Category: Current Event

I’ll admit it right from the start. I didn’t plan it this way. It just sort of played itself out… kind of just happened.

For Sunday night’s Super Bowl LVII between the Eagles and Chiefs, I went into the game unsure of where my zeal would soon lie. I like the Eagles. I like the Chiefs. I admire the outspoken faith-comes-first approach of each team’s leaders, Jalen Hurts and Patrick Mahomes. I also appreciate the newly popular podcasters, the articulate brothers Kelce, wittily representing their respective teams. 

From a perceived negative perspective, there isn’t much I dislike about either team. I mean, with 53 players on each team’s active roster, no team will corner the market on character. Granted, I’m not a huge fan of either team’s colors as one feels kind of blah and I’ve also long semi-humbly declared that “no man looks good in yellow pants.” Just my opinion, friends.

But what happened as the game ensued, with the Eagles soaring first and the Chiefs leading later, is that I found myself not choosing a team. In fact, I never chose one. I had moments in which I felt, “Hey, that’s a great play!” Or “Wow… where was the pass coverage on that?” In other words, I had times where I cheered and times when I jeered — times perceived to be supportive and critical of each NFL team. But there were no darts thrown. No zingers. There was something about my absence of choice that allowed for both a more objective analysis and an awareness that insult was unnecessary. Not only is insult unnecessary, but it serves zero constructive purpose; insult only serves to rattle.

The scenario made me increasingly observant of the number who attempt to make us choose… like we can only be one or the other… an Eagles fan or a Chiefs fan. And we do this in far more than football. We attempt to make people choose… We tell them they have to… they stand for nothing if they don’t stand for something. They’re either for us or against us!

Friends, let me say this as kindly as possible. I think that’s a bunch of nice-sounding hogwash.

I’m not being mean. I get it. I really do. If I can get you to join me in my thinking, I get one more person on my team. And if you don’t choose me, well, I can write you off a bit. I don’t have to waste my time with what you think. The only problem with that is that the person who sees the wisdom of not needing to conform to our culturally-crafted, black-and-white sides is also typically the one who holds the greater likelihood of objective analysis. Our “choice” often impedes our discernment.

Think simply of this past week, of the number who encouraged such black-and-white choosing on much…

On who is most adept at protecting us from those big, bad spy balloons…

On whether it was right or wrong for the First Lady to kiss the Second Gentleman on the lips in public of all places…

On whether the eye-catching “He Gets Us” commercials have unstated, ulterior motives…

On whether Pres. Biden is too old to run for re-election, Pres. Trump is too old to run, and if “ageism” is in play for either man or Madonna…

And of course…

On whether grown men ever look good in yellow pants. 

Friends, I know this isn’t a popular perspective. It doesn’t always feel good for the beholder either. I admit, it would be easier many days to choose — to make everything black and white, to quit being curious, to adopt a singular standpoint and then run all analysis through our binary filter. That would be easier. We could quit listening to the different then, ignoring the reality that we will always have more to learn. We learn most when we remain curious.

At our Super Bowl party Sunday night, in fact, where we had a festive crowd of some 30 gathered, there is no doubt that both the Eagles and Chiefs diehards in the room would have preferred I choose their team. You should have heard them cheer! I get it. Indeed! I feel the same way about my beloved Bengals and Boilermakers in their respective sports.

Granted, I’m not always the most objective either.

Respectfully…

AR

Greetings, friends.

Today I had my post long planned out. We have been out of the country for the week behind, so some pre-work had been done, ensuring the posts were timely and relevant for the reader and non-taxing and relaxing for the writer. It was a wonderful week.

Yet as I sit here prior to posting, something doesn’t feel 100% right about going ahead and penning as planned. Sure, it would be easy.

It would be equally easy this day to write about multiple angles surrounding today’s much anticipated Super Bowl LVII between the Chiefs and the Eagles… the faith and mindset of Mahomes and Hurts, the professional and personal tenure of coach Andy Reid — and how his once-believed disappointing dismissal from one led to increased success with the other, and of course, all things brothers Kelce.

