Author: AR

Sometimes I wonder if we just become softies as we age.

Okay, I’ll speak for myself.

Sometimes I wonder if I’m becoming a softie because my edge is wearing off. Things that never made me cry before can now open the floodgates. Things that used to rattle me no longer carry the same power. I also find myself learning from people and places I once couldn’t—or maybe simply refused to.

I can cry with someone I never knew, whose story we only learn after tragedy strikes. I can empathize with a passionate, hurting person even when I don’t share their perspective. I can put aside differences to care for—and even learn from—the unexpected.

Maybe it’s not about getting older.
Maybe it’s about getting wiser.

Each of these is valuable, especially when we acknowledge the wisdom in loving our neighbor, refraining from judgment, and being generous with honor and respect. And yet, I think of how many relationships and rivalries exist where we intentionally withhold those very things. We forgo wisdom, somehow convincing ourselves that withholding honor and respect is a good idea.

Think of the distinct sides for which at least someone justifies withholding respect…

Adams vs. Jefferson
Hamilton vs. Burr
India vs. Pakistan
Yankees vs. Red Sox
Real Madrid vs. Barcelona
Adidas vs. Puma
Hatfield vs. McCoy
Churchill vs. Chamberlain
Jobs vs. Gates
Michigan vs. Ohio State

And sometimes, when rivalries become so fierce and passions run so high, we forget something simple: rooting for the opposite side doesn’t make someone a bad person. Different interests, experiences, and upbringings lead people to choose different sides. That doesn’t make them wrong. And it certainly doesn’t mean our side holds a monopoly on virtue.

Speaking of that list, few rivalries are as ferocious as those in college athletics.

As is no secret, this semi-humble blogger is a loyal Purdue alum. I don apparel year-round, know when Drew Brees’s birthday is, and never miss a basketball game. And as a Purdue fan, let me be clear: we never root for Indiana. I do mean never.

Two nights ago, the Indiana Hoosiers played in the College Football Playoff National Championship. Before this season, IU football was widely considered the most losing program in NCAA Division I history—holding the record for most losses ever, over 700. And yet, there they were: undefeated, with all eyes on them.

It was a great game—competitive till the end—with Indiana victorious. Head coach Curt Cignetti took a program known mostly for its futility and turned it into a champion. Quarterback Fernando Mendoza—the 2025 Heisman Trophy winner—was humble, kind, and endlessly complimentary of both his teammates and opponents.

In years past, I would have grimaced at the mere thought of Indiana having even a chance to win. I would have sat on the edge of my couch, passionately rooting against them. I do not like Indiana. Under no circumstances does a Purdue fan cheer for IU.

But on Monday night, something was different. Here we were, cheering, “Go IU, go!”

What a story. What a season. And what an achievement. Congrats, Indiana.

I guess I am a bit of a softie now.
A little wiser, too.

Respectfully,
AR

I’m not one who has ever had a lot of pet peeves in life. I’m just not that easily irked. But if I had to come up with something that I find mildly more irritating than perhaps others do, it would be the number of times after a person reads a good book, that they respond to others and say, “You should read this.”

It’s not about reading. I enjoy reading. I’ve read at least 19 books on race, six on the conflict between China and Taiwan, books on gender identity, cultural amnesia and nearly everything ever penned by attorney-turned-author John Grisham.

It’s about the should. 

It’s not just the fact that if I read every book that a person has told me I should read, I’d have no time left for anything else. It’s the subtle implication behind it — the not-so-thinly-veiled I know what you should do.

And it doesn’t stop there.

Just like that our attention shifts from self-reflection to managing other people.

Let’s be honest: this is a wild time in our culture. Or perhaps more accurately, a wild, messy, uncertain, turbulent, concerning, polarizing and peeving time. But let us also posit that the wild, messy, uncertain, turbulent, concerning, polarizing and peeving time has existed far longer than many of us care to remember.

The world feels deeply unsettled. In just the past few weeks, a nonviolent protestor was shot and killed by a federal agent in Minnesota, followed by more unrest; Iranians have taken to the streets as their economy collapses under authoritarian rule; China has increased military exercises around Taiwan; a physician testified before Congress and declined to answer whether biological men can get pregnant; the President has expressed interest in acquiring  Greenland; and immigration fits every adjective above, remaining complex and polarizing and something we’ve yet to handle well as a country.

