ISIS info

34566_408144276034_526766034_5226944_6190784_nAs bantered back and forth in recent blog posts, there is ample question on how best to tackle the current crisis. The Intramuralist has been respectfully concerned with Pres. Obama’s unwillingness to be specific in his terminology, refusing to call out the perpetrators as “radical Islamic terrorists.” The administration intentionally avoids associating terrorism with Islam. Contrasted with Obama’s frequency of specifically calling out other persons and religions — especially Christianity — I find his lack of willingness to be specific in this area concerning. I am not attempting to be critical. I am simply concerned about the ambiguous motive behind his ambiguous terminology.

In an attempt to understand the ambiguity (as opposed to any of us being seduced into simply adopting a partisan stance), I’ve been reading much, including the President’s own words. Arguably the most insightful piece I read was from Graeme Wood in The Atlantic. (Thank you to the several who suggested it.) The piece is excellent, informative, and long. Today I offer an edited portion of his perspective…

“What is the Islamic State? Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers… In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as ‘not Islamic’ and as al-Qaeda’s ‘jayvee team,’ statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The group seized Mosul, Iraq, last June, and already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been its leader since May 2010, but until last summer, his most recent known appearance on film was a grainy mug shot from a stay in U.S. captivity at Camp Bucca during the occupation of Iraq. Then, on July 5 of last year, he stepped into the pulpit of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, to deliver a Ramadan sermon as the first caliph in generations—upgrading his resolution from grainy to high-definition, and his position from hunted guerrilla to commander of all Muslims. The inflow of jihadists that followed, from around the world, was unprecedented in its pace and volume, and is continuing.

Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned… We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.

The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.

We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State in at least two ways. First, we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al‑Qaeda to an organization that has decisively eclipsed it… We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature…

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, ‘the Prophetic methodology,’ which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal…”

As the conversation continues, let’s figure this out… be respectful… call it what it is… and avoid political correctness. Let’s do nothing to strengthen the terrorists. And let none of us be seduced into simply adopting a partisan stance. This is not a partisan issue.

Respectfully…

AR

where’s the outrage?

photo-1415226355641-7f90f89def6aIn recent months, we’ve witnessed outrage many places… fueled in Ferguson… stroked in the streets of New York City… casted at the ballot box. We’ve seen it directed at various venues… at lying newscasters… at arresting officers… at the latest box office attention-grabber. My sense, though, is we’re fairly selective in our outrage. Our expressions are inconsistent.

One event over the weekend prompted significant, consistent outrage in this semi-humble blogger, as the radical Islamic terror group released a horrific, new video. ISIS purportedly murdered 21 Egyptian Christians in Libya. As reported by Reuters:

“The 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians were marched to a beach, forced to kneel and then beheaded on video, which was broadcast via a website that supports Islamic State.

The victims were among thousands of unemployed Egyptians desperately seeking work in Libya, despite the risks. Egypt’s foreign ministry said it was banning travel to Libya and had set up a crisis centre to bring home Egyptians.

Thousands of traumatized mourners gathered at the Coptic church in al-Our village, where 13 of the 21 victims came from, struggling to come to terms with the fate of compatriots who paid a gruesome price for simply seeking work.

Before the videoed killings, one of the militants stood with a knife in his hand and said: ‘Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for.’ Afterwards, he says: ‘And we will conquer Rome, by the will of Allah.’

The head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, condemned the beheadings. ‘They were killed simply for the fact that they were Christians,’ he said at the Vatican.”

Let me offer a few, additional informative and editorial notes — to aid in either comprehension or emphasis:

  • “Coptic Christians” — or “Copts” — is the term associated with the native Christians within Egypt. They constitute the largest Christian community in the Middle East, accounting for an estimated 10% of the Egyptian population.
  • The five-minute video depicting the beheading was entitled “A Message Signed With Blood To The Nation Of The Cross.”
  • The victims were unemployed men, looking for work.
  • They were targeted because they were Christians.
  • They were killed because of what they believed.

Let that sink in for a minute… they were killed because of what they believed.

(Then acknowledge that we each believe in something.)

As terrorist incidents only increase across the globe, so does my concern. We must find a brave, bold, effective way to deal with this radical Islamic terrorist group.

