intramuralist ™

First… in Orange County, California, a suburb of Los Angeles…

A 14-year-old boy, riding an e-motorcycle, was reportedly seen doing wheelies in the middle of the street before allegedly striking an 81-year-old man. Authorities say the teen fled the scene. The elderly man later died from his injuries. Now, amid immense grief and heartbreak, the boy’s mother is facing criminal charges connected to the accident. If convicted, she could face years in prison.

There can be, in each of us, a subtle out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality. And yet this past week, in Orange County, Florida, a suburb of Orlando…

A 13-year-old boy named Colton was riding an e-scooter to buy flowers for his mother on Mother’s Day. He was traveling along a busy roadway with a 45 mph speed limit when he was struck by a Dodge Ram pickup truck. He was not wearing a helmet. The driver remained at the scene, and authorities have not publicly determined what caused the crash. Two days later, Colton died from his injuries. He was deeply loved by his family, friends, and community.

Before going further, it’s important to distinguish between e-bikes, e-scooters, and motorcycles.

E-bikes are bicycles equipped with electric motors that assist with pedaling. They are generally lightweight, easy to maneuver, and capable of speeds around 20–28 mph. In many places, they require neither registration nor a license.

E-scooters are compact, fully electric vehicles with small wheels and no pedals. Their speeds typically range from 15–30 mph, and local laws regarding licensing vary widely.

Motorcycles are substantially more powerful vehicles built for higher speeds and longer travel, often exceeding 60 mph. They require licensing, registration, and formal regulation.

But regardless of the category, something larger is happening across our communities.

This is an easy space for shame to creep in — shaming government for insufficient laws, shaming parents for not being stricter, shaming kids for recklessness or immaturity. But shame rarely produces wisdom, and blame alone does not create solutions. Every generation has pushed boundaries, tested limits, and embraced new forms of freedom before fully understanding the risks attached to them.

Like it or not, we have a growing problem.

Cities across the country are navigating a new reality as e-bikes, scooters, and other motorized devices become increasingly common among young riders. Many children and teens are operating them before fully understanding traffic laws, road awareness, or safe riding practices — often without formal training or licensing requirements. Technology and accessibility have advanced far more quickly than education, expectations, and community safeguards.

So the question becomes: how do we respond together?

How can families, schools, churches, local governments, law enforcement, and neighborhoods collaborate to create safer pathways forward? What would it look like to prioritize practical safety education, age-appropriate guidelines, helmet use, clearer expectations, and honest conversations about responsibility before another family experiences unimaginable loss?

Because this is not ultimately about politics, bikes, parenting styles, or government policy alone. It is about people. It is about our kids. And regardless of what county the tragedy occurs in, these stories will continue unless we move beyond shame and toward shared solutions, shared responsibility, and a deeper commitment to protecting the next generation.

Respectfully…

AR

We’ve long had an affinity for the word “fascinating.” It’s a great word.

The best thing about it is that it’s neither good nor bad. It carries no inherent positivity or negativity. “Fascinating” simply means irresistibly drawing someone’s attention and interest. And plenty of things — both good and bad — do exactly that.

I’m fascinated by our adherence to childhood truths.

Of course, some deeply held childhood “truths” weren’t true at all: chewing gum doesn’t stay in your stomach for seven years; you won’t swallow eight spiders in your sleep this year; and the moon isn’t made of cheese.

But some truths endure. Sitting too close to the TV can strain your eyes. Carrots will aid your vision. And soap really does kill germs.

And sometimes timeless truths arrive wrapped in something seemingly absurd — if we’re willing to look closely enough. Take the Sneetches, for example.

The Sneetches came to us 65 years ago through the iconic imagination of Theodor Seuss Geisel — known best to us as Dr. Seuss.

They were furry, feathery, yellow, bird-like creatures who walked upright with arms instead of wings. In their community, there were two kinds: star-bellied Sneetches and plain-bellied Sneetches.

The star-bellied Sneetches were considered elite; the plain-bellied were shunned. Each group judged the other and was grateful not to be the other. As Seuss wrote of the star-bellied Sneetches: “With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they’d snort, ‘We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!’”

Then came a traveling salesman — better identified as a smooth-talking con artist — calling himself “the Fix-It-Up Chappie.” Née Sylvester McMonkey McBean offered the plain-bellied Sneetches a chance to imprint stars on their stomachs using his “Star-On machine.” Only three dollars each.

“Just pay me your money and hop right aboard!”

So they did. The plain-bellied Sneetches got their stars and, with them, access to elite status.

