inaugural history

jo0gy2lmcmm-ryan-pouncy

Just as I have with each elected president in my lifetime, I stand still in both awe and humble thanks, aware of the uniqueness and magnitude of the peaceful transition of power. There is no raucous disarray; there is no military coup. The transfer of power from one leader to another — one party to another — is peaceful and respectful.

So let my words not speak for what comes next. Hear from the wisdom articulated by many who preceded us on inauguration days…

“To a few of us here today, this is a solemn and most momentous occasion; and yet, in the history of our Nation, it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place as it has for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.”
— Ronald Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981

“Today the executive branch of the government is transferred to new keeping. But this is still the government of all the people, and it should be none the less an object of their affectionate solicitude. At this hour the animosities of political strife, the bitterness of partisan defeat, and the exultation of partisan triumph should be supplanted by an ungrudging acquiescence in the popular will and a sober, conscientious concern for the general weal.”
— Grover Cleveland, March 4, 1885

“Let us create together a new national spirit of unity and trust. Your strength can compensate for my weakness, and your wisdom can help to minimize my mistakes. Let us learn together and laugh together and work together and pray together, confident that in the end we will triumph together in the right.”
— Jimmy Carter, Jan. 20, 1977

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.”
—Barack Obama, Jan. 20, 2009

“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists.”
— Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801

“We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if we keep it, is a way to shared accomplishment.”
— George W. Bush, Jan. 20, 2001

“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”
— Bill Clinton, Jan. 20, 1993.

And perhaps my current fave…

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”
– Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865.

1865… nearing the end of The Civil War. Certainly seems far harder than now. And yet it was wise to call for:

Malice toward none.
Charity for all.
And binding up the wounds of the nation.

May God truly bless America, even on those days I cannot see.

Respectfully…
AR

a final election post (sigh)

9c8r4quwzrq-aaron-burden

Not long ago a reader respectfully asked when we’d be done covering the election. She was kind, but she had grown weary — weary because (1) the reactions of many have been challenging to continually endure, and (2) there are so many other current life events to address. I get it. I also have one more post…

I wish to gently, but sincerely recognize two legitimate perspectives. There’s obviously more than such, but in light of the significant, seemingly self-justified vitriol in recent weeks, I will settle on two for said final post.

First, there are honest, respectable people who are genuinely concerned with the election results. Some are deeply concerned — even afraid. We don’t know at this point whether or not their fears will come to fruition. We don’t know as of yet whether their fears will equate to reality, but until we know more, we should not dismiss any potential legitimacy. We should also not assume their feared reality to be true.

Second, there are persons going seemingly way too far in their response to the election. They either go too far in their continuous boasting — the gleeful “we won” type of reaction — ignoring how any may feel differently… or… they express a generous anger or lament fiercely directed at whoever doesn’t feel like them. As popular blogger, Regie Hamm, posed last week, “The wrath of the tolerant is often too much to bear when things don’t go their way.”

I’d like to see us do better at winning and losing. In fact, I’d like us not even to see it as “winning and losing.” It’s not a game; it’s also not the end of the world.

Elections do have consequences, and there certainly exists legitimate disagreement. But in the Intramuralist’s sincere opinion, we need to do better at expressing both our support and disagreement. Sadly, the anger and the arrogance impede respect and relationship — and therefore, also future progress.

Friends, I know some of you love and admire Hillary Clinton.
I know some of you do not.
I know some of you love and admire Donald Trump.
I know some of you do not.
I also know some of you voted for Donald or Hillary without loving (or really liking) either one of them.
You made the decision you thought was best.

Here, no less, is my sincere bottom line in our final election post: where is the respect for the right of every American to make the decision we individually think is best? Where is the respect for (all) other people? My sense is we often are only good at respecting some.

Afterall, it’s a fact that…

Not all Republicans feel the same.
Not all Democrats feel the same.
Not all white or black people feel the same.
Not all minorities feel the same.
Not all men or women feel the same.
Not all of any identified people group feels the same.