I dare not imply that a solution is easy — otherwise the problem would have undoubtedly been solved years ago. Let me suggest, however, that we start with the following:

  1. Let’s be specific in regard to who the terrorists are.
  2. Let’s quit avoiding the fact that the terrorists’ interpretation of Islam motivates their murders; let’s study the radical interpretation, thus understanding the enemy better — as opposed to denying what they say spurs them on.
  3. Let’s not tip-toe around the terminology.
  4. Let’s refuse to blame other persons or religions. And…
  5. Let us never be numb to the outrage.

Those 21 unemployed, Christian men were killed because of what they believed. Their killing is outrageous.

Respectfully…

AR

little league

IMGP0709Perhaps you noticed that the most recent Little League World Series team was stripped of their 2014 title. The group of 11-13 year old boys played terrifically last summer, earning the series championship by ousting teams across the globe. They worked hard, played hard, and had a few balls bounce their way. It was thus a shame to see the title taken away.

Little League International made the decision to strip the Jackie Robinson West team from Chicago, Illinois of their title after months of investigation. It was determined that team officials — the manager included — had intentionally falsified boundaries so they could add ineligible, talented players to their roster. Little League International also determined that the officials then attempted to persuade adjacent leagues to go along with their falsification.

This is a gut-wrenching story. How do we adequately explain adults’ wrongdoing to a group of adolescent boys? How is it fair that young boys pay for the mistakes of their role models? As a baseball parent, this made my heart sink. It also made my oldest son’s heart sink; he was equally appalled. He knows the adults did wrong, and thus finds it sad that the kids have to pay. Those kids worked hard for that title. They won.

As we were attempting to sift through the legitimacy of the consequences — recognizing this is a tough situation — we were immediately exposed to the outrage of other adults. The most attention-receiving indignation was not based on the fact that these are young men; it was on the fact that the entire team is made up entirely of African-American young men.

Parents, lawyers, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, aldermen, noted Obama mentor Father Michael Pfleger, and more chimed in. Each suggested the title was stripped or may have been stripped because the kids are black. Jackson went so far as to call it “persecution.” Like I said, this is tough.

I am again reminded of those who have suggested the need for a national dialogue regarding race. During Pres. Obama’s tenure, my sense is we have had many conversations about race; it’s just that too many from too many angles have felt justified in employing disrespectful words and tones during those conversations. There are far too many among us who still feel that “black people just need to understand” — or “white people just need to understand.” We can’t elevate the respect and admiration for one people group by first putting all onus on another.

As we again celebrate Black History Month, we have opportunity to continue an ongoing, constructive dialogue, celebrating the abundant, positive contributions by African-Americans to society. Yet I find the conversation challenging when race is inserted into conversations where it doesn’t belong. Jackie Robinson West is not the first team to be stripped of their title; Zamboanga City was disqualified and stripped of its 1992 title, also because of ineligible players on their roster.

Note the words of Karen Lewis, the head of the Chicago Teachers Union, who like the Intramuralist, feels bad for these young kids. She goes a step further, however, in her insertion of race into the conversation: “I stand with parents, youth, teachers and community members who are outraged by this Black History month smack in the face by people with no regard for the young lives impacted by this. Jackie Robinson West should retain its title, be issued an apology, and every player should receive full-ride scholarships for college sponsored by the people who have humiliated these boys, their families and their community.”

It is hard to have a sincere, respectful conversation about race — a conversation where blame is minimized, humility is maximized, and emotional responses are somewhat tamed. It’s harder still, perhaps, when our children must pay for our mistakes.

Respectfully…

AR

crazy, mixed up world

rHBf1lEaSc2nsbqYPQau_IMG_0177There are days I shake my head, wondering if life makes sense — wondering if our reality has somehow evolved into some curvy, messed up fantasy world, where our focus and values have fallen somewhere between “Freaky Friday,” “As the World Turns,” and “From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler.” I wonder what we value… what we have mixed up… and if we are still discerning of what is good and true and right…

… So many of us tuned into the Super Bowl — some 114.4 million to be almost exact — but we tend to tune out the evening news, feeling the stories are the same — just the names and faces are different each night.