We could also easily contemplate the massive consumption by us who watch today. Exactly how many chicken wings will be eaten? (Note: no wings here. In a tribute to Burrow and the Bengals — who almost made this game — Skyline Chili and Montgomery Inn BBQ will be on the menu.)

Nonetheless, all that would be easy. And all that would miss the unfathomable.

On Monday of last week, two earthquakes, near the Syrian border, struck Turkey and Syria. They had magnitudes of 7.8 and 7.5, approximately 9 hours apart. 

Initial reporting showed the death toll to be massive; early confirmations were in the low thousands. That number, the number of confirmed deaths, at time of this writing is now over 29,000 people. According to AlJazeera, as of today, the number of deaths in Turkey rose to 24,617, with more than 4,500 people dying in Syria.

Let us sit with that number…

29,000.

Know, too, in addition to the unfathomable tragedy, there are stories of extraordinary rescue. See, for example, the video of the young girl removed from the rubble “in the 150th hour,” said Dr. Fahrettin Koca, the health minister of Turkey. Absolutely, unspeakably amazing.

I felt need, no less, to speak a little bit more… a broader point, if you will… one that made me put my previous post away…

Sometimes it’s easy to sit behind our keyboards and simply peck away.

Sometimes it’s easy to focus on nearby occurrences that more gleefully attract our attention or are aligned with our individual passions.

Sometimes, therefore, obviously, it’s easy to not care about what doesn’t happen right in front of us.

But I think it’s important to care.

I think it’s important to recognize that our experience is only our experience; it isn’t everyone else’s. And that simple fact should broaden our perspective, realizing that we magnify and diminish based on what we actually see.

We care based on the proximity of our own experience.

29,000 people doesn’t let me do that today.

Just thinking sort of out loud, friends…

May our perspective always be broadened, recognizing how limited our individual vantage points often are.

Respectfully… and God be with the people in Turkey and Syria…

AR

As is our frequent practice, let us ask what people are asking. We surveyed the sites to see what questions are asked. Note: if a site isn’t referenced, they may indeed be a resource that isn’t very fluent in posing inquiries; they may more tell us what to think than ask us what to think. Granted, as Intramuralist readers have long known, the question mark is the only punctuation piece that invites a response.

Here, then, are 75 questions we’ve witnessed in recent weeks, being asked in the news:

1. Are Americans Still Capable of Self-Government?
2. Are Blue States Ready To Relax Their Bans On Later Abortions?
3. Are Standardized Tests Racist, or Are They Anti-Racist?
4. Are ‘The Walls Closing In’ on Joe Biden?
5. Are We Too Worried About Misinformation?
6. Beyond Biden: Who’s Next?
7. The Biden Papers & Mar-a-Lago Docs: Apples & Oranges?
8. Can America Rediscover What Made It Great?
9. Can Anything Be Done To Assuage Rural Rage?
10. Can DeSantis ‘Deprogram’ Blue States?
11. Can the GOP Become a Real Working-Class Party?
12. Can the White House Clean-Up Crew Rescue Biden?
13. CNN: The Comedy News Network?
14. The DeSantis “knockout blow” for Trump?
15. Did Tua Tagovailoa’s Concussions or Damar Hamlin’s Injury Hurt NFL More?
16. Do GOP Leaders Want Trump In 2024?
17. Does Anyone Still Think Biden Is Democrats’ Best Option?
18. Fact Check: Does Project Veritas Video Show Pfizer Is Mutating COVID?
19. Force Workers to Pay Fees to Big Labor for Making Them ‘Worse Off?’
20. God, Will Prince Harry Shut Up?
21. House Dems Were Smug, But Do They Have a Plan?
22. How can we get justice for Tyre Nichols and other victims of police brutality?
23. How Did U.S. Let Google Get So Powerful In the First Place? 
24. How popular is Joe Biden?
25. How unpopular is Joe Biden?
26. How will the Russia-Ukraine war end?
27. How will we know if the US economy is in a recession?
28. How worried should you be about your gas stove?
29. Is Biden a Viable Candidate for 2024?
30. Is Haley Setting a ‘Man-Trap’ for 2024 Rivals? 
31. Is It Fair To Compare Biden’s And Trump’s Classified Documents Scandals?
32. Is It Payback Time for Democratic Zealots?
33. Is it really offensive to say ‘the French’?
34. Is Our Ukrainian Optimism Misplaced?
35. Is the NFL rigged? 
36. Is This the End of Lori Lightfoot?
37. Is U.S. Headed Toward Socialism?
38. Isn’t It Time for Adam Schiff To Be Expelled From Congress?
39. Looking For A Tax Break?
40. Recent infighting raises the question: How conservative is the GOP?
41. Since When Was a Debate Over Spending Unreasonable?
42. Ukraine War: Closer to Nightmare Scenario?
43. Was ‘Every Conspiracy Theory’ About Twitter True?
44. We can’t say ‘aloha’ now, either?
45. Were Black Officers Really ‘Driven by Racism’?
46. Were the Justices Investigated in the Dobbs Leak Probe?
47. What Did Biden Know & When Did He Know It?
48. What happened to Tyre Nichols?
49. What is the Memphis police SCORPION unit?
50. What Will Political Arsonist Matt Gaetz Do w/New Powers?
51. What would ‘winning’ in Ukraine mean?
52. What’s Behind ‘Unusual’ Hunter Biden Email?
53. Where Are Oil Prices Heading In 2023?
54. Where is the rest of the Tyre Nichols story?
55. Who is George Santos and why is he in trouble?
56. Who was Tyre Nichols, the man allegedly murdered by 5 Memphis police officers?
57. Who’s Laughing Now?
58. Who’s the Intolerant Jerk?
59. Why Are Hacks Like Stephen Colbert Fawning Over Harry?
60. Why Are M&M’s Caving to Rightwing Anti-Woke Pressure?
61. Why Have the Biden Papers Surfaced—& to What End?
62. Why, Only Now, Is All of This Coming Out?
63. Why Won’t ‘Transparent’ Biden Open Delaware Records?
64. Will Americans Even Notice an Improving Economy?
65. Will Biden Think Twice About Running for Reelection?
66. Will ‘no regrets’ be Biden’s epitaph as the classified docs pile up?
67. Will the Corrupt FBI Come to Biden’s Rescue?
68. Will Republicans Blow Up the Global Economy?
69. Will the Supreme Court Torpedo the Financial System?
70. Will Tyre Nichols’s Murder Finally Make Congress Do Something About Police Reform?
71. With Billions at stake, why do we allow NFL referees to make “BAD CALLS”?
72. Would Putting South Carolina First Give Black Democrats A Stronger Voice?
73. The Year Feinstein Finally Retires?
74. $18 a dozen: how did America’s eggs get absurdly expensive?
75. $60 Billion In COVID Fraud?

I will always value both the art and the discipline of asking good questions. Such is the key to respectful dialogue.

Respectfully…

AR

[Sources cited include: ABC News, AllSides, American Greatness, American Spectator, Associated Press, The Atlantic, BBC, Bleacher Report, CNS News, DC Examiner, Epoch Times, The Federalist, FiveThirtyEight, Forbes, The Guardian, The Hill, HotAir, I&I/TIPP, Inside Hook, London School of Economics and Political Science, Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, The Nation, New York Post, New York TImes, Newsweek, Novara Media, NPR, OilPrice.com, PJ Media, The Political Insider, Politico, Reason, RealClearPolitics, Recode, Salon, Slate, The Spectator, Spiked, Sportskeeda, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.]

I have a bit of a confession today. And please — no judgment. I’m simply being transparent. And remember transparency doesn’t mean sharing all about all. It means communicating in such a way that what’s behind what we articulate can be distinctly seen. So…

Truth: for years I couldn’t stand Tom Brady.

I know, I know…

He’s the so-called “G.O.A.T.” — the “Greatest of All Time”… the man who guided his team to 7 Super Bowl wins — 6 with the Patriots and 1 with Tampa Bay; no player has won more than 5. He’s the NFL career leader in both passing yards and touchdown passes. He was named the league MVP 3 times and Super Bowl MVP 5 times. Suffice it to say, that in his profession, that of being an NFL quarterback, the resume of no one is comparable to that of Mr. Thomas Edward Patrick Brady Jr. He is, unquestionably, the “G.O.A.T.”

