intramuralist ™ – Page 126 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

04/01/201404/01/2014

important

So as I sat in silence, prepared to pen today’s post, I ran through my mental list of what’s most important and what I desire to discuss today.

I contemplated writing about health care…

Sorry. I know this is an issue to which the Intramuralist frequently refers; my sense is simply that it’s a glaring example of partisan politics, in which transparency is scarce, economics and ethics are compromised, and neither advocates nor opposition are respectful of contrary opinion. Today is supposed to be the first day in which annual enrollment is complete, and mandates and fines are imposed. Talking with several of you across the country, I also hear your irritation in regard to how this has been implemented and executed. We could discuss this today, but my perception is that it isn’t what’s most important.

We could speak of Russia’s armed aggression…

Two weeks ago, they voted to annex the Crimea region of Ukraine after the people in the area supported a public referendum. (I wonder… if Minnesotans voted to be part of Canada, would we so easily support letting them go? But lest I digress…) I cautiously watch Russian Pres. Putin as he strongly and swiftly alters the Ukrainian border. I watch, too, how his military amassing seems unthwarted and his ambition unmoved no matter the words of Western leaders. And then I see Pres. Obama on ESPN.

I contemplated writing about Obama on ESPN…

I have mixed emotions on this, friends. The Intramuralist is no fan of being a critic for critical sakes. I expect our nations’ leaders to have interests outside of foreign policy. But there’s something about Pres. Obama’s frequent flirtation with pop culture that makes me uncomfortable.

On ESPN, the President did his annual analysis of his NCAA college basketball picks. We all do that. (Ok, most… sorry, Mom…) But the point is that the kind of analysis the President presented takes significant time. It takes focus. It takes energy and concentration to know that the Spartans of Michigan State were in position to make a long run in the tourney, due to their preseason ranking, early season injuries, and late season prowess. That takes time — more than the 2 hours interviewed by the original Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I want the leaders of our country, regardless of party, to spend their time on what’s most important. Right now, our foreign policy and relations are vital. Pop culture is not. Is it right? Is it wrong? I can’t definitively answer those questions. I simply suggest it makes me uncomfortable.

And so as I was seeking to focus today’s blog on what is most important, I had to chuckle. Down at the bottom of my page, as I prepared to type, was the following:

“josh is a awsome son”

So my 12 year old, special, special needs son doesn’t consistently hit the “shift” key. His spelling isn’t always correct, and sometimes he talks differently that you and me. There are a lot of things he can’t do. But what am I focused on? On what he can’t do — or what he can? Only one of those responses prompts gratitude in me this day. So I stopped writing, went to his room, and teased Josh about his semi-humble, self-assessment. He immediately matched my chuckle with his own contagious glee, and then joyfully said, “Mom, I want you to write about me today.”

Once again, when I look at life through eyes other than my own, I see what’s most important.

Respectfully,

03/29/2014

SEBELIUS v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.

In the week that was, we witnessed an especially interesting set of juxtaposed events, as the proprietors of Hobby Lobby met with the Supreme Court and Pres. Obama met with Pope Francis. Religious liberty was at the forefront of both discussions.

As always, we must first sift through the plethora of stabs at rhetorical spin, knowing that political motivations unfortunately always pierce the transparency objective observers crave. In fact, I found the dueling press releases from the White House and Vatican somewhat ironic, as the administration emphasized the topic of “growing inequality,” a phrase absent from the Vatican’s public statement.

The White House press office stated that the Pope “did not touch in detail on the Affordable Care Act,” and that he and Obama “actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms.” Obama added that any social schism “really was not a topic of conversation.”

The Vatican’s far more brief description stated the following: “In the context of bilateral relations and cooperation between Church and State, there was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform.”

With the Vatican referring to the case before the high court, the question is: should a company whose owners morally object to an action be forced by government to act anyway?

The issue with Hobby Lobby has zero to do with any or our personal opinions on whether or not birth control and contraception products and services should be included within Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act/whatever-you’re-most-comfortable-calling-it-now. The question before the court is whether the government is violating one’s religious liberty. The family-owned company is a crafts retail chain that objects to being compelled to provide four specific preventive services believed to be abortion-inducing.

