Current Event – Page 113 – intramuralist ™

01/20/201501/20/2015

state of the government

In keeping with tonight’s annual State of the Union address, the Intramuralist takes a stab at our 6th State of the Government address. In our initial analysis, we made the following observations:

The State of the Government is too partisan.
The State of the Government is too influenced by money.
The State of the Government is too big.
The State of the Government is too financially imbalanced.
The State of the Government is too far removed from the Constitution.

Allow me a few brief notes on each state…

Government is too partisan. This isn’t rocket science. When Pres. Obama’s tenure began, then Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was famously quoted as saying, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for Pres. Obama to be a one-term president.” One could make a case for Republican obstructionism. As Obama’s tenure continued through November of last year, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) famously refused to allow hundreds of House-passed bills to even be discussed on the Senate floor. One could make a case for Democrat obstructionism.

The facts are that congressmen intentionally stymie one another’s policy initiatives, and the President now utilizes Executive Orders to bypass congressmen. Then each complains about their opposition, acting as if they are somehow standing on a perceived moral, high ground. The point is that each blames their partisan behavior on someone else.

Government is too influenced by money. Again, people blame someone else or a single judicial decision for this issue, claiming a moral (instead of hypocritical) high ground. An excellent example centers around billionaire donor Tom Steyer, who gave approx. $75 million dollars to liberal candidates in the 2014 elections; he will undoubtedly be active and vocal in future elections.

Steyer does not want the Keystone XL pipeline built; the project has bipartisan support. The administration, though, says they need more time to examine the issue. Note that the project was introduced in late 2008. It’s thus hard to believe that Steyer’s money — and influence — is irrelevant. The Intramuralist, therefore, continues to conclude that there has been a easing of morals in governance due to an easing of lobbyist/donor restrictions, that began in the late 1970‘s.

Government is too big. Let’s make this simple… There’s no budget. There’s no firm spending limits. There’s little accountability. Government keeps expanding. How can this be wise? How can wise men and women continue to ignore?

Government is too financially imbalanced. Whether monies are spent on war, Obamacare, or wars on Obamacare, the government continues to make no attempt to balance their budget. Any entity with this much deficit spending for this long with no repayment plan will at some point cease to exist. The elect continue to kick the financial can down the road, thinking it will somehow be paved by future generations.

Government is too far removed from the Constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Our founders desired a country that would be internally peaceful and externally protected. Too many today, though, feel arrogantly justified in dictating exactly what a more perfect union should be for each of the rest of us.

So again I ask, where do we start?

Consistent with our mantra, I believe we start with respect — both from us and from our leaders. Respect means being wise enough to recognize the reality of our morally, digressing state — and being humble enough to recognize that no single one of us has it all figured out.

Respectfully…

01/18/201501/18/2015

what are we doing?

What are we doing? Where is our patience with one another? Why do we insist others cater to us and our needs and beliefs?

Yesterday my youngest son and I took the convivial trip to Costco. Costco always seems a big deal in our family. Maybe it’s because a person always comes back with “stuff”… lots of stuff. Everything at Costco seems to come in big packages. Among my singular packages were 7 frozen pizzas, 70 ounces of cereal, and 7,000 rolls of toilet paper (… ok, so I may be exaggerating on the toilet paper). Suffice it to say, when we left the nation’s second largest retailer, our cart was full.

As many are aware, my youngest son has Down syndrome. Some see that as a negative; we do not; but one of the so-called perks that comes with the perceived negativity is the opportunity to receive one of those blue and white placards that dangles from your rearview mirror, allowing you to park closer to the building, when your child is in the car. With a fairly full parking lot, yesterday we utilized our perk.

I felt a little lucky yesterday; granted, I think the words “lucky” and “blessing” are often misused and confused. But this day we were able to park in the spot closest to the warehouse. After making our rounds and returning to our car, another shopper was instantly, eagerly waiting for our coveted spot. The elderly driver and his wife were stopped in the lane, with their convenient blinker already in use.

