Posts

Posted on

humility

AP_Sherman_140119_16x9_992

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

meat sticks

liver-and-onions

When I was a child, my mother had this ingenious idea.  Knowing none of her children were too fond of liver and onions, she would quietly take the vitamin-rich meat, slice it into very thin strips, crisp it up in the frying pan, and then enthusiastically present it as — ta-da! — “meat strips.”  Note:  we loved meat strips.  Couldn’t stand liver… but my brothers and I loved “meat strips.”

 

Now with all due respect to each of my parents, my mother’s desire was simple.  Here were 3 young children who didn’t know any better, where she had decided what was best for us.  Granted, she knew best; we were children.  We needed someone to teach and train us in the way we should go.

 

As the Intramuralist sees it, one of our culture’s current challenges is that we have men and women who believe they know best, and they have decided that they know what’s best for the rest of us — even though the rest of us aren’t children; we don’t need someone to teach and train us in the way we should go.  That’s not someone else’s job.  Government should never be confused as our parent.

 

I shuddered this week when listening to the United Nations Climate Chief.  Yes, I know that climate change is a hot button issue… yes, I know it’s going to become a bigger issue (… especially, again, at least in part to take attention off of the negative ramifications of Obamacare)… and yes, I know that several among us passionately believe that man is responsible for changes to the Earth.  The Intramuralist’s position on climate change remains steadfast:  man’s role in any perceived earthly changes cannot be fully evaluated without an acknowledgement of and a submission to the one who actually created the Earth.

 

Lest I digress…

 

When UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres interviewed with Bloomberg News late last week, the perceived world spokesman on global warming/climate change said that China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing the issue.  Figueres added that the American system of government is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming.

 

Friends, my concern today centers not on the validity of global warming.  My concern is that a global spokesman publicly praised an oppressive means of decision-making.  Not only did she praise the decision-making of a communist government, she criticized the decision-making of a democracy.  She has decided what is best, and in order to achieve that, she believes an authoritarian dictatorship is more effective in accomplishing the end goal.  She advocates for the removal of decision-making by the people; in my opinion, she thus advocates for treating adults like children.

 

I’m concerned that because many agree with her end goal, they, too, will embrace an oppressive means of decision-making.  They will embrace not allowing diverse input when making decisions.  They feel so passionately (and arguably arrogantly) justified about their position, they don’t believe a diverse democracy should enter into the equation.  In other words — with all due respect to my mother — they’re ok with serving “meat sticks” to adults.

 

Just for the record, last week I baked sweet potatoes for my own kids.  I cut them up into very thin strips, baked them to the point of ideal crispiness in the oven, and then enthusiastically presented them as — ta-da! — “sweet fries.”  Note:  my kids loved “sweet fries.”  Can’t stand sweet potatoes… but loved the fries.

 

But then, my kids are kids —not adults from whom it’s necessary nor wise nor appropriate to remove the decision-making.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

equality

images

So perhaps my cranky self continues somewhat…  I will attempt to reflect more — rant less.  It’s just my opinion — semi-humble at that — but my sense is that while rants prompt more affirmation and amens, honest reflection spurs on dialogue and thus solution.  I’m afraid such may be why our elect often choose the ranting, as they are not always interested in dialogue; they too frequently seem only desiring to drive home the opinion they have privately and partisanly determined to be true.  The Intramuralist doesn’t have a lot of respect for that approach.

 

One area where this (yes, semi-humble) observer sees a ratcheting up in the rants is the issue of equality.  Follow me here.  We discussed this briefly in December, but with a need to divert the focus off of the current contempt for Obamacare, there is intent to find an issue that more soundly resonates with a plurality of voters.  There is need for the affirmation and amens.

 

And so we come to the word “equality.”  Great word!  As shared here previously, in recent decades, we’ve been attracted to ERA, Employment Equality, Marriage Equality, and the Equality Act.  The latest push (and the push which the Intramuralist believes to be ranted about even more in the months to come) is “income equality”… a fantastic idea!  Income equality is the proposed more even distribution of wealth among households in our economy.  Currently, the distribution is significantly uneven.  Some people have far more or less than others.  Isn’t it right for things to be equal?  Isn’t it fair?

 

Or wait… it’s not that all things have to be exactly equal, but certainly it should be closer.   Surely the gap between the rich and the poor is too much, and the rich among us could give away a little more.  It’s an easy argument.  Hence, it’s a fantastic idea.  Really.  But casting all emotion aside, we must recognize that it’s also a political ploy.  Bear with me, friends, for it’s a rant.