But as one who didn’t like him, let me also add this: 

I couldn’t see how good he was. 

I disliked him so much, I compromised my assessment of his greatness.

Allow me a bit of a brief back story, if you will. (Note: backstories always matter.)

Growing up, I didn’t possess a hometown football team until the Baltimore Colts cryptically crept into the Midwest one midnight in March. Their first seasons in Indianapolis were rather dismal, almost as if they were destined to pay for their blatant disloyalty to Johnny Unitas and the entire state of Maryland.

The Colts were soon resuscitated by none other than Peyton Manning, who endured a year of learning the pace and profession of an NFL QB, but would soon become the great hope (and passing arm) of the franchise. He would do very well… very well! However, each year, every year, the team that stood most between the Colts and the Super Bowl was the New England Patriots. The player that stood most between Peyton Manning and the Super Bowl was Tom Brady. 

In the 17 times the two played against one another, Brady won 11 times. Hence, call Brady our opponent. Call him our nemesis. Call him whatever you want. Call him the source of my annual, dreaded angst… the one I rooted against like crazy. But whatever you do, do not — I repeat, do not — call him the “G.O.A.T.” He was good, sure. But he wasn’t Peyton. 

A funny thing then happened. After 20 seasons in New England, Brady joined the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. This occurred ahead of the 2020 season. 

Then something else fascinatingly happened. Often stoic and tight-lipped in his tenure with the Patriots, when Brady came to Florida, there was something different about him. He seemed a little more jolly. A little more at ease. It was easy to tell he was having fun playing the game — something not always visible to those of us watching him in the Northeast. But he began to exhibit a personality that seemed increasingly more attractive to be around.

One more thing, of course, had also happened. With Manning’s previous retirement, the two never again faced each other on the field. Neither stood in the way of the other in their most prized pursuit.

Interestingly — and here is where I will once more argue this is not really a sports post — this is where the keen learning comes in.

There is no question that I couldn’t see either how good or how great Tom Brady was. I knew he had gifts, but I negated the entirety of his skill set. Not only did I negate his skill set, I diminished his character. I even poked holes in it. I intelligently also argued with others as to why their glowing perspective was completely untrue.

Why?

That’s the zillion dollar question. Why?

Because he was in competition with something I wanted.

Friends, I couldn’t see Tom Brady for the person he was because I let other things get in the way. My perspective was skewed. Not because of Tom Brady. But because of me.

There’s the learning. Where else do we do that? Who else do we do that to?

It’s amazing how much our perspective changes. It’s equally insightful how much it needs to change, recognizing how so much unknowingly skews what is good and right and true. 

Respectfully…

AR

For those who may have tuned out the politicians once more in this (nice) non-election season, one of the looming situations is another debt ceiling fight. Allow me to say it in the words of Declan Garvey, editor of The Morning Dispatch:

“Welcome, esteemed guests, to this year’s performance of the debt limit dance—a cherished congressional tradition wherein lawmakers wrangle over whether to allow the Treasury to take on enough debt to cover the spending Congress has already approved.”

Exactly. 

The debt ceiling is the maximum amount the U.S. government can borrow to meet its financial obligations. It doesn’t authorize new spending; rather it’s what the government needs to borrow in order to cover their existing expenses. 

The current national debt is approximately $31.46 trillion dollars.

(For emphasis sakes, that would be $31,460,000,000,000.)

To raise or not to raise the borrowing limit is the core question of the current/ongoing debate. Remember: the act of raising the debt ceiling doesn’t cost taxpayers more in the moment. It simply allows the government to borrow more money.

So the problem from indeed, very much a layman’s perspective, is that it’s a larger mess that no one has yet had the moxie to actually solve. 

This is arguably, therefore, a glaring manifestation of what it means to “kick the can down the road.” We have lots of leaders who are quite comfortable with the kicking dance.

Pending where one sits — and whether one’s desire is to raise or deny the limit — dictates where one stands. Politicians camp in partisan corners, proclaim their unquestionable correctness, simultaneously sharing how they are so selflessly looking out for the good of the country.

