Allow me to briefly recap 2 outrageous weekend acts, in order to transition to the outrage…

 

In Kenya…

 

In an upscale Nairobi shopping mall — in a situation that remains fluid as of this writing — militants have shot and killed over 60 persons.  According to the New York Times, “masked gunmen moved methodically through the crowded mall on Saturday,” killing men, women and children.  The gunmen have been linked to the al-Qaeda-backed Somali terror group al-Shabaab.

 

In northwest Pakistan…

 

Outside a church where the parishioners were exiting after the service, a pair of suicide/homicide bombers killed approximately 81 people.  According to USA Today, “witnesses described a scene of dust, debris and devastation.”  Body parts were apparently gruesomely scattered amid the debris.  A wing of the Taliban claimed responsibility.

 

The glaring commonality between these 2 heinous acts?  On 2 separate continents, non-Muslims were intentionally targeted.

 

Religious freedom seems in jeopardy, friends — albeit not just in Africa and Asia; it spans across the globe… especially Christian freedom.  Hence, the Intramuralist wonders:  where is the outrage?

 

Truthfully, I think it’s hard for us to express outrage as Americans.  Why?  Because we’ve already accepted so much suppression in our own country.  The suppression may not yet manifest itself via shopping mall nor church bombings, as it currently comes in more subtle forms.  For example…

 

  • As reported here last week, a 10 year old public school girl in Tennessee was banned from writing about God for a required school assignment.
  • In Massachusetts, persons are fervently working to remove the phrase “one nation under God” from the Pledge.
  • And then there’s this…

In North Carolina, where a Christian apologetics conference, entitled “Truth for a New Generation” will take place later this week with nationally respected speakers, the local paper, The Charlotte Observer, would not allow the conference to advertise as desired, paid, and previously agreed to.  Granted, the conference planners asked some tough questions in their ad:

 

“Is same sex marriage morally wrong?”
“Are Islam and Christianity the same?”
“Are godless people going to destroy America?”

 

The questions were chosen “to encourage discourse, inquiry, and to result in a strong ad, to raise awareness about the conference.”  The Charlotte Observer, however, would not allow the asking of the questions.  It’s not that all answers to the above are wise and good and true, but when the media begins to squelch the dialogue so that dissenting opinion cannot even take place, they have sowed and watered the seeds of religious suppression.  That suppression will only get worse, as witnessed in Kenya and Pakistan.

 

So where is the outrage?  Where is the outrage in Africa and Asia?

 

And where is the outrage here?

 

Respectfully,

AR

some kind of evil

Bad things happen on planet Earth.  Like last week… primarily according to USA Today:

 

Federal investigators believe Aaron Alexis cleared a security checkpoint with his contractor identification and carried a shotgun into building 197 at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C.  Alexis reportedly began firing at people indiscriminately from an atrium overlook.  After firing several rounds, Alexis ran down a flight of stairs where he confronted and shot a security officer. It is believed that Alexis took the officer’s handgun and returned to the overlook where he continued to shoot.  13 people, including the shooter, died.

 

Like yesterday at a Kenyan shopping mall:

 

At least 59 people were killed and 175 injured during a Saturday afternoon shooting rampage at a shopping mall in an upscale district of Nairobi.  The 5-10 gunmen carried AK-47s and other sophisticated weapons and wore vests with hand grenades on them.  They also asked Muslims to leave before opening fire.

 

Bad things do happen.

 

In wake of the so-called “badness,” many respond with immediate, perceived necessary solutions.  On Monday, the Navy Yard shooting was only hours old when Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) took to the microphones to call for increased gun control measures.  “When will enough be enough?” she asked.  While Feinstein repeated details that were inaccurate but fueled the passion behind her plea — as many and the media are often apt to do, even though pausing would be prudent — she was not alone in her plea.

 

When bad things happen, we have a desire to fix it.  We have a desire to ensure the bad things will never happen again.

 

On that note, the Intramuralist has great respect for Feinstein, etal. in their stated desire to curb violence.  Who among us desires to see the innocent die?  The challenge, no less, is whether or not the proposed solution is actually effective — or is more proposed and applied because it makes us feel better; it makes us feel as if we are doing something.

 

In the wake of last week’s shooting, in multiple circles, I thus posed the following question:  where does this “badness” come from?  Is it evil?  Where does the evil come from?  What, in fact, is evil?