… We pay significant attention to the news anchor who lied, but for the politician that lied/lies or tends to greatly exaggerate (always uncannily, making themselves look better or braver), we look the other way… especially if they vote the way we like.

… We Google with glee, with all eyes and ears on the actors, athletes, and celebrities. Tell me: how long will we pay attention to Kayla Mueller, the 26 year old, American woman who is the latest to pay with her life at the hands of ISIS, the radical Islamic terrorist group? How long?

I shuddered reading Kayla’s letter to her family, written in November of last year. Her insight was amazing: “…I remember mom always telling me that all in all in the end the only one you really have is God. I have come to a place in experience where, in every sense of the word, I have surrendered myself to our creator b/c literally there was no else … + by God + by your prayers I have felt tenderly cradled in freefall. I have been shown in darkness, light + have learned that even in prison, one can be free. I am grateful. I  have come to see that there is good in every situation, sometimes we just have to look for it.”

To think we will not pay much attention… to think her death may be minimized…I wonder about this mixed up world.

I will admit: I am currently watching one other, potentially mixed up scenario…

When “American Sniper” came out, the box office smash met rave reviews and even attained a “Best Picture” nomination by the 87th Academy Awards. The movie chronicles the life of Chris Kyle, a former Navy SEAL who was considered “the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history.” He served four tours in the Iraq War, reportedly having shot and killed more than 160 targets. He was considered a hero. Because Kyle was so effective in killing our identified enemy, Iraqi insurgents nicknamed him the “Devil of Ramadi” and put a bounty on his head. The movie accounts some awful situations Kyle confronted, as the face of the enemy is often disguised as something lesser.

“American Sniper” has also faced ample, significant criticism… Michael Moore, Seth Rogen, former Gov. Howard Dean, etal… they have led the chorus, making strong public claims of racism, bigotry, and/or cowardice in Kyle’s behavior. Their criticism is loud — as is their assertion that Kyle is no hero.

This weekend, no less — to celebrate Valentine’s Day — the American public will also be exposed to the much-anticipated “50 Shades of Grey.” Such is the cinematic account of the best-selling 2011 novel. Wikipedia factually depicts the story as follows: “It is notable for its explicitly erotic scenes featuring elements of sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism.”

The Intramuralist is offering no encouragement on whether or not to see either ‘Sniper’ or the ‘Grey Shades.’ I only question which movie we will value more. Which will we celebrate? Which will we criticize? … and are we still discerning of what is good and true and right?

Respectfully…

AR

parenting & terrorism

(Oblige me briefly on today’s odd combination and thus creative frame of reference…)

run

While this is not a parenting blog, I have learned some things via parenting I otherwise would have missed. Let me be completely transparent: sometimes those lessons mean complete failure and falling flat on my face; it’s hard to parent consistently well.

There are moments I’m not proud of — times I’d like to take back… times I said the wrong thing, did the wrong thing, played helicopter parent, bulldozer parent, or some other odd role where I only served to get in the way. I meant well, but actions always speak louder than words.

The area in which parents arguably get most in the way is in discipline. No doubt that “a father only disciplines those he loves,” but sometimes our discipline fails to focus on what’s most important.

As the parent of multiple children, for example, one of the things I’ve had to learn is to deal with what’s current. If one of my sons makes a significant error in judgment, I don’t chastise the children who are uninvolved; I don’t bring up — nor nurse or rehearse — the previously forgiven sins of another. If one child behaves foolishly, I do not chide the other two. And if only one son is disobedient, I don’t focus my attention on the other children. When a parent fails to focus on what’s most important, we then fail to parent well.

As referenced in our most recent post, the Intramuralist is concerned with Pres. Obama’s focus on rooting out the seemingly increasing, radical Islamic terrorism. Less than 48 hours after a man in captivity was burned alive by the terrorists last week, the President used his public podium to compare the current violence to centuries-old Christian sins. I am struck by his contrast — how he spoke so intentionally specifically about the ancient perceived sins of Christians, while at the same time, he continued to speak so intentionally vaguely about current Islamic terrorism. The contrast is striking.

Obama will not utter the phrase, “Islamic terrorism.” He will not say “killing in the name of Allah.” In less than two weeks the White House is hosting a summit that was organized after the radical Islamic attacks in Paris. What’s it called? “A Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” In the 282 word, White House press release, there exists not a single reference to the Islamic adherence the terrorists continually proclaim.