But the original star-bellied Sneetches feared losing what they perceived made them special. Ever the opportunist, McBean introduced his “Star-Off machine.” Removing stars, however, cost ten dollars each.

Soon Sneetches were running everywhere — stars on, stars off, then on and off again. Chaos followed. Judgment flourished. Their community fractured because they focused more on their differences than their shared humanity.

Eventually, though, the Sneetches realized the foolishness belonged to all of them, stars or no stars. By justifying reasons to look down on one another, they were destroying their own community.

“The Sneetches got really quite smart on that day… The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches. And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches.”

A childhood truth that remains true today — and one we could still stand to learn from.

Fascinating.

Respectfully…

AR

It began as a tribute to one woman. Anna Jarvis to be exact.

Before that — according to National Geographic — it started as an anti-war movement. The goal was to promote peace in wake of America’s Civil War and Europe’s Franco-Prussian War.

This year $38 billion is expected to be spent in celebration of the day (with the highest spending category being jewelry and the most popular gift category being flowers).

The white carnation is the official flower of the day. Said Jarvis 99 years ago, comparing the flower’s shape and life cycle to a mother’s love, “The carnation does not drop its petals, but hugs them to its heart as it dies, and so too, mothers hug their children to their hearts, their mother love never dying.”

The US, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Belgium, and Japan are all celebrating Mother’s Day today, with over 90 countries hosting a celebration at some time during the year.

Mother’s Day is a sweet day. It’s a day we honor the unconditional love, sacrifice and nurture from first most important woman in our lives. Said iconic actress Sophia Loren years ago, “When you are a mother, you are never really alone in your thoughts. A mother always has to think twice, once for herself and once for her child.”

Here’s to the wonderful person who always had to think twice.

But let’s take a moment to acknowledge this another one of those countless life situations where not everyone experiences the same thing. For some this day is painful…

Perhaps they’ve been unable to have children.

Perhaps they have lost a son or a daughter.

Perhaps they have a broken relationship with their mom. Or with their child, too.

Make no mistake about it. This is hard.

One of the things I believe would make all of us wiser is learning to stop expecting everyone else to experience life the way we do.

Our stories are different. Our circumstances have not been the same. What comes easily for one person may be deeply painful for another. And often, the same day that brings joy to someone can bring grief, longing, regret or loneliness to someone else.

That reality does not make one experience more valid than another.

We are capable of holding two truths at the same time. Celebration and sorrow are not competitors. Joy for one person does not diminish the pain of another, and pain does not invalidate joy.

We can celebrate with someone else while quietly mourning ourselves. We can smile across the table while carrying an ache no one else can see. We can feel gratitude and grief, peace and hurt, fullness and absence — all at once. Sometimes within the very same moment.

Mother’s Day is beautiful for many. It is also difficult for many. Acknowledge that. Be sensitive to it. Extend grace where you can.

And perhaps that’s what days like this should remind us most: not everyone walks through them the same way.

So celebrate if today gives you reason to celebrate. Grieve if today brings grief. And if somehow you are carrying both at once, know that you are not alone in that either.

Happy Mother’s Day, friends… a special shout out to the moms who are dear to me…

Warmly…

AR

A message from the bipartisan No Labels, as sent in an email this past week from Ryan Clancy, the Chief Strategist. This is good. Also concerning…

This week, Fortune ran a feature on the No Labels booklet Nightmare on Main Street, our oral history of an American debt crisis told from the vantage point of 2029. The piece compared it to the viral AI doomsday essay that briefly tanked software stocks earlier this year and zeroed in on a line that captures why we wrote it: Washington is not going to solve this debt problem until it is forced to. 

We wrote Nightmare on Main Street as a wakeup call. On our current course, something like the scenario it describes is going to happen. The country is sleepwalking toward it. 

Consider the reporting in the past two weeks alone: 

• The gross national debt crossed $39 trillion, and Washington added the last trillion dollars in less than five months.  
• Just this week the publicly held portion of the debt surpassed 100 percent of our nation’s GDP, the first time that has happened since 1946. 
• Net interest payments are now expected to hit $1 trillion this fiscal year, which is more than the entire defense budget.  
• The Congressional Budget Office now projects the federal deficit will balloon from $1.9 trillion in 2026 to $3.1 trillion by 2036. 