As said, where one sits, dictates where one stands. Whether one wishes to raise or deny, depends on power possessed. For example, as Garvey notes:

“Established by Congress in 1917 to help the federal government borrow money more easily, the debt ceiling has long proved a convenient political soapbox whenever the time comes to raise it—for both sides of the aisle. In 2006, for example, then-Sen. Barack Obama voted against lifting the debt limit to protest President George W. Bush’s ‘reckless fiscal policies’—a stance he regretted dearly when faced with his own debt ceiling battle as president a few years later. But in the past, lawmakers tended to resolve these squabbles relatively amicably. The fights were ‘partisan, but not perilous,’ said Laura Blessing, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute.”

But sadly, our leaders seem to collectively no longer be able to resolve these squabbles amicably. 

That, my friends, is not stewarding one’s leadership well. Regardless of the consonant after their name.

So my desire this day is less about any current can-can dance and more about a long term solution. This pattern of massive spending (and massive spending and more massive spending) is unsustainable. It cannot last.

Which thus brings me to two more deeper desires…

… for our leaders to solve the bigger problem.

… and for each to act a little bigger in the way they treat one another.

I don’t believe either is too much to ask.

Respectfully…

AR

Sometimes I don’t know what to say. And I think that’s OK. I think there are seasons for everything… days for everything… moments, no doubt, also for everything. 

If I’m honest, sometimes I don’t know what to say, but I still say things. And it’s usually then that I say or do things that may not be my wisest. Understandable, almost always. But still, not my wisest.

Like many, I found myself this weekend, watching the video footage that showed the beating of Tyre Nichols in Memphis. If you haven’t watched it already, be careful when you do.

If you have watched some of it, you know perhaps the heart from where my words this day come from. Sobering, to say the least.

It’s awful.

I know I wasn’t there. I know my perspective is limited. It’s still awful.

Nichols, a 29 year old black man, was stopped for reported reckless driving. After initial interaction with police, he attempted to flee on foot. He was then quickly apprehended. And then treated horrendously. Five black, male officers were directly involved. As I heard one law professor say to the BBC, “It was incomprehensible — from beginning to end”… “Inhumanity,” it was labeled by a writer for The Atlantic.

Let me by no means suggest a divine nature, but the thought of how Jesus was treated, is the only thing that came close to me… A grown man. Cursed at. Mocked. Beaten mercilessly. Nichols would die 3 days later.

So I find myself sitting here as a blogger today, trying to put words to something that I cannot.

I think that’s why we sometimes see the destructive protests in response. I speak of the violent ones — not the peaceful ones that Dr. King so consistently and eloquently encouraged. This idea that it’s ok to lash out, be violent in response, is injudicious; it gets in the way, providing the fodder of more people to look down upon.

But my strong sense is that many of those people don’t know what to say either.

So I scratched my original plans for our blog post today. It was a rather clever attempt to observe the leadership we see in the four quarterbacks still taking the field today in the remaining NFL games.

But I recognize, as much as it’s difficult for many to see, football is just a game. As much money as we like to throw at it, it’s still a game.

What happened in Memphis matters more. That’s been evident in all the athletes who’ve paused in our national heartache. Said Memphis Grizzlies coach Taylor Jenkins Friday night, “The senseless loss of life for Tyre Nichols has really hit us hard. It’s been tough being on the road, not being home. I wish I could extend my arms through this camera right now to the family. They’re going through a lot.”

As for what’s next, there will be investigation, recommended improvement, and justice to hopefully, quickly come. In the meantime, with all that we feel, may we recognize that our emotions still do not enable us to discern with certainty all that’s wrong with systems, states and society. We can’t. And that’s hard.

God be with Tyre’s family. Along with so very many in this country, I am deeply sorry. 

I pray for you.

I pray for your grieving heart today.

I pray for justice one day soon.

I have no other words.

Soberly…

AR

I think most all would agree that unity is a good thing. I think it’s more that we disagree on how to get there.

Perhaps we could get there faster if we understood what unity is not.

Hear me, friends. It’s easy to fall prey to some other especially luring fallacy. But note…

Unity is not uniformity.