This is hard, friends. But let’s be clear: suggesting that one of us knows what everyone else should do, feel or think — however well intentioned — is a weak argument.

Take immigration, for example. It’s undeniably complex. More than 11 million immigrants entered the U.S. between 2020-2025 with a peak of over three million people in 2023 alone. To claim that most are criminals is unfounded. To claim that most are simply good people seeking a better life is also unproven. In many cases, we rely less on evidence and more on what we want to believe, shaped by personal experience.

That’s not a criticism — we all do it. 

For my part, I’ve worked as a human resources professional in Central and South Florida, one of the top states for immigrant populations. In trying to comply with existing law, I’ve encountered a wide range of people: those seeking a better life, those who knowingly overstayed because they simply preferred it here, and yes, criminals as well. My experience is just that — my experience. It’s not a scientific basis for prescribing what anyone else should believe.

My point is simply this: all of these realities exist. And we might be wiser if we lowered the volume, tempered the rhetoric, and worked together to thoughtfully address what is undeniably tricky and complex.

I know that’s difficult. It may require us to stop shouting, stop shaming, and stop telling others how they should feel.

Maybe — just maybe — there’s a book on that.

Respectfully…

AR

It certainly has been a lively news cycle. In fact, the word “lively” simply doesn’t do it justice. There’s been seemingly a ton of significant activities and events. For example… 

Suffice it to say, it’s a lot.

So how do we handle it? How do we stay objective? How do we know what we see is the truth?

I thought this was an excellent conversation recently between Geoff Bennett of PBS, David Brooks of the New York Times and Jonathan Capehart of MSNow, all left-leaning or far left organizations. They made an especially insightful, cultural point, discussing the ICE incident in Minneapolis…

BROOKS: Yes, let me talk first about the public debate, and then about the event, which Jonathan was talking about.

In 1951, there was a brutal football game between Princeton and Dartmouth. And after the game, researchers sent the Princeton kids and the Dartmouth kids film, the exact same film video of the game. And the Princeton kids said, look, this film proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Dartmouth kids did twice as many penalties.

And the Dartmouth kids said, this film proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Princeton kids did all the penalties. And so they were looking at the same video. And it’s a very famous social science experiment. And I watched it play out in real time this week, because every single Trump person on my feed, my social media feeds was saying, this proves he shot her with just cause.

And every single anti-Trump person on my feed said it was murder. I did not see one exception. And so I think what this tells us is the norm, which is essential to democracy, of putting the truth above your party and your team, that norm is eviscerated, at least on social media, hopefully not in real life.

As to the events of what actually happened, I’m not going to render a judgment on what happened, because we’re going to have an investigation. I will leave it to them. And I hope Minnesota has full information to do the investigation.

But what Jonathan [Capehart] said is absolutely correct., that the atmosphere that ICE has created is incendiary, that people who have power and have guns are supposed to exercise restraint, and they are doing the opposite. And the crust of civilization is thin. And once people with guns and with power began acting like thugs, well, then things are going to spiral. And that’s what we have seen.

BENNETT: Jonathan, to David’s point about the public debate, it does feel like we live in this moment where this idea of seeing is believing has been replaced by what you believe now determines what you see…

* * * * *

Hear that, friends…

The idea of seeing is believing has been replaced by what we believe now determines what we see.

Of course we quote people and media and all sorts of sources — especially those who preface their opinion with the reason why they are of course objective — but our belief still permeates objectivity, albeit most often unknowingly. 

That’s indeed insightful… concerning, too. 

Respectfully…

AR

Dusk was setting in on my Wednesday late afternoon drive. It’s a path I take multiple times weekly, near to my home. I take backroads behind some local suburban businesses to pick up my son from work, roads with a speed limit of no more than 30 m.p.h.

The car in front of me was a ways away, following a similar path, and he turned left maybe 50 yards down the road. As soon as he turned, someone laid on their horn. Long. Loud. Very loud.

I wasn’t immediately sure what prompted the audible angst until after the turning car cleared. I realized then he had turned directly in front of an oncoming vehicle. The oncoming car looked like he had to slam on his breaks in order not to t-bone the turner. His car was a dark black or blue, tinted windows, and he didn’t have his lights on; dusk was just setting in. Regardless of his lights, from my vantage point — which was a close, clear, direct view — the turning car was completely in the wrong. Thank God the situation was not worse.

