Posts

Posted on

end of year questions

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

AND… what topics will the Intramuralist cover in 2014?

 

Now that’s a good question…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the day after

If Christmas really means what history tells us…

 

There’s still joy to the world…

Awe amidst silent nights…

And herald angels that still sing.

 

There can be peace on Earth…

Goodwill to all men…

And glad tidings we can bring.

 

Lo, the rose still blooms,

And we have a hope that lasts…

A hope that truly trumps everything.

 

Christmas may be over…

But peace, joy, and hope remain.

 

Respectfully… genuinely… always…

AR

Posted on

the annual (edited) night before Christmas

‘Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house…

The Intramuralist won’t rhyme as much this year — no, not a louse.

 

Allow me to share instead what Christmas is about.

First, though, what it’s not…

 

It’s not about pomp or politics or public display.

It’s not about singers or any old familiar carols play.

It’s not about correctness.

It’s also not about superficialness.

 

It has nothing to do with celebrity…

No “Duck Dynasty,” activist groups, nor Miley Cyrus festivity.

 

It has little to do with self… self-focus… or an “all about me” mentality…

 

Christmas instead has everything to do with a humble manger, humble birth, and a heartfelt response.

 

If the Messiah of the world was born in that stable some 2000 years ago — and there exist exponentially more records of that event than there exist of any manuscript of Homer’s, Plato’s, or Aristotle’s — each a work we teach to be true — then that birth requires a response.

 

Will our response be to really wrestle with it?

Or will we disregard and look away?

 

If Jesus Christ is who he says he is — and did what so many say he did — then how will we each respond?

 

How will we respond?

How will we wrestle with the reality?

 

In humility… in worship… in wonder?

 

Great questions, friends… challenging for each of us.

 

From my house to yours — from my computer to yours, the Intramuralist wishes you the peace, joy, and hope that so uniquely girds this season.  May your days be merry, your moments be bright, and may you find yourself engaging in amazing, authentic wonder.

 

Blessings to all… and to all, yes, a good night…

 

AR

Posted on

duck dynasty

 

“Do we always have to make people go away?”

 

It’s not like the Intramuralist to begin with or even include a quote from political commentator, Bill Maher, but irony seems oddly apparent this time of year… and Maher’s one time question begs asking again now.

 

Why is it that instead of entertaining dialogue — instead of engaging in an interactive, back-and-forth conversation — instead of listening and learning and actually humbly educating one another through public discourse — why is it we often instead attempt to silence an opposing voice?  Why can we not even entertain the conversation?  Is it just too tough?  Is it just so wrong?  Is it just that their opinion is so wrong no one deserves to ever hear it?

 

As many are now aware, popular “Duck Dynasty” patriarch, Phil Robertson, was suspended by the A&E network because of his comments in GQ magazine regarding homosexual intercourse, sharing his opinion in a rather coarse way that homosexuality is sinful.  Immediately, there were adamant calls for his firing and claims of Christian bigotry.  While questions instinctively arise as to why calls for Robertson’s release were passionately immediate — but calls for recent non-Christian rants have been similarly silent —  allow me to humbly return to what I believe is the better question:  why is there a need by some to silence Robertson?

 

Can we not handle the conversation?  Or do some, for some reason, not want us to even discuss this issue?

 

Friends, there exists all sorts of tangents to this controversy.  Is it a free speech issue?  Is it an issue of employment discrimination?  Is Robertson’s perspective biblical?  Is it contradictory?  Are we practicing tolerance?  Intolerance?  And why this controversy now?  As said at the onset of this post, irony seems oddly apparent this time of year.  I find it fascinating that Robertson’s interview took place some time ago; television executives had to have known what Robertson said.  However, only after the public pressure mounted by activist groups — and, immediately preceding A&E’s planned “Duck Dynasty” marathon — did the suspension — and supposed outrage — occur.

 

As typical then of the Intramuralist, let’s boldly but humbly ask the better question:  can we or can we not handle the conversation?  Can we wrestle with Robertson’s actual opinion?