Is Obama weak on terror? From this limited vantage point, I cannot discern such with certainty. I do believe, however — based on his consistent, continual omission of the Islamic faith the terrorists profess — that he is weak on rhetoric. After his comparison to the Crusades, my sense is his focus is off. My concern is not alone; it is shared across the political spectrum…

From NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell (never known for her conservatism): “You don’t use the word Crusades, number one, in any context right now. It’s just it’s too fraught. And the week after a pilot is burned alive, in a video shown, you don’t lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers. You have to deal with the issue that’s in front of you or don’t deal with it at all.”

From Thomas Ashbridge, a historian at the University of London in a statement to ABC News: “It is true to say, that by modern standards, atrocities were committed by crusaders, as they were by their Muslim opponents; it is however, far less certain that, by medieval standards, crusading violence could be categorized as distinctly extreme in all instances.” Ashbridge added that he doesn’t have a problem with Obama reminding the world that the Christian Church “advocated violence, and at times even encouraged its adherents to engage in warfare,” but to suggest a causal link between ISIS and the distant medieval phenomenon of the Crusades is “grounded in the manipulation and misrepresentation of historical evidence.” Obama’s focus is off.

Like I said, it’s hard to do this consistently well. Terrorism is undoubtedly difficult to effectively thwart. But let’s start by focusing on what’s most important — by speaking specifically about the current problem. Then let’s quit attempting to include the “other children.” Note: they are not involved.

Respectfully…

AR

our response to isis

photo-1415226181422-279a51ca056eWhen I saw shots of the captured Jordanian pilot burned alive in a cage last week, I had to look away. This was no fiction, fantasy, nor ad for the seventeenth sequel in pop culture’s latest horror series; this was real life. My response was clear… I was shocked, then grieved, and then outraged. How dare these men — obviously motivated by evil — brutally kill the innocent. How dare these terrorists get away with murder!

Most likely more outraged than any of us was Jordan’s leader, King Abdullah II, a former commander of Jordan’s special forces. King Abdullah met with members of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee not long after the news broke. Members said he was furious. The king was quoted as saying, “The only problem we’re going to have is running out of fuel and bullets.” The terrorists were the clear focus of his fury.

Contrast that with Pres. Obama’s response. Wait… Let’s each first do one thing; let’s remove any partisan hats. That means all the Obama-lovers and haters — those friends among us who have a tendency to lose all objectivity at the mere sound of his voice — need to be a little more intentional in removing the hat, so-to-speak. Yes, those enamored seem blind to Obama’s weaknesses; those loathing seem blind to his strengths. I’d like an honest conversation regarding Obama’s leadership in response to terrorism.

While the White House made some at least rhetorical miscalculations in its initial description of ISIS, Obama has been clear that we need to fight this extremist group. I believe their heinous deeds are clearly unacceptable to him. What is not clear, however, is who he thinks they are.

The terrorists claim to be motivated by Islam. Obama continues to claim they are not. Hence, the White House will not refer to Islam when describing this group. On first learning of the Jordanian pilot’s savage death, Obama calmly referred to the terrorists as adhering to “whatever ideology they are operating of.” There was no outrage nearing that of King Abdullah’s — and there was no specificity in regard to the terrorists.

Obama did express specificity a single day later, when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual Christ-centered gathering of 3,500 plus people. He said he wanted to touch on “the degree to which we’ve seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. “ Excellent. Let’s talk specifically about the evil. But again, there was a complete omission of Islam. Instead he was specific only in mentioning the centuries-old sins of those who “committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” He did not mention killing in the name of Allah — even though that is the current crisis. Of course, some (still probably with hats on) quickly amen-ed the President’s boldness… it’s about time Christians wrestled with those historical atrocities!… The only challenge with that argument is the lack of boldness Obama utilizes in response to Islam — and the lack of current application.