Let’s add some brief, relevant context…

Selective content refers to choosing only certain pieces of information, material or media while leaving other info out. The choosing may or may not be intentional; we may not even realize we are being selective.

Because our view is close… because our view is clear… there is no need to take the time to investigate or discern further. We react; we know what we know.

I quickly passed the car that had previously slammed on his brakes. Covering those 50 yards, I then came to the same turn. And fascinatingly, something became visible that was impossible for me to see from my original vantage point. 

It was a few minutes before 6 pm. Sunset began less than ten minutes ago, with the sun to be completely down within 15 minutes. Remember I was behind all the businesses. There were also multiple trees lining the road. There were no light poles. Friends, it was unexpectedly, oddly, completely dark. I could see nothing coming from the other direction.

Soon, no less, a new car coming toward me entered the road. He had his lights on. I could see.

It dawned on me that the previous turning car never saw the oncoming car because the other car did not have his lights on. And yet the driver of the oncoming car never knew — and most likely will never know — that he contributed to the negative situation. Not only will he never know, he probably went home that night and said something along the lines of the following:

“You’ll never guess what happened to me today. I was driving down the street just past Starbucks, and all of a sudden this crazy driver turned right in front of me! They didn’t slow down at all! I had to slam on my brakes not to hit them! Geesh. Drivers these days.”

And both he and whoever he tells walks away thinking only one person contributed to the terrible situation. His content is selective. And he has no idea.

It was hard not to think of this interaction on Wednesday, the day we also learned of the horrific situation in Minneapolis… a woman obstructing an ICE operation, who was fatally shot by an agent. How absolutely awful.

I have no definitive answers here; again, it was awful. I wasn’t there. I’ve watched various videos which provide varied perspective. But respectfully disagreeing with the characterizations of many, I don’t believe the woman was a domestic terrorist nor the agent was an assassin. There is more to investigate and discern.

I don’t believe she should have been shot. I also believe she shouldn’t have interfered with law enforcement.

What a tragic, awful situation.

Soberly…

AR

What a wild world we live in. It’s no wonder more and more people admit to keeping their “head in the sand.” When it comes to paying attention to the socio-economic-political landscape, the stories can feel overwhelming—full of contradictions and inconsistencies. One year a person is adamantly for or against something; then leadership changes, and suddenly so do the positions. What people support or oppose often seems to shift depending on who is making the decisions.

Because of this, it’s hard to know whether what we’re hearing is a reliable perspective. Those inconsistencies often offer a window into just how uncertain that reliability may be.

With the latest wild world event—the capture of perceived illegitimate Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last Saturday—there’s no doubt it has caught much of the world’s attention, even among the sand-buryers. Still it can be challenging. It’s challenging when people lead by telling us how to think, proclaiming how right or wrong an action is regardless of what they may have said previously. In other words, our advocacy or opposition should depend more on what actually happened than on who made it happen. That’s why the reliability of reporting and perspective is so often in question.

The following voices, however, seem particularly reliable—offering thought-provoking questions and insight.

From retired General David Petraeus:

“Frankly, first of all, I’m pleased to see Nicolás Maduro brought to justice. He was obviously a brutal, murderous dictator who did enormous damage to his country—and to the world, really—through his narcotrafficking activities and so forth. It’s also an extraordinary demonstration of U.S. military capabilities.

Our forces demolished the supposedly sophisticated Chinese and Russian air and ballistic missile defense systems of which Maduro was so proud. We had 150 aircraft launched from 20 different locations—the coordination, the synchronization, the rehearsals for this and, of course, conducting all this with law enforcement, with the DEA, FBI, Justice Department, and so forth. It was very similar to the operation that brought Osama bin Laden to justice, as well as other al-Qaeda and Islamic State leaders over the years.”

From The Washington Post Editorial Board:

“There are also legitimate legal questions about the operation, though Maduro was viewed as a criminal by both Trump and Biden, who raised the reward to $25 million for information leading to his arrest. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said Secretary of State Marco Rubio called him Saturday to say that Trump had the right to act as commander-in-chief. No doubt this debate will continue, and it’s good for democratic hygiene to scrutinize the decision.

With tough decisions coming and many obstacles ahead, it’s fair to look forward. Yet it’s also fair to celebrate. For years, Maduro was a symbol of the false warmth of Latin American collectivism. Now he should spend the rest of his life in a humane American prison. His downfall is good news.”

