redemption

photo-1468934047141-60c4fecdcc00

First, from Dictionary.com:

redemption

[ri-demp-shuh n]

noun
1. an act of redeeming or atoning for a fault or mistake, or the state of being redeemed.
2. deliverance; rescue.
3. Theology. deliverance from sin; salvation.
4. atonement for guilt.

Then from other, more blog-oriented, subjective sites:

… “the act of delivering from sin or saving from evil.”

… “the act of buying something back, or paying a price to return something to your possession.”

… “It means bought back, redeemed.”

Best I can tell, colloquially speaking, it means a person screws up — meaning a significant, seemingly character-defining, severely negative mistake — and then over some course of time, they change. The change is marked not only by the grieving of their own error/sin/offense, but they also make amends (as able), ask forgiveness, and they commit, as best as possible, to “sin no more.”

My sense is the scenario that allows for redemption is an incredibly ugly thing. My sense is that it also has the potential to be incredibly, amazingly powerful.

Here, though, is the problem…

While personally when we screw up (because yes, we all do), we believe in redemption — we know we’re capable of better and we want to grow and become wiser — we withhold that from other people, especially public personalities.

It’s like we say “I saw them when they said ______… I watched them when they did ______…” And then we forever put them in that box, so-to-speak. We forever act as if we know who they really are… and we don’t give them the grace and space to grow and change… even though we reserve that grace and space for ourselves.

Chuck Colson is the first person I think of… a man who was known to be politically ruthless, termed by one Slate Magazine writer as “the evil genius” of the Nixon administration. When he later repented and even founded Prison Fellowship in 1976, “the nation’s largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, and their families” today, I wonder how many held onto their own, previously held position, the “in-my-box” idea that Colson was still that ruthless man, because “I saw them when…”

I think, too, of Pietro Maso, the Italian man — 46 now — who bludgeoned his parents to death with heavy kitchen pans and then suffocated them, all to receive his inheritance when he was 20. For such a crime, I’m certain many would aver “no way is that guy ever changing!” … except in prison, he repented. In fact, Pope Francis called him after he was released, acknowledging his changed heart. Maso has now dedicated himself to helping others.

It makes me wonder… who else are we putting in a box?

Who else are we withholding the right to grow and change?

Who else do we believe is incapable of redemption?

(Scary thought. We can be a little judgmental sometimes…)

Respectfully…
AR

piercing the “normal”

photo-1468930605463-659a967fc4e8

Sometimes a day interrupts the “normal.” It interrupts the “normal” so much, it shocks us back into remembering what’s most important.

I imagine that’s what it was like the day JFK died. I wasn’t born yet, but I know the news spread quickly, as the sitting American President rode through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, assassinated just after noon. It was November of ’63, and while Kennedy had not formally announced his re-election plans, it was clear he was gearing up to run again and seemed confident he would win. That moment, though, pierced the “normal” of the time, thinking our leaders were always respected and safe, when they were not.

It’s what obviously happened on 9/11. America had always, so beautifully embraced the idea of being a “melting pot,” a land that lauds its diversity, welcoming all tired, poor, and people with their accompanying demographics and beliefs. But that “normal” was disrupted by 19 men who took terror into their own hands in the name of their religion. Not all religion is the same. Not all adherents are wise. We were reminded that not all believe in a good and righteous God.

It happened, no less, again last week. There was a young, major league pitcher who played for the Miami Marlins, José Fernández. The 24 year old lost his life in a boating accident. Fernández was a star — the ace of the pitching staff. But Fernández was more than just a focus of the far-more-than-casual-sports fan. Note the below excerpt from ESPN Magazine’s pre-season cover story…

In an interview with rising MLB star, Bryce Harper, Harper was discussing how baseball’s “unwritten code” dampers self-expression. He singled out Fernández:

“You can’t do what people in other sports do. I’m not saying baseball is, you know, boring or anything like that, but it’s the excitement of the young guys who are coming into the game now who have flair.

