come…

photo-1478624728066-4eb3f085003a

I have only one phrase for this day, and no, it’s not: “Thank God it’s over.” 🙂

After campaigns that were too often filled with intentional disrespect, we need far more than a respite from the nasty. The nasty is not who we are…

We are the United States of America…

A country that has always recognized we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights…
A country that has always welcomed the huddled masses yearning to be free…
And a country that has always desired to secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and future generations.

Friends, come… let us reason together…

Let us reason together.

Let us not gloat.
Let us not despair.
Let us not dismiss…
Nor refuse for all to care.

We have some huge challenges in this country.

We get lost, as they are not as much about foreign policy, education, energy, the economy, and a plethora of social issues than they are in our inability — and our lack of desire — to come and reason together.

Reasoning together means wrestling with dissent.
Reasoning together means expressing dissent in respectful ways.
And reasoning together means everyone has a seat at the table.

Reasoning together suggests consideration more than compromise. It means listening and valuing other opinion. That process promotes respect; and respect promotes unity. Our challenge is that in recent years too many of our leaders — and too many of us — have allowed our country to operate as only the “States of America.” We have forgotten the united.

To be united is like a mighty mixed choir… there are sopranos and altos and tenors and basses. There are even second sopranos… baritones, too. And together they sing. They make beautiful music! But each has a different role — a role that is uniquely theirs, fitting with their circumstance and gifting; in fact, it would be incomprehensible to think a bass could sing the soprano line well; the role doesn’t belong to them. The idea is to do your job well — and not make light of any other.

In order for the choir to come together in perfect, sweet-sounding harmony — in unity, if you will — no voice can be too soft, or else we’ll never hear it; the chorus will be off, and the music simply won’t sound or even function right. Equally true, no less, is that no voice can be too loud, belting so demonstratively, that other parts are marginalized. No, in unity, there is no marginalization.

The only way the choir sounds beautiful is when all voices are valued and heard.

Come. Let us reason together.

Respectfully…
AR

humble enough to limit service

photo-1456431063673-c7c7e8bab74f

While our current societal state seems rife with disagreement, one thing most agree upon is that our political system is broken. It’s inefficient. It’s too much…

… too much money… too much spending… too much obstruction… too much manipulation of the rules… too much gerrymandering… too much partisanship… too much arrogance… too much lying… too much division… too much disrespect… too much rhetoric… too much secrecy… too much corruption… too much special interest… too much.

Regardless of what happens on Election Day, the American government will remain broken until we solve the “too much.” What’s the solution? Some contend it’s campaign finance reform. Others boast if only we all agreed that their party should possess all power.

My sense is that it starts with something far more simple. It starts by reminding the elect that they are public servants — not career politicians. Public servants do not forget whom they serve; career politicians tend to serve party, special interest, and often self.

We need to remind the elect that they are not the elite. We need to remind them that they are citizens just like the rest of us, putting on their pants — or pantsuits (hardeeharhar) — the same leg at a time. Let me thus strongly advocate this day for term limits. I believe we need to limit how long our legislators can spend in elected office.

One of the things I’ve learned in recent years is that when you realize a season or experience is limited, you’re more intentional during that time. You don’t take it for granted. You’re more apt to handle it wisely and well.

Term limits would keep our Senators and Representatives humbler, reminding them that they are not God’s gift to us. It would emphasize the servant aspect of their position. As stated by Dan Greenberg, a nonprofit executive and former member of the Arkansas House of Representatives:

  • Term limits counterbalance incumbent advantages.
  • Term limits secure Congress’s independent judgment.
  • Term limits are a reality check.
  • Term limits minimize members’ incentives for reelection-related “pork- barrel” legislation.
  • Term limits would restore respect for Congress.

We certainly could use more respect for Congress.

