AR – Page 118 – intramuralist ™

10/05/201410/05/2014

mom a

Years ago, as a young mom with three little kids in tow, I remember visiting my mother-in-law’s home for the weekend — a too infrequent delight for our entire family. After we sat down for breakfast and the always abundant spread of eggs, bacon, toast, muffins, and more, Mom A excused herself from the table, went to the pantry, and promptly placed a fresh box of Nabisco Pinwheels smack-dab in the middle of our meal. Yes, Pinwheels. Yes, breakfast. You know the ones: those old fashioned, marshmallow cream, mini-Bundt cake looking cookies, totally doused in sugar, covered in oh-so-unhealthy chocolate.

As a young mom committed to raising my kids in the way they should go, I couldn’t believe it. Pinwheels… really?! How could my mother-in-law, who’s supposedly older and wiser and attempting to help us in this prudent, persevering, raising-of-kids process, even think of putting such a sugar fest right in front of my boys? But having one of those indignant, self-righteous moments that every unknowingly immature, growing parent must confront now and then, I remained silent, said nothing, while quietly steaming inside that my kids were about to be ruined for life.

Funny. I’d like that moment back right now.

I stand amazed — and humbled — at how much we sometimes don’t know… and don’t know we don’t know…

My righteous indignation was undoubtedly well-founded, as of course, each of us wants to contribute positively to the lives of others; of course, we want to be healthy; and of course, as young parents we’re often feel we’re doing the very best we can. But what I couldn’t grasp at the time was how the offering of an unexpected, sincere treat did not impede any progress. In fact, eating those sweet Pinwheels may have been healthier in an emotional sense — noting how we were pausing to enjoy something we typically don’t… how we were intentionally enjoying something good.

My mother-in-law modeled many things well for our family. Among them…

… how to eat a blueberry bagel…

… how to semi-subtly tap in a puzzle piece, so that everyone would know you found exactly the right piece…

… how going to church every Sunday is less important than an authentic relationship with Jesus…

… how to be intentional with boys…

… how to discern really good barbecue…

… how to be consistent in honoring your spouse…

… how to be generous…

… how to be faithful…

… how to love a child other than your own…

… and how and when to intentionally enjoy a treat — how to savor something good.

After only a short stay in the hospital, Mom A passed away somewhat suddenly this past week. She had lived a good life, and valiantly modeling her faith for us once more, she was ready to go — embracing both what’s beautiful and next. I will miss her dearly. I will also be serving Pinwheels soon for breakfast.

Respectfully… lovingly… with both a wink and a tear…

10/02/201410/02/2014

khorosan

As we found ourselves recently shocked by reality — that grown men would intentionally decapitate innocent others in the name of their so-called religion — most of us have begun paying increased attention to terror in the Middle East. Not since the unspeakable wake of 9/11 have we consistently been so alarmed. With this renewed attention, we’ve learned some new terms: ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — and ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. (The Levant is a larger Middle Eastern area that includes Lebanon and Jordan in addition to Syria.) Just last week, a new term arose: “the Khorosan group.” [or “Khorasan”]

Now let me immediately acknowledge that the Intramuralist is by no means aware of all geopolitical terminology. Many things fly over, under, and/or right through my desired, observant radar. But I found it odd that all of a sudden the United States was conducting airstrikes against “the Khorosan group” — and far more than this semi-humble observer had never heard the phrase before.

I began asking questions. I found it odd that still early this week, the definition of “Khorosan” in Wikipedia was nothing short of ambiguous, offering only six, brief potential meanings, from a historic region to a wheat variety.

I searched ample sites… liberal, conservative, factual, subjective. I repeatedly read the narrative of Khorosan being “a little-known terror network” (very little, apparently). I found a few who suggest an active, existent sect. I found still more repeaters of indeterminate talking points. I found one more perspective that scared me. Note: I don’t know if this is true…

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York — the same position once held respectively by Louis Freeh and Rudy Giuliani. McCarthy is most known for the conviction of Islamic terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and the 11 other defendants of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (according to Wikipedia, which had far more information on him, I might add). While McCarthy embraces conservative politics, he is respected across partisan lines because of his noteworthy background in terrorism prosecution; he is knowledgeable. He believes the Khorosan group is fictitious.