José Fernández is a great example. José Fernández will strike you out and stare you down into the dugout and pump his fist. And if you hit a homer and pimp it? He doesn’t care. Because you got him. That’s part of the game. It’s not the old feeling — hoorah … if you pimp a homer, I’m going to hit you right in the teeth. No. If a guy pimps a homer for a game-winning shot … I mean — sorry.”

In other words, Fernández’s flair was not a sign of one-up-manship; recognized or not, it was instead a manifestation of the joy of playing the game — what should be the “normal” of baseball. When Fernández’s boat and body were recovered early Sunday morning, it reminded us that a game is just a game; life is more important. The tragedy thus pierced our “normal” that gets so out of control, as contemporary society focuses far too much on celebrity, status, and winning. The Marlins cancelled their game that day; winning didn’t matter. They were shocked into remembering what’s most important.

What strikes me this day is the potential for other “normals” that may also be pierced one day… shocking us at our core. You see, the piercing elevates the important.

Perhaps you, too, are struck by the “normal” in the current political environment. Sadly, there exists a glaring lack of civility. There is such a demandingness; that is our “normal.”

There seems this crazy, disrespectful acceptance of “if you don’t think like me, you’re either (a) wrong, (b) an idiot, or (c — and most likely) both of the above.” Our “normal,” friends, is that we have lost the ability to respect the person who doesn’t share our perspective. The current election season, the reaction to “Black Lives Matter,” the debates over gun control, socialism, minimum wage, a living wage, abortion, healthcare, centralized government… our new “normal” is that good-thinking people justify thinking “both of the above.”

I’m concerned.

What’s it going to take to pierce that normal?

It will be something. I’m fearful of what it may be. But I do pray it shocks us into finally remembering what is most important.

Respectfully…
AR

no stones… no celebrations either

photo-1463097769237-a14ad08ff22b

It’s finally over.

(And if you were hoping the election came early so all the memes, rants, and rotten rhetoric were over, my sincerest apologies. We unfortunately have 40 more days of this.)

Uh, nope. It’s “Brangelina.” Perhaps you heard; it’s over.

The marriage of Hollywood superstars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie is coming to an end. Together for 12 years, married for 2, Jolie’s attorney announced last week that Jolie has filed for dissolution of their marriage. He adds, “This decision was made for the health of the family. She will not be commenting at this time, and asks that the family be given their privacy during this difficult time.”

Let me first say that privacy should be granted. Divorce is hard on everyone involved, regardless of reason. It’s hard on the parents, hard on the kids. Pitt and Jolie have 6 children.

Pitt met Jolie on the set of their 2004 movie, “Mr. & Mrs. Smith.” He was married to Jennifer Aniston at the time. While Pitt denies any physical affair, he did tell “Rolling Stone” magazine 4 years later that the Smith movie was his favorite “because I fell in love.” Pitt, though, is not alone in Hollywood in his extramarital affairs…

Julia Roberts and Daniel Moder… Moder was married to his first wife of only a few years when he got involved with Roberts.

Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward… These two were long celebrated as one of Hollywood’s greatest love stories, married for 50 years until his death in 2008. However, he was married to Jackie Witte when he met Woodward in 1953.

And then there’s Jerry Seinfeld and his wife Jessica Sklar. They met at an exclusive health club on New York City’s Upper West Side. Not only was Sklar married when they got involved; she had just returned from her 3 week honeymoon.

Let me be especially clear in each of the above: I do not believe in throwing stones. I believe in the application of generous grace, and I will gladly stand first in line, confessing my deep need for such. We have each made mistakes; we are each still capable of making mistakes; and we will each make more. Hence, there is zero reason for any of us to throw stones at another (… Note: another tidbit to be remembered during election season…).

So in my commitment to be the thrower of no stone, I will say nothing bad about Seinfeld, etc., nor about the latest marital casualty of Brad and Angelina. They do not deserve our condemnation. Again, divorce is painful enough.