Interestingly, term limit polling continually shows an overwhelming majority of us support such a measure. Note that the only substantial opposition comes from incumbent politicians and special interest groups; that should tell us something. Special interest groups/lobbyists want to keep “their people” in power. Said convicted-for-extensive-corruption, lobbyist Jack Abramoff, “As a lobbyist, I was completely against term limits, and I know a lot of people are against term limits, and I was one of the leaders, because why? As a lobbyist, once you buy a congressional office, you don’t have to re-buy that office in six years, right?” Again, that should tell us something. It should tell us lots.

Note the following:

  • Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has spent over 51 years in office.
  • Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is in year 45 of office.
  • Sen. Thad Cochran (R- MS) — combining his Senate and House tenure — is in year 43.
  • Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is also in year 43.
  • Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been in office for 41 straight years.
  • His counterpart, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has served the exact same amount of time.
  • Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has been in the Senate and House over 40 years.
  • Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have both served for 39.

I thank the above for their public service. However, I desire the promise, independence, creativity, objectivity, and respect that new congressmen would infuse into our current inefficient political system. We’ve put up with it for too long. It’s too much.

Let’s talk to those who represent us…

Want to represent us well? Then start by being humble enough to limit how long you serve.

Respectfully…
AR

needing friends who differ from us

photo-1463778996521-da8b6f00dacf

I wish I had personally penned the below. I did not, but it is one of my favorites. The wisdom shared is poignant, especially in a world where we far too easily (and sadly) justify omitting respect due to differing opinion; we aren’t always kind to those who think differently than we. Hence, as it first appeared on Salon in 2011, NY Times Magazine and GQ contributing writer Taffy Brodesser-Akner offers the following, excellent piece. It’s a little long, but well worth the read, in light of the election, one week from today…

Janet and I would likely have never met, save for the thing that unites so many women across divides of income and age: fat. We met in a weight-loss group. There were six or seven of us in that group, but Janet and I were drawn toward each other. I liked her refusal to lie about what she’d eaten or rationalize it. She liked my tenacity and optimism. She handed me a business card that said her name, followed by “Ph.D., Housewife” and contact information. Clip art of an American flag appeared on the next line.

Beyond our weight-loss goals, we had little in common. She lives in Beverly Hills; I live in an area just beyond it where the potholes are reminiscent of Sarajevo and the government is broke. When we met, Janet was just closing up shop on reproduction, and I had just gotten married.

But for all the things we don’t have in common — and the papery, crumply things we do — our main difference is our political affiliation. Janet is a lifelong, passionate Republican. She does not pretend she is just a fiscal Republican, or just a Republican for Israel, as so many in our Jewish community are. She is a real, live, voting Republican. She likes Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. She admires Sarah Palin. She is for the defunding of NPR and Planned Parenthood. She is against “Obamacare,” and she is for parental notification of abortions. Right now on my Facebook page, I have linked to a New York Times article on how women’s rights are being violated by South Dakota’s new abortion laws. Janet has just posted on hers — I’m not kidding — video footage of her and her husband at target practice.

In the beginning, it didn’t matter. We were more concerned with our own mutual war on body fat. And we soon found on the periphery of weight loss the other things we had in common: a love of books and science, a hatred of hysterics. After I gave birth to my son, so far from my own extended family, her children became a local version of cousins: They marveled at his every new word, they imitated his walk, they donated the books they aged out of. Our husbands began to socialize. Before we knew it, our families were, well, family. Word got out that Janet and I were spending time together.

“You know she’s a Republican, right?” whispered another member of our weight-loss group after I took her card. It was meant as, well, what, exactly? A warning?

Yes, I had known. Her daughters’ names are Liberty, Honor and Victory, the latter named at the time we invaded Iraq. (Her son’s name, inexplicably, is Bernard.) She owns a bust of Ronald Reagan and cried when he died, proving that she, perhaps alone with Nancy, had remembered that he was still alive. There is a bumper sticker on her very, very large SUV that says “REPEAL,” and I believe it refers to the healthcare bill.