McCarthy’s opinion is certainly not widespread nor unanimous. He acknowledges the historic region definition, but adds that the name is one “the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the Iranian-Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.”

McCarthy argues that Pres. Obama has repeatedly boasted that al-Qaeda has been decimated under his watch, often substantiating the claim by the killing of bin Laden. McCarthy continues by saying Obama has routinely dismissed any serious rise of al-Qaeda, blaming the current threat on all things other than mistakes in his discernment or decision-making. Obama diminishes any perspective contrary to his desired rhetoric of strong leadership. And in perhaps his most poignant criticism, McCarthy adds: “Obama is not the manner of man who can say, ‘I was wrong: It turns out that al-Qaeda is actually on the rise, its Islamic State faction is overwhelming the region, and American interests — perhaps even American territory — are profoundly threatened.’ So instead . . . you got ‘the Khorosan Group.’ ”

Let me be very clear: I hope Andrew McCarthy is wrong. Many believe he is. Many believe he’s wrong in that the group is not fictitious, but that Khorosan is not an accurate representation of the entire picture, as it’s merely a small terrorist cell; in other words, the group may not be fictitious, but it may be overhyped.

The part that concerns this observer most is this administration’s tendency to embrace hyperbole in attempts to seemingly manipulate the public narrative… “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…” “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS. These are untrue. While manipulative rhetoric is certainly not indigenous to this administration, it greatly concerns this observer that the truth is so ambiguous.

Respectfully…

09/30/201409/30/2014

what it is

Let’s call it what it is — and not what it’s not…

The unfathomable beheading at a food processing plant in Oklahoma City is not simply “workplace violence.” It was the evil act of a disgruntled, fired employee who was a Muslim convert, who may or may not have been imitating recent, publicized acts by Muslim militants overseas — who have publicly called on Muslims across the globe to join in the terror.

The military involvement overseas attempting to destroy ISIS is not simply a coalition addressing a “conflict.” It is a war. War is “a state or period of fighting between countries or groups” or “an organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad.” The United States is fighting organized terrorist groups — currently ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

(Note: that also means that there is no “war” against women, teachers, or Christmas, much to the rhetorical chagrin of many.)

We also are not fighting simply against a “radical extremist group.” We are fighting against an Islamic extremist group. While many seem most comfortable omitting the religious affiliation, the reality is that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etal. do not kill former members or those who don’t embrace their religion. As said ironically, perhaps best by the too-oft, in my opinion, disrespectful Bill Maher: “Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it.”

And perhaps Maher’s best line, when CBS/PBS’s Charlie Rose attempted to compare the ISIS terrorists to so-called “radical” Christians: “Well you’re wrong about that. The Qur’an absolutely has on every page stuff that’s horrible about how the infidels should be treated.”

(Another note: many do not know what the Qur’an actually says.)

My point again: let’s call things what they are — and not what they’re not…

As for the “what they’re not” perspective, observe the current hot seat of Democratic Party Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Regardless of one’s political leanings, she’s fascinating to watch. Let me say now, I don’t know her heart; I don’t know what drives her; I have no ability to accurately assess her moral integrity. But with multiple polls suggesting a current souring of Democratic candidates as we near the November elections, she’s restlessly working to drum up support for the politically likeminded. For a second time in recent months, she’s actually said that an opposing gubernatorial candidate has given women “the back of his hand.” What Wasserman Schultz must intend to imply (accuracy seems secondary) is that her opponent’s policies have not been friendly to the female gender. However, she instead calls the candidates something they are not.

Yes, we should call things what they are — not what they are not — always with respect, recognizing, too, we may possess a limited view of the facts.

Respectfully…

09/28/201409/28/2014

the dangers of social media

I learned a lesson last week. I learned the “code” of social media. Not to be confused with the proverbial dress code, dating code, or universal bro code — each which are unfortunately, ostentatiously, sometimes broken — social media has its own understood, accepted protocol. For example…

Indirect tweeting is an art form.

The teens are all on Twitter because the parents invaded Facebook.

Parents can “like” or “favorite” their kid’s status, but comments will negatively impact any coolness factor.

Insulting tweets are totally acceptable if they are retaliatory.