 

Call me an idealist, but the Intramuralist adheres to the belief that truth always wins out in the end.  In other words, what’s good and right and true cannot be squelched by the foolish acts of an individual.  We cannot contain the truth.

 

Hence, wouldn’t it be wiser to allow the conversation?  To work less to silence an opinion but to wrestle with its validity or lack of it?  … Are we fearful? … are we righteous? … are we self-righteous?  I speak not only of this somewhat silly show; I speak also of politics… religion.  Again, quoting Maher, why do we always have to make people — and their opinion — go away?

 

My strong sense is the most effective way to influence others is to act wisely oneself — to engage in respectful dialogue — as opposed to dictating the dialogue.  No one need to ever reason nor conclude — or grow —  if opposing opinion is simply silenced.  Come now; let’s reason together, fording one another the freedom to decide what is actually good and true… regardless of irony.

 

Respectfully,

 

AR

 

Posted on

mandating behavior

In our 3 most recent posts, I’ve seen a trend appearing.  As a society, we struggle when anyone attempts to mandate behavior for the masses.  From how we teach our kids about Santa to how we care for the least of these to yes, even how and if we celebrate the Christmas season, we continually have persons who want to tell us what we can and cannot do.  Isn’t that our challenge?

 

I mean, the challenge on both sides of the equation within contemporary Christmas controversies is that people keep wanting to dictate what we do.  People keep wanting to mandate the specifics of how a holiday can or can’t or shouldn’t be celebrated.  We aren’t ok allowing the freedom of individual decision-making.  Why is that?  What’s the motive?

 

I see this pattern repeated in multiple scenarios.  Sometimes it’s packaged up a little nicer and neater — arguably a little more covertly — but there exist multiple examples of entities attempting to mandate behavior for the masses, attempting to require specific actions on our part.

 

Isn’t that the reality behind Pres. Obama’s broken healthcare promise — that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it?”  In my opinion, the President is too smart to have not known that such was untrue.  He’s a brilliant man; he had to have known the implications of the law for which he was advocating.

 

Please know I am not declaring that Pres. Obama lied.  Let’s face it; anytime we assert that one another is a liar, it complicates the conversation.  The dialogue becomes more passionate and emotional, and the temptation to become disrespectful increases exponentially.  So let me truthfully, transparently assert what I believe to be the primary motivation for the untruth:  those advocating for Obamacare are attempting to mandate behavior for the masses — and convince the rest of us that such is good.

 

All healthcare plans starting after 2014 are required to offer the same benefits but will have different out-of-pocket costs.  Question:  do we need the same benefits?  Does one size truly fit all?  Do men and women need the same healthcare?  Do men need maternity care?  Do persons in varied geographic areas need the same care?  How about the elderly?

 

Friends, I’m not attempting to be disrespectful in my questions; the reality is that by mandating the behavior for the masses, we end up mandating things for some that are unnecessary.

 

So what’s the motive?  Is the motive as some would suggest that people aren’t bright enough — that they don’t know what’s good for them — and so someone has to control the decision-making?

 

Or… is the motive more economic — that the only way to make the policy work for some is to mandate the behavior for all?

 

Under Obamacare, it’s great to be a woman.  Women can’t be charged more than men.  On one hand that sounds great; we can hear the rallying calls that no longer will women be discriminated against.  But let me also ask the next logical question:  is it discrimination if the woman’s care costs more because it actually covers more?

 

My sense is that in the case of Obamacare, the motive is economic.  The federal government charges the men more to pay for the women; they charge the young more to pay for the elderly; and they charge the upper and middle classes more to pay for the lower class.  Mandating the behavior of the masses is necessary in order to make the plan work.  What any individual needs is less significant than the macroeconomic approach necessary to support the totality of the system.

 

The lingering question is whether or not such mandating is good.

 

P.S.  Merry Christmas.  Happy Festivus, too.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

“war” on Christmas?

Every year at this time, we seem to hear the recharged vernacular about the existence of a “war on Christmas.”  Funny.  I mean, as a nation, I don’t think we’re all that fond of war, but yet we seem to find the term rhetorically pleasing when it best suits our passion… a war on Christmas, war on teachers… war on drugs, poverty, marriage, you-name-it.  As a nation not so fond of war, we sure speak of it frequently.