Now as much as possible, I invite my son to join me in typical tasks. That means I sometimes sacrifice a speed or efficiency that perhaps alone I could accomplish, but the benefit and encouragement is worth far more. When loading the car, we dropped a few non-essential items, but we quickly recovered, teaching all the time. Josh then asked to return the cart to the corral by himself. He stopped after a few short steps, asking me for affirmation in his direction. At that point, I heard it. The elderly man with his blinker honked at me.

He honked at me.

I was shocked. My first thought was “no way… no way did that older couple just do that.” But after my pregnant pause and realizing the reality of the situation — and also not one to shy away from reality — I turned to look at the driver. He motioned to me with both hands. I looked at him, directly in the eye, paused, smiling slightly, putting one hand out with a “halt-like” motion, and said, “Wait. You can wait.”

Here was an older man suggesting that my son and I should hurry so that his needs could be met.

Such made me wonder. How often do we do exactly the same thing? … moments where we think another should cater to our needs and agree with our direction or beliefs — or else, if they don’t act or think as we desire, we speak or do something disrespectful in order to bring attention to them?

Maybe we don’t lay on the horn, but still, we give others little room or time if things aren’t as we desire. We don’t embrace the concept of patience as a virtue if it interferes with our individual passion. We want it our way now. We want people to meet our needs now. We want people to think like us now.

When I finally returned to my driver’s seat, I kept thinking, “He honked at me… he actually honked at me.” I then laughed out loud, shook my head a bit, wishing we all had more patience — and wisdom — when dealing with others.

Respectfully…

01/15/201501/15/2015

clear, bold, and honest

Let’s be clear…

The Intramuralist is no political expert. In fact, far too many who consider themselves experts are — shall I say –“grace opportunities” for the rest of us. Far too also many seem to have embraced selective compassion in their accompanying expertise. My sense is such selectivity is too high a price to pay.

As an observer, no less — and a semi-humble one at that — it seems to me that we are facing quite the quandary. Across the globe, Muslim militants are killing innocent people. Manifest in multiple countries, people are being killed in the name of an Islamic god.

Long before 9/11, the huge list began accumulating (see an objective site). Since 1983, tens of thousands have been killed in the name of Islam… not in the name of another religion.

Let’s be bold…

It’s true that the majority of Muslims do not kill in the name of their faith. But the persons who are killing — be it on 9/11 some 14 years ago or in Paris, France last week — are each Muslim. That’s what they have in common.

I understand the impassioned plea of NBA great, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who asked us in a Time Magazine editorial last week to “stop bringing Islam into these discussions.” I get that he wishes for us to not associate the terror with his peaceful interpretation. The challenge is that the terror is associated with his religion.

Let’s be honest…

First, let’s acknowledge that the majority of Muslims do not kill the “infidel.” Second, let’s acknowledge that it is Muslims who are killing the “infidel.” Honesty means we begin by acknowledging truth. Many seem to struggle with such transparency.

On the eve of last September’s 9/11 anniversary, in a prime-time public address, Pres. Obama vowed to destroy ISIS; at the same time he proclaimed that the terrorists “are not Islamic.”

In the wake of last weekend’s PR misstep in France, Atty. Gen. Holder announced a coming “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” Is it violence? Certainly. Is it extremism? Without a doubt. But it also is terror conducted by Islamic radicals… not by Buddhists or Christians or Scientologists or anyone else.

State Dept. spokeman Marie Harf appeared on national news earlier this week. She was asked about the summit and was pressed to specifically state, in addition to the Islamic radicals, “What other forms of extremism are particularly troubling and compelling to you right now?” Harf named none… no one. She could not answer the question with any specifics.

It is thus obvious that at some point, our leaders huddled to determine how they would characterize the conflict. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist — nor that political expert — to discern that the administration has decided to avoid the word “Islamic,” including the phrases, “Islamic terrorism” and/or “Islamic radicals.” Press Sec. Josh Earnest wants us to believe that the administration is trying to be “as specific and accurate as possible” by using the term “violent extremism.” The non-political expert in me sees more avoidance than specificity.