That’s it. We don’t all feel the same, and we can thus come to different “best” decisions. It is also then, not a time for boasting nor wishing the worst on someone.

May I share a final, underlying fear? When dining with a friend recently, I shared my concern that at some point soon, one of our leading politicians will be intentionally killed. That, though, is actually not my underlying fear.

My fear is that those holding an opposing political perspective will cheer.

May God forbid such to ever happen in this country. May he also forbid we stay so politically angry or arrogant. May we therefore find no comfort in our boasts or in unleashing our wrath on another solely because of who they are, what they believe, or how they vote.

Wisdom equates to better and more.

(P.S. Done now… sigh.)

Respectfully…
AR

being there, father mulcahy, & going first

bt-sc22w-be-jake-hills

“Why are you being so rude?”
“Because he was rude first.”

“Why won’t you listen?”
“Because he stopped listening to me first.”

“Why are you so insulting, and justifying all the name calling?”
“Because he did it first.”

He did it… she did it… they did it… The bottom line is that someone else did it; someone else did it first; and their doing it first now allows me to do it, too. Friends, I’m concerned how significantly this line of thinking has permeated pop culture. We are justifying foolish behavior.

In search of something more positive on the net last week, I came across a great, inspiring post by New York Times bestselling author, Marcus Brotherton. With all the justified, poor and polarizing behavior, we need some inspiring posts.

It was entitled: “3 Things We Can Learn from Father Mulcahy,” a man identified by Brotherton as a “1st Lieutenant and later a Captain, a Catholic priest sent to minister to soldiers of all faiths at the 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital during the Korean Conflict of 1950-1953”.

Father Mulcahy was cleverly portrayed by William Christopher for 11 seasons of “M*A*S*H”. Christopher passed away two weeks ago. Here, no less, is much of what we could learn — replacing some of our current behaviors:

“You were a good man, Father Mulcahy…

1. Your words were few, but your presence loomed large.

As a chaplain you were tasked with caring for others. Yet you seldom dispensed advice, you never moralized, and your words were few. Instead, your presence did the real talking…
In the rough-and-tumble of your friend’s life, you were simply ‘there.’

2. You wrestled with the complexities of life, and we wrestled along with you.

Your actions invited us to weigh in on a complex question — at least in our minds — because in our real world every day we wrestle with right and wrong.

3. You fulfilled your purpose by immersing yourself in a messy world and offering hope.

As a priest, you were a regular guy, Father. You were an amateur boxer. You played cards. You threw back a drink every now and then with the gang.
We identified with your jokes. Your earthiness. Your homespun demeanor.
We liked how you played the piano, how you wore your Loyola sweatshirt. How Colonel Potter called you by his own affectionate nickname for you — ‘Padre’ — and how you lightheartedly referred to your one sibling, Kathy, a nun, as ‘my sister the Sister.’
We liked how, in your priestly quest for righteousness, you never tried to separate yourself from the people around you. You were never standoffish. Instead, you went where people needed you most — even when it wasn’t safe.”

Even in environments which we sense as something less than safe, the foolish behavior isn’t helping. We can “be there” for others — whether or not we agree on all things. We can weigh the complex questions together — respectfully — as there is both right and wrong in this world.

And yes, this world is messy. But hope still exists.

We can do this. We can stop the foolish behavior.

It doesn’t even matter who goes first.

Respectfully…
AR

who they are

c0exwnqhvso-jakob-owens

She was the first princess I ever truly desired to imitate.
His transcendence beyond boxing amazed me.
Her Pulitzer Prize winning masterpiece was the first novel I ever loved.
His brilliance on the High Court was striking, as noted by one of his besties, the ideologically opposite Ginsberg.
She was simply the best at what she did — that is, before Geno’s Huskies.
And then there were those three who made me sing — from “Freedom” to “Desperado” — to even luring me repeatedly to the dance floor with “Little Red Corvette” and more.

Carrie Fisher…
Muhammad Ali…
Harper Lee…
Antonin Scalia…
Pat Summitt…
And George Michael, Glen Frey, and the ever talented, musical mastermind, Prince.