Allow me to say that once more… for emphasis sakes, of course.

Unity is not uniformity.

Unity is the state of being one — all our parts combined as one, making up the whole. 

Uniformity is the state of being the same — there are no different parts.

I’ll thus say it time number three: unity is not uniformity.

So if we’re honest enough to acknowledge such — knowing we undoubtedly have some significant differences that affect our culture and community and all that goes into that — how do we move forward in a healthy way? How do we do life together? I mean, it’s no secret that “united” is the sole adjective describing the “States” we live in.

Perhaps the best question I heard recently was posed by a sage, professional and personal mentor, acknowledging the differences we each bring to the table.

Noting our differences — especially those that come from our families of origin, ethnic backgrounds, and previous experiences, for example — what happens when we disagree? If there are different parts that comprise the whole, there will indeed be disagreement; we witness such daily on the national stage. And sometimes, dare I submit, it’s a fairly ugly, oft juvenile display.

I suppose we could choose to respond to disagreement in an unhealthy way. We could unhealthily respond by storing up resentment. Maybe even quietly. Just holding it all in, keeping a distinct, internal record, and then one day exploding — maybe one of those not-so-attractive verbal vomits — finding all fault and blame in the other.

Or… we could choose to respond in a healthy way.

I return to the words of my wise mentor…

Knowing unity is not uniformity, knowing differences thus exist, how is wise to respond when we don’t agree with what’s unfolding?

3 steps…

First, ask questions instead of assume intentions.

(Isn’t that the truth? We’re so good at thinking we know why someone else did what they did; we assume we’ve got it all figured out. It makes it easy to find fault with them that way.)

Second, own your transference.

(Oh, I like this one. Transference is the tendency to interpret our current experience by our last one. That is so true… and so prominent! And yet… it is typically inaccurate and unfair. Transference causes us to craft untrue narratives in our own mind.)

And thirdly, acknowledge your role in the community. 

(Recognize your role. Feel the freedom in it! But don’t assume you are what you are not. The kid doesn’t get to be the parent; he’s not capable of it. Therefore, he doesn’t decide what’s for dinner every night. Acknowledge your role; know what decisions are yours to make. Know where you have a view — the ability to see what’s happening — a voice — a contribution to what’s happening — and a vote — a say in what’s happening.)

Step one, though, is understanding that unity is not uniformity.

Ok, that’s time number four.

But some things are clearly a little more challenging for us to comprehend.

Respectfully…

AR

It happened again. 

The crowd was silenced. The players sobered. In inaudible unison, the masses knelt. Not only did they kneel, they instinctively knew it was a wise thing to do.

Our country hasn’t quite figured out the kneeling thing, friends.

On January 2nd, during Monday Night Football, when Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin suffered cardiac arrest on the field, players knew to kneel.

During the height of the tendentious Black Lives Matter protests, multiple professional athletes repeatedly took a knee during the playing of our National Anthem.

And an otherwise unknown high school football coach from Washington state became significantly more well known in recent years, as he knelt at the conclusion of every gridiron contest. 

I think it’s interesting when we’re ok with kneeling. And when we’re not.

When we know to do it. And when we do not.

First and foremost, in our country we are guaranteed the right to free expression and association; it’s covered via the First Amendment. It’s why the government cannot forbid us from saying and writing what we like. It’s why individual offense is not a sustainable argument. Regardless of those who attempt to silence dissent, we each have the right to hold our own opinions and express them freely without government interference, assuming in our expression, we behave responsibly and respect the same rights of others.

So let us ask the key, relevant question: what does it mean to kneel?

Kneeling has historically been a sign of reverence, deference, submission, humility and vulnerability. We kneel to propose. We kneel to pray. We kneel to express the depth of our gratitude.

The question, therefore, when we kneel, is who are we revering? Who are we deferring to? To whom are we submitting? And what levels of humility and vulnerability are an authentic part of our public display?

The high school coach mentioned above is a man named Joseph Kennedy. He knelt at midfield at the conclusion of games to offer quiet personal prayer. He initially prayed alone. Students voluntarily started joining him. The school district asked him to stop. To be clear, they did not ask him to stop leading prayers with the team; they demanded he stop kneeling and praying quietly. The district forbid his prayer, and when Kennedy did not comply, he was fired.