From Steve Inskeep, host of NPR’s Morning Edition:

“Six questions about the capture of Maduro:

Who is in charge of Venezuela today?
Who will be in charge in a month?
Can the U.S. force a change in government?
What do the Venezuelan people do?
How do Russia and China use this example?
Does this signal a new focus for the United States?”

[You know I always appreciate people asking good questions. Asking us what to think, rather than telling us how to think is always honorable and wise.]

Welcome to the new year, friends. What a wild world we live in.

Respectfully,
AR

Wow. Unquestionably, a major event occurred early Saturday morning. The United States conducted what it described as a “large-scale strike” against Venezuela, resulting in the capture and arrest of President Nicolás Maduro.

The first federal charges against Maduro were unsealed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2020. They include:

• Narco-terrorism conspiracy
• Cocaine importation conspiracy
• Weapons charges

Regarding narco-terrorism, U.S. prosecutors allege that Maduro led the so-called Cartel of the Suns and conspired with the FARC to use cocaine as a “weapon” to flood the United States. The FARC — short for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia — is a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group founded in 1964 as the armed wing of the Colombian Communist Party.

On cocaine importation, the allegation is that Maduro intended to move multi-ton shipments of cocaine into the U.S. As for weapons charges, they include the possession of, and conspiracy to possess, machine guns and destructive devices in furtherance of drug trafficking.

Maduro has also long been viewed as an illegitimate president by numerous countries. Both the 2018 and 2024 elections were marred by serious discrepancies, and key opposition parties and candidates were barred from participation. This included leading opposition figure, María Corina Machado (the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner), who went into hiding after the 2024 election to avoid arrest. Venezuela, by any measure, has been in crisis.

Suffice it to say, Maduro is not a good guy. But “good guy” or not, such is not justification for a large-scale military strike. And to be clear, my military expertise is minimal at best. The broader problem is that when major military actions occur, many people — also with minimal military expertise — quickly decide whether the action was good, bad, constitutional, or unconstitutional, based largely on who made the decision.

That constitutional question centers on the War Powers Act of 1973. The Act limits a president’s ability to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without congressional approval. It requires notification to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and was intended to restore balance between the executive and legislative branches.

Yet the Act has been contested ever since its passage. Every president since 1973 has argued that at least parts of it unconstitutionally infringe on executive power. Consider their record while in office:

• Gerald Ford ordered the rescue of the SS Mayaguez and oversaw military evacuations in Southeast Asia.
• Jimmy Carter authorized the Iran hostage rescue mission.
• Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, ordered airstrikes in Libya, and deployed Marines to Lebanon.
• George H. W. Bush invaded Panama and sent troops to Somalia.
• Bill Clinton deployed troops to Haiti and conducted bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as strikes in Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan.
• Barack Obama authorized a seven-month air campaign in Libya and expanded drone operations across multiple countries.
• Donald Trump (in his first term) ordered missile strikes in Syria and the strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
• Joe Biden authorized multiple airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq.

All of these actions occurred without prior congressional approval.

Was the capture and arrest of Nicolás Maduro a good thing?

I don’t know. What I do know is this: we live in a beautifully diverse community in Central Florida, with many residents from Central and South America — Venezuela included. While my polling data may indeed be inexact, to a person, the Venezuelans here are jubilant about what just happened.

Good or bad? Constitutional or not? Hard to say. But there is much to evaluate, and consistency matters — especially when considering the precedent and people.

Respectfully…
AR

We’ve long averred that the word “fascinating” is an absolute wonderful word. Why? Because it doesn’t imply good nor bad; it simply means whatever is described as such irresistibly draws our attention — kind of like a car crash or a sunset or a car crash during a sunset.

Hence, some fascinating events filled the past year. For example…

• Los Angeles was on fire for a month.
• Donald Trump was inaugurated again, becoming the second US President to serve two nonconsecutive terms.
• Leo XV became the first American Pope (and maybe the first Pope that’s a Cubs fan).
• Taylor and Travis got engaged.
• Charlie Kirk was assassinated. 
• Active fighting between Israel and Hamas ceased.
• Fighting continued between Russia and Ukraine.
• Armed conflicts remained in Somalia, Sudan, Syria and more.
• Kids’ Camp Mystic flooded in Texas on the 4th of July.
• A self-described democratic socialist was elected mayor of New York City.  
• The last penny was minted — finally putting Lincoln out of his long, coppery misery.
• An army helicopter collided with an American Airlines flight over the Potomac just as the plane was about to land.
• Los Angeles, Oklahoma City and Philadelphia won the major sports championships (MLB, NBA & NFL), which delighted some and devastated others.
• AI grew up fast.
• And kiss-cams gained newfound popularity thanks to a summer Coldplay concert.