Each passed away in 2016.

They weren’t alone… David Bowie… Fidel Castro… Leonard Cohen… Patty Duke… Zsa Zsa Gabor… John Glenn… Merle Haggard… Henry Heimlich… Florence Henderson… Gordie Howe… Gwen Ifill… Arnold Palmer… Shimon Peres… Nancy Reagan… Janet Reno… Morley Safer… Craig Sager… Phyllis Schlafly… Alan Thicke… Abe Vigoda… Elie Wiesel… Gene Wilder…

… and more.

It makes me ponder two questions…

One… what will we say about them?

… that they performed well? … that they had a great hit? … that they led or acted or won or lost or ruled or governed or did something really outstanding, notable, awful, or good?

In other words, will we speak of what they did? … or… about who they are?

Which leads, therefore, to my second question…

What will we want them one day to say about us?

Will we want people to talk about what we did?

… or…

Will we want them to note our character? … who we are?

Let’s honor Fisher and Frey and Haggard and Heimlich, etal. by talking less about what they did… and more about who they are.

Respectfully…
AR

the first star trek

cwico_oeuis-nikola-jelenkovic

One of the most poignant perspectives of the Christmas story, whether or not one adheres to the Christian faith, is the expectancy of all those in active pursuit of something good.

The Bethlehemites and key players involved didn’t just sit around, fumbling with some semblance of a remote, loosely surfing or scanning for something new to entertain them.

Neither did they simply react to some noise or community disturbance — like when a siren blares down our street — and we each suggest to one another we go take a look.

It wasn’t casual. It wasn’t happenstance.

It was an intentional pursuit.

What strikes me arguably most all those years ago, is the deep, genuine, eager expectation…

The Magi went after the manger; they traveled most probably thousands of miles in pursuit of the promise. Call it, if you will, the “first star trek” — although allow me to humbly acknowledge, the title is not an Intramuralist original (and with all due respect, no one, to my limited knowledge, exhibited any especially unusual ears).

Little is actually known about these Magi, these “wise men” or “kings,” as often depicted. There exists only one historical reference, reporting that they came “from the East” — quite possibly from Persia — and tradition then tells us that they had a reputation for astrology. Hence, what we know is that they actively trekked after the Messiah, and something that was already meaningful to them — yes, the star, since they were astrologers — got their attention.

It causes me to pause this holiday season, wondering how expectant I am, wondering what I am most searching for…

How am I preparing for this season? What am I doing besides making my lists and checking them twice?

What reflection would be wise, especially before 2017 is ushered in?

And what is God using to get my attention?

… after all, he will no doubt use something that is already meaningful to me.

What am I searching for? For what am I looking?

Is it something good? … peace? … joy? … hope, harmony, or reconciliation?

I keep wondering: am I looking for what is good?

It strikes me profoundly that the very first star trek was in eager expectation of what was good. That expectant hope changes everything.

Respectfully…
AR

a diverse roundtable – part 3

vekb7lp4w0o-jeremy-bishop

[The conversation continues with Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth… 6 diverse individuals who recognize intentional respect as the first, best step forward.]
_____

AR: So let me ask a question. When someone doesn’t share your stated fears or concerns, how do you work with that? How do you talk to him/her?

RONI: Often by what someone doesn’t say, you can ask questions to understand someone’s fears.

JANIE: Am I the only one in the “south” or close enough to understand the Confederate Flag remains a serious way of life? Not making fun of it. I’m saying that there exist regional influences. Hence, are the fears different depending on the region where we live?

AR: Great question, Janie. And whether we relate or not, share them or not, what should be our approach?

MIKE: First, I acknowledge that the fears are real, sincere, and not contrived. Then I would offer the hope that the demonizing in which both sides portrayed the other was probably worse than reality.

RONI: As far as the “fear factor,” it is real. It’s like the the reality my two sons face when dealing with police and others is very different. (I’m not against the police and am not saying they are bad.) One son is white, and one son is bi-racial and very brown. However, my “brown” son has been harassed when he was doing nothing. I truly fear for his safety. Both parties may have demonized, but there was an unleashed meanness that is real. I appreciate your perspective Mike, but am afraid Pandora’s box is opened and can’t be closed.