And…

Success is measured by the number of “favorites” and “retweets.”

Let me be the first to acknowledge the good that can come from social media. Among the many benefits, I am thankful that social media is a time saver. It allows us to connect with friends across the years and countries and that we otherwise may have lesser time for; it keeps us in touch.

It also gives us insight into how other generations are thinking. I love having extended, effective avenues to communicate with my kids — especially when they’re stuck in those adolescent stages of not wanting to share too much.

I additionally see social media applying pressure to some areas that otherwise might quietly fade away. I think of the spotlight social media has placed on trending topics — from the areas of semi-subtle government overreach to the recent abuses of not so subtle professional football players. Social media has prolonged the conversation and thus the attention on important topics.

Let me say, too, though, that social media can be dangerous. For example…

… One liners now count as communication; a response qualifies as dialogue. Insults are accepted — even thought to be good and true, especially if exceptionally witty. Respect for other people is secondary to the right to express oneself. Self-focus reigns. Hurting people is justified. Listening is not encouraged.. And… If I feel it, I can say it, post it, take a pic and broadcast it, because what I want matters most. In other words, social media can sometimes act as an arrogant, selfish, foolishly accepted platform. What are we teaching our younger generations?

This week I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing an emotional drama publicly play out in the Twitter universe. One person says something… another person says something else… the first justifies the next… the next justifies more. There was arrogance, insults, justification for foolish behavior, yada yada yada.

But let me tell you what it was not. It was not healthy conversation. It was not respectful dialogue. It was people who think they’re grown up all hurting one another, and justifying it along the way. The challenge for this semi-humble observer is that I love the many persons engaged in the interaction. I wanted to shout out and say, “What are you doing?! Do you not know how to speak to each other? Do you not know how to have conversation? Do you not know that social media can be dangerous?” Sadly, obviously not. They couldn’t hear me.

The biggest danger of social media is that people think they’re listening when they’re not. They think they’re communicating when they’re not. And they think what they’re doing is wise… when by all means it’s not.

Respectfully…

09/25/201409/25/2014

what’s most important

A headline snapshot from around the world this week…

“U.S. Military Leaders: Strikes in Syria Are Just the Start of a Prolonged Campaign”

“Ebola Epidemic Could Top a Million Victims If Not Contained, CDC Warns”

“Lois Lerner Breaks Silence: I’m ‘Not Sorry for Anything I Did’”

“A Majority of Americans Say Obama’s Presidency Is a ‘Failure’”

“Ravens Owner Steve Bisciotti Defends Team, Denies Withholding Information about Ray Rice Incident”

Each of the above gives me reason to pause…

War. Disease. Corruption. Leadership troubles. Domestic violence.

Each makes me stop in my tracks, soberly pondering the reality of what actually happened to substantiate such a headline. Most days, the Intramuralist does just that… ponders the headlines… reads deeper… makes inferences… asks questions. Except for days like today…

… when…

I went to a friend’s funeral…

I witnessed a son’s heartache…

I watched the advancement of an illness in another…

Each puts life into perspective.

Truly the little things matter very little… Being upset about an irritant or annoyance means little in the long run. Worried about a missed assignment or missed opportunity is disappointing but little more. And crying over spilled milk or spilled anything only adds liquid to the plate.

Are we paying attention to what’s truly most important?

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

It hurt my heart to see a young mom die. So soon. So early. But I have confident hope in a life that’s amazingly better. She knew that hope. She will suffer no more.

It hurt my heart to see my son in so much pain. He was wronged. Part of his response was wise — part of it not. I look forward to how regardless, he will grow.

And in regard to my friend who is sick now… that hurts my heart, too. But wow… her attitude of gratitude is amazing… it spurs me on… my turn to grow.

All keep me away from dwelling too much on dreary headlines… (Thank God).

Respectfully…

09/22/201409/22/2014

something good

These past few months we’ve witnessed even the non-sports fan pay increased attention to the athletic arena. From the previous outrage directed at then NBA owner Donald Sterling and his racist rants to the current outrage directed at the quartet of NFL players marked more by their off-field abuse than on-field athleticism, we’re seeing the bad; we’re witnessing the ugly. “Bad” and “ugly,” however, do not account for all that occurs in the wide world of sports. Noting the infamous Eastwood epic, let’s not forget to focus on the good. Let’s not get sidetracked by all the awful in the world. Let’s celebrate the story of Devon Still.