Someone in the administration has directed leadership to avoid the clear and bold terminology, which would concede that a radical Islamic ideology is the common thread within the terror. We cannot assemble and solve, however, if we refuse to acknowledge and examine the common thread.

So the better question now is: why the avoidance? …what’s the motive?

Fear? Sympathy? Impression management? Something else?

I wish we knew. The intentional avoidance is extinguishing the administration’s influence and credibility; it’s also diminishing the probability of solution. Hence, I’ll say it again… let’s be honest.

Respectfully…

01/11/201501/11/2015

the rhetorical dance

As we witness the world’s reaction to the pursuit of the Islamic terrorists, there exists an evolving irony I just can’t seem to shake. I can’t quite put my finger on it, and yet it’s an inconsistency potentially saturated in some degree of ignorance and/or hypocrisy. Here are these terrorists… men and women motivated to kill based on religious reasons. So many leaders, however, tiptoe around the stated motive.

As previously referenced here, even though the terrorists shouted Muhammad’s name in France last week, our leaders were silent about the stated motive. In the initial public response by the White House last Wednesday morning, spokesman Josh Earnest even refused to call it “terrorism.”

But it’s not simply the omission of the motive that’s glaring; it’s the accompanying, rhetorical dance. In their first public comments, both Earnest, French Pres. Francois Hollande, and others declared multiple times that Islam is a “peaceful religion.” It’s as if the leaders of both France and America bend over backwards both to praise Islam and omit it as the killers’ motive at the same time. Their rhetorical two-step is a seemingly intentional attempt to both appease and ignore.

The dripping irony I thus see is the contrast with how America’s most popular religion is publicly articulated. According to Pew Research, over 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Christians are persons who have faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ. And yet, as previously discussed by the Intramuralist, there seems an intentional movement to remove any accreditation to God and Jesus in our country; there is very little public praise. No, I am not referring to the so-called “war on Christmas” or “war on teachers” or any other rhetorical misuse of military terminology. I do passionately believe, however, that although the pursuit is somewhat subjective, in recent years we have witnessed calculated, adrenalized attempts to remove the name of God and Jesus from our society.

Let me be more clear… I am not speaking about the separation of church and state; respected persons have valid perspectives on all sides of said argument. I am instead addressing the removal of church from state — the total removal of God’s name from far more than our state. Separation is the intent expressed by some, for example, for the expulsion of seasonal nativity scenes on the public square. Separation (albeit a comical stretch) is the school systems which no longer allow for the mention of Santa (… uh… even though Santa is already separate from the church and state). Many persons work to omit any reference to God or Jesus, with many also seemingly wanting to eliminate Christianity from the public narrative.

Just last week NBC aired a commercial in which the Pledge of Allegiance was articulated. The chorus echoed it as follows: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” They omitted God’s name; no one nation “under God” was acknowledged. In a later, apologetic statement — only after a social media uproar — NBC acknowledged the elimination was intentional.

So back to the evolving irony…

Our leaders are going out of their way to intentionally characterize the religion of Islam as one that is peaceful and rational. Less than 1% of America’s overall adult population identifies themselves as Muslim. Obviously, therefore, our leaders either believe or want us to believe that the terrorists are distorting the religion. My presumption is that in order to counteract the negative impression that is building by the multiple terrorist attacks continuing across the globe, our leaders are speaking out on Islam in order to paint a more respected impression. At the same time they publicly praise Islam, though, many are accepting of being quiet about the saving power of Jesus Christ.

Something is not ok about that. Something is inconsistent.

Respectfully…

01/08/201501/08/2015

it is what it is

Longtime friends of the Intramuralist will be familiar with my lack of fondness for the term, “it is what it is.” My opinion is based on the inherent reality that “it” is always something more. “It is what it is” is what we say when we don’t know what else to say… like when Ted Turner didn’t want to elaborate on his multiple divorces, saying, “I regret that I wasn’t more successful with my marriages, but it is what it is”… or after the NBA’s Pacers and Pistons brawled in the stands, and guard Reggie Miller said, “Obviously, you never want to see something like that happen, but it is what it is.”