 

All men/women were created equal.  Truth.  We were each divinely endowed with certain unalienable rights.  Also true.  But let’s additionally acknowledge what is not true.  It’s not true that all men/women are as hard-working.  It’s not true that all men/women are as ambitious or entrepreneurial or are blessed with the same talents and gifts.  Don’t mistake me as being calloused.  I am not.  Without a doubt, many obtain their wealth via little effort of their own, as we are each born into certain circumstances.  Different circumstances come with different challenges.  And to those who have been given much, much is to be expected.  So again, in my only semi-humble opinion, a generous, philanthropic heart is at the top of the list of expectations for the wealthy.

 

So this fantastic idea… is it income equality?  Not from this perspective.  The fairness phrasing does not consider the entirety of the truths.  The fantastic idea here is to associate income with equality… to associate marriage with equality… to associate employment with equality.  You see my point.  Friends, I say such as one not suggesting that any of the above is unwise.  My point is simply that utilizing the words “fairness” and “equality” is an intentional tactic designed to persuade.  Who among us would not desire to be equal or fair?

 

“Equality” is a rhetorical term utilized to generate the affirmation and amens — not a word that prompts dialogue nor solution.  It’s actually a conversation killer, as there exists a strong inference within the word “equality” that those who do not support the issue do not believe all men/women were created equal… that our opponent somehow, actually, foolishly embraces discrimination.  Thus, audiences are emotionally moved, feeling now justified to join in the rant… as opposed to recognizing the inference is categorically unfounded.

 

A person can oppose an equality issue without being prejudiced or discriminatory.  On this supposed new push for “income equality,” for example, there are many economists who will openly opine that it’s impossible to “legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out.”

 

I’m done ranting, my friends.  The logical reflection will continue, no less… hopefully for us all.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

cranky

pt

I’m a little cranky today.  Sorry.  I didn’t say I was embracing any disrespect.  I simply, transparently shared that my mood is more prone to rant than reflection.  Thus, I respectfully, crankily opine…

 

I don’t understand why we so often focus on things of lesser importance…

I don’t understand why we can’t all get along…

I don’t understand why celebrities and sportsmen are paid exorbitant dollars while preachers and teacher tow behind…

I don’t understand how some scream “racism,” but oft seem racist in their own expression…

I don’t understand hypocrisy… period… how rampant it is… especially among the elect…

I don’t understand the supporters who only wish to proclaim hypocrisy in an opponent…

I don’t understand dishonesty…

I don’t understand the name-calling — especially by seemingly highly intelligent people…

I don’t understand this continued spending-of-what-we-don’t-have-cycle… geepers… that seems to me to be Accounting 101…

Again… I don’t understand why Democrats and Republicans can’t all get along… nor Cowboys and Indians… Patriots and Broncos…  I get along with my diverse friends…

I don’t understand why football is so important, especially since last I checked, it was still a game…

I don’t understand how we can spend so much money on sports and entertainment, but forget about the starving children in the world…

I don’t understand why government sometimes seems to think we can’t think for ourselves…

I don’t understand why they often think they have to control us…

I don’t understand why they think they have a right to so much of our money…

I don’t understand how when they take so much of our money, they still expect us to trust them…

I don’t understand how some give nothing away…

I don’t understand how a country that was founded on religious freedom sometimes wishes to be free from all religion…

I don’t understand why every current, new political issue has to be labeled “equality” for someone or something…

I don’t understand how polling data is often the justification for manipulation…

I don’t understand the lack of integrity…

I don’t understand why we keep forgetting that life is short and thus it’s important to live it ethically and well…

 

I suppose if we did live life ethically and well, we may actually understand…

 

… and of course, be less cranky.

 

Respectfully… always… yep…

AR

Posted on

association

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

 

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

 

In other words, “he’s one of us.”

 

Also…

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

press secretaries

Jay_Carney_insert_cMichael_KeyOk, ok… so I’m a bit of a sucker for punishment.  For years, I have watched official press conferences directed by the White House Press Secretary.  I feel like we learn a lot in these short interactions.  I can remember moments even before my teens with Jimmy Carter’s Jody Powell and then onto Reagan’s James Brady.  I remember Marlin Fitzwater — then both Dee Dee Myers and George Stephanopoulos under Clinton.  I watched Ari Fleischer under Bush 43 — and then Tony Snow, my personal favorite.

 

In recent years, I’ve watched both Dana Perino and Robert Gibbs.  And yesterday, I again watched Jay Carney.

 

I have hence concluded — based on my totally, notably, understandably incomplete perspective — that there is no more obviously ethically-challenging job in public service than the White House Press Secretary.  The secretary’s job, no matter what, is to make the administration look good.  And sometimes, that’s seemingly impossible to do.