 

The Intramuralist cannot say with certainty if any “war” exists — and as I learned well from my respected friends in the military — I’m not comfortable with such casual use of the word, “war.”  War is an armed conflict between different nations or groups.  Last I heard, we were still called a united state of America.

 

The controversy, no less, refers to the acknowledgement of Christmas in government, media, and advertising.  Christmas, as evidenced in its name, is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the long awaited day that the Messiah was embodied in human form.  That’s the meaning of Christmas.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who does not believe in him.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who — consistent with many religions, including Islam and Judaism — believes Jesus was a real person who walked this planet but was not the son of God.  I say that not with any disrespect.  I am simply identifying the basis for the holiday.

 

The controversy also is not as simple as some suggest, reducing it to the preference of articulating either “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” or something jolly old else.  A person could say “Season’s Greetings” and still acknowledge God.  Hence, the question is whether or not there is an intentional attempt to omit God during the season.

 

So… asking the better question… I won’t ask whether or not there is any existence of war; but is there an intent to omit any acknowledgement of Jesus in the holiday that originated because of him?  I ask because of what we have again recently witnessed…

 

  • Although changing their mind after a significant nationwide outrage, ESPN rejected a commercial set to run during a college basketball game from Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center.  The executive director of the foundation said the ad was rejected because ESPN found the words “Jesus” and “God” to be “problematic.”

 

  • A nativity scene was removed from Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina.  The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which works to eradicate any reference to religion and especially Christianity, pursued the removal, calling it illegal because it was not erected near a chapel.

 

  • Or in College Park, Georgia — similar to multiple places across the country — where elementary school children were to perform their annual Christmas musical program, prior to which the parents each received a letter saying, “Religious songs will not be included.”

 

Not be included.  Intentional omission.  No acknowledgement.

 

I understand that in order to be completely politically correct, we often have to “water things down.”  The inherent challenge, though, is when we water things down so much that we eventually remove the reason for the season.  Make no mistake about it; Christmas is about Christ.  Each of us can choose if and how to celebrate it.  What’s challenging is when we choose how someone else can or cannot celebrate.

 

Interestingly, there actually is a new holiday this time of year.  Perhaps you’ve heard of it:  “HumanLight.”  It was invented by secular humanists 12 years ago, celebrated annually on December 23rd.  It is not a direct attempt to secularize an existing holiday, but it is an intentional attempt to omit any acknowledgement of God.

 

I wonder if HumanLight has any songs… wonder, too, if they can actually be sung…

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

income inequality

While many may attempt to tell us they pay no attention to polls, I have one thing to say:  I don’t believe them.  They do pay attention.  The more pressing question is whether or not people act upon polls — and whether politicians actually govern by them.

 

From my limited vantage point, that’s been obvious the past month.  With ongoing, bipartisan criticism of Obamacare — and its flawed rollout, higher premiums, false promises, etc. — the President’s approval rating has fallen to the lowest point of his presidency.  The White House has thus attempted to change the subject; they have returned to the primary, passionate subjects that initially propelled Obama to office.  There seems intent to rally the base, his most passionate partisan supporters, since his approval numbers have dropped significantly even among them.

 

Note that this poll-driven tactic of rallying one’s base is by no means indigenous to Obama.  I have little doubt that if it was a Republican president whose support was eroding, we would be hearing him on FOX News talking about cutting taxes.  Instead, we’re hearing Obama on MSNBC talking about income inequality.  My question isn’t in regard to drumming up support for a passionate, partisan cause; my question is in regard to the logic behind such cause…

 

Isn’t it interesting that when we want to sway people to our side, we package perspective in a way it sounds best?  From fantastic food to super savings to magnanimous, wonderful, wise whatever, products and policies are always promoted in a way that makes them sound most pleasing and persuasive.  Hence, in the past decade, we have been lured by a newfound focus on fairness and equality…  foreclosure fairness, the Marketplace Fairness Act, Paycheck Fairness Act, the Fairness Doctrine… ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, Employment Equality, Marriage Equality, and the Equality Act.  I am not proposing that any of the above is or is not a wise pursuit; I am simply suggesting 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?