We claim “it” to be “what it is” when there’s more to the situation than we either can — or want — to divulge. Today the Intramuralist advocates for the respectful calling of what “it” actually is…

Yesterday, most of us saw that Islamic terrorists shot and killed 12 persons at the Paris office of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Four of the magazine’s well-known cartoonists, including its editor, were among those killed. The weekly newspaper is known to be irreverent, anti-religious, and left-wing. While they have been threatened, hacked, and even fire-bombed by those taking issue with their satire of Islam, the publication’s shtick is to poke fun at all religion.

Note that I called the gunmen “Islamic terrorists.” I call them “terrorists” because the men created terror by gunning down innocent victims. I call them “Islamic” because witnesses said that they heard the gunmen shouting “we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad” and “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Great” in Arabic) during the the attack.

In response, Pres. Obama initially called the attacks “violence,” but then invited the press into the Oval Office and condemned the “horrific shooting.” An official White House press release then called it a “terrorist attack” and noted how France “has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against terrorists who threaten our shared security and the world.” Sec. of State John Kerry called it a “vicious act of violence.” Homeland Security Sec. Jeh Johnson said that the “terror threat is complex.”

They each agreed with the identification of terrorism. They each also omitted one specific adjective. Simultaneously (based on this observer’s very informal perusal), ABC News, CNN, FOXNews, and Reuters were identifying the attack as both “Islamic” and “terror.”

Friends, I understand the need to be cautious and not to incite. Such is part of the reason I’ve been respectfully critical lately of some specific, civil activists. But why the omission of the specific, motivation here, actually articulated by the terrorists?

For the past 13 years, our one nation under God has been more intentional in rooting out the terror that passionately desires to destroy us. We can’t, however, be victorious in that pursuit if we are unwilling to call “it” what it is. “It” is Islamic terrorism. As even the oft disrespectful TV host Bill Maher articulated last fall, “Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it.” Maher added that to claim that Islam is like other religions is “just naive and plain wrong.” He’s calling “it” what it is.

Please know I would never knowingly advocate for disrespect. I do believe, though, that in order to root out this obvious evil, we must first be willing to call “it” what it is.

Respectfully…

01/06/201501/06/2015

great scott

I suppose it’s true that most of us will go out not with a bang but a whimper. Longtime ESPN anchor Stuart Scott was right when he remarked the following to the watching world last July: “When you die, it does not mean that you lose to cancer. You beat cancer by how you live, why you live, and in the manner in which you live.”

Stuart Scott passed away Sunday morning after a seven year, ongoing battle with cancer. He was 49.

I’ve thought about how to best honor Scott here. I did not know him. Granted, I have heard his trademark “BOO-YAH” for years — and chuckled almost always right on cue. Scott joined ESPN in 1993 when they established ESPN2. His colloquial style and honest approach caught the eye even of the less traditional sports fan. He had an authentic warmth that seemed to exude through any screen.

My heart is perhaps most touched thinking of an exchange Scott offered some five years ago. At the time, Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow was attempting to transition from the college to professional grid iron. Tebow, ever a gentle gentleman, often found himself the center of controversy by his choice of eye black — the small black patches many football players don beneath their eyes in order to reduce the glare. Like many, Tebow was intentional in placing a message on his eye black. His contemporaries — players such as Rey Maualuga, DeSean Jackson, C.J. Spiller, and multiple others — also customized the patches — highlighting everything from their parents, high school nicknames, and even Spiller’s hometown church.

But Tebow consistently wrote scripture references on the glare-reducing tool. In fact, in the 2009 BCS Championship game, Tebow wrote “John 3:16” on his eye black. In the succeeding 24 hours, the scripture reference was the most searched phrase on Google, generating over 90 million searches. That much attention generates even more controversy.

A man named “Dave” from Maryland questioned the practice in an online ESPN chat room. He wrote: “What’s with the Bible citations on Tim Tebow’s eyeblack, Stu? If I were a player and had ‘There is’ written on one side of my face and ‘no God’ on the other, would that be okay?”