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” Is the government burdening the owners’ free exercise?

What if we removed the specific subject? What if we spoke of something other than birth control? What if we removed the subject that causes some of our emotions to swell? Simply stated, does the government have the right to trump our religious beliefs? Is some wiser, compelling governmental interest involved?

As I wrestle with this, two aspects cause me to pause. One, if the federal government is allowed to mandate behavior here, how far will they go? What limitations will exist on what government can require? And two, I’m uncomfortable with government feeling they are wiser than the church. Friends, the Intramuralist is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but my sense is that the Pope is attempting to receive his direction from an authority greater than most. Obama uttered a similar statement, saying after their meeting, “His job is a little more elevated. We’re down on the ground dealing with the often profane, and he’s dealing with higher powers.”

My sense is we should pay more respect to anyone dealing with the divine than pursuing our own political policy and opinion. My sense is also that when we begin to justify trumping an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs — whether or not we adhere to similar thinking — we are treading in dangerous territory, less mindful of any “higher power.”

Respectfully,

03/27/201403/27/2014

yes & no

For years I’ve wrestled with Obamacare. Call it Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, the “healthcare security act” — each of which I’ve heard a person utilize when it’s most politically expedient. When the bill was perceived popular, some made certain to name it after the President; others were resolute in avoiding any name recognition. Once the act became far less popular, the utilization of the term totally changed. Geepers. Talk about Washington hypocrisy. It’s rampant. For both parties. (Please allow me one more “geepers.”)

But after the new healthcare law officially passed its 4th anniversary (note that I didn’t say “celebrated,” as it’s not a term generally thought to be compatible with the law), I believe I’ve finally discerned the Intramuralist’s bottom line on why this bill bugs me so. It’s no secret, friends; after reading the proposal, the Intramuralist has long thought the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unwise policy. While it addresses some significant problems within the application of healthcare, it also creates a whole new host of serious snags.

The snags are significant…

Rising costs…

Cancelled policies…

Loss of doctors and hospitals…

Poor execution of enrollment…

Mandates, taxes, and fines…

More mandates, taxes, and fines…

Arbitrary and inconsistent implementation…

Making people pay for services they don’t need…

Etc., etc., etc…

These are just a few of the snags. Still, none of the above are my primary problem. None are why the bill bugs me so.

Economically, I don’t believe the bill is wise. You can’t expect to cover more people more effectively and efficiently, give them more stuff, and for the care to somehow cost less. That doesn’t make economic sense. Again, however, such is not my primary problem.

The bill is still not popular. Current polling data puts support of the bill at no more than 40-42%, while now 54-56% oppose the law. Granted, the Intramuralist has never been driven by popularity.

As stated here multiple times previously, the bill was passed via a strictly partisan vote. Only one party voted for this law. I don’t like any law crafted in such a way; however, still not my bottom line.

My bottom line problem with this law is actually rather simple. It has nothing to do with economic theory nor the nuances within healthcare. It’s basic. Perhaps its one of those “all I really need to know” things from kindergarden. It’s easy. But it’s true.

I was always taught to let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no. It’s not rocket science. In other words, we should mean what we say and say what we mean. So much rhetoric and salesmanship was used to make us want this bill. It was not honest, transparent conversation. From being able to “keep your doctors” to “liking the plan once we found out what’s in it,” all seems designed to sell us on something the majority of us don’t want. Even if the majority wanted it, the Intramuralist will never be attracted to the politician whose “yes” and “no” mean something other than “yes” and “no.” That bugs me. Still.

Respectfully,

03/24/201403/24/2014

unequal

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

Such truth is self-evident: all men and women were created equal. We have equal value, equal worth, and are equally loved by our Creator. We were endowed with equal, unalienable rights.

But we have unequal…

… gifts…

… talents…

… natural bents and abilities.

Unequal strengths…

… weaknesses…

… places where we succeed and fail.

Unequal challenges…

… temptations…

… circumstances and events.

Unequal ambitions…

… work ethics…

… passions and drives.