MIKE: I do think the demonizing exceeded reality, but I also recognize some ugly elements of society that embraced the candidates, and the candidates did not denounce them, because they wanted the votes. I certainly hope they don’t govern that way, but acknowledge that remains to be seen. Skinheads are not going to rule this country. The vast majority of us oppose that.

JANIE: Roni — Pandora’s Box! Thank you. I could NOT find that in my brain cell!

RUTH: That’s another shock — the seeming permission given (or taken) for an unleashing of such hidden ugliness and nastiness. I am shocked to hear those reports from here and there. The fears I can understand, but I hoped in reality we were past so much of the racism etc. as a society!
Has the perception of being disregarded, some thinking self-righteously that “since the constitution and executive powers have been overstepped,” they are justified in now ugly backlash unleashed? … by a “minority of the majority”? WAY too many bad stories. The only hope I take is that at least, like puss oozing from an infection, maybe now it’s out, we can begin to deal with it.

MIKE: Just as MLK taught, folks, we overcome hate with love. So as this ugly element of society feels more comfortable coming out into the open, let us be loving rather than hateful toward each other.

RUTH: Agree! We shall overcome… someday!

RONI: I agree.

JANIE: Forceful denunciation is missing — can’t come together when “you” are insulting the people with whom you want to become friends. I suggest re-reading Reconstruction and the Northern treatment of the South.

RONI: Ubuntu is missing. So is the concept of ichi-go-ichi-e. Heard an interesting movie line that seems to sum “thangs” up for the political parties:
Little Rascal one: “Why don’t you look where you’re going?”
Little Rascal two: Why don’t you go where you’re lookin’.”
I think this applies to both parties.
Both parties have ideology which diminishes healthy dialogue. I appreciate AR’s reaching out to lead to understanding, not necessarily agreement, but at least a way to provide a vehicle to deeper insight.

Learning styles and exposure of people’s life trauma seems to have been amplified by this election cycle with no healing mechanisms. You just don’t “get over” the opened wounds brought out this election.

RUTH: I, too am so blessed by a diverse network of family friends. I’d love to hear more definition of the concepts you mentioned, Roni. What do they mean personally to you?

AR: Yes, Roni… “ichi-go-ichi-e”?

RONI: “Ubuntu” — cooperation. I lift you and you lift me. “Ichi-gu-ichi-e” — one time, one meeting.
Only get today. Make the most of each new experience. Reconciliation hearings were painful but honest.

JANIE: WOW! Roni, we would be BFF’s!
_____

[It’s amazing what respectful dialogue can do.]

More soon in regard to how we overcome, how we each fuel division, and some specific insights. Two more posts. Stay tuned.

Respectfully…
AR

a diverse roundtable – part 2

tctlx1z_pdc-clem-onojeghuo

[Continuing with Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth… 6 diverse, gathered individuals — all over the political, social, and demographic map. They each advocate for respectful dialogue — no matter the passion, no matter the supposed “side” — no matter the chickens, eggs, “tastes great’s” or “less filling’s.” Intentional respect is the first, best step forward…]

BRENT: I’m very curious to hear what everyone thinks along the lines of how much control truly lies with the people in our government, one that keeps growing in federal power.

RONNIE: Brent, my answer to your last question: zero, nada, zilch and none. Best thing to happen in this country in truly draining the swamp is have a good old revolution.

BRENT: How do we even begin to go about moving the power back to the states and localities? I also think a lot of the problem is that we now face a generation growing up where entitlements are the norm.

JANIE: I raised three non-political sons to always know who they liked and research the one they did not. Taught my college and high school students to do the same. Pick an issue you like and research the other’s viewpoint. We don’t encourage that today.

RONNIE: Could I post a few videos for Brent on what a real convention should look like if we want to drain the swamp?

JANIE: Wait Ronnie; the word “compromise” — today no one wants to use it. Working together. And no one takes the time to research or to listen.