Also, none of us know all the details regarding what factors were/are relevant in celebrity relationships forming or dissolving. Our perspectives are very limited (… another good thing to remember during election season…).

So no, they don’t deserve criticism or condemnation.

Here, though, is what we as a public don’t deserve:

We don’t deserve a media which takes a marriage — which only began by ruining another — and presents it as good and true and right. Without personal repentance from those involved — which we may or may not be privy to — we don’t deserve the media celebrating either the marriage or the dissolution.

So again, no stones; we each make our share of mistakes. I’m just uncomfortable ignoring one major huge detail in order to celebrate the other.

Respectfully… always…
AR

debate numero uno

kennedy_nixon_debat_1960

The following are realtime observations from last night’s debate from only a semi-humble, current events observer (sarcasm heartily included). Note that there was zero watching of pundits or reading of polls prior to posting…

Hmmm… I wonder if it will be more style than substance or substance than style tonight. I’d prefer the substance would be elevated; however, style makes for better TV… Speaking of TV… Clinton has more debate experience; Trump has more television experience. My sense is both are of value tonight.

I wonder if there will be any classic, future-frequently repeated lines… Reagan’s “there you go again” to then Pres. Carter… Veep candidate Lloyd Bentsen’s “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” to Dan Quayle… Or what about those seemingly timeless gestures? … Bush 41 checking his wristwatch… Al Gore’s infamous sigh…

Ok, here we go… Wait… there is something else to watch if we get bored, correct? Has Monday Night Football started? Oh, the Saints are playing… I do love Drew Brees, you know…

Introductions, obligatory handshakes, etc. Struck for a moment by the first woman ever to be in this position… and for a total outsider to be in this position. What history. It should not be missed on us. Our bias should not get in the way. 

There she is. There he is. Virginia and Colorado are watching. Lots of incredibly close states. Personally, I think they both look great tonight. Lovin’ the red pant suit and the blue tie… (And yes, moderator Lester Holt has a great voice.)

“Why are you a better choice?” asks the moderator… Oh, please… no eye rolling by anyone… at least not this early in the debate. I actually believe in seriously considering you both. That doesn’t help.

‘I want to invest in you.’ Thank you, Hillary. ‘We have to expand new companies.’ Thanks, Donald. Safe early tag lines. 

Why are they already interrupting? Don’t they know that not interrupting is Manners 101?

This just in from a friend: “Instead of everybody saying they are going to move to Canada, why don’t those two move to Canada and let’s just start over?”

Back to the questions… (Can we turn on the game yet??)

They smile and smirk when insulted. He looks angry… she looks annoyed. Just what I want in the leader of the free world…

“Bureaucratic red tape”… now that’s an obstacle we can agree on…

Tax returns, health records, and emails. Yes, ALL should be released. Both of you. Quit trying to make your opponent look worse when you’re doing the same thing in a different area.

“There’s something he’s hiding.” …Don’t you both owe us answers? Transparency? From a limited perspective, isn’t there information that you both have no desire for us to see?

How will he be on foreign policy? How will she be on trade? Can we tell with certainty?

It’s about time that this country has someone running who has some “idea about money.” Please tell me that’s all who are currently running for President (… sniff, sniff…).

Race is a significant issue in our country. We agree. As one wise friend texts in: “let’s hear solution! — not just more promises.” My heart hurts for what’s happening in Chicago, what’s happened in Ferguson, Dallas, etc. Both of you also speak of respecting law enforcement. Thank you.

Should “bad people” have guns? Is it ok for “good people” to have them? Great questions.

“We do always have to make sure we keep people safe.” Yes. Another amen.

And yes… we ALL need to be MUCH STRONGER on terrorism than we have been… PLEASE.

“I agree with you.” Could you two say that a little more often? We are Americans, after all.

“I think maybe there’s a political reason why you can’t say it.” Isn’t that why both of you say half of the things you say? Isn’t that why so many of us sitting at home are deeply disappointed in our government? Why we have trouble trusting you?