Unlike the Intramuralist, the President seems to dance around the topic. He will call out Christianity but not Islam. I get that he does not believe they are Muslims — even though they say they are. I also get that there exist religious adherents who distort the tenets of every religion and re-craft religion based upon how they feel; we all sometimes do that. But what I don’t get is why the President avoids the topic…

Nidal Hassan murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood while praising Allah, and the administration called it “workplace violence.” When the Charlie Hebdo attacks occurred in Paris, the White House Press Sec. would not initially say “Islamic” or “terrorism.” And last week the Deputy Press Sec. insisted the Taliban was “an armed insurgency” — not a terrorist group. Even left-leaning “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart now questions the White House “tip-toeing” around the terminology. What’s the motive?

Why will the White House not call this what it is? Why are they willing to be harsh on Christianity — sins that are 800 years old — but meek on any mention of Islam? What’s the motivation? I believe there exists something we don’t know.

By specifically calling out old Christian abuses while simultaneously being vague about current Islamic violence, significant questions about Obama’s leadership in response to terrorism are increasing. What’s motivating him that we don’t know? And why can’t he express the outrage and clarity like King Abdullah?

Respectfully…

AR

super recap

FullSizeRenderA running recap, watching the Super Bowl with the family… a few (well, sort of) observations, as well…

  • Lots of hype… lots of fanfare.
  • Loved the National Anthem — made me miss Whitney Houston.
  • Tom Brady… he’ll be in the Hall of Fame one day.
  • Russell Wilson in the HOF? The jury’s still out.
  • Wish I fully trusted the Patriots.
  • Budweiser commercials always tug on my heartstrings.
  • (Is it time for Katy Perry yet?)
  • Wow… fascinating Coke commercial; can’t tell if I like it or not.
  • Lovin’ the avocado “First Draft Ever” commercial.
  • Cris Colinsworth — wasn’t he fired by NBC? Oh, wait… that’s next season.
  • Brady is amazing. Did I say that already?
  • It will be interesting to see how Deflate-Gate plays itself out; does the owner really think he deserves an apology?
  • I’m liking that fluorescent green accent on Seattle’s uniforms.
  • Why do grown men keep pulling those mouth guards out of their mouth?
  • The Patriots are dominating thus far with their pass defense. Oops… maybe not.
  • Doritos always has the best commercials, although the car companies are giving them a run for their money this year.
  • The Nissan “Cats in the Cradle” commercial just made me cry.
  • The Nationwide commercial? Fascinating. Probing. I think I liked it, but the timing seems off… especially in between the beer and chips.
  • Paul McCartney, Will Ferrell, etc. at the game; my son just asked how much it cost celebrities to be there.
  • Marshawn Lynch is tough.
  • Why does Belichick have a pencil behind his ear? Is he taking notes?
  • The “Breaking Bad” guy made me laugh — as did the dual advertisement for Fiat and Viagra.
  • Halftime. Tied.
  • Son just pondered the wisdom of utilizing Super Bowl advertising on social issues. Great question. Love his pondering.
  • Ok, the neutered cat commercial just made the entire room laugh out loud.
  • Katy Perry… the sound isn’t great but the dancing is good — except for the dancing beach balls and palm trees. “Firework” was excellent!
  • Love P&G’s “Run Like a Girl” commercial.
  • Seattle ahead.
  • Oooh… the INflated football just doesn’t travel as far.
  • Way to use the ref as a pick.
  • All the “Saturday Night Live” hosts… love it!
  • Did I mention this is a good game?
  • “Patriot nation” means different things to different people.
  • Crunch time coming.
  • Game getting closer; did I mention this was only a game?
  • Chicken wings; hmmm…. do people really eat all those chicken wings?
  • Josh McDaniels is on the sidelines encouraging Brady; isn’t he the former coach who drafted Tim Tebow?
  • Patriots back up. Well done.
  • Seattle battles. Driving. Done. Those end zone  INT’s are killer.
  • New England wins. Wow.
  • New England wins.
  • Hope they are good guys. I like to see the good guys win.

Ok, ok… so maybe a little more than a few observations. Here’s to next season. P.S. It was just a game, right?

Respectfully…

AR

 

who should lead?

a570af34Over the course of recent weeks, current events observers have had the pleasure of watching the elect jockey for presidential positions. “He’s in… he’s out… she’s in… she’s out… he formed a PAC… she gave a great speech… he had dinner with donors… she’s watching what he will do…” Persons are actively maneuvering — however (only) currently quietly — to be the next President of the United States of America. They are raising money and refining image, in order to have the best chance — and look the best at it.