The district’s sole reason for termination was found to be their perceived “risk of constitutional liability.” They were concerned about being sued by other students. The Supreme Court would decidedly rule last year that Kennedy had a right to publicly kneel and pray. As written in the majority opinion, “The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”

So for those who prayed for Damar Hamlin… those who protested during the National Anthem… and for the coach from Washington state… each has a right to do what they do. But the way in which a watching world responds will depend upon the reverence, deference, submission, humility and vulnerability evident in their act. That goes for religious and nonreligious acts alike.

Last weekend the NFL playoffs began. Near the end of the game between the Dallas Cowboys and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Bucs wideout Russell Gage attempted to make a sliding catch at the Cowboys 7-yard line. He was hit, fell, and tried to stand up. But he couldn’t. He appeared to attempt to lift his neck and head multiple times. But again, he couldn’t.

With fresh in their minds what happened to Hamlin, medical staff rushed onto the field and multiple players from both teams stayed put nearby on the field. Others walked on, encircling the once more sobering scene. And together, they chose to kneel.

The reverence, deference, submission, humility and vulnerability — all of the above, so-to-speak — were immediately obvious. Gage needed help. From someone other than they.

No doubt there are crucial reasons why we kneel.

Respectfully…

AR

Perhaps you’ve noticed. Perhaps you have not. There have been many recent passionate pursuits to degender various customs and facets of current culture. To “degender” — which by the way, is not universally recognized as a word yet, as my auto-correct continually rewrites it as “defender,” which would seem to foreshadow a related meaning — but the idea is to eliminate any association or reference to a gender or sex. In current culture, “sex” refers to one’s biological attributes. “Gender” refers to socially-constructed attributes. Sex is assigned at birth; gender is identified by the individual.

Let us also insert prior to today’s discussion, knowing this is an ardent issue to many, I want to ensure we especially adhere to our commitment to respectful dialogue. The Intramuralist, imperfect as we are, will always strive for honor of all. Even and especially within disagreement or difference of opinion.

During the last days of 2022 (and I’m always intrigued by the timing of releases), the IT community at Stanford University released their professional advice regarding word choice in Stanford websites, code, and culture. The organized effort is called “The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” (EHLI). While the the advice is not a mandate nor does it represent university policy, it was crafted by the “senior-most technical leaders from major Stanford units.” Their influence is sought-after, strategic and strong.

Their EHLI list was long. It had 10 categories which included hundreds of words. Noting that their list included omitting perceived harmful words such as “American” (because it is commonly used to refer to “people for the United States only, thereby insinuating that the U.S. is the most important country in the Americas”), “blind study” (because that “unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture”), or “beating a dead horse” (because it “normalizes violence against animals”), there was significant, brutal backlash to the initiative. As included in a succeeding Wall Street Journal editorial, “Parodists have it rough these days since so much of modern life and culture resembles the [satirist publication] Babylon Bee.”

In response to the backlash, Stanford quickly acknowledged some error in judgment; as conceded by Chief Information Officer Steve Gallagher, “We clearly missed the mark in this presentation.” While Stanford admitted some of their error, they are not alone in their degendering efforts. So let’s respectfully examine the idea of eliminating socially-acceptable words solely because of their association with gender or sex. Stanford’s advice includes the following:

• Changing “freshman” to “frosh, first-year student” because the word “lumps a group of students using masculine language and/or into gender binary groups that don’t include everyone.”
• Changing “gentlemen” to “everyone” because the word “lumps a group of people using masculine language and/or into gender binary groups, which don’t include everyone.”
• Changing “ladies” to “everyone” because the word “lumps a group of people using gender binary language that doesn’t include everyone.”
• Changing “landlord/landlady” to “property owner” because the word “lumps a group of people using gender binary language, which doesn’t include everyone.”
• Changing “manpower” to “workforce, staffing, staff resources, personnel resources” because “this term reinforces male-dominated language.”
• Changing “preferred pronouns” to “pronouns” because “the word ‘preferred’ suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.”
• Changing “transgendered” to “transgender” because this “term avoids connections that being transgender is something that is done to a person and/or that some kind of transition is required.”
• And eliminating any reference to “he,” “she,” or a profession that includes “man”/“woman” in the title (think chair, congress, fire, mail, police).