 

So in order to comprehend the challenge inherent within income inequality — as currently promoted — we must first move past the rhetoric.  The reality is that poverty is significant on this planet, and the compassionate, wise person has what I believe to be a calling to care for them.  The challenge, however, is when government mandates the means of that calling for the masses.

 

To support the current income inequality cause, people are pitted against one another:  the rich vs. the poor.  There is a strong suggestion and belief that if the rich weren’t as rich, then the poor wouldn’t be as poor — that success only stems from the expense of another.  There is a belief that wealth is limited, and thus, if it could simply be a little more redistributed, then life would finally be fair.

 

What I’m not always certain of is whether the intentional “pitting” is based on persuasion ploys or true belief.  Undoubtedly, when 2 groups are pitted against each other (i.e. Yankees vs. Red Sox, Duke vs. North Carolina, or Arabs vs. Israelis), we tend to more passionately favor one and denigrate the other.

 

The challenge within this argument then is that such assumes that wealth and money are equated.  Friends, wealth and money are not the same; money is a form of wealth.  Wealth can be manifested in a product or service or effort that adds value to someone else.  Wealth can then be traded for what the wealth creator needs or desires.  Hence, to assume that the “gain” of one is reflected in an identical “loss” of another — that his success only stems from that expense of the other — is a false concept of an economic transaction.  Furthermore, in my opinion, it is an illogical basis for the argument currently utilized to fight income inequality.

 

I do realize that the above discussion is undoubtedly incomplete.  It is also not offered without a genuine, gut-wrenching awareness of our ongoing need to care for the “least of these.”  But my point today is that the current call to combat income inequality — potentially driven by a drop in the polls — is based on incomplete logic… and possibly upon increased rhetoric and persuasion.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

the santa tradition

As the Christmas/holiday/yuletide/etc. season is quickly, post-Thanksgiving thrust upon us, a respected friend wrote about her family’s chosen approach in teaching their kids the meaning of this season.  Her approach is not necessarily the Intramuralist’s approach.  Still, I found her thoughts insightful, challenging, and at the very least, reasonable to wrestle with…

 

We don’t “do” Santa in our home. Or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Some may gasp in dismay as they feel like we are robbing our children of the magic and fun of being a child and believing in such things. And these are also the ones who gasp and become offended when we share why we have chosen not to do what most of our society does.

Simply put, we don’t want to lie to our kids. “It’s not lying,” some will assert… “It’s pretending. It’s allowing them to believe in something magical… I grew up believing in Santa and turned out just fine.”

But when my child point blank asks, “Is Santa real? Is he the one who really puts the presents under our tree? How would he get into our house? How could reindeer actually fly? How would it even be possible for one man to deliver presents to all of the children everywhere?” I am stuck with a decision. I can either perpetuate a mistruth or I can be honest with them. The root of the Santa tradition (which is also now completely commercialized and heavily marketed) is fiction.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. When my son figured out the truth about all of these make believe characters (when he was 4-5-years-old), his response was: “So every parent lies to their kids? Is everyone a liar?” He seemed appalled at the perceived injustice; he went on to say, “I am going to tell all of my friends. They need to know the truth. They are not going to be happy when they find out about this.” I spent a long time trying to help him understand why people do this. I said things like, “They feel it’s more like pretending; they don’t see it as lying. Different people believe in different things, and that’s okay. We each have to make our own decisions.  And you can’t tell other kids the truth because their parents will be very upset with you, because that’s their job — not yours.”

He eventually calmed down. But how silly it all must sound as we are working so hard to teach our kids about telling the truth and not lying. Lying is bad… but it’s okay for us adults to sometimes lie to our kids — even lying about good or fun things — yet leading them to believe in something that so obviously could never exist. It’s a bit confusing.