Work with the faith and business communities… what a wonderful idea. Let’s use the resources provided, rather than continuing to fun government as the source of all charity.

People “are very very upset for what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.” Yep. Oooh… here come the zingers. By both. So presidential. Not.

On the “birther” controversy… they both (and their surrogates) have used this when politically expedient. Not the biggest issue.

Oh, the truth… I crave that. From both. Isn’t that the problem with these debates? The truth often seems secondary to political ploys, good-sounding sound bites, rhetoric, etc. 

“We’re making progress” against ISIS. I pray to God this is true. Yes, it needs to be a top priority.

“How would you prevent homegrown (terrorist) attacks?” Thank you, Lester. I want to hear specific, actionable policy on this — not good-sounding rhetoric.

“Knock the hell out of ISIS.” I don’t swear much, but that idea sounds really, really great to me.

The singular greatest threat is nuclear armament. Scary. I think you both might agree. That might be scary, too.

Ooooh… looks like the gloves might have just come off. Again — by both — so not presidential.

Done. Sheewwww. Sigh. This is exhausting. Can someone finally turn on the game?

You mean we weren’t watching one?

Oh, wait… one more thought… Drew Brees. I love him. How’s he doing tonight? Is he free in November?

Respectfully…
AR

words matter

A photo by Steven Wei. unsplash.com/photos/g-AklIvI1aI

Tomorrow night is the first debate between the presidential candidates of America’s two most prominent parties. The Libertarian and Green Party candidates will not be included.

Hillary Clinton will try to convince us she is honest. Donald Trump will try to convince us he is presidential. Let me humbly assert that the bar for this debate thus seems pretty low. As an American, I expect any who serve in said capacity to be unquestionably both of the above.

But knowing we are a diverse nation — and knowing some of you love the Donald or love the Hillary — knowing some of you fear the Donald or fear the Hillary — and knowing even more are far less enthused for any — let me share one challenging aspect…

Right now there is growing unrest in our country in regard to racial reconciliation. This is not a “sided issue,” friends. Sorry, but “sided” implies we either come at something from the left or the right — and we assume if a person isn’t coming from “my” side, they are coming from the other. We are being seduced into believing that there exist only two possible sides to a problem.

Last week I had lunch with a group of wise thinking adults. We were discussing this issue and there were all sorts of angles and opinions shared at the table. There were comments of “black lives matter,” “blue lives matter,” “all lives matter,” and many more without any expressed mattering. But there was no dissing nor shutting down of opinion; there was no perceived arrogance. There were questions and comments and lots of “help me understand what you’re thinking” expressions. There was also ample admission by many that “I don’t think that way.” But there was no “because you don’t think like me, you are wrong.”

Obviously, the challenge here is that there is no simple fix.

There are racist attitudes that many of us have unknowingly adopted, growing up with them, having no idea we’ve allowed such to sink into our thinking. There are racist attitudes many of us have unknowingly adopted, embracing them as an adults, defending various people, political, and professional groups. And there are racist attitudes, within all ethnicities, which we have sadly, actually, knowingly adopted.

Here, no less, is why the presidential campaigns are relevant…

The current state of our political climate makes it impossible to solve the racial tension. (Yes, I did say the word “impossible.”)

For months, we have heard from our candidates how one is superior to the other. For months, we’ve heard each speak about how their opponent is entirely inferior.

Racism, by definition, is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”

While Clinton and Trump are not distinguished by their race, they each have actively promoted the idea that they and their party are far superior to the other. They have each, also, denigrated entire people groups, intentionally targeting the other’s supporters.

How can two people — and all the questionable “honest” and “presidential” candidates on their coattails — attempt to bring us together and solve this problem? How can two people who themselves claim superiority — and themselves identify others as inferior (and not just on specific policy disagreements) — how can they be credible and effective in any racial reconciliation? Our country’s current, vicious political climate thus seems a microcosm of the same problem — just not based on skin color.