“Equal,” my friends, does not mean the same. It seems there exists a growing bubble yet to be burst that we are each — all — somehow the same. We are not.

Like the school districts who can no longer give grades — or can no longer give “tests” or “assess” or offer any difference in grades… I think of Jackson County Schools in North Carolina, where earlier this school year they implemented a grading policy in which teachers can no longer give students anything below 55% regardless of whether an assignment is even completed.

In Grand Rapids, Mich., high school students no longer receive “F”s but instead earn the letter “H.” The “H” stands for “held,” meaning their results are being “held” until their work is up to expected par.

Can we no longer honestly speak of inequality in ethic or effort? Some of us will never be “up to expected par.” And here’s a newsflash, friends: each of us will not be “up to expected par” in something… be it algebra, golf games, comprehension of Puritan literature, or understanding the nuances embedded within political rhetoric.

We are unequal people. That is not said with any judgment nor criticism; it is also not stated with an omission of compassion. It is simply an acknowledgement of reality. When we cannot acknowledge reality, such seems foolish indeed.

This past weekend, rounds 1 and 2 of the 2014 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Championship were played across the country. With hopes high and dreams even higher, several teams unexpectedly found themselves ousted in the single-elimination tournament. The #1 seeded Wichita St. Shockers… the #2 seed, Kansas Jayhawks… the 3rd seeded Orange from Syracuse and Duke Blue Devils… each found themselves making an early exit.

They also learned the often painful but authentic lesson that not all people are created “equal.” They are certainly not the same.

Respectfully,

03/22/2014

march madness

As several spend more time on their brackets than their business, I propose that the madness began long before March. Thus allow me to expediently utilize the madness of the hardwood to humbly offer my entrants into what has contributed to the craze of current events. Note that they are currently not in exact order; remember that even what some may consider a #16 seed is still allowed in the dance. We won’t all agree on the seeds nor on who/what should be included. The following aspects, attitudes, circumstances, and events are the real contributors to March Madness… at least in 2014…

#1 Seeds: “The Lackeys”

Lack of respect for all mankind
Lack of empathy & compassion
Lack of humility
Lack of gratitude

#2 Seeds: “The Unwilling”

An unwillingness to compromise
An unwillingness to acknowledge God
An unwillingness to adhere to the Constitution
An unwillingness to sacrifice

#3 Seeds: “The Selfies”

Self-centeredness
Self-reliance
Self-focus
Selfishness

#4 Seeds: “The Shunners & Ships”

1. Discrimination

2. Reverse discrimination

3. Partisanship

4. Materialism as one’s sole ambition

#5 Seeds: “The Ele-Ments”

Entitlement
Environmental disrespect
The Establishment
“Excrement” (feel free to substitute another word here)

#6 Seeds: “The Dazed & Confused”

The confusion between wants & needs…
… wisdom & intelligence
… blessing & wealth
… success & celebrity

Note that violence, famine, climate, debt, disease, hopelessness, hate, fear, poverty, political instability, war, traditional values, evolving values, income motives & assessments, the economy, Barack Obama, Republicans, Democrats, socialism, sexism, social media, too much sports, pickles (ok, sorry — that’s from me), terrorism, texting in place of real conversation, Arabs & Israelis, Russia & Ukraine, Iran & everyone else, Obamacare, obesity, gluttony, ignorance, radical Islam, inequality, equality, tolerance, intolerance, population growth, population growth myths, and red tape filled out the rest of the bracket. Each lost to a higher seed.

Yes, as previously stated, the madness began long before March.

Respectfully,

03/20/2014

2014 ncaa tournament

What’s so maddening about the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament?

Is it the diversity? After all, only in the 2014 bracket will you seem to find…

… Cavaliers vs. Chanticleers, Huskies vs. Hawks, and Aztecs vs. Aggies.

That’s not to mention skin color…

… Bearcats vs. the color Crimson, Broncos vs. Orange, and Lobos vs. Cardinal (… what’s a “lobo” again?).

Don’t confuse the color Cardinal with the bird Cardinal, as birds are again well-represented via defending champ, Louisville, and those prominent Jayhawks, Blue Jays, and even Ducks.