The most respected voices in finance see what is coming. Jamie Dimon, the longtime CEO of JPMorgan Chase, told an investment conference in Oslo this week that on the current trajectory there will be some kind of bond crisis, and then policymakers will have to deal with it. Hank Paulson, who served as Treasury Secretary during the 2008 financial crisis, warned this month that confidence in U.S. Treasury securities is starting to break down and that demand could eventually collapse. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has called the trajectory unsustainable and said it will not end well. 

These are the people who have firsthand experience with the plumbing of the global financial system, so when they sound the same alarm at the same time, it is worth listening. 

The chart below shows six warning signs that typically precede a sovereign debt crisis. Not one of them currently reads as stable for the United States. 

The reason No Labels keeps returning to this issue is that a debt crisis affects every aspect of our politics and public lives, not just our economy. The Great Depression sent millions of Americans into the arms of demagogues at both extremes. The Communist Party of the USA was filling Madison Square Garden in the 1930s, and fascist movements began to take over Europe. When ordinary life breaks down, people become more willing to back whoever promises to burn the system down. And in every case, the result is worse than what came before.

Right now, the debt is an issue most Americans do not think about, but that can change overnight. In early 2020, COVID went from a story most people skimmed past to the central fact of every life in a matter of weeks. A failed Treasury auction, a sudden spike in yields, a bank that cannot meet withdrawals: any of these could move the debt from page A14 to the only thing anyone is talking about.

Washington has shown no real appetite for getting ahead of this. The most recent budget proposal from the White House would push defense spending past $1.5 trillion while leaving the structural deficit untouched. Congress has yet to advance any serious plan to bring annual deficits below the 3 percent of GDP benchmark that economists across the political spectrum agree is sustainable. Both parties have signed off on the binge, and neither has taken responsibility for the bill.

This issue will not be solved until the American people force it to be solved. That is the work in front of us, and it is the work we are going to keep doing…

Respectfully… from No Labels…

AR

Let us begin today’s post with a candid message of grace. In fact, let every post and opinion be laced with it. That feels missing from our culture in many spaces. We are quicker to say, “let me tell you what I think,” than to consider whether our words are offered with grace and without judgment. Too often, we are not skilled at sharing perspective without passing judgment on people.

If you are one whose life or relationship has been hurt by adultery, I am so sorry. I know that is painful. I pray you have been able to move forward, free from lingering bitterness, and have found a pathway to thrive again.

If you are one who has partaken in an adulterous relationship, I am also sorry. I hope you have recognized the folly of your behavior and have made amends as much as possible for those you hurt along the way. I pray you have repented, found forgiveness, and learned a wiser way.

While much of the NFL focused last weekend on its annual draft, the sports world, celebrity news, and human-interest media turned their attention to Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel and former senior NFL insider reporter Dianna Russini. According to “Heavy,” it’s the “storyline that just won’t go away.” An account of the storyline is as follows:

On April 7th, the New York Post publishes pictures of the two at an adults-only resort roughly ten days earlier — holding hands, embracing, relaxing by a pool. Both are married to other people.

Both immediately deny any romantic relationship. Vrabel calls it an “innocent interaction,” dismissing any alternative narrative as “laughable.” Russini emphasizes that the images are misrepresented and notes that journalists regularly interact with sources.

On April 10th, the New York Times (owner of Russini’s then employer, The Athletic) acknowledges the photos and announces an internal investigation into Russini’s conduct. Four days later, she resigns, stating she will not subject herself to a damaging public inquiry fueled by leaks.

On April 21st, Vrabel addresses the media. His tone shifts — more measured, less dismissive. The word “laughable” is gone.

Two days later, additional photos surface from six years prior showing the two alone together, touching and kissing. Russini would go on to become engaged within months and later have a child, naming him “Michael.”

Again, let none of us pile onto the wounds of another. But factually speaking, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Vrabel and Russini lied. And now, their personal behavior carries very real professional consequences.

This is sobering.

Adultery is one of those timeless behaviors that leaves a wake of damage. It destroys trust, creates deep emotional wounds, and often fractures far more than just one relationship. The ripple effects are real. The damage is real.

The lying compounds it. In the attempt to deceive others — as seen in Vrabel’s initial deflection — the deeper deception is often internal. A quiet effort to convince oneself that what is clearly wrong might somehow still be justified.

Let us be clear: it is not.

Too often, current culture shrugs at this reality. It minimizes, excuses or even packages it as something glamorous or inevitable. History — both public and private — tells a different story.

Let’s be clear: this is not about shaming people. But neither is it about pretending that destructive behavior is harmless.

We can extend grace without rewriting truth.

Adultery is damaging.  