Janet and I refer to each other’s political parties as “your people,” but mostly, we try to stick to the things we have in common: budgets, schools, child-rearing. Janet wore a Tea Party shirt to my last birthday party, and my birthday present to myself was to not ask about it.

But it’s hard not to talk about it at all. When you live, say, on a coast or in a very blue state, you grow accustomed to being surrounded by people who believe like you do. You get to thinking that the only people who would dare contradict you are ignoramuses. Meanwhile, I began directing all my anger toward the Republican Party at Janet. On the day that Congress voted to defund Planned Parenthood, I found myself furious at Janet, just Janet, as the face of all that was bad in the world. Feeling sad and deflated, I wandered over to her house, unable to look her in the eye, asking her why? How? To what end?

She told me she didn’t believe government had any business funding it in the first place. That this isn’t about abortion or hating women but ways the government doesn’t need to be involved. She told me Planned Parenthood was well-funded and won’t even miss the money. “Planned Parenthood will be better off without government funding and all the strings that are presumably attached,” she said. “I sometimes wonder why liberals, who are so enamored of the freedom to do any damn thing they want, even take government money when it constricts their freedoms.”

I closed my eyes and breathed through what she was saying. Janet isn’t Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. She believes what she’s telling me, and she’s studied the issues. That might be what is so difficult: She has the same education as I have, and yet she has made different decisions, decisions that are so counter to what I believe. Decisions I find abhorrent.

And yet, I think having a Republican friend is making me a better liberal. We need friends who differ from us. It’s easy to watch Republican extremism and think, “Wow, they’re crazy.” But when someone is sitting face to face with us, when someone we admire and respect is telling us they believe differently, it is at this fine point that we find nuance, and we begin to understand exactly how we got to this point in history. We lose something critical when we surround ourselves with people who agree with us all the time. We lose out on the wisdom of seeing the other side.

When I moved to Los Angeles, the 2004 election had just finished ravaging the neighborhood. Friendships had ended over differences of opinions, a few marriages had learned what they were made of when one couldn’t abide what hadn’t been that big of a deal before 9/11. And so when I met Janet, she was on the defensive. That first dinner at her house, someone brought up her Republicanism. I looked down into my soup, sure this was something we shouldn’t talk about. I don’t remember the comment, or Janet’s reply, but I remember my husband asking why she’d be friends with all these liberals — and yes, it was only liberals at the table — if she felt so strongly. Throwing her hands up, she said, “I guess I lack the courage of my convictions.”

But it’s not that. I don’t speak for Janet, but I think there’s something deeper at play. Janet’s willingness to associate with so many liberal friends — though I know she seeks refuge in chat rooms and magazines that share her beliefs — makes her a better and more interesting person. She has her beliefs challenged constantly. She is more well-read and educated in her politics than most of the liberals I know. Too many liberals I know are lazy, they have a belief system that consists of making fun of Glenn Beck and watching “The Daily Show.” Shouldn’t their beliefs be challenged, too?

This is a democracy, after all. Isn’t it worth understanding a bit more about why approximately half the country votes differently than we do? Isn’t it important that we understand why people — good and legitimate Americans, whose votes count as much as ours — like Sarah Palin? Isn’t it crucial we figure out why any woman would want to defund Planned Parenthood, if only so we could then address the argument? Nobody benefits from sitting in a room, agreeing with everyone else.

Last year, Janet sent me a gift subscription for the National Review. Maybe it was her way of trying, like I am here, to understand how we can be so different and yet the same. Maybe it was a wish, a kind of magical thinking, that if I knew what she knew, I would think how she thinks. It didn’t work. In fact, I now often receive solicitations for causes and candidates I find objectionable. Every time I have to unsubscribe from something, tear up a brochure or tell someone on the telephone how disgusted I am with his or her mandate, I think again about how deep our differences run, mine and Janet’s, and I wonder if this is all worth it.