As said, the list of perceived “harmful” words is extensive, primarily because the words refer to a gender or sex and not everyone is perceived to then be included in the definition.

Let me be clear; no one in our culture should be shamed for who they are. Let me also say, no adult, outside of one engaged in blatant criminal activity, should be attempted to be controlled. Sometimes I think we work way too hard to control others than grow ourselves. It makes me question who we’re really most focused on and how humility does (or doesn’t) enter in.

Hence, in a world then where “you get to be you” and “me be me,” so-to-speak, my sense is a wiser, more effective approach in truly honoring all is not to insist on the elimination of language. We instead honor all by humbling self, which then leads to being skilled in active listening, sensitive to perceived offense, and focused on resilience rather than control.

Respectfully…

AR

So what is it with all this classified material?

Why do our leaders keep not knowing how to handle it or what to do with it?

(And could someone please tell Prince Harry to keep things a little more classified?)

Allow us not to wade too fully into what we do not know. Allow us also not to be dissuaded from all discussion because there is so much we do not know.

The Presidential Records Act, passed in 1978, changed the legal status of Presidential and Vice Presidential materials so that the official records of the President and his staff are owned by the United States. This legislation took effect with the onset of the Reagan administration in 1981.

Still, many have been accused of mishandling what is property of the United States. Said list includes — first, prior to passage — Pres. Nixon (who served in part the motivation for said created act) — and since, public officials such as Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, and now most notably, both Presidents Trump and Biden. Trump had his ostentatiously confiscated in Mar-a-Lago last fall. Biden had his discreetly discovered a week before our last election; we found out this past week.

(Let us pause for a moment, as the attempt by Berger, Pres. Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor deserves a little more of a distinct shout out. Berger pleaded guilty to removing highly classified documents from the National Archives in 2004; the inspector general of the National Archives said a staff member had witnessed Berger wrapping the documents around his socks and under his pants. Such would be comical if not so sad.)

Why is it so hard for those who lead us to lead with consistent competency?

I don’t believe competency — or compassion — should have to be sacrificed with any of our elect. I don’t believe transparency or honesty should be forfeited either.

But such isn’t quite the angle I wish to pursue this day. I’m more looking at wise ways to respond to the obvious lack of competency. 

Let me first simply say…

I’m disappointed in Trump’s mishandling of classified materials. I’m disappointed in Biden’s mishandling of classified materials. And I’m disappointed how Biden’s mishandling of classified materials potentially impacts Trump’s mishandling. 

We’ve heard many who, when comparing the two Presidents’ recent mishandling, quickly aver that the situations are not the same. With the minimal we know at this point, such assessment appears to be spot on; the situations are not the same.

My sense, though, is that we are oft lured too far by our bias and bent in assessing issues of questionable leadership competency — in this case, for example, asserting that we are comparing apples to oranges. Let me respectfully submit that such is an inaccurate depiction. While the situations are clearly not the same, we’re really simply comparing two different kinds of apples.

To perhaps better explain via a related paradigm that many of the rest of us encounter — especially our very respected healthcare professional friends — HIPAA laws are still HIPAA laws regardless of content and cooperation. There are rules for a reason which set national standards to protect potentially sensitive health information. It doesn’t matter what the info is, who the person is, how much info it contains, nor how seemingly harmoniously the guilty party’s error is admitted. Hence, this isn’t apples to oranges; this is Fuji vs. Golden Delicious.

So let us not rush to defend or attack. As stated, just as I’ve already heard from many on all sides of the proverbial partisan aisle, there is ample reason to be deeply disappointed in both the current and most recent President’s behavior. I, for one, find it especially cringeworthy when I see one (or both) of them boast of what they will never ever do… and then turn around and do it.

We shouldn’t have to sacrifice competency in our leaders. Competency is more important than any consonant after their name. 

Let’s keep that bar of integrity high. 

Respectfully…

AR