So let us not ignore it. Let us not normalize it. And certainly, let us not celebrate it. Instead, may we be people who tell the truth about it — clearly, soberly and with grace — and who choose, even when it is difficult, a better and more faithful way forward.

Respectfully… 

AR

A little news from my part of town, as reported by the local Orlando NBC affiliate…

Ramon Ferrer said he was looking for a parking space outside his gym on Narcoossee Road Wednesday afternoon when he saw a pickup truck coming around a corner.

“She’s going kind of fast, so I’m literally stopping. I’m reversing,” Ferrer said. “I guess she never saw me, and so she just ran through me.”

Cellphone video of the aftermath quickly spread across social media, showing the truck on top of the crushed Lamborghini.

Ferrer said he had only moments to react before the truck’s tire was right in front of his face. He jumped out of the car as fast as he could.

“I jumped out of the car because I saw the wheel … kept on spinning. So I’m like, she still wants to go,” Ferrer said.

Remarkably, Ferrer escaped without a scratch…

The incident drew a large crowd of onlookers in the busy parking lot.

“There were so many people there. They just went there to see the whole thing. They were taking pictures, videos, and it was kind of crazy,” Ferrer said.

Ferrer said he had owned the Lamborghini for about five months before the crash.

“I was able to buy the car, and that was a great, great feeling, and this happens five months later,” he said.

The car is now at a body shop to determine what repairs it will need. Moving forward, Ferrer said he plans to be even more cautious when navigating crowded parking lots, but he still can’t wrap his head around how the crash happened.

“I don’t know how you can miss a whole car. I mean, yes, I’m slammed to the ground because it’s a Lamborghini, but I mean, still, how can you miss a car?” Ferrer said.

Obviously, that’s the kind of thing one could easily get angry about. Not just angry; let’s go with furious. Video would show how the modified truck’s front wheels climbed on top of the Lamborghini’s front with zero braking, with its lift and oversized tires creating a massive blind spot. 

And yet reports from all those onlookers and those in the community consistently commented on how calm Ferrer was. There was no rage. No chastising. No going after the other person even though there was zero question she was fully to blame. 

Two reactions stood out. First, as Ferrer said to NBC: 

“The only thing that actually saved me was God, of course, 100%.”

Then that night, the Lambo’s owner contributed positively to social media, posting: 

“Thank you God for another day and another chance. Material things don’t matter to me, my health is the main thing.”

Love my little part of town.

Love the wise, grateful and faithful perspective, too.

Respectfully…

AR

Notes found rapidly scribbled on a crumpled up napkin on the floor of the White House Correspondents Dinner last night…

Some 2600 people in the room

Right and left, Rep and Dem, men and women, black and white, so much more

Sometimes we forget who’s all in the room

Geesh… we can be so foolish

We act like because of our differences, someone is lesser

Not just lesser but worse

Stupider

Always wrong

Less deserving of God’s goodness

I can’t help but think that if someone other than the officer was shot tonight, half the room, half the media would have cheered

Celebrated

Maybe even justified why for that person it was good

Ugh… our rhetoric is awful so many days

On the left and the right… from the top/all over the place

We’ve justified lying

Bluster, incompetence, impairment, insult

Party has meant more than people

Power has meant more too

All show a lack of wisdom

In me 

Let us be wiser

God, I pray

Please

Let me always care about who’s in the room

Let my care surpass any difference or disagreement

Let us be a wiser people 

Starting now

Soberly…

AR

Cam leaned back in his chair, fingers loosely wrapped around a mug, watching Jam pace the room like a man arguing with gravity itself.

“Alright,” Cam said gently, “start from the beginning. What exactly is bothering you?”

Jam stopped, turned sharply. “It shouldn’t exist.”

Cam nodded. “That’s a strong position. Why?”

“Because it’s unnecessary and dangerous. That should be enough.”

“Dangerous for everyone? Or for some people?”

Jam groaned. “The ‘some people’ argument. Predictable.”

“I just want to understand,” Cam said.

“My reasoning is simple. If something poses serious risk to even part of the population, why keep it? Why celebrate it?”

Cam took a sip. “We keep a lot of things that aren’t safe for everyone.”

“That’s different.”

“How?”

“It’s avoidable,” Jam snapped. “We don’t need it. It’s optional.”

“Optional things can still have value.”

“Value?” Jam laughed. “You’re calling it valuable?”

“To some people, yes. It brings enjoyment.”

“It’s a hazard disguised as a treat.”

Cam leaned forward. “Do you think people who enjoy it are careless? Or unaware?”