In tomorrow night’s debate, both candidates will be jockeying to find the right words and right tone. How do we balance the rights of each person with the needs of each community? How do we discriminate against no one and simultaneously honor and respect law enforcement?

I just wish each candidate’s words would have thus far been wiser.

Respectfully…
AR

I can’t fight this feeling any longer

photo-1451597827324-4b55a7ebc5b7

As we witness continued incredulous events in the news — as it too often seems as if only the names and faces change — I’m struck by a bold assertion…

People keep telling me how I feel.

And, if I don’t feel that way, they proceed to tell me how I should feel.

I don’t get it…

Are we not allowed to have varied perspectives any more?
And… can varied perspectives not be equally valid or true?

I read an opinion piece yesterday morn which asserted that white people are uncomfortable saying the word “black.”

I’ve read opinion pieces for months asserting that some people are afraid to say the phrase “radical Islam.”

Noting the discomfort and fear assigned above, let me attempt to process an idea that probably won’t be comfortable or popular. Granted, getting to the truth, always with respect, is a higher priority for me.

It is true that some won’t say “black” and some won’t say “radical Islam.” Frankly, I don’t have a problem saying or hearing either.

But where good-thinking people lose me is when they assume they can discern my emotion and all that I am thinking. Sorry… they’re not inside my head; they do not know. But yet, they assign an emotion to you or me, seemingly to further their own, adhered-to narrative. I don’t think it’s malicious; it’s just that if they can nice and neatly ascertain our emotions with 100%, pinpoint accuracy, then they don’t have to wrestle with the validity within any other perspective. Another perspective may complicate their clung-to account.

It seems as if this assignment of emotion is justified as people observe our behavior…

If I don’t react as strongly, then I must not care as much. (… Seriously, can they tell if I’m grieving inside? And wait; they don’t see me all the time; they don’t know how strong I react…)

If I don’t verbally rant and rave, then my silence says it all. (… What if my silence was instead time for my private prayers? Am I required to share that with them? And they don’t know what conversations I’ve had; they haven’t witnessed those…)

If I don’t yell and scream and say ‘I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore,’ then I must be indifferent. (… Tell me: what psych class teaches that emotions are only valid if expressed the same way?)

One of the wisest changes I wish for our increasingly polarized, digressing society is to give one another the freedom to react differently. It’s why both the 49ers backup quarterback is free to kneel during the National Anthem and why fans are free to be frustrated with his perceived disrespect. People express emotion differently. And… outward expression is not — I repeat, “not” — an accurate barometer of how people actually feel.

I get it; we say “enough is enough”! We want no more incidents of an innocent man killed, a police officer persecuted, or a dreaded terrorist incident. Enough is enough.

But until we give people the grace and space to process, grow, and express their emotions differently — consistent with our own, unique, internal wiring — we will not make significant progress nor craft solution.

We must stop demanding everyone “feels like me.” And we must stop believing we know how everyone feels.

Respectfully…
AR

taking a knee

photo-1456983887044-b5ecb1059660
On Saturday, a bomb detonated on West 23rd Street in Manhattan at 8:30 p.m., injuring 29 people.
A man claiming allegiance to the Islamic State stabbed nine people at a mall in central Minnesota.

On Sunday, four commando-style gunmen, armed with AK-47 assault rifles and grenades, burst into the brigade headquarters on an Indian army base that killed 17 soldiers.
In New Jersey, multiple explosive devices were found, one of which exploded near a train station.

Then just yesterday, Reuters reported that a ceasefire negotiated by the U.S. and Russia in war-ravaged Syria looked imminent in collapsing. Insurgents were mounting strategies and arms, ready to resume fighting.

And as I write this…

The U.S. Coast Guard is frantically searching for three missing boaters on Lake Superior, including a nine year old boy.
And on both the East and West coasts of Florida, authorities are investigating two unrelated, fatal shootings. One of the victims was a four year old girl. The other was only seventeen months old.