 

The answers were fascinating…

 

Most would acknowledge an existence of evil, but few seemed comfortable with evil dwelling within a person.  Some called the behavior of Aaron Alexis evil; still others said the identification of evil would be dependent on whether or not the gunman had a mental illness.  If he had any mental deficiency, the evil — if it existed — rested in the hands of someone or something else, perhaps in the institution or people who allowed him to have a gun in his hands.

 

My conclusion from this certainly unscientific polling is that we’re not comfortable with the idea of evil, and when we do utilize the label, we seem to do so inconsistently and subjectively.  We don’t like it.

 

Bad things happened on planet Earth last week.  I didn’t like it.

 

Respectfully,

AR

incapable

Before we converse today, let’s lay a bit of groundwork…

 

  • While multiple factors contributed to its onset, World War I began after the assassination of the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie, by a Yugoslav nationalist.

 

  • World War II started after Poland was invaded by Germany — under the leadership of Adolf Hitler — and Great Britain and France decided to respond.

 

In other words, world wars began with singular acts.  Yes, other factors were involved and undoubtedly led to the climactic onset, but singular acts provided the spark through which wars of the world were both prompted and justified.

 

Did the men/women involved foresee the major, military consequences?

Did they know it all?

Smart as they may or may not have been, were they capable of predicting the massive extent of global devastation that resulted from singular acts?

 

Friends, I am not “anti-war” nor “pro-war.”  I’m not exactly certain how any could be either; there’s a time for everything — for every activity under the sun… a time to be born and a time to die… a time to be silent and a time to speak… a time for war and a time for peace.  And just as both Pres. Bush said last week and Pres. Obama said yesterday, using military force is one of the most grueling decisions any president or nation has to make.  The ramifications are sobering.  In instances such as above, the ramifications meant World War 1 and 2.

 

How does the potential beginning of World War 3 affect your thoughts regarding bombing Syria today?

 

As I watch our leaders contemplate an attack (and as I continue to cringe at the politics in play and the “running for cover” by far too many in Washington — the deflecting of blame, the voting of “present,” etc.), I wonder how many are considering the ramifications of a singular event.

 

They say it will be limited.  They say it will be done in 90 days.  They say there will be “no boots on the ground.”  They thus say that any lives lost will be few.

 

Here’s my zillion dollar question:  how can they predict exactly what will happen?

 

Were those involved in the initial ongoings of World Wars 1 and 2 able to predict all that would happen?  Of course not.

 

One of the aspects I find most troubling about our current American leadership is that they keep telling us exactly what will happen when in my opinion, they are not capable of making such a prediction.  It’s not that they aren’t smart men and women.  Many of them are incredibly smart.  But sometimes I question their wisdom (not their intelligence, but their wisdom) because they don’t possess the capability to predict all that they tell us they do.  So much of what our leaders say seems designed to persuade us, as opposed to sharing actual, honest, and entire truth.

 

The entire truth means the acknowledgement that all things cannot be predicted.  They are incapable of being predicted.  If the United States chooses to bomb Syria — regardless of the continued rhetorical promises outside of their control — what are they missing?  What can they not foresee?  What’s incapable of being predicted?

 

We don’t know…  and we don’t know what we don’t know.  We don’t know what singular act could prompt a third world war.  And that should add a humble, sobering pause to any affirmative vote.

 

Respectfully,

AR

serious questions

In case you were unaware, the Intramuralist has at times been quite specific about the love of grammar.  In fact — hands down — my favorite punctuation mark is the question.  Asking questions.  I love it.

 

To ask a question implies humility.  It’s the only punctuation mark that invites a response.  And unless only asking to hear oneself think — and yes, I am making the almighty assumption that the asker actually listens to the answer — to ask means to acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers.

 

Friends, the situation in Syria is serious.  If you aren’t paying attention, I would strongly encourage you to quickly take note.  The situation is intense and evolving, and the potential consequences and results from both action and inaction are ambiguous at best.  Hence, the Intramuralist has many questions.  Why?  Because we don’t have all the answers.

 

One caveat prior to the asking…

Military conflict is not a partisan issue.  There should be no politics involved.  While “shame on you” is a phrase not in my vernacular, if there was a place for the consideration of employment, it would undoubtedly be here.

 

Hence, the questions…

 

What’s new that has led to this level of seriousness?  This conflict has been ongoing since 2011.  According to the latest estimates by the United Nations, more than 70,000 Syrians have died.  Why consider getting involved now?