Late this week, after publicly testing his toe in political waters, the most recent Republican Party nominee, Mitt Romney, announced he would not seek the White House in 2016. This semi-humble observer was thankful. It’s the same reason the Intramuralist remains un-thrilled with the prospect of a candidacy of someone named Clinton or Bush. I realize neither Hillary or Jeb have held the position before, but we already know who they are, and each has previously influenced policy to an ambiguous degree via their spouses and/or families. I, for one, desire someone new… someone fresher… someone who isn’t spending this time currently re-crafting a more popular public image. That doesn’t feel pure to me, and yet it’s an existent component of image deception that too many of all parties accept and embrace.

My mother insightfully shared with me years ago that once a person gets it in their blood to run for the Presidency, it never disappears. “They look in the mirror and see the President of the United States. Once they think that, they will always think that.” There is too much emphasis on self… on “me” being President… on “me” leading.

One of my honest, sincere disappointments in Pres. Obama — truly with all due respect — is that I hear “too much me” in him. There have been too many times during his tenure that his selection of personal pronouns has made me uncomfortable. I’m not attempting to be critical; I’m attempting to be transparent. It’s the same discomfort I would feel in my professor or pastor. This isn’t about them. It’s about leading well… You don’t have to be my President. You don’t have to be my professor. You don’t have to be my pastor. You have to be called. You have to be humble. And only in humility will you lead well. Only in humility will you realize that what’s in the mirror is less important than whom you shepherd and serve.

Great leaders are a rarity. Great leaders are not defined by oratorical skills nor re-crafted public images. Great leaders have a heart attitude that is above reproach. To be above reproach means self-emphasis and importance is never in question. A great leader never looks in the mirror and thinks about how good or wise he is. A great leader is a servant leader. As well articulated years ago by longtime leadership guru, Ken Blanchard:

“The servant leader is constantly trying to find out what his or her people need to be successful. Rather than wanting them to please him or her, they are interested in making a difference in the lives of their people and, in the process, impacting the organization… What do managers need to become servant leaders? The biggest thing they need is to get their ego out of the way… Servant leadership is something that people need. We need to support and help individuals in the organization to win. The days of the manager being judge, jury and critic rather than cheerleader, facilitator and listener are over.”

Exactly. The days of leaders who think they need to be judge and jury are over. We need cheerleaders, facilitators, and humble listeners… not people who look in the mirror and think, “That’s me.”

Respectfully…

AR

“blizzard” of ’15


IMG_1199I had to chuckle this week witnessing the weather watchers worry as snow “threatened” the East Coast. Said NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio prior to the snowstorm, “This could be a storm the likes of which we’ve never seen before.” To his credit, de Blasio was only following the lead of the National Weather Service, which labeled the coming snow as “life-threatening” and “historic.” In preparation, travel was banned and the subways were shut down. However, upon completion of the precipitation, “life-threatening” and “historic” equated to less than a foot of snow for New York City. The forecasts (and rhetoric) failed to match the actual results.

Hence, the headlines from the day after…

  • “Did New York Overreact to the 2015 Blizzard?” — The New York Times
  • “The Blizzard That Wasn’t” — Canada Free Press
  • “Overreaction or Justified Caution?” — The Guardian
  • “Mayor Defends New York Snow Warning” — BBC
  • “Politicians Can Never Win With Weather” — The Atlantic

Let’s acknowledge that Mayor de Blasio — unless he has meteorology credentials unknown to the Intramuralist — was undoubtedly basing his decision to shut down the city on the weather expertise of others. As NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in response to some of the immediate questions and criticism, “This is an imprecise science.” Smart as we are, controlling and predicting the weather with absolute certainty on all occasions is not only an imprecise science; it is also not within man’s capability.

So why? … what causes the unquestionably obvious overreaction by leadership? Note: the NYC subway has never been closed for snow before; this was less than a foot. The precautions taken were unnecessary. So the question is: what motivates the precaution?

Again, de Blasio, etal. had to rely on someone else for their meteorological expertise. However, it seems to this semi-humble current events observer that another factor was huge in the consideration of how to best prepare. I speak not of anything weather related… nothing about snow… nothing about any tangible, physical storm.