I understand why so many turn off the news — and not just to avoid the vicious vitriol disappointingly included in this year’s election cycle. We turn off the news because it’s full of heartache and sin. Too many people, too many victims, and too much wrongdoing. Yes, it’s too many and too much.

But let me say this…

In all of the moments where people arguably are intentionally bringing attention to self, each of the above atrocities are the moments, in my opinion, most deserving of “a knee.” There is the heartache. The heartache in their lives is “bigger than me.” To take a knee is to pay honor to them.

Football is just a game. It’s only a game. Granted, I think we learn a lot from even the lesser things in life. Those lesser, more routine things — it’s where God teaches us because we’re more apt to finally “get it.” So in football and this whole knee idea… on one hand taking a knee means the game is over; it’s synonymous with the “quarterback kneel,” when the outcome of the game is settled, the offense is aligned in their victory formation, and the knee is taken to run the clock down and preserve the win.

On the other (far bigger) hand, to take a knee is a show of respect. Taking a knee means we stop whatever we’re doing, momentarily ending our normal activity, and recognizing that there are other things more important than moi.

Truthfully, when the San Francisco backup quarterback originally sat in protest, I was a bit confused. The reality is that his sitting could have just as easily been motivated by his disgust with 49er management that he had regressed to backup, and there is/was no way to discern with certainty whether his initial act was a protest against perceived police brutality or the manifestation of a professional pout.

Then, however, the quarterback took a knee. To me, that means something different.

Taking a knee is a sign of submission. Again, it’s an awareness that something is bigger than self.

It’s why at game’s end of every NFL contest, regardless of outcome, members of both teams meet at midfield. The tradition began 26 years ago, in December of 1990, when 49ers chaplain Pat Richie and NY Giants chaplain Dave Bratton arranged for the first joint postgame prayer in NFL history.

As Richie said then — knowing these two teams detested one another — that they saw each other as the enemy — “I wonder if there’s something that we could do or should do, as far as a reflection of our faith. What if we did something as simple as pray with the New York Giants?”

Ah, what if we took all attention off of self, met in the middle, and interacted with those we detest? What if we recognized the real atrocities in this world? And what if we were each more submissive and respectful, willing and wanting to take a knee?

Respectfully…
AR

“conduct issues”

www.frsphoto.co
www.frsphoto.co

On a recent trip out West, we took time out for a baseball game at Chase Field in Phoenix, Arizona. It was a fun game, with the local taco joint promising the tortilla treat to all in attendance if the Diamondbacks scored at least five or six runs.

There were multiple non-sports aspects that got my attention that night — aspects other than the enthusiastic taco pursuit. It was bobblehead night… and a not-so-nice fan actually stole two of our bobbleheads (… yes, sin does exist on this planet). There was also a 9 year old birthday boy, who after ardently advertising his special day, had a ball thrown to him in the stands. His glee was immediately obvious… that is… until he dropped it.

Still, though, another aspect prompted a blog-worthy thought. It was a simple announcement — probably one comparable to messages shared across the country in our stadiums, arenas, and other mass venues — perhaps it oft goes unnoticed. On the large screen, they announced:

“REPORT GUEST CONDUCT ISSUES BY TEXTING:
DBACKS <space> LOCATION and ISSUE TO 69050.”

Simple, I know. 

Ordinary, I know.

Makes total sense.

And then it donned on me…

I understand the idea that in the setting of a game, concert, etc., that designated officials would be responsible for attending to guest conduct issues. The audience is there to enjoy the activity for which they gathered; others are taking away from that enjoyment. My sense, though, is that we often take this too far… when we get outside the venue. Notice what’s happening in our our own, small circles…

We all witness “conduct issues” — people behaving in ways that we deem disturbing, disrespectful, and/or odd.

My parents and role models instilled in me years ago that the most effective means of curbing inappropriate behavior was to go straight to the source. Go to the person. Point out the fault. Just between the two of you.