 

Yesterday, when the former Time-Magazine-reporter-turned-press-secretary stumbled at the podium, attempting to defer criticism from former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, I felt Carney’s pain.  Here Gates, a man with years of bipartisan respect, affirmed the current administration for some very specific aspects — such as the initial approach toward Afghanistan and the savviness of Hillary Clinton — but other aspects scathed and stung… such as political motives behind military moves… Obama’s controlling, micro-management, leadership style… and Joe Biden, a man Gates says, who “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

 

Ouch.  Note that Robert Gates’ perspective may very well not be accurate.  Accurate or not, however, such an insider perspective is hard to squelch… hard to make anyone look good.

 

And so I’d like to take this time to offer a wee bit of amateur advice for the next to stumble to the press’s podium.  Really, it’s an impossible job; but ideally, below are the top 10 things that I’d like to hear each press secretary say…

 

“I can’t answer that question.”

“Well, I can answer the question, but no one in the White House wants me to answer it.”

“I actually don’t know the answer.”

“I know the answer, but I don’t know how to make it sound good.”

“The truth might make us look bad.”

“The truth might be unpopular.”

“The truth might be appropriate, but if it’s unpopular, I don’t want to answer.”

“Yes, I know I’m dodging your question.”

“My poll tested answer is…”

And…

“Can we be real here?”

 

With all due respect to Jay Carney, Tony Snow, and all the valiant men and women who have attempted to fill these rhetorical shoes — which quite notably, the Intramuralist has not — the White House Press Secretary is a pretty tough job.  It can be ethically challenging.  It can be awkward indeed.

 

God bless ‘em.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

winter wonderland

Here we go again. Here in the bleak midwinter, as both the snow and temperatures fall across the country, the ice simultaneously seems to build on the minds and mouths of those passionately encamped on either side of the climate change/global warming debate.  There are many people who believe that potentially catastrophic, human-caused global warming is real.  There are also many people who don’t.  And unfortunately, instead of everyone coming together, getting on the same page as to what is true, what is not, and what other aspects and insights may be relevant, too many utilize their influence to either mock or manipulate.

 

Case in point #1:  Business mogul, Donald Trump, tweeting this week after 2 ships were trapped in Antarctica’s ice, “What the hell is going on with GLOBAL WARMING? The planet is freezing, the ice is building and the G.W. scientists are stuck — a total con job.”

 

Case in point #2:  Liberal MSNBC host, Chris Hayes, commenting on persons like Trump & company — those who see the record cold temps as contradicting global warming, and then calling their reasoning “willful stupidity.”

 

Sorry, but the stupidity, name-calling, and rhetorical manipulations do not help us get to the truth.  Even Pres. Obama referred to global warming skeptics last summer as potential members of the “Flat Earth Society” (… uh, sorry, but there actually exists a Flat Earth Society… and well, they believe that human-caused warming is real).  Nonetheless, the name-calling and mocking doesn’t help.

 

I realize that if a lot of really smart people believe something, there is great reason to believe it’s true.  I also realize that just because really smart people believe something, does not make it true.

 

The challenge, however, is that due to the mocking and manipulation of the likeminded above, we now have a society which tends to look at global-warming/climate-change/best-currently-expedient-term as a political issue.  It’s not.  It’s either happening or it’s not.  It’s either caused by man or it’s not.  And whether you hail from a left or right partisan base or camp out somewhere in the middle, it doesn’t affect the reality of what’s true.  Perhaps that reality is the most inconvenient truth of all.

 

Scientists cannot definitively prove global warming.  Please hear me.  I did not say it was not true.  I said that it cannot be completely proven to be true.  I am not a scientist.  And for the record, neither is Donald Trump, Chris Hayes, or Barack Obama.

 

My point is that we need to consider other aspects and insights which may be relevant instead of rhetorically attempting to convince others.  One factual consequence about the politicizing of this issue is that many people stand to profit significantly from an investment in climate change.

 

One key aspect I’d appreciate seeing those really smart people wrestle with is how and if any ancient scriptures apply.  Yes, I realize many of us are willfully challenged to submit to the perceived wisdom of someone else; our wills and stubbornness and sometimes even intelligence often interferes.  But we should at least add to the climate conversation 2 significant aspects included in the ancient scriptures — writings that have more preserved copies than any work by Homer, Plato, or Aristotle — writings which academia teaches to be true.  We should consider (1) scripture’s call to care for the planet, and (2) scripture’s prediction that the planet will not last.

 

Friends, there’s no good reason to mock nor manipulate.  There is valid reason, however, to discuss all potentially relevant aspects of the climate conversation.  In order to best discern what is true, what is not, and who and what bears responsibility, let’s start by depoliticizing the issue.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

banning the box

As of January 1st, Rhode Island became the 8th “united” state to adopt the “ban-the-box” law, meaning employers cannot ask prospective applicants on their initial questionnaire if they have a criminal history.  Allow me to explain…

 

For more than 40 years, an organization called the National Employment Law Project (NELP) has worked to remove the question on standard job applications about an individual’s conviction history and delay the background check inquiry until later in the hiring process.  In other words, NELP’s goal is to get government to “ban the box.”