BRENT: It’s comforting to know there are still teachers teaching kids critical thinking skills!

JANIE: Brent, thank you. Critical thinking is becoming a lost art and skill.

AR: So recognizing that several of you adhere to a specific party fairly loyally, how have you seen the party you most identify with dismiss/omit critical thinking?

BRENT: When you pander to the masses as your audience, it leaves little room for debate because it’s based on group think mentality.

MIKE: Well, politicians used to campaign hard, then work together to govern. Good ideas were advanced, regardless of which side of the aisle they came from. Now we are in constant campaign mode. Can’t support the other’s good idea, because you can’t let them earn political points.

[THUMBS UP FROM BRENT]

JANIE: The parties have lost their way. The great hope of the citizens is newer districts with real representation — not party representation!

MIKE: That’s a good point. There’s so much gerrymandering both ways; you create majority safe districts by creating minority safe districts as well — that for the most part, winning the primary means you win the general. That means both parties select candidates to the extreme — “I will fight for you!” — rather than the sensible person who can appeal to both sides, because you no longer need that person to win the general.

[THUMBS UP FROM RONI]

RUTH: Critical thinking — had to wonder, is there any on either “side”? There seems a lack on both sides — about consequences of policies and orders passed, on one hand — on the other, a lack of judgment and recognition of the power of words and tones, opening up stuff that should’ve been denounced, rather than played into so freely during the campaign. Seems as though the more critical thinkers were ruled out in the primaries.

RONI: (Going back a bit) I think fear also played a major role in this past election. Fear that “they” were/are taking over — applicable to both sides. I also am genuinely changed by the way I have seen this election deeply hurt my Jewish, Muslim, immigrant, and LGTBQ friends. The lack of empathy has disturbed me.

MIKE: Roni, I assure you that I take no joy in anyone’s fear, and I would stand with you fighting discrimination against any of the groups you mentioned.

RONI: That’s why I love you, Mike. I know that you would.

AR: Oh, this is good…
_____

More is forthcoming… how we overcome, how we work through political differences, and too, some specific topics. Again, stay tuned.

Respectfully…
AR

a diverse roundtable – part 1

juoaonoxjqk-drew-coffman

No matter the potential controversy or intensity, the Intramuralist will not shy away, always advocating for respectful dialogue. No matter the deeply passionate, supposed “sides” — the chickens, eggs, the “tastes great’s” and “less filling’s” — I believe that intentional respect for one another is the first, best step forward.

The challenge is that we each receive ample encouragement to move forward alone — or only with the likeminded. We are encouraged to cut our losses and dismiss the value of “together,” falsely believing that one “side” is all right and the other is all wrong. Such grieves me, as it seems not synonymous with wisdom. Thankfully, however, I am not alone in said assessment.

A week ago I gathered 6 friends in an online discussion. These articulate 6 are all over the political, social, demographic map. At first glance, they look as if they have little in common. If they shared their political affiliations, they would appear to have even less. But what they do share is a commitment to take that first, best step forward. They do not believe in severing relationships. They believe in a respectful dialogue of current events.

Meet Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth. They are good people. While a few in the group knew another previously, they had never all met before.

Over this next week, I’d like to share portions of our diverse, roundtable discussion, starting with their introduction today…

RONI: I’m in! Thank you for the opportunity to connect with others.

MIKE: I’m in. Looking forward to learning from everyone.

RONNIE: I’m in… and since this will be like family, call me “Ronnie.”

JANIE: I am in and much prefer if family/friends call me Janie or JB. If you are “yelling” at me — which is fine — go with “Jane.” Disclosure… a U.S. Govt. educator since the founding of the country!

[AR: No yelling here, Janie. 🙂 ]

BRENT: I’m also in!

RUTH: I’m the late one to the table (no comments about “as usual,” AR! … can I call you “Annie”?? 🙂 ), but I’m in! Hi, new friends! Honored to make your acquaintances!

AR: Thanks for chiming in, all. So tell me: how would you describe this entire election/campaign season?

RONNIE: Short and to the point: insane and frightening.