Stuart Scott minced no time nor words in his gracious response…

“Dave, if that what you want to do, I don’t care. But Tim and I and billions of other believers in the world know you’d be wrong. I’ve seen the workings of God many times in my life, like when my two daughters were born. If you don’t believe in God, watch a child be born. Then if you still say you don’t believe in God, that’s okay. The thing is, I think He’ll watch over you anyway!”

Boo-yah, Stuart Scott… boo-yah.

T.S. Eliot may have been right when he ended his infamous “The Hollow Men” poem years ago:

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Stuart Scott was also right; the bang or the whimper doesn’t matter. What matters is how we live.

Respectfully…

01/01/201501/01/2015

happy new year!

Happy New Year, friends! I was thinking of the brand new year and all it entails, and I must confess: yes, I was thinking of making resolutions. I get that resolutions are something we tend to simultaneously love and loathe. We know they’re good for us; we just don’t always enjoy the discipline healthy ambitions typically require.

Let’s also face it: often our list of annual ambitions is fairly similar to the year prior… we want to eat better, exercise more, and be a little nicer. Those are healthy aims. They’re still not always fun to resolve to do and then be held accountable.

Hence, I’ve been tooling with how to minimize the loathing for this year’s process. I wonder… how would it affect our fair-weather moods if instead of the stereotypical, annual process — instead of making challenging resolutions for ourselves — we made resolutions for other people? 🙂

For example…

For all teenagers (and adults)… I resolve to never text and drive.

For the NFL’s Roger Goodell… I resolve to be consistent in my discipline.

For NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio… I resolve to support both the people and police with both actions and words.

For all federal, state, and local governments… I resolve to not spend any more money than I take in.

For the IRS… I resolve not to be biased.

For Pres. Obama… I resolve to remember I’m only the President and not a writer of law.

For Congress… I resolve to remember I’m only a legislator and not the executor of law.

For Joe Biden… I resolve to run for President (please… your expressions would make it so much more entertaining for us all).

For Jeb Bush & Hillary Clinton, etal… I resolve to finally realize we don’t need the same families always in the White House.

For Chris Christie… I resolve to lose another 50 lbs. (I’m telling you; it’s your way to most effectively relate to half the population of the country — far more effective than any policy initiative).

For all politicians… I resolve to rely less on my teleprompter and speak more transparently than utilizing professional-speech-writer’s, rhetorically-pleasing remarks.

For Al Sharpton… I resolve to quit inciting disrespect.

For all cyberspace users… I resolve to never allow Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Tumblr, or texting to substitute for authentic conversation.

(And again) For all cyberspace users… I resolve to be respectful in each of my expressions and rants.

Ok, ok… maybe we’re distorting the process here slightly. It’s not our job — nor are we capable of establishing aims for other people. Each of us has to choose to work on what’s healthy. I do wish we’d all be respectful… I do wish we’d realize that respect doesn’t equate to allowing a person to speak but still quietly inside, hold on to how stupid we think they are… I do wish we’d learn to listen, converse, and ask questions of all. That’s challenging for most of us — and for many of the above.

It may be easier to eat better, exercise more, and be a little nicer.

Respectfully… and Happy New Year…

12/30/201412/30/2014

tragedy

After a third day of searching — with seekers and searchers and planes equipped with all sorts of rescue gear scouring the waters of a square mile area comparable to the State of California — they have now found traces of AirAsia Flight QZ8501. All 162 passengers are feared dead. More information, bodies, and debris will most likely be heartbreakingly discovered after this posting.

This is a tough one, friends. Granted, it’s no tougher than the never-found Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 last March or the intentional shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over the Ukraine in July. It’s hard to fathom the depth of the tragedy.

Tragedy is not indigenous to airline malfunctions. It is a tragedy to watch a loved one suffer, the disabled struggle, or a child starve. It’s a tragedy to witness any heart that breaks. Tragedy is one of the admitted, hardest challenges as a known part of life on planet Earth. As we’ve watched the search and rescue teams from a combination of countries anxiously search the Asian waters, that gut-wrenching reality has become all the more clear.