Devon Still is a defensive tackle for the Cincinnati Bengals. After being named a consensus All-American at Penn State, Still is now in his third year as a professional football player. Be aware that the average career of an NFL player is only 3.3 years (see Statista 2014). Entering his third year, in the last round of training camp cuts, Still was actually released. By his own admission, he wasn’t able to give 100% anymore.

In June of this year, Still’s 4 year old daughter, Leah, was diagnosed with Stage 4 neuroblastoma, a rare pediatric cancer; she is said to have a slightly better than 50% chance of survival. Upon learning of the diagnosis, understandably, Still’s motivation to play professional football faded quickly. Said Still, “When I found out, I told my family I was done. Done. I didn’t feel comfortable leaving my daughter while she’s going through this. She’s fighting for her life. Sports is not more important than me being there while my daughter is fighting for her life.”

He said more… “My head is messed up, to be honest with you. It’s messed up. Sometimes I feel bi-polar. Sometimes I wake up and I’m optimistic. Sometimes I wake up and it’s just heavy on me.”

One day after being cut, Still was re-signed to the Bengals practice squad. The front office knew Still was no longer giving his best. But something bigger was happening in Cincinnati. By placing Devon Still on the 10 member practice squad, Still was able to maintain his excellent insurance by the NFL, paying for his daughter’s care.

“They could have just washed their hands completely of it,” Still said. “Say we don’t care what’s going on in his personal life, we just want people who can care 100% on football, that’s what they pay us to do. But they thought about my personal issues and allowed me to come back on the practice squad so I still have insurance. They said if I keep working on my physical with my injury and mentally prepared myself to focus on football, then they can move me back up to the roster, so I am not all the way out of the loop.”

Two weeks ago Still was moved back to the active roster. He has made significant contributions to the team’s success in each succeeding week. Something about the faith the Bengals showed in him and the prioritization of what’s truly most important made a difference in Still’s motivation — a motivation that continues to be spurred on by a heart wrapped around a vivacious young girl.

Said head coach Marvin Lewis, who is well respected for his character both on and off the field: “He’s been a great father. He’s done everything he can to be a part of the football team… We’ll continue to allow him to do what he needs to do as far as attending to her care because it’s important.”

The Bengals also made the decision to donate proceeds from Still’s jersey sales to Cincinnati’s Children’s Hospital and pediatric cancer care and research. His #75 jersey has quickly become the team’s top seller. Sean Payton, head coach of the New Orleans Saints, responded by personally purchasing 100 jerseys at $100 a piece.

Devon and Leah Still are making a positive difference far beyond any wide world of sports. The Bengals are doing something good.

Respectfully…

09/21/201409/21/2014

who am I?

“I am not a perfect son. I am not a perfect husband. I am not a perfect parent, but I am, without a doubt, not a child abuser.” — currently deactivated NFL star, running back Adrian Peterson

Former Pres. Richard M. Nixon told the world he wasn’t a “crook.” Lauren Bacall pronounced she wasn’t a “has been.” And Albert Einstein actually declared he wasn’t a “genius” (… “just curious” was Einstein’s self-assessment).

So allow me to ask: who are we? … what defines us? Or perhaps the better question: are we defined by what we do?

Look at the NFL, currently throbbing under the increased, exponential scrutiny of social media. Look at the current questionable conduct (at best) exhibited by Peterson and the much publicized trio of Jonathan Dwyer, Greg Hardy, and Ray Rice — each previously known more by their athletic prowess than by their current assault accusations. Is that who they are? Contrary to what he desperately desires us to believe, for example, is Adrian Peterson a child abuser?

Let me ask still more: does only one thing define us?

Jameis Winston, the reigning Heisman Trophy winner… is he Florida State’s star quarterback or a shouter of malicious memes? … is he, too, an assailant of a 19 year old woman?

Bill Clinton… a former President or a philanderer?

Tiger Woods… a professional golfer or an adulterer?

Woody Allen… a talented playwright or a twisted step-father?