Then I remember the things that don’t get discussed in our debates — how she held my hand through a recent surgical procedure, rubbing it and distracting me the way a mother would, how she calms my fears about parenting, how she has been a family to me in a town where I have none. How that right-wing, gun-loving, flag-wearing, union-busting Republican still thinks, after all this time, and with so much information to the contrary, that I can lose and keep off weight.

I can’t help it. I love her.

Respectfully…
AR

360 degrees

photo-1471890932610-7ee4a5d280a9

I can’t. I just can’t.

I’ve heard it a lot this election cycle. And I get it. But I’d like to go out on a bit of a firm but gracious limb here and make a suggestion that might help us all at least talk a little nicer and get along a little more. Let’s change the “I can’t” to “I choose not to.”

The problem with “I can’t” is that it makes it difficult to see how anyone else actually can. It makes it really hard to put ourselves in the shoes of another — even though “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes” has been long thought to be a wise idiom. The reality this election season is that there exists only so many kinds of pairs we seem willing to put on.

So let’s try another angle…

In a circle, there exist 360 degrees. That means if 360 people surround a single object, each person’s perspective will be different. The persons nearest to us will logically possess a fairly similar perspective. The person directly opposite, on the polar, other side of the object, will have a completely different point of view. And those 90 degrees to the left or the right will see things that make absolutely no sense to me… I may even wonder if we are watching the same scenario unfold.

But that means that each of those 360 perspectives has validity. Just because I can’t see it, doesn’t allow me to dismiss it; just because I don’t share it, doesn’t make it wrong. And my perspective — passionate as it may be — is limited; it is only one degree. My perspective is limited as long as I stand only in my position, in that one degree… wearing only my shoes… and/or only borrowing a pair or two from those most adjacent to me.

Without a doubt, this is a unique election season. We have two primary presidential candidates (according to Pew Research) with whom 57% of likely American voters are frustrated or disgusted. That means the majority of us are not that excited to vote for either of the two. There do exist persons who are excited, and their perspective should not be diminished nor discounted. But the majority of us wish the slate was different. It is not.

As we then wrestle with this slate, many have said, “I can’t vote for _____”… him… her… fill in the blank.

But the reality is that we are choosing to vote or not vote for someone. Democracy is a choice. It is each individual’s right and choice.

I know many who are choosing to vote for Hillary Clinton. I know many who are choosing to vote for Donald Trump. Similarly, I know people voting for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and even Evan McMullin. But my point is that such is our constitutionally-given, rightful, individual choice.

While I comprehend the emotion behind “l can’t,” our vote is still a choice. And the challenge with the failure to recognize that it is a choice, is that it often denies the 359 other perspectives in the circle.

Each of us perceives and prioritizes so many angles and options…

… the party platforms… the candidates’ individual experience… the possibility of promises made and past promises kept… the health of the economy… healthcare… the approach to the war on terror… taxes… reducing/increasing the deficit and debt… social issues… states’ rights… religious liberty… foreign affairs… energy and education… the protection of our country, women’s rights, civil rights, the unborn, etc… potential Supreme Court justices… the integrity of the individual candidates… their behavior and words… and the integrity of the people who surround them.

Let’s be clear, though: how we perceive each of the above depends on which of the 360 angles we are looking from… 360 angles… all different.

Hence, let’s do better at remembering the existence of other angles. Let’s do better at remembering how much our perceptions are based on only a few spots within those 360 degrees. And let’s start by graciously putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes.

Respectfully…
AR

two questions today

photo-1472341581053-2af63cb175d4

As previously posted, the question mark is by far my favorite punctuation mark. The period makes a statement; the exclamation point too often justifies someone shouting at us; and the colon and semi-colon still allow one person to do all the talking. The question mark is the only punctuation mark that invites a response; it’s the only mark that keeps the conversation going — intentionally. This week, I heard two great questions.

“Are you asking a question or offering a judgment?” said the first.

Great insight. Am I truly trying to understand? Do I respect another enough to listen well, to put comprehension of their perspective above my right to evaluate and assess?