I continue to see pictures of the passengers’ families — relatives heartbreakingly huddled in a small room filled with little but shock and somber apprehension. There are no smiles. No laughs. Only tear-laden, grim glances, rarely looking up, as the hopes of individual survival dissipates each added tick of the clock. The pictures make the empathetic heart only share in such tears and grim glances.

So I think to myself… if one of us were to walk in that room right now, what would we say? What would we share?

If we were to walk into the room of those hurting, huddled masses yearning for their loved ones, what would we, could we, possibly utter?

I’d like to somehow humbly offer here, how the Intramuralist has just the right answer — that we know just the right words to soothe the aching heart — but I do not. Tragedy is not something that can be healed or glossed over by words or empty promises. Tragedy and brokenness can also not be soothed by any arrogance… self-servingness… revenge… rhetorical Band-Aids… insult or oppression of someone else…

And then I think of other tragedies outside of airplane accidents — especially these past few months — and how too often the hollowness of all of the above is justified. It cannot fill the ache.

What words and truth actually heal?

As we come to the end of another calendar year, I am poignantly reminded to focus on what’s most important and to always live with eternity in mind — to remember that there must be more to this life — more than just trying to make it through the day. I try to think of what’s bigger. Who is this great big God of the universe — who had to have created me — because something cannot come from nothing. What would God desire of me? If I can figure that out, my strongest sense is I will have value, purpose, and hope… a hope that would gird me through these tragedies.

Would I say that to the huddled masses in that room?

No… not right away at least. For now, I would simply be by their side… saying very little… praying… quietly letting them know I share their broken heart.

Respectfully… always…

12/28/201412/29/2014

who are we?

A fascinating statement…

With the questionable on-again/off-again moves by Sony Pictures these past two weeks considering release of a controversial movie after threats from North Korea, Pres. Obama addressed the issue in a year end press conference. He said, “We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States… that’s not who we are.”

When Obama announced this fall that he has the executive authority to alter immigration law, he delivered a prime time address in which he acknowledged that while criminals still need to be deported, deporting millions of others “isn’t realistic.” To defend his controversial move, he added, “It’s also not who we are as Americans.”

Again, after a controversial, questionably substantiated report was released in December by Senate Democrats regarding CIA tactics after 9/11, Obama publicly responded, “Some of the tactics that were written about in the Senate Intelligence report were brutal and, as I’ve said before, constituted torture, in my mind. And that’s not who we are.”

We are always declaring who we are not. It’s also not always Pres. Obama…

Last week as the annual bowl game season commenced, Brigham Young and the University of Memphis found themselves in a tight, two-overtime contest, with Memphis finally edging out the Cougars 55-48. With the game complete in addition to both teams’ dreams of winning, a brawl broke out on the field. Dozens of players partook in the punching. Said Memphis coach Justin Fuente in the immediate aftermath, “I don’t know what happened at the end… It’s not who we are.”

So what is this notion of declaring “it’s not who we are”? Note that the practice is not to actually declare who we are; it’s declaring who we are not.

Who, no less, is capable of declaring such? And what’s the reason for the declaration?

As with many rhetorical one liners, it seems to this semi-humble observer that impression management must be motive #1… “impression management”… saying or doing things around other people in order to convey a specific impression. Obviously, for example, the head coach of the Memphis football team does not want the watching world to think of his team as a bunch of thugs who beat up on other people… “that’s not who we are.” True. They are not. But they are a team who got into a significant fight at the end of the game…

… we are a nation that deports the illegal… we are a nation that has struggled with censorship… we are a nation which had to find a way to respond to 9/11… we are a nation that has made good decisions and poor decisions… and we are a nation that often disagrees on what those are.

My point is that the “not who we are” line is more about controlling the narrative that an actual truthful statement. Allow me to speak for myself. I’ve made my share of foolish mistakes. I’ve said some stupid things, done some stupid things, and put my foot in my mouth on one too many occasions. It still — unfortunately — happens. Is that who I am?