My point is simply that we like to define persons as easily as possible, when sometimes, it’s simply not that easy. We are more than that. And yet, we continue to attempt to identify people in a bit of a figurative, nonporous box — some nice, neat fitting explanation that isn’t always so nice and easy to define. We are complex people. We may be good people. Good people make mistakes. We make mistakes. The wise man also then learns from his mistakes. So the question is whether our mistakes define us. Does any singular act define us? … or is it a succession of acts? The definition is often not so singular and simple.

As I penned this post, a political ad arose on the television. promoting a candidate for a neighboring state. Here was Alison Grimes (D-KY), an articulate woman hoping to unseat Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the U.S. Senate. Their race seems competitive and spirited indeed.

But I was struck by the first thing Grimes had to say. Instead of telling us who she is or what she believes, her statement was emphatically clear: “I’m not Barack Obama.”

You and me… Nixon, Bacall, Einstein… the sad, growing plethora of NFL’ers… even candidate Grimes…

Defining a person isn’t quite that easy.

Respectfully…

09/18/201409/18/2014

respect omission

“AR, I respectfully love you and respectfully disagree with you.”

The above was the initial response to one of my recent posts…

I love it!

I love that love and respect didn’t equate to automatic agreement. Just because we love and respect someone doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything they think, say, and do.

I love that love and respect didn’t negate all disagreement. Just because we love and respect someone doesn’t mean we aren’t able to disagree. We are each uniquely and wonderfully made. We have different gifts, different experiences, and different perspectives.

I love that love and respect can exist in absence of consensus. We do not need consensus in order to love and respect. In fact, often times, it is our lack of consensus that sharpens us… that encourages us to think deeply… that aids us in crafting effective solution.

And yet, so many of our leaders, so many of the elect, so many of the intelligent — and so many of us — have confused this issue. Note the deterioration of our dialogue…

We start with the words of my insightful, reverent dissenter: “I respectfully love you and respectfully disagree with you.” [emphasis mine]

Sensing disagreement, respect is often the first thing each of us — and our leaders — justify omitting. I have also received these exact words: “I love you and disagree with you.” (Note: no stated respect.)

We then digress until the full focus is solely on the squabble. There is no love nor respect stated. We only hear: “I disagree with you.” The reason we hear no love and respect in that last statement is because there is none.

Listen to our leaders these days. Listen to the elect. Listen to the litany of pronounced justification for going it alone… for executive action… for not listening to the other side of the aisle or to dissenting opinion. Do you hear any love and respect? Do you hear comments such as, “We had a healthy exchange, actively listening to one another, deliberately working to comprehend where each of us is coming from, and then discerning how we can together develop effective, long term solution.” Within such a response, there is a focus on listening… comprehending… and thus on solution. Do we hear that from our leaders?

Or instead — and typically only after huddling with the likeminded — too often behind closed doors and carefully crafted photo ops — do they instead focus on the disagreement?

Do they remove everything from the response above — except for the part that pronounces that they disagree?

Some will come running to our colloquial rescue, encouraging the contemporary adage that we should “agree to disagree.” While I do believe there is as aspect of the adage that’s healthy, there’s also a part that’s lacking. Too often “to agree to disagree” still omits love and respect.

Respectfully… always…

09/16/201409/16/2014

morality police

Lots of incidents seem to be hitting us smack dab in the face lately… incidents that seemingly demand a response…

The events of Ferguson, Missouri, where an unarmed black man was killed by a white police officer…

Michael Sam, the first openly gay, potential professional NFL player, who was cut by the St. Louis Rams…

The Ray Rice assault case — the Ravens star running back, hitting his then fiancé — now wife — in the face, knocking her out…

The NFL’s even bigger star, Adrian Peterson, spanking his son with some kind of stick, leaving cuts, bruises, maybe more…

There are all sorts of angles one could embrace in each of these cases. We could make logical, passionate cases for or against a single side in Ferguson… for or against the employment of Michael Sam… for or against the extent of discipline levied against Peterson and/or Rice. Each of the above is significant.