If they listen to you, you have won them over. They still feel respected because you care enough to talk to them one-on-one. You have thus positively influenced their conduct and potentially curbed future behavior. If they don’t listen — and it’s clear the behavior is inappropriate — that’s when you get others involved. That’s when you “text 69050,” so-to-speak.

What makes this a blog-worthy thought, no less, is the realization that we tend to skip a lot of these steps. If we see disturbing, disrespectful, or odd behavior, rarely do we go to the “disturber” first. We often first go to the likeminded, finding ammunition in their knowingly-biased support… and then we’re really good at making passive-aggressive comments on Facebook and elsewhere.

You know what I’m talking about… those indirect expressions of hostility. They may be cleverly worded; they may be witty and make the rest of us laugh out loud. And the slam at the other’s oddness or character sometimes even makes us feel better. Yes, the social media shouting lets the world know of our offense and disgust!

However… it avoids going to the person first.

And going to the person first, one-on-one, respectfully, is what best has the potential to curb the behavior…

Respectfully…
AR

who chooses what we see?

photo-1444012183556-ad267375edb4

Maybe I just shouldn’t go here. Maybe today’s angle would be better left unstated — like we sometimes do with that younger generation and the teens around the house… we don’t say anything — just stay silent. We sit back, allowing reality to slowly sink in, wondering at what point the embedded irony will speak for us…

First full disclosure: the Intramuralist is a fervent football fan. No, not that hot, burning with intense passion kind of person — I mean, it doesn’t ruin my day if my team loses, and I don’t “hate” any opponent. I just enjoy watching the game, cheering the guys on, appreciating excellent play. In fact, for an extended glimpse into our household, starting last Sunday, our family got back into our fall routine, with 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time commencing our annual “watch-8-games-on-the-screen-at-one-time” exercise. 🙂

Our fandom actually extends into Monday, where on the inaugural annual weekend, the NFL treats us to two games. Game two last week featured the St. Louis — I mean Los Angeles — Rams vs. the San Francisco 49ers. Ah, yes… the 49ers. My sense is that far more than the casual fan is aware of the 49ers these days, as one time starting quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, remains on their roster. He has received increased attention, choosing to sit in recent weeks during the pre-game National Anthem as a stand against perceived police brutality.

As he kneeled (because in my opinion, kneeling looks better than sitting), ESPN’s cameras focused on him, maybe four, five times. Play-by-play broadcaster Chris Berman and sideline reporter Lindsay Czarniak supplied ample info on Kaepernick’s protest, even taking intentional time out at the conclusion of the anthem to share with us a few thoughts about the quarterback, how his protest is perceived to be received, all prior to pivoting back to actual football.

No problem. Each of us is free to choose how to respond to Kaepernick’s actions. As stated here previously, the Intramuralist does not care for Kaepernick’s behavior, as from my limited perspective, he makes his point by disrespecting other people, but I solidly support his right to express his opinion. I support the individual freedom of speech. No one should be forced to stand. I stand — and actually sing — because I’m mindful of all those who’ve fought for us, who’ve fought for that flag, who’ve defended us so that we could be free… and express those varying, individual opinions.

But the target of today’s post isn’t about Kaepernick. In fact, I don’t really pay all that much attention to him. Today’s post is about the irony of what happened later in the game.

Admittedly, even as a football fan, the game was kind of boring. There wasn’t a lot of exceptional play, no razzle-dazzle, and the Rams were especially, offensively challenged. They often seemed to get the ball, run three plays, and then give the ball away.

Knowing I needed to hit the hay (as two games in one night creep past my weeknight bed time), it had become a bit of a yawner to me… that is, until a little unexpected excitement a few minutes into the fourth quarter. With the teams lined up and the Rams futilely attempting to again move the football, all of a sudden the players slowly rose, as “time” had been called on the field. Momentarily, we saw a very enthusiastic 49ers fan come sprinting across the field. He was grinning and laughing and running notably fast (his speed seemingly uninhibited by the other substances in his body). A funny thing then happened…

On ESPN, for a moment, the cameras followed the young man, moving as if to cover him. Yet simultaneous with an awkward silence, the cameras stopped showing the fan. Announcer Berman then shared that there was a fan on the field, but — and here’s where my yawn instantly morphed into an ironic chuckle — Berman said something along the lines of, “Well, we don’t show you that because we try not to pay too much attention to people like that.”