 

Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad has led Syria since 2000, succeeding his deceased father, who was president for 30 years.  What is Assad’s agenda?  Are any of his motives hidden?  What are they?

 

What role do Islamic extremists play?  The terrorist group, Hezbollah, has supported Assad’s government, while the Associated Press has been reporting that a primary rebel group in Syria has pledged allegiance to the terrorist group, al-Qaeda.  Are we aligning with terrorists?  Whose side are we on?  Whose side should we be on?

 

We must therefore extend our questions to address American involvement.  Pres. Obama is advocating interference due to the believed use of chemical weapons.  Pres. Bush advocated involvement after the believed existence of chemical weapons.  Let me ask now:  where did Syria actually obtain their chemical weapons?

 

Should America be involved in the civil war of another?  Is that our job?  Is that our role?    Are we capable of being effective?  And if we aren’t certain it’s effective, should we even entertain the role?

 

Attacking anyone will cost us millions.  Billions.  Maybe more.  We are a country that is continuously spending more than we take in.  Few others in the world have affirmed an attack and committed to support any military intervention.  That means the role is ours; the lead is ours; and the expense is ours.  And the reality is that the cost may mean more than money; it may mean military lives.  Is that too much to pay?

 

Is it America’s calling to be the world’s police?  Was it right under Pres. Bush?  Is it right under Pres. Obama?  Is it ever right?

 

Friends, I have a lot of questions.  I don’t have a lot of answers.  We must acknowledge we don’t have all the answers.  The situation in Syria is serious indeed.

 

Respectfully,

AR

blurred lines

[Note:  this post was penned prior to last week’s provocative, public dance by Miley Cyrus. In other words, the lines were already blurry.]

 

Everybody get up!

 

I’m up. I’m dancing like any good un-retired disco queen of the late ’70’s. I love, love, love the beat of this song. It’s being called the song of the summer by media. I’ve watched the Robin Thicke/Jimmy Fallon version of Blurred Lines on YouTube an embarrassing number of times. This version uses school instruments and has a PG-rated solo. It’s a super fun vibe. The band is smiling, jamming, rocking, kidding around and having a terrific time. Then I read the original lyrics on several popular lyric websites.

 

Hey, hey, hey. 

 

Prude would never be a word used to describe me. Each day less and less things make my chin drop. But some of those lyrics… oh, my! Now I know this isn’t the first rap song to use offensive (to me) words but it’s the first nasty rap I really have fun listening to. I want to buy it so bad.

 

You know you want it.

 

There exists controversy over whether or not the song is “misogynistic” or “rapey”, and when I read the words rapper TI sings, I wonder who really resonates with this sex slang. Why does any song any where in any language need to say what he says? This is where I get really confused. And then there is the original music video with nude dancers. They chose to do a remake on that one. Wonder why?

 

If you can’t hear what I’m trying to say. 

 

Why add the obscene? Life can be sad and hard and even cruel all on its own. Why throw more violence and crass images into the universe? But I love the bounce of this song. Perfect for car dancing but I don’t have it on  my iphone because I can’t justify some really bad lyrics in part of the song.

 

Maybe I’m out of my mind.

 

This isn’t about nasty rap; it’s about me trying to convince myself that if the beat is good, I can overlook the really negative message of the words. There is a disconnect with the fun loving, smiling men wearing wedding rings, everything-is-alright-then group singing this terrifically fun song. I actually had that argument in my head. They all look too nice and happy for it to be wrong!

 

Can’t let it get past me.

 

So now I wonder how many other things I excuse the nasty because I like the beat? Books, movies, TV shows, gossip, certain friendships, idle thoughts. Apparently I have selective vision, only focusing on the good and fun stuff when the obscene side is right there as well. It’s just a song, right? No big deal. What’s the real harm in buying the tune and ingraining the lyrics in my head?

 

Maybe I’m going deaf.

 

After 50 plus years I can recognize the little voice that whispers “good choice/bad choice. Sometimes I listen to the voice and sometimes I conveniently ignore it. This time I’m hearing the old adage, “garbage in, garbage out.” I combat that one in my head with “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” I really, really  like this song…sort of.

 

I hate these blurred lines.

 

Respectfully,

CB

current questions

As August nears and summer enjoys its seasonal last hurrah’s, I find myself with a few things I still feel need to either ask or address.  Yes, I have lots of questions regarding current events…

 

Why does Congress recess for the entire month of August?

Do they still get paid?