 

Note that NELP actively pursues other policy initiatives, such as joining in the perceived, current, politically expedient push to increase the minimum wage.  While there certainly exists validity in exploring how to reasonably increase the wage for persons for whom the particular job is their lifework (in other words, not high school students), my limited perspective is that the current push has been articulated in order to find a popular political issue, hopefully taking the focus off of the negative ramifications of Obamacare.  But lest I digress… let us return to NELP’s primary initiative to ban the so-called box.

 

According to NELP, the goal of banning the box is “to restore the promise of economic opportunity for working families across America” and to assist unemployed workers with a felonious history to “regain their economic footing.”  NELP has promoted the perspective that asking an applicant if they have committed a felony when initially exploring employment, is an “unfair barrier.”

 

My first thought is to applaud the compassion behind such a law.  There unquestionably exists a societal stigma associated with a criminal record, and I’ve tenderly shared the heartache of friends who have unfortunately experienced brutal rejection in relation to their unlawful past.  The “have-you-ever-committed-a-felony-or-pleaded-nolo-contendere” question has long served as a screening process for potential applicants.

 

The challenge, though, that simultaneously tugs on me — arguably tugging more on my reason than emotion — is that once again, an organization such as NELP, is attempting to increase the size and scope of government; when government increases, it becomes more inefficient, costly, and prone to corruption.

 

In regard to banning that box, the reality that NELP fails to promote is that often a person’s past matters.  Please hear me, friends, on this sensitive topic.  A criminal record does not matter with all persons, all jobs, and in all scenarios.  But we also need to take into account that in many situations, a felony record does matter.  Not all convicted felons are reformed.  Recidivism rates remain unfortunately high.  I don’t say that heartlessly.  As longtime readers can attest, the Intramuralist believes in 2nd, 3rd — even 47th chances.  Those chances, though, are not baseless.  Those chances are based on the perceived repentant and determined heart of the individual.

 

As a Human Resource professional, the “box” should never be an instant disqualifier.  It depends on the kind of job and the individual heart.  A wise employer will work to discern both.  For example, is it necessary when hiring a cashier to know if they have a recent history of theft or embezzlement?  Of course it is.  Should an employer be mandated to spend time and money on an applicant before knowing such?  Great question.  I question the government’s mandates of time and money spent.

 

It is true, no less, that many prospective employers are not so wise; many seem to use the box as that instant disqualifier.  But mandating wisdom in places of foolishness is not the government’s job.  It is also not consistent with an inefficient, costly, more prone-to-corruption kind of government.  Government is getting too big… with too many mandates.

 

Allow me one more tangent comment…  if the ban-the-box movement becomes the law of the land… and if an employee with a violent, felonious record commits another violent crime in the workplace… who will be liable?  Will the employer bear responsibility?

 

Tough questions, friends… not absent compassion.  Not absent reason either.  May we always proceed with both.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

new year: 2014

All things new…

 

New year.  New Balance.  New chapter.  New career.  New kids on the block — and adults to be.  

 

New deal.  New diet.  New England.  Newfound.  New phone.  New iPhone.  New technology.

 

New Guinea.  New girl.  New horizons.  New Haven.  New Jordans.  New Jersey.  New Mexico.  New mercy.  

 

New look.  New life.  New York.  A whole new normal.  Even a new movie.  

 

New Orleans.  Newport.  New Smyrna.  Something new on DVD.

 

New Republic.  New study.  New series.  New season.  New show.  New Sunday night activity.

 

New Testament.  New track.  New top.  New something or another to you and me.

 

New uniform.  New use.  New vacation or view.  New wave.  New world.  New walk or Walking Dead TV.

 

It is no secret; the Intramuralist loves the “new” of the new year.  Not because of Times Square nor any confetti or massive, glitzy, dropping ball.  Not either because of more quaint celebrations in the privacy of our own homes.  The Intramuralist loves the “newness” because of the obvious opportunity it fords… to briefly look back… but then to surge ahead.  The past is the past; the slate is clean.  And no matter the good, bad, or ugly, we now move forward.

 

For pundits and politicians and sportsman and celebrities — for ordinary people such as you and me — moving forward is refreshing.

 

Historically, no less, when a moment of “newness” occurred, ordinary people set a stone in the ground to mark the occasion.  They didn’t mark the moment in order to cast in stone any past fear or failure; they solidly marked the moment so that they could learn from the past — and grow into the future.  To make the most of what’s ahead of us.  Hence, there is a beauty in what’s to come.  There is a beauty in the “newness.”

 

Happy New Year, friends!  Enjoy it.

 

We should.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

year end 2013

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Respectfully… always…

AR