My desire today, no less, is not to tackle the specifics of each incident. My desire is to instead capture an aspect that seems to gird each of the above. Somewhere, somehow, in some way, we seem to have embraced some semblance of morality police — a societal enforcement epidemic… an enforcement that often impedes a fair processing of all the facts…

The “police” seems to say: “We will decide what’s right and wrong… we will decide how far one can go… we will decide what’s good and true and right.” In other words, “If you disagree with ‘we,’ you must be wrong”… as if due process is not necessary nor good…

Where has this police force come from?

What do they base their instant, self-pronounced wisdom upon?

And who are they? Who are the “we” that decides such moral absolutes?

The reality is that in each of the above, we don’t know all the facts; new perspectives and information continues to arise; and thus, reasonable people may sincerely disagree on perspective and appropriate consequence…

… an unarmed black man was killed by a white man in Ferguson; were his hands innocently in the air? Did he attack the officer first? What don’t we know? … a gay football player was cut from his team and not quickly picked up elsewhere; was it because he was gay? Was he not good enough? Or were all the cameras and distractions that accompanied the 7th round draft pick a factor? What more must we learn? … a football player beats his fiancé unconscious, but she marries him and stands with him to this day; is our opinion more valuable than hers? What can we not see? … and a player who spanked his son — maybe beat him — maybe in a way that was abusive; wasn’t it only a few decades ago that the majority of parents spanked? Is there any more to this story that those who rush to judgment — one way or the other — have omitted in their emotional hastiness?

There are multiple potential, valid perspectives to each of the above; we don’t know all the specifics of what happened where. But the morality police don’t allow for the time to process wisely — for the time to sort through each of those perspectives.

The challenge I see is that these so-called police don’t pause before proclaiming consequences; they don’t seem to think before they act. They dismiss due process, not recognizing the sagacity and shrewdness the time involved affords. Due process allows for the time necessary to uncover all relevant facts so that no judgment is rushed nor injustice applied.

Rushing to justice will never be wise… especially when multiple incidents keep hitting us smack dab in the face… incidents that seemingly demand a response… at the right time.

Respectfully…

09/14/2014

noise levels

Come on feel the noise.

Do you hear what I hear?

Come on, come on; you gotta hear me now…

We often don’t move until the volume increases — until we actually hear something. Just as Thursday’s post acknowledged how our sense of seeing changes us, our sense of hearing makes us move. When the cultural clamoring increases to conscience-stricken decibels, we act. Finally. Just like this week…

Just this week… across the country…

We made much noise after a video of the assault of his wife by Ravens running back, Ray Rice, was made public. While the incident occurred in February — and his wife has consistently stood by his side, pleading for privacy and mercy — the outrage was still loud…

“Ray Rice should never play in the NFL again… although I know we are a country of second chances… The league does not need anyone like Rice representing it.” — James E. Causey, writer for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“The NFL has lost its way. It doesn’t have a Ray Rice problem; it has a violence against women problem… The only workable solution is for [NFL commissioner] Roger Goodell to resign…” — Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization for Women

“The owners and the NFL need to publicly and loudly fire you.” — (again to Goodell) ESPN’s Keith Olbermann

Rice had already been suspended for two games; after the noise, however, he was suspended indefinitely. He was cut by his team. The calls now continue for action to be taken against the commissioner, believing he knew, should have known, and/or should have done more.

Just this week… across the globe…

We continued to make more noise about the ongoing atrocities in Iraq and Syria by ISIS, the violent terrorist group. Our voices reached a peak level with the beheading of a second American journalist. Friends, here’s the embedded challenge (put away any partisan hats, please). This horrific persecution by the Islamic terrorists has been going on for months… months. Violent for years, their executions, beheadings, stonings, and crucifixions, etc. have been going on all year. Only after the decapitation of a second journalist was made public, did we get loud. Thus, our government — cautious or confused –pending your partisan bent — only announced some kind of specific strategy after the nation was loud.

We respond to loud noises.

A bump in the night… a bang on the door… a cheer from the TV set… when the noise is loud, we respond.

Let me not suggest one way or the other that any of the responses above are errant, misguided, or ill-advised; the Intramuralist is not evaluating the wisdom of the response. My point is that our response has opportunity to be most effective if we are prudent and proactive… if we think things through ahead of time… foreseeing possibility… foreseeing the danger or damage… acting accordingly… and thus not putting our reputation on the line…

… by seemingly, simply responding to the noise.

Respectfully…