That’s not the right question. Better put would be, “Is it consistent with who I want to be?” No, not at all. But we are each capable of saying and doing some stupid things. That, truthfully, is who we are.

Respectfully…

12/25/2014

hope & pain

[Borrowed and slightly edited from a blog this week by Justin Taylor, Crossway Sr. VP & publisher, in a historical account giving each of us hope amidst our pain — putting life into perspective…]

In March of 1863, 18-year-old Charles Appleton Longfellow walked out of his family’s home on Brattle Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and—unbeknownst to his family—boarded a train bound for Washington, DC., over 400 miles away, in order to join President Lincoln’s Union army to fight in the Civil War. Charles was the oldest of six children born to Fannie Elizabeth Appleton and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, the celebrated literary critic and poet. Charles had five younger siblings: a brother (aged 17) and three sisters (ages 13, 10, 8—another one had died as an infant).

Less than two years earlier, Charles’s mother Fannie had died from a tragic accident when her dress caught on fire. Her husband, awoken from a nap, tried to extinguish the flames as best he could, first with a rug and then his own body, but she had already suffered severe burns. She died the next morning, and Henry Longfellow’s facial burns were severe enough that he was unable even to attend his own wife’s funeral. He would grow a beard to hide his burned face and at times feared that he would be sent to an asylum on account of his grief.

When Charley (as he was called) arrived in Washington D.C. he sought to enlist as a private with the 1st Massachusetts Artillery. Captain W. H. McCartney, commander of Battery A, wrote to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow for written permission for Charley to become a solider. HWL (as his son referred to him) granted the permission.

Longfellow later wrote to his friends [Sen.] Charles Sumner, [Gov.] John Andrew, and Edward Dalton (medical inspector of the Sixth Army Corps) to lobby for his son to become an officer. But Charley had already impressed his fellow soldiers and superiors with his skills, and on March 27, 1863, he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry, assigned to Company “G.”

After participating on the fringe of the Battle of Chancellorsville in Virginia (April 30-May 6, 1863), Charley fell ill with typhoid fever and was sent home to recover. He rejoined his unit on August 15, 1863, having missed the Battle of Gettysburg.

While dining at home on December 1, 1863, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow received a telegram that his son had been severely wounded four days earlier. On November 27, 1863, while involved in a skirmish during a battle of of the Mine Run Campaign, Charley was shot through the left shoulder, with the bullet exiting under his right shoulder blade. It had traveled across his back and skimmed his spine. Charley avoided being paralyzed by less than an inch.

He was carried into New Hope Church (Orange County, Virginia) and then transported to the Rapidan River. Charley’s father and younger brother, Ernest, immediately set out for Washington, D.C., arriving on December 3. Charley arrived by train on December 5. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was alarmed when informed by the army surgeon that his son’s wound “was very serious” and that “paralysis might ensue.” Three surgeons gave a more favorable report that evening, suggesting a recovery that would require him to be “long in healing,” at least six months.

On Christmas day, 1863, Longfellow—a 57-year-old widowed father of six children, the oldest of which had been nearly paralyzed as his country fought a war against itself—wrote a poem seeking to capture the dynamic and dissonance in his own heart and the world he observes around him. He hears the Christmas bells and the singing of “peace on earth” (Luke 2:14) but observes the world of injustice and violence that seemed to mock the truth of this statement. The theme of listening recurs throughout the poem, leading to a settledness of confident hope even in the midst of bleak despair…

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day,  their old familiar carols play, and wild and sweet the words repeat , of peace on earth, good will to men.

  I thought how, as the day had come,  the belfries of all Christendom,  had rolled along the unbroken song , of peace on earth, good will to men.  

And in despair I bowed my head:  “there is no peace on earth,” I said,  “For hate is strong and mocks the song , of peace on earth, good will to men.”  

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: “God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;  the wrong shall fail, the right prevail,  with peace on earth, good will to men.”  

Till, ringing singing, on its way,  the world revolved from night to day,  a voice, a chime, a chant sublime,  of peace on earth, good will to men!

Respectfully… with hope… always…