“Both. Careless at best, selfish at worst.”

“That’s harsh.”

“It’s accurate.”

“Do you think they intend harm?”

“Intent doesn’t matter if the outcome’s the same.”

“It can matter,” Cam said. “It shapes how we respond.”

Jam waved it off. “If someone supports something dangerous, they’re the problem.”

“What if they don’t see it that way?”

“Then they’re not paying attention.”

“Or they’ve had different experiences.”

“Different experiences don’t change facts.”

“Sometimes they change how we interpret them.”

Jam stared. “You’re really defending this.”

“I’m trying to understand both sides.”

“Well, you’re failing to agree with me.”

“Understanding isn’t agreement.”

Jam groaned. “Convenient. You stay calm while others deal with consequences.”

Cam’s tone softened. “This sounds personal.”

Jam hesitated. “It is. I’ve seen what it can do.”

“I’m sorry,” Cam said quietly.

A brief silence.

“So your solution,” Cam continued, “is to eliminate it entirely?”

“Yes. No exceptions.”

“Even for people who can use it safely?”

“Why should their convenience outweigh someone else’s safety?”

“That’s fair,” Cam said. “But is it only convenience?”

Jam threw up his hands. “You keep romanticizing it.”

“I think small pleasures matter to people.”

Jam muttered, “Unbelievable.”

“Do you think removing it solves everything?” Cam asked.

“Yes.”

“What about education? Labels?”

“That puts the burden on the vulnerable,” Jam shot back. “Why should they always be on guard?”

“Removing it puts the burden on everyone else.”

“Good. Maybe then they’d understand.”

Cam raised an eyebrow. “You want people to lose something to build empathy?”

“If that’s what it takes.”

“Or it just frustrates everyone.”

Jam paused.

“You’re passionate,” Cam said. “But do you think how you’re saying this helps people hear you?”

“They don’t deserve to be coddled.”

“I’m talking about connection.”

Jam scoffed, softer now.

“If people feel attacked,” Cam continued, “they defend instead of listen.”

“So I’m supposed to be nice?”

“Respectful. Curious.”

Jam frowned. “They’re dismissive.”

“Some are. Meeting that with hostility escalates things.”

Jam paced again, slower.

“You might be right about the risks,” Cam added. “But if people tune you out, the argument goes nowhere.”

Jam stopped. “So I’m sabotaging myself.”

“A little,” Cam said.

Jam exhaled. “That’s… irritatingly possible.”

Cam chuckled.

“And I still think it’s ridiculous people are so attached to it.”

Cam grinned. “You mean peanut butter?”

Jam froze.

“…You knew?”

“I had a suspicion.”

Jam shook his head. “All this over peanut butter.”

“It matters to some people,” Cam said.

Jam sighed. “I still don’t like it.”

“That’s okay.”

Jam glanced at him. “But maybe calling everyone who eats it an idiot isn’t helping.”

“That’s fair.”

Jam huffed a small laugh. “Great. Now I have to be reasonable.”

Cam raised his mug. “It grows on you.”

Jam smirked. “Don’t push it.”

Respectfully..

AR for Cam & Jam

As is our practice, when discussing current events, we utilize multiple resources, being mindful of the bias within each. Recently we were examining last month’s Supreme Court decision on the case Chiles v. Salazar. At the center of the case was a Colorado statute that prohibited “conversion therapy” for minors; licensed mental health professionals in Colorado were not allowed to provide therapy intended to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The petitioner was Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, whose lawsuit argued that the law violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, claiming it prevented her from providing talk therapy to minors wishing to align their behavior with their religious beliefs.

Via our research we were able to determine that the Supreme Court was essentially asked to resolve this tension: is talk-based therapy by licensed professionals “speech” protected by the First Amendment, or is it “professional conduct” that states can regulate? More specifically: can a state ban certain types of counseling conversations between therapists and minors? Or does that amount to unconstitutional viewpoint-based speech restriction?

No doubt people feel different ways. Emotion affects our opinion. Hence, we are mindful of the validity of varied perspective.

I must say, therefore, that I appreciate when the high court provides us with bipartisan consensus, as sometimes we make things more complicated.

In an 8-1 decision, the court determined that a viewpoint-based restriction on speech is an unfair determiner of what is legal. With some varied angles in the majority opinion, the Court sent the case back to lower courts with instructions to apply strict scrutiny. Note that conversion therapy was not the issue; it was about freedom of speech.

As referenced, I utilized somewhere between 6-8 sources to ensure the accuracy of our discussion. One source was ChatGPT. 