Most of the above was either written about or referred to here — what a range and depth of topics, both the serious and the silly. But it’s funny, this blogging thing… allow me to share a little more insight in regard to all we discuss and how we discuss it.

Seventeen years ago, when we started this delightful, engaging hobby, the goal was to help persons learn how to converse respectfully with one another. It wasn’t to make money (which I do not) nor to persuade all to think like me (which I care not). The idea is to communicate in such a way that the person who disagrees with us can actually hear what we have to say. 

But a curious thing has evolved along the way… perhaps because the wise among us know that respecting others is proper… perhaps because to intentionally withhold respect from another would look really bad (and unethical)… and perhaps because it often takes work, patience and tact to do it well…

What did we witness happen increasingly more in 2025?

We saw many craft a reason why respect is not only not necessary, but why respecting another is actually wrong.

Friends, one of the societal evolutions we saw continually more via our blog this past year was the growing belief that we don’t have to respect or even interact with the holder of different perspective because simply the holding of your opinion is dangerous.

If we can convince ourselves that the simple holding of another’s opinion is dangerous — that the opinion’s existence violates moral boundaries in such a way that the holder should be silenced or ignored — then we never have to work to understand why they think the way they do. Better yet, we never have to do any more work on our thinking. Our perspectives remain comfortably unchallenged, our blindspots unexamined, and our passionate certainty delightfully intact.

This past year, as a semi-humble, longtime blogger with zero party affiliation but a deep appreciation for excellent wit, I was called many things — among them, “dangerous,” “evil,” and “unintelligent”…

Fascinating.

Let the pursuit of wisdom never escape us. Let us always listen to another — especially the un-like-minded. Sometimes we do it well. Sometimes we don’t. I can’t wait for 2026.

Cheers…

AR 

We’re doing something a little different today. Maybe it’s the start of resolution crafting for the year to come. Maybe not. But it is indeed good.

As has been discussed here previously, when we moved South some years ago, two of the wisest people I know (unrelated to one another) each gave me a stack of books. In their dispensing of literary encouragement and wisdom, there was one book from each focused on the same topic…

Rest. 

Intentional rest.

Allow us to define.

Intentional rest is the choice to cease to work — paid or unpaid. Instead of work, it’s the engaging in activity that is restorative, refreshing and replenishing. Other people may or may not be involved; it depends on the person. But the people we choose to be with at this time and things we choose to do are marked by how life-giving they are; they are things we deeply enjoy — meaning intentional rest for me and for you may look very different.

Suffice it to say, intentional rest is a time of delight.

It thus is a bit of a mental break that makes reflection and gratitude flow with increased abundance. Hence, intentional rest is a salubrious discipline all year long.

This day, in the afterglow of Christmas, my family is still gathered. Most of the mess is put away, but the joy of the last week lingers.

Soon my adult sons will venture back to their individual homes, the decor will be taken down, we’ll eat better and healthier — making those resolutions — and all will return to their regular rhythms — rhythms that make them good.

But while they are still here this day, I am choosing to rest with them.

I am choosing to be still, reflect and give thanks.

This is life-giving.

P.S. See you Wednesday, as we’ve got things to discuss. 🙂

Blessings…

AR

It’s no secret that the Intramuralist is a big believer in Christmas. But allow me to briefly share what I am a little more a believer in…

For centuries people were desperately craving, waiting for a king. They were looking for one who could bring justice, freedom and peace — necessities that none of their governments could consistently, adequately provide. Government capability has long been a fascinating topic — what we want, what we look for, what it can and can’t provide.

But lest we digress, I assume in those days they awaited for what we all perceive a king to be — one donning the royal robes, a shiny crown, jewels galore, and just this immediate, majestic presence. And that’s simply not what happened.