I speak instead of the litigious storm that too often swells when someone faces negative circumstances. We live in a culture where when bad things happen to good people, good people find someone else to blame. Someone has to be held responsible.

It’s as if in all of our maturity and growth, an area where we are culturally ignorant is that we are incapable of accepting negative circumstances. And so if we are incapacitated, impaired, or even inconvenienced, we look first to blame someone else, as opposed to accept a less than desirable circumstance. We blame others for negative circumstances.

In New York City, for example, if it actually had ended up snowing 17 feet, maybe I blame the city if my street isn’t plowed fast enough… if my power goes out… or if I get stuck in some dark and semi-dingy subway. Instead of accepting a frustrating circumstance, I simply blame the city.

Hence, the Mayor and the Governor decided to be proactive… not just in case of the potential snow, but also in case of the potential, accompanying liability. Did they overreact? Yes. “Better safe than sorry,” was the rhetorical refrain.

Do we ever overreact to negative circumstances? We most certainly do.

Respectfully…

AR

god loves a winner?

74477_160844590624489_100000968467983_288156_4814116_nOne week from today, more of us will be gleefully gathered ‘round our televisions perhaps more than at any other time of the year. One week ago, the two teams facing each other in Super Bowl XLIX bested their opponents to qualify for the Big Game (… although for one, the typically accompanying, jubilant bubble of victory has been burst — or at least slightly deflated).

After last week’s conference victory — an outcome that certainly seemed highly improbable until the game’s final minutes — Seattle Seahawk quarterback, Russell Wilson was visibly moved. Note that the team had been dominated for all but the final two minutes of 60 minutes of play. Wilson had played poorly. With tears freely flowing, the young leader was interviewed on the sidelines by FOX’s Erin Andrews regarding the key to the team’s inconceivable comeback. Wilson said: “God is so good, all the time, man. Every time… Just making the plays at the end. Keep believing. There was no doubt, I just had no doubt. We had no doubt as a team… I just believe that God prepared me for these situations. God’s prepared our team, too, as well. Like I said, I’m honored to be on this team. I’m going to the Super Bowl again.”

Sports Illustrated’s Peter King caught up with Wilson later, asking how it felt to go from his worst game to arguably his best moment. Wilson elaborated further: “That’s God setting it up, to make it so dramatic, so rewarding, so special. I’ve been through a lot in life, and had some ups and downs. It’s what’s led me to this day.”

As is typical in a culture that gives increasingly less credit to the holy and divine, Wilson’s acknowledgement prompted a significant reaction. From the immediate scoffs to the “must-we-talk-about-God again” to those who chose to instead criticize the interviewer, Wilson was mocked for his humble response. (Note: the critical expressions were heard just under the whiz echoed by the Patriots’ deflation.)

I understand the argument… “C’mon… God’s got bigger things to care about…” “Do you really think God loves the Seahawks more than the Packers?”… or as Wilson’s Packer counterpart, Aaron Rodgers, responded, “I don’t think God cares a whole lot about the outcome. He cares about the people involved, but I don’t think he’s a big football fan.”

Truthfully, I think each of those responses are valid… God does have bigger things to care about. I would only add that we can’t fully define God via our human, limited understanding. While God certainly understands issues of life and death and those big things that pain us and make us realize all that pales in comparison, his awareness and role is not compromised by the perceived level of Earthly significance. He is capable of caring about both the troubling and the trivial, the major and the minor, the significant and the silly, and everything in between.

Does he care about one team or one person more than another? That makes me chuckle; he loves us all. While he certainly recognizes our individual gifts (uh, he made us), those individual strengths in addition to our weaknesses, abilities, and even lack of ability are no reflection of how much God loves us… not even of last year’s last place Buccaneers.

I think the reality is — and maybe I’m out on editorial limb here — but I don’t believe God puts as much value on winning as we do. With all due respect, I disagree with the Packers’ Rodgers. God is a football fan… but God is also a hockey fan, scrap-booking fan, baseball card collecting fan, reading and writing fan… he’s a fan of whatever his people are involved in. And as wise as only the God of the universe can be, he teaches and leads in both the winning and the losing. My sense is he knows there is a blessing in both. The question is if we’ll see it, too.

Respectfully…

AR