MIKE: It was the craziest election of my lifetime. The dynamic of a celebrity candidate was bizarre. I did not appreciate how it became more about what was wrong with the other person rather than what they would do. Campaigns have been divisive in the past, but the vitriol has lingered so much longer this time around. A real turnoff.

BRENT: There are two main issues for me. First (coming from a 31 yr. old), there seems to be a large and growing chunk of people, a lot of them young, who are voting based mostly on “hearsay,” rather than research. Along with this, as the mainstream media has been consolidated into fewer hands over the years, the focus seems to have shifted from reporting the news as a watchdog to becoming a powerful propaganda machine.

JANIE: Sorry, but stuck with the educator hat at the moment… it used to be the party wasn’t nearly as important as the person.

RONI: Well, go to one retirement party and whoa, you miss the storm of thought. Loved reading
everyone’s thoughts!
This election was frightening, biased and had extraordinary efficiency gaps.

[“thumbs up” from JANIE]

JANIE: Were we all watching the same exact “show,” hearing the same words? How was there such joy and fear?

RONI: I agree, Janie; it is amazing how the views of this election are so different. The fears and joys are very real.

RUTH: Wow… Where to jump in? I’m “listening” and you all are fascinating! (I can tell already I’m going to learn a lot here.) My take on this election cycle was “shocking, but not surprising.” So much shock and drama: the shock of all the replayed disturbing words, the shock of dots connecting concerning influences, the shock of the seemingly least likely candidate winning the primary and then overtaking the shoe-in. Yet with what is glamorized and dramatized in our pop culture and “news” media, none of this should really come as a surprise. What did surprise me most was that some people really seemed to think one of the two candidates was really going to be so great over the other.

Much to chew on more than usual with this vote… More reason to dig down and consider what am I really voting for here. So it sobered me and drew me to research and pray much, much more than usual over an election.
_____

And there we start, friends… part two is on Tuesday… beginning with the value of critical thinking… and how it appeared absent in this past election cycle. Stay tuned.

Respectfully… always…
AR

not news

wy_j0_9svfg-toa-heftiba

CEDAR PLAINS, PA — “After years of delays and mounting criticism from voters and political pundits, President Barack Obama finally followed through on a campaign promise he made in 2008 to spend one night alone in the abandoned Cedar Plains Family Fun amusement park, sources confirmed Wednesday.
At approximately 6 p.m. last night, members of the press reportedly looked on as Obama—carrying only a flashlight, a water bottle, and a backpack full of snacks—scaled the 9-foot-high chain-link fence and entered the derelict theme park, making good on a vow that had been a central component of his initial run for the White House.

‘Eight years ago, I made an oath that if I were elected president, I would spend dusk till dawn in this old, run-down amusement park, and tonight I am fulfilling my obligation to the American people,’ said Obama, who had been widely accused of favoring other legislative priorities above an overnight stay inside the dilapidated regional attraction that shut its doors in 2003. ‘Between now and sunrise, I will climb to the top of the Ripsaw roller coaster, I will throw a rock through the window of the snow cone stand, and just as I’ve said time and time again, I will wander around in the big concrete track where the Lazy River used to be. And to prove that I do not take your support for granted, I will also walk through the Hall of Mirrors at midnight,’ Obama added.”

Oh, did the Intramuralist chuckle when reading the above on “The Onion” — a news satire organization that’s been entertaining readers for the past 28 years. In other words, it’s not news. It’s fake.

As in any significant aftermath, new terms are coined, and the term “fake news” is now being introduced into our vernacular, after November’s perceived political earthquake. “Fake news” equates to “false and sometimes sensationalist information presented as fact and published and spread on the internet” (see Collins English Dictionary).

The incidents and events did not actually happen in the way in which they are reported. Hence, there exists concern that inaccurate news causes readers (who evolve into voters) to be misinformed and therefore make inaccurate conclusions.