Let’s also not forget the nuts (… sorry, Buckeyes).

There actually exist multiple commonalities among the teams, especially noting the half dozen included Wildcats. In fact, there exist such a plethora of the animal that they will quickly become an endangered species, eliminating one another when Arizona meets Weber St. and Kansas St. meets Kentucky all in the first round… each an untamed feline. Those Wildcats tend to eat their own… just sayin’…

Speaking of eating their own, evil is again unfortunately alive and well on planet Earth, as Devils hail from both Arizona St. and Duke. Sorry, nothing against those two well-respected educational institutions; the Intramuralist just can’t support evil.

Sooners and Shockers…

Colonials and Colonels…

It’s no wonder it’s hard to know who to root for.

We might also note that it’s hip these days to broadcast any weather event not easily explainable; hence, we welcome both the Cyclones and Golden Hurricane to this year’s conversation.

We will see Spartans vs. Blue Hens (… sorry, but the whole hen idea sounds a little weak) and Rams vs. Lumberjacks (… who are respectfully taking some time off to play a little basketball).

Don’t also miss the inclusion of both Bison and Buffaloes. Is there a difference?

Ah, let’s not forget the Billikens, Jaspers, and team from Louisiana-Lafayette. What’s in a name? LOTS… especially if you’re a Ragin’ Cajun.

Speaking of individuals, there are a handful that stand out that we should at least give a mention… from UCLA’s Wanaah Bail to North Carolina State’s Staats Battle to St. Louie’s Jordair Jett… too bad Wofford’s Indiana Faithfull left the team earlier this year.

But lest we begin to think the tournament is not an accurate blend of contemporary society, remember that there will also exist jeers and cheers and tears and fears. There will be “one shining moments” and moments that no one wishes would be publicized again. There will be winners and losers, but only one team will win in the end. Some teams will be better than others. Some will simply play better. It’s not a measure of equality. It is just a game.

Welcome to the madness, friends. Personally, I kind of like those Shockers from Wichita State. I also like the Spartans from East Lansing, Michigan. And oh, yeah… I like Louisiana-Lafayette. I like to say their name.

Respectfully,

03/18/201403/18/2014

bossy

So have you seen the latest extent of so-called political correctness? Allow me to quote the current campaign, initiated by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and supported by Anna Maria Chávez, CEO of Girl Scouts of the USA, who wrote the following last week in a special to CNN:

“Assertive and bold, strong and courageous.

These are the words we use when we think of our leaders — the characteristics we look for when we elect politicians, vet CEOs or select captains of sports teams.

Yet throughout history, these terms have been primarily applied when men have occupied leadership roles. We expect men to lead and assert themselves, and we encourage and reward these behaviors when young boys exhibit them.

So why is it when a young girl exhibits these exact same characteristics, we often resort to a different word to describe her behavior? A word that says to young girls: These are not the behaviors we expect from you. Why do we call her ‘bossy’?…

When we refer to a girl who demonstrates leadership qualities as ‘bossy,’ she receives a message she is doing something wrong, that somehow, the same behaviors we praise and reward in boys are inappropriate for her, and we are limiting the scope of her potential as a result.”

Banbossy.com (yes, an actual web site) makes the assumption that “bossy” is tied to effective leadership… that “bossy” is the trait others are identifying that is similar to a positive strength in a man… that “bossy” is synonymous with assertive and bold, strong and courageous.

I have tremendous respect for Chávez and Sandberg and those such as Beyonce and Condoleezza Rice, who have jumped aboard the rhetorical bandwagon. It’s true, as they eloquently assert, that words can be limiting — that they can shape our perceptions and either encourage ambition or limit our awareness of potential. No one likes to be called “bossy.” No one likes to be called anything seemingly derogatory.

Yet there’s a bit of a glaring challenge: some people actually are “bossy.” Some people actually are fond of giving others orders; some are domineering, overbearing, authoritarian, choleric, controlling, dictatorial, imperious, and at least one other “B” word that I’d prefer not to post. There are “bossy” men, and there are “bossy” women. And the primary challenge that potentially bursts the bubble of the current campaign is that being “bossy” is not synonymous with positive, effective leadership; being “bossy” is not an accurate measure of strength or effectiveness. To this frequent female boss, being “bossy” means something else (something more synonymous with that other “B” word), and it is not a necessary nor effective trait for anyone’s leadership, especially if there exists any authentic attempt to actually win friends and influence people.