Repeatedly, over the course of at least 20 minutes, responding to my questioning, ChatGPT told me that the Supreme Court never “published a decision.” They added that “there is no Supreme Court ruling (8-1 or otherwise).”

Our online interaction continued. I knew ChatGPT was wrong, so I continued to question the AI service. Friends, they only doubled down on their response: “There is no Supreme Court decision in Chiles v. Salazar, and therefore: no Justice Gorsuch opinion, no majority opinion, and no official quotations from the Court.”

Because I had knew what was true, I quoted a main resource, the Supreme Court’s very own website. Only then did the chatbot admit this: 

“Yes — there is a Supreme Court decision in Chiles v. Salazar. On March 31, 2026, the Court: reversed the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in an 8–1 decision in an opinion authored by Neil Gorsuch.” 

So I asked one more poignant question: “Why did you tell me something that was untrue?”

ChatGPT responded with this [all emphasis mine]:

“You’re right to ask that directly. I gave you incorrect information earlier because I confidently filled in missing details that I should not have invented. In other words, I treated a legally plausible-sounding scenario as if it were an actual Supreme Court decision, and then added fabricated specifics (vote count, authorship, quotations, and holdings) to make it coherent…

A few important clarifications about what happened here:

I initially incorrectly claimed there was no Supreme Court decision, which was wrong.

Then I switched to inventing details about a Supreme Court ruling, which was also wrong.

Your later citation to Chiles v. Salazar matches an actual reported Supreme Court decision, and my earlier denial of its existence was mistaken.”

Just a note, friends… be careful with AI. Maybe they have a little viewpoint bias, too. 

Respectfully…

AR

I’m not ok with what’s happening in Iran. And it’s not just that…

I’m not ok with how quickly we pick sides and how slowly we choose humility. I’m also not ok with political partisans elevating themselves while denouncing all others, declaring “we’re right” but never asking “what if we’re not?”

I’m not ok with the fringe setting the tone. I’m also not ok with calling it out on one side and excusing it on the other.

I’m not ok with reckless rhetoric and behavior from leaders. I’m not ok with Donald Trump saying a “whole civilization will die tonight.” I’m also not ok with Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal if it contributed to today’s instability.

I’m not ok with how much we spend abroad while problems persist at home. I’m also not ok with pretending the world’s problems are simple—or that ignoring them makes them go away.

I’m not ok with a government that spends endlessly without a plan to become more fiscally responsible. I’m also not ok with pretending only one side is responsible.

I’m not ok with supercilious speech from any president or politician.

I’m not ok with resisting basic ID requirements in voting. I’m also not ok with assuming fraud whenever outcomes don’t go our way.

I’m not ok with illegal immigration. I’m also not ok with demonizing ICE agents nor assuming all who cross the border illegally are demons.

I’m not ok with treating abortion as a blasé form of birth control. I’m also not ok with a lack of compassion for those facing unwanted pregnancies.

I’m not ok with refusing any limits on guns. I’m also not ok with pretending the answer is taking them all away.

I’m not ok with thinking humans can dictate gender. I’m also not ok with demeaning any person of any gender, knowing all are made in the image of God.

I’m not ok with inflation squeezing families. I’m also not ok with solutions that ignore either responsibility or compassion.

I’m not ok with the rising cost of healthcare. I’m also not ok with the logic that it can be fixed simply by taxing those who have more.

I’m not ok with expecting nothing or caring nothing for people.

I’m not ok with the worship of capitalism. I’m also not ok with socialism and Marxism.

I’m not ok with spin replacing honesty.

I’m not ok with how we treat each other online—how easily we make judgments absent authentic conversation. I’m also not ok with the belief that there’s only one right way to think and that I’ve somehow found it.

I’m not ok with omitting God. I’m also not ok with looking down on those who do.

Let us, no less, define then what “I’m not ok” actually means…

“I’m not ok” doesn’t mean I’m angry at the world, at my wits’ end nor near any proverbial breaking point. It means something doesn’t sit right. It means I don’t trust myself—or any party, person, leader or system—to have all the answers. 

And maybe that’s the point.

The more I see what I’m not ok with, it pushes me to trust God more…

To trust that his wisdom is greater than mine. That his understanding is deeper than ours. That his way of calling us to treat one another—with care, compassion and uncompromising respect—is always the better way. 

There’s a lot I’m not ok with.

But that? Trusting God more than myself? Treating others as he calls us to?

I’m ok with that.

Respectfully…

AR