Said concern is valid, in my opinion. But I’d like to go one step further in identifying that which is not news…

Remember that news is newly received, noteworthy information. As best as possible, it is an objective account. Editorials — or opinion pieces and opinionated pundits — are also not news. They are a subjective account; subjective is not synonymous with truth. Swaying an audience — albeit often arguably, unintentionally — is prioritized over offering objectivity.

In other words, if we only pay attention to the Huffington Post, the NY Times, Rachel Maddow, and Steven Colbert, we won’t have an objective (or accurate) perspective; if we only pay attention to the Drudge Report, the NY Post, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, we also won’t have an objective perspective. Their political opinion skews their presentation of noteworthy information. Hence, this, too, is not news. That means the contributing journalists are also not news reporters. Opinion is altering the news.

Note Wednesday’s announcement, for example, that President-Elect Trump will nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency…

HuffPo’s headline read as follows: “DIRTY DEAL: Trump Picks Fossil Fuel-Friend to Head EPA”
Drudge lead with: “Trump’s EPA Pick Spooks Liberals and the Environmental Lobby”

The two accounts were covering the same story.

Popular FOX News host Megyn Kelly shared in an NPR interview this week that “too many millions of Americans aren’t listening at all to what the press tells them.” I wonder if “too many millions” aren’t listening because they’ve realized too many journalists are offering something other than news.

It’s tough. It’s tough to ensure that what we’re reading and hearing is both not fake but also not opinion. Both are not news.

Reporting on Obama on that Ripsaw coaster would be easier. More entertaining, too.

Respectfully…
AR

shocking

kyajrmvtwk0-jaspreet-monga

Not everyone rooted for them. Not everyone was a fan. In fact, I can’t promise you a clear majority was in support. Some actively cheered against them. Others called them a national hero. It can be a bitter, vicious sport at times.

Soccer, that is.

Associação Chapecoense de Futebol, commonly known as Chapecoense, is a Brazilian football club — a soccer team. Soccer is a “big deal” in Brazil.

Chapecoense, itself, is a relatively small club; however, for the past two years, they have played in Brazil’s top division, Série A, one of the strongest leagues in the world. The 20 clubs in Série A are thus also a “big deal.” With any “big deal” and all the inherent loyalties, there will be both passionate opposition and support. There will be persons who actively cheer the team on… and persons who sincerely desire for them to fail.

Late Monday night, Chapecoense was on their way to what was touted as the most significant match in their club’s history. Yet as their chartered jet approached the airport, intending to land in Columbia, it experienced electrical failure and shockingly, fell from the sky. There were 81 people on board: 72 passengers, which included the team and 21 journalists, plus a crew of nine. Only five survived.

The death of almost an entire team is tragic — almost unspeakable.

The crash of the airplane is equally shocking.

It’s awful… awful and heartbreaking.

While there is nothing good in the heartbreak itself, what I do suspect is happening in Brazil, is nothing short of sobering…

Gone is any disrespectful opposition…
Gone are the sincere desires for one to fail…
Gone is an emphasis on the smaller picture.

My sense is that today in South America, Brazilians have been shocked into seeing the bigger picture; they have been shocked into remembering what is most important.

Also, no doubt amid the shock, one of the most meaningful moments from the tragic day of 9/11 was when George W. Bush stood on that rubble with his arm around the fireman from company 164. With a bullhorn in one hand (and no teleprompter in the other), the President yelled:

“I want you all to know that America today is on bended knee, in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. This nation stands with the people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut, as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens.

[Shouts come from some far back in the crowd… something along the lines of “I can’t hear you!” To which Pres. Bush responds…]

I can hear you! [applause]

I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon! [The crowd screams and shouts with massive enthusiasm.] The nation sends its love and compassion to everybody who is here. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for making the nation proud. And may God bless America.”

The cheers and the unity manifest in that moment were absolutely beautiful. Unity… harmony… it is beautiful. On that day, we were all Americans.

In Brazil, right now, they are all Brazilians.

Does something tragic have to happen in order to shock us into remembering the bigger picture? … to shock us into remembering what we are? … who we are? … and who we are together?
And… that what we are… together… is actually beautiful?

Respectfully…
AR