What? You mean you are choosing for us what we should see and what we should not? You are choosing for us from a media-perspective what is worthy of our attention?

Fascinating. Just fascinating.

For the record, I laughed more a day later, hearing tape of the radio broadcast by Westwood One announcer Kevin Harlan. In his all of a sudden, revved up voice, Harlan said,“Hey, somebody has run unto the field. Some goofball in a hat and a red shirt. Now he takes off the shirt! He’s running down the middle by the 50! He’s at the 30!… Now he runs the opposite way! He runs to the 50! He runs to the 40! The guy is drunk!! But there he goes! The 20! They’re chasing him! They’re not gonna get him! Waving his arms, bare-chested — somebody stop that man! Oh, they got him! They’re coming from the left! Oh! They tackle him at the 40 yard line!”

Harlan had a little fun. He also allowed the audience to decide for themselves what was important.

Respectfully…
AR

stabbing at unity

photo-1473090826765-d54ac2fdc1eb

On Friday, before a friendly audience, Hillary Clinton made the following remark:

“To just be grossly generalist, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call ‘the basket of deplorables.’ Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”

Clinton apologized the next day.

Before getting to the point of today’s post, allow me a few initial disclaimers, as this post is about far more than any current candidate…

First… please don’t use the above as an indictment against Clinton; we have all said inappropriate things. We are capable of saying more.

Next… please don’t use the above as support for Donald Trump; he, too (geesh), has said multiple inappropriate things. He is capable of saying more.

Lastly… please don’t perceive the above as an endorsement for any (note: there will be no forthcoming Intramuralist endorsements). Again, this is not about the candidates; this is about us and whether we truly desire unity more than division.

I’d like to take a stab at extending the call for unity, that so many seemed to embrace a mere two days ago. On the anniversary of 9/11, there was minimal focus on what divides us. Rather, there was the profound realization that even as evil attempted to destroy us fifteen years ago — and continues to attempt to pierce us today — the “united” is still in our states and the flag is still there.

So how do we keep it going? How do we make it last? How do we embrace unity more than feed division? As one thoughtful friend commented, “We can overcome the differences in our country if we only understood that we are stronger together”… if, we are united.

So let’s go out on a pretty big limb here and take that stab…

What if we all agreed to give up one thing?

Let me first provide a little logic… The aforementioned call-out of these extreme people out there, these “baskets of deplorables” — the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic people — is not solely one person’s assessment or belief; far more have chimed in on all sides of the equation. Let’s add the other oft-identified extremists… the Marxists and Communists… the feminists, meninists, and yes, even Leninists. Don’t forget the deniers of freedom or the growing Christianophobic. Forget not either the narcissistic; they can be pretty extreme, too.

The point is that while we all may agree that extreme groups exist, we may not all agree on who exactly is how extreme.

I thus have no intention of denying the existence of the above people groups. I also believe we should never quit interacting with and respectfully listening and learning from one another. I believe, though, there’s something bigger we could give up.

What if we each agreed that there is no such thing as a person who is deplorable?

What if we each gave up our so-called “basket”?

We each put different, perceived people groups into our self-crafted, extremist baskets. We allow ourselves to then justify that we are somehow better or wiser or far more righteous than entire groups of people… they, of course, are the extreme ones.” We then write them off, effectively elevating self. We diss the legitimacy of those who think differently. They oppose and offend us — so we put them in our “basket.” We judge them by convincing ourselves that they are actually deplorable.

When people who do not think or act like we do, can we give up thinking the worst of them?

That’s not really the question; the question is whether we want more unity.

Respectfully…
AR