While I believe the motive of Sheryl Sandberg’s initial campaign was rooted in positive encouragement, the challenge is that it misses the mark. Once again in our seemingly, constantly watered-down society, we seek to ban something in order to avoid dealing with the reality. Instead of acknowledging that there are good female leaders and poor female leaders — just as there are good male leaders and poor male leaders — and that there are “bossy” and non-bossy professionals, the focus is aimed at the use of the word. That seems off to me. Not all men nor women are good at what they do. Being “bossy” is often a part of that.

Chávez states that the “Ban Bossy” campaign promotes “equality.” My sense is that it instead promotes an ignorance to the fact that “bossy-ness” exists… and yes, among both men and women.

Respectfully,

03/15/201403/16/2014

not knowing

When pondering the point of today’s post, I couldn’t help but feel for the families of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. For 239 people to be gone… instantly… to have no idea what happened or where they are… to be completely unaware… there are few things more significant to focus on this day. Then it donned on me what’s so troubling… and where so much of our discomfort currently, often lies.

In the modern “I Era” — meaning, the age of all things “I” — the internet, iPhones, and an abundant focus on self — we take pride in knowing everything. Everything.

If you don’t know the answer, Google it.

If you can’t figure something out, look it up.

If you want to know what someone or something looks like, find their pic; it will be on the worldwide web somewhere.

In other words, we never have to go without knowing. We think and feel like we know — and can know — it all.

But we don’t.

I paused last week coming across a brief nugget of truth, buried within a traditional passage read at many marriage ceremonies. Embedded within the concept of what love is and what it’s not, is this tiny little line that speaks of human knowledge, ability, and also, limitation. It reads: “When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.”

It goes on to say: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully…”

My point is that even as we grow, we still only “know in part.” We don’t know it all. And yet when mysteries linger — such as the intriguing whereabouts of Flight MH370 — our “I Era” bubbles assuming we know and are capable of knowing are quickly pierced. We come face to face with the reality of the limitations of our knowledge.

Hence, I must ask: where else is our knowledge limited? And where else do we ignorantly assume we know that of which we are incapable?

… on global warming…

… on cloning…

… on what will happen next in the Middle East…

… on motives of individuals…

… on the extent certain policies impact the economy forever…

… on when and why nations cease to exist…

I am not attempting to be disrespectful or partisan in any way, friends. I am simply asking the question. My sense is that many are unwilling to ask the question. Even more so, I believe we are often unwilling to acknowledge that we don’t — and can’t — know it all. The unknowing makes us uncomfortable.

God bless the families of those aboard that fateful flight. May they know something more soon.

Respectfully,

03/13/2014

beauty

Let’s embrace the road less travelled on the Intramuralist, wrestling with a subject atypical of our daily dialogue… did anyone watch “The Bachelor” finale Monday night?

Now lest you believe we’ve strayed too far from the wisdom (or lack of it) within current events, I humbly submit to you that Monday’s so-called “reality television” made manifest one glaring cultural value. Let me first provide a brief synopsis, as creatively editorialized by The Baltimore Sun…

I come to you with good news: The season is over and we never have to see El Bachelor Juan Pablo again. Things certainly have changed since “Juanuary” when we were so excited to join Juan Pablo on his “adventura.” What we didn’t know was that “adventura” meant “journey taken by a rude, arrogant, egotistical, racist, cocky, douchebag, lying, hypocritical, self-centered, offensive jerk.”