 

Why is the President still campaigning about Obamacare?

Does he realize the bill remains unpopular?

Is he telling us the entire truth?

Are the people even listening to him anymore?

 

Did William & Kate consider any other names?

Is there any chance Kate always dreamed of a baby named “boy George”?

 

Now that Detroit has gone bankrupt, who will be next?

Will there be a next?

Who else has borrowed too much money for too long and made far too many promises of future payment?

 

What should we learn from the Trayvon Martin situation?

Was a guilty man set free?

 

Does Al Sharpton realize that racism comes from all sides?

Why won’t all African-Americans refuse to say the word “nigger”?

Don’t they realize it’s derogatory?

 

Will Hillary run?

Should she?

What’s she thinking now?

 

How will my Reds do in the push to the playoffs?

 

Why did the Patriots not address the character of Aaron Hernandez sooner?

Did they ever cover up for him?

 

When does college football start?

Will Heisman winner Johnny Manziel say and do all the right things?

 

How ‘bout the pros?

How will my fantasy team do?

Will I dominate my sons? (ever so gently, of course…)

 

What have we learned from this summer?

 

As always, there is much to learn.  There are many questions to ask, and there is great need for each of us to listen in order to discern correctly; that means listening to persons other than self — other than the knowingly likeminded.

 

Over the course of the next 3 weeks, the Intramuralist will offer creative opportunity to listen.  Beginning Sunday, Aug. 4 we will host our 5th annual Guest Writer Series, a treat for all involved.  You will have opportunity to listen and dialogue with persons expressing viewpoints that may or may not be the same as mine.  I will share with you later this week the means and motive for the series.  We are not all clones, friends; we don’t all think, act, or believe exactly alike.  Several of you, in fact, probably have different questions.

 

Keep asking.  Look for more on our exciting series soon… (fire up).

 

Respectfully,

AR

‘yes’ means ‘yes’

There are a few things hopefully each of us learns as a child…

 

Don’t covet.

Honor your mother and father.

And never stick your tongue on a flag pole in the winter.

 

As an adult, I see at least one, glaring wise nugget that far too many have missed…

 

Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.’  Speak the truth.

 

So it bothers this semi-humble blogger when I see so many supposedly smart people speak and act so counterintuitively to the truth shared above…

 

It bothers me when Pres. Obama again hits what “feels like” a campaign trail and repeatedly utilizes the phrase, “phony scandals.”  The screening of conservative groups by the IRS is not “phony.”  The secret seizing of journalists’ phone records, emails, etc. by the Justice Department is not fake.  The Intramuralist, for one, is very concerned about the potential abuse of power by these 2 federal branches of government.  Hence, fake or phony are inaccurate adjectives at best…

 

Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.‘   Speak the truth.

 

Granted, a second example could easily be written about current NYC mayoral candidate, Anthony Weiner, a congressman who resigned from office, acknowledging personal wrongdoing, but then who continued the same wrongdoing long after his resignation and reported repentance… but alas, we digress… he isn’t worth our time…

 

Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.‘   Speak the truth.

 

Perhaps, no less this week, the example that causes the greatest cringe comes from baseball’s Ryan Braun.  Braun is an outfielder with the Milwaukee Brewers (sorry, my Wisconsin friends).  In fact, the talented Braun — nicknamed “The Hebrew Hammer” as a perennial standout in the sport — was actually voted the league’s 2011 MVP.  Last week Braun was suspended without pay for the rest of the season due to his use of performance-enhancing drugs.  As Braun stated in his acceptance of the suspension, “I realize now that I have made some mistakes. I am willing to accept the consequences of those actions.”

 

While I commend Braun’s willingness to accept the consequences, I cringe at the 2 years prior.  In 2011, Ryan Braun came under scrutiny for a then failed drug test.  Instead of admitting — or granted, even denying — any wrongdoing, Braun attacked the investigator and his process.  As he said through his spokesman:

 

“There are highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case which will support Ryan’s complete innocence and demonstrate there was absolutely no intentional violation of the program.  While Ryan has impeccable character and no previous history, unfortunately, because of the process we have to maintain confidentiality and are not able to discuss it any further, but we are confident he will ultimately be exonerated.”

 

So in 2013 — after lying in 2011 — only now does Ryan Braun actually “accept the consequences.”

 

Seemingly smart people only adhering to nuggets of wisdom when they can no longer deny the truth…

 

Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.’  Speak the truth.

 

Always.

 

Respectfully,

AR