Here came a babe, born in a manger, with most likely bleating animals all around. Even his birth announcement was unusually sent out. It went not to the scholars or authorities nor even any church officials. It was sent to ordinary people, the shepherds who were tending their flocks, out under the quiet sky.

But all of a sudden, the silence shattered. Angels appeared; the sky exploded with light! …Don’t be afraid! A Savior is born! Peace on Earth! Glory to God in the highest!

Suffice it to say, the arrival of Jesus was unlike what any likely expected.

No robe. No shine. Not even jewels. But majestic indeed.

I always find it interesting that while Jesus is the central figure of Christianity — none of the other major world religions deny that Jesus is real. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and more — they all acknowledge that Jesus physically walked this planet some 2,000 years ago.

Hence, while I’m a big believer in Christmas and celebrating the birth of Jesus this December 25th, I’m a bigger believer in implementing what he taught all 365 days of the year.

Let me first profess that I’m no scholar. And as a follower of Jesus, I am an imperfect one at that. That’s part of what makes this so messy sometimes; we all are imperfect, totally screw up, and sometimes totally do not reflect the character of God accurately nor well. That’s part of what Jesus teaches; even in our imperfection, his love for us is not discounted. So what does Jesus teach?

Let me attempt to take an incomplete stab…

Love God. Love each other. No matter what. Be kind. Be humble. Always. Give thanks. In all things. Forgive. Again. And again. Talk to me. Look in my direction. Look to me for wisdom. Know that on this planet you will never have life all figured out. That’s not anything wrong with you; it’s simply how I set this temporary planet up. I’m teaching you to rely on me. You can. Even with the hard. I want what’s best for you. Remember that. Even when it’s hard to see me. I am there. I absolutely delight in you.

In the coming days, with the glee and the gifts and all the candlelight services, I wish each of you a wonderful Christmas. For those for whom it is especially merry, enjoy. May it be meaningful and full of people and things you love. 

For those for whom it is especially hard — for whom it may not be the most wonderful time of the year — let us acknowledge you as well. May Christmas still be meaningful, and more so, may you know that you are absolutely delighted in and loved.

Blessings to each of you, friends… and yes, Merry Christmas! It is a joy and a privilege to do this with you.

AR

Every year, one of our favorite December traditions is to go to the annual Disney Candlelight Processional. It’s hosted at Epcot, and for lack of better words, it’s just so, so great. Everyone is wished a happy Hanukkah, merry Christmas, and a happy new year. That indeed is what it is.

They read the scriptures and share at length about the historic birth of Jesus, sharing his humble birth in the stable full of hay, with no room in the inn.

They also utilize multiple celebrity narrators, as the processional lasts for over a month, with three shows nightly beginning near Thanksgiving. In recent years, we have had opportunity to hear from Karate Kid’s Ralph Macchio, Olympic gymnast Lorie Hernandez, actor Neil Patrick Harris and so many more.

Last week we heard from Marlee Matlin. And that was truly something special…

Matlin is an accomplished actress. Her accolades include an Academy Award, Golden Globe Award, multiple Emmys and more. She has long had a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Also true is that Matlin is completely deaf, losing her hearing at 18 months old of age.

Regardless of her hearing, as our celebrity narrator, Matlin was undeniably passionate, energetic, lively and had so much to say.

She simply wasn’t verbal.

She would sign. A translator would say all out loud, and then after each reading, a choir would sing…

Joy to the World…

O Come All Ye Faithful…

Angels We Have Heard on High…

And more.

It was beautiful indeed.

But perhaps what was most beautiful was Matlin’s concluding words. She spoke to the audience near the end of the presentation, asking if we noticed how during the songs she was actively looking around. She would look at the singers, then look at the Orchestra, even look into the crowd. She observed and watched and focused intently.

She said to us in the end, “Do you know what I’m doing?”

“I’m looking around. I’m hearing their heart. You hear their words. I hear their heart.”

What a beautiful thing. She can’t hear the actual audio, but she is hearing something more. She is connecting. She is communicating. And somewhere inside of all that reality is something that so aligns with the meaning of Christmas… 

The heart matters most. What if we focused on what’s inside the heart of another?  No assumptions… no judgment… simply something more than words. What a difference that would make in our call to treat all people well…

So good.

So real and true.

Love that Candlelight Processional. Love, too, how much we can always learn from someone who may speak a little differently than we.

Respectfully,

AR