While the above may be a little harsh, on Monday’s finale, Juan Pablo chose between 2 women, Nikki and Clare. At the climactic decision point, Clare went first (never a good sign). Back to the Sun…

For some reason, Clare talks first and launches into a speech about how much she loves him and how much she believes in him. Juan Pablo can barely keep from yawning. Please stop talking, Clare. Juan Pablo finally speaks and tells her she is amazing woman but he “wishes the earth sucked me today because this is hardest decision but I have to say goodbye to you.” He goes in for the adios hug and Clare pushes him away, which elicits huge applause from the live audience and the National Organization for Women. In her whiney baby voice, Clare tells him off and leaves with “After what you put me through I would never want my children to have a father like you”… Juan Pablo’s response to Clare’s verbal whipping is to casually shrug and say, “Whoo I’m glad I didn’t pick her”…

And then came the victor…

Nikki arrives and can’t wait to hear Juan Pablo tell her he loves her. She too launches into a speech about how great he is and that she can’t imagine spending her life without him. Please stop talking, Nikki. He tells her “I love so many things about you. You are like me, very honest.” He doesn’t tell her he loves her… Juan Pablo tells Nikki that he is not 100 percent sure that he wants to propose, but he is 100 percent sure that he doesn’t want to let her go because “I like you, A LOT.”

In the televised interviews after the announced selection, the ambience was odd. There was much talk from many women about how Juan Pablo never connected emotionally with any of the women in the room. He didn’t ask them questions. He didn’t get to know them. And then to the woman he chose, he could not, would not, acknowledge whether he loved her or not.

And here then is why ABC’s popular dating show is the content for today’s post… (thank you, those of you who’ve stayed with us even after the frequent sighs…)

When Juan Pablo first met each of these women, his most frequent utterance was “wow.” As the show proceeded, he kissed many. He kissed many one right after the other. He did more than kiss. There were multiple times he spoke gleefully about some great connection, when the supposedly tethered woman didn’t seem to feel it. It was all about the looks. It was about physical attraction. From my limited vantage point, this year’s bachelor was driven by external appearance.

Real beauty, however, comes from our inner self. It’s the only beauty that never fades. Current culture doesn’t seem to get that… as witnessed, sadly, on “The Bachelor.”

Respectfully,

03/11/2014

life is short

We’ve heard it lots: life is short. I suppose the idea that “life is short” is somewhat relative; however, what I do know is that life doesn’t last forever. For everything there is a season… a time to be born, a time to die…

It’s hard to shake what’s happened to Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. It seems to no longer exist… no longer on anyone’s radar screen.

There were 239 people on board…

Citizens of America, Australia, Austria, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Taiwan, and Ukraine… 2 infants… the oldest, age 79, I believe.

Vanished.

Gone.

In an instant.

What would their loved ones want to say to them now? Better still, for those on that presumably tragic trajectory, what would they have said or done differently? … what would they have done had they known such would be their last hour?

Would they have made a final phone call? … expressing their love, respect, adoration, or forgiveness?

Would they have said a prayer? … acknowledging One bigger, better, and more powerful and knowing than self?

Would they have spent intentional time in reflection? … focusing on what they have in common with others? … or would they still somehow have dwelt on differences that they once allowed to divide?

The question is: what would have been most important?

What if it was us? … what would we think? … what would we do? … what would we hope for and believe in if we truly realized life was short?

This is hard question, friends; it affects each and every one of us. I sometimes think we live so much in the moment that we’re oblivious to life’s shortness. In our world of instant gratification and lack of over-flowing gratitude — in our world that so often embraces dissension over unity in the name of personal passion — in a world where each of us have blatant blind spots — each of us — I feel like we’re missing something. We’re missing the reality of the limitation of life; we don’t typically live with the end in mind.

As a friend’s elementary school daughter penned for a school project last week, “What if you woke up today with only the things that you thanked God for yesterday?”

Wow… through the minds of babes… that would certainly change what we said and did; would it not? It would certainly amend our focus.

There was 1 American adult, Philip Wood, on board the fateful flight of Malaysia Airlines Saturday. In the immediate aftermath, his mother’s words were as follows: “I know in my heart that Philip’s with God. Only people who know God can survive things like this.”

And from his brother: “I just wanted to say to all the other families that are around the world: we’re hurting; we know you’re hurting just as much, and we’re praying for you.”

I see a recognition of God… a submission to him… and an awareness of other people and what we have in common…

Life is short.

Respectfully,