Which is another reason we chose to be real with them about these things. We talk a lot about God in our home. We talk about having faith in the unseen. We want them to know and believe in God, and we want them to trust that when we say that God is real, that we aren’t just pretending. We don’t want our kids to question us down the road or be hurt because we led them to believe in something that wasn’t real. It could ruin our credibility.

I am simply sharing why we have chosen to do things the way we have. Each of us really does have to choose our own path, regardless of how less or frequently travelled. We also need to respect one another’s chosen path. Just as we do not condemn others for choosing to embrace the tradition of Santa, we, too, should not be condemned for choosing not to perpetuate what’s untrue.  But it’s funny how defensive people get.  As a society, we aren’t very good at allowing one another to choose; too many get too defensive by the different choice of another.  Why would others be offended when I say we didn’t want to lie?

We each have the freedom to raise our children the way we see fit. In our family, we do things differently. It may not make us the most popular or the most liked. But we do “real” in our home. Real love. Real life. Real celebration. Our hope is that we can raise kids who have real faith in a very real God.  And for us, Santa just didn’t fit into our family.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

mandela

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Unlike some politicians, I can admit to a mistake.

 

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

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

together

Funny how there are some stories that are retold through the centuries with little question of actual occurrence due to widespread acceptance of the inherent wisdom…

 

David was up at the crack of dawn and, having arranged for someone to tend his flock, took the food and was on his way just as Jesse had directed him.  He arrived at the camp just as the army was moving into battle formation, shouting the war cry.  Israel and the Philistines moved into positions, facing each other, battle-ready.  David left his bundles of food in the care of a sentry, ran to the troops who were deployed, and greeted his brothers.  While they were talking together, the Philistine champion, Goliath of Gath, stepped out from the front lines of the Philistines, and gave his usual challenge.  David heard him.  The Israelites, to a man, fell back the moment they saw the giant — totally frightened.

 

But David, the youngest, smallest — thought to be weakest — was not afraid…

 

David took off from the front line, running toward the Philistine.  David reached into his pocket for a stone, slung it, and hit the Philistine in the forehead, embedding the stone deeply.  The Philistine crashed, facedown in the dirt.  That’s how David beat the Philistine — with a sling and a stone.

 

Something about that account makes me smile and cheer every time.  There’s something about David’s underdog status that feels good… something about the victor who no one simply expected to be there… something about not taking success for granted… something about faith and hard work and humility that’s attractive…

 

On Friday night my sons’ high school played in the Division II football state championship.  They had never won before; in fact, in the school’s 132 year history, they had been to the playoffs only 4 times, netting a single game victory.  The school had no championships in any sport.

 

We were playing a team known for their athletic tradition, a team coached by a well-respected man, whose son plays in the NFL — a team boasting several starters fully expected to also succeed at the collegiate level.  Noting the massive size of several of their lineman, the Goliath comparisons came quickly.

Imagine then our humble glee when on this freezing, snowy night, shockingly, our boys raced to a 34-0 halftime lead.

 

As the clock ticked away — and victory became more sweetly apparent, the thousands of us that travelled the approximate 4 hours, began to catch a glimpse of what we had actually grasped…

 

Here was a group of young men — young, impressionable teens — who were about to taste something that could propel their confidence to new levels, arguably spurring them on, boosting their self-confidence for whatever’s next in life…

 

They worked hard.  They believed in one another.  They encouraged one another and held each other accountable.  They played and prayed together.  They had a vision and belief in what they could accomplish together, united, as a team! … not this me-oriented thinking that is so prevalent in today’s society within leadership and perceived success.

 

The student body, staff, administration, and community all then rallied around them.  Friends from outside the community — former residents, adjacent school families — they rallied around.  There was no negativity, no permeating criticism, no dwelling on what we weren’t or aren’t or have never been; rather, there was a community focus on together, who we could be and what we could accomplish.  Let’s cheer these growing young men on… in celebration… together.  Amazing what unity will do… how good it feels.

 

There’s just something about the victor who no one simply expected to be there… something about not taking success for granted… something about faith and hard work and humility that’s attractive…

 

Well done, boys.  Well done.

 

Respectfully,

AR