Or… am I just sitting back, waiting to pounce… You take your turn. I’ll take mine. But when I do, I’ll let you know how wrong you are…

Asking questions is not simply an exercise in taking turns. Asking questions means seeking to understand — and giving up the right to make any decree at the end. It’s asking, listening, processing together. And when the perspective shared is different than our own, it is not time to be judgmental.

Next great question…

“Is this the year?!”

Funny. I heard this from multiple people, supposedly from different so-called “sides” (… uh… I don’t believe in “sides,” you know… I believe in all sorts of angles from all sorts of varied perspectives, but people like to pit us against one another, fictionally driving the narrative that one of us is all right and one of us is all wrong — without ever analyzing that there might be something right and wrong with both of us… but alas… I digress…) With the onset of the Fall Classic — the MLB’s 112th World Series — and two teams who have not known the ultimate success in decades, I heard that humble refrain…

Again… “Is this the year?”

I ask again because what strikes me most about the simple statement is the embedded hope within the query. To ask if this is the year, assumes that one doesn’t know the answer. It may be; it may not. But the hope equates to an active wishing and watching. Hope is so much more attractive than its often self-proclaimed opposites… disbelief, demandingness… Something about the person who waits with that earnest expectation of what’s important is absolutely beautiful.

And so I thought of those two questions, wrestling with my reaction to each — thankful that others invited a response and encouraged dialogue.

I wondered, too, about this political season. Let me rephrase: this brutal, polarizing, often rhetorically-ugly, political season.

 Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of telling others how we think… instead of all the self-proclamations… instead of the Facebook rants and raves… instead of the judgment… instead of any pouncing… instead of pitting ourselves against one another… instead of falling prey to the idea that one of us is all right and one of us is all wrong… Wouldn’t it be better and wiser and more respectful and loving of one another if we asked questions and sincerely attempted to understand?…

I have a great friend with whom I am processing much of this political season. We approach it differently, but our willingness to understand is a growth tool for us both. We ask a lot of questions… a lot of questions. It’s amazing how that works.

So wouldn’t it be wonderful if we refrained from judgment — both verbally and quietly, even in the back of our minds?

I’m hoping someday soon it will be our year.

Respectfully…
AR

complicity

wrev1ljvq6klfyljcqg0_lion

As reported by Reuters over the weekend…

“The local Republican Party headquarters in Orange County, North Carolina, was struck overnight with a flammable material thrown through a front window of the building, local authorities said in a statement on Sunday.

Someone also spray-painted graffiti including a swastika and the words ‘Nazi Republicans leave town or else’ on an adjacent building, the town of Hillsborough said on its website.

‘The flammable substance appears to have ignited inside the building, burned some furniture and damaged the building’s interior before going out,’ the statement said. No damage estimates were yet available.”

While the office is described as a “total loss,” praise God that no one was hurt or killed. And as the investigation into what actually happened and who is responsible continues, there’s an angle I would like to get to today.

Without a doubt, people will immediately point fingers, attempting to project or defer blame… “those amoral liberals… those intolerant conservatives…” Right. Like all people groups are somehow, exactly the same.

My question today is not about the specifics of the firebombing. Yes, the incident should grab our attention; it should make us pause, humbling each to the point of refraining from pointing any fingers.

But my wondering this day instead surrounds how we are deserving of blame. Sorry. I realize I just threw far more under the bus right along with me; I mean no disrespect. But my question today is simple: how are we complicit in the current volatile, polarized state of politics in which we now live?

How are we complicit?

This is a tough question. For months, many of the politically active and interested have become quite proficient in the projection of blame. We’re pretty good at that. I am actually sadly astounded at the number of rants and raves that social media has provided space for — and so many have taken the bait and followed suit. We make a bold statement, proclaiming our perceived rightful attitude of “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore*$&#%!!!”, and then we never have to wrestle with thoughtful interaction. Many thus see no need for respectful dialogue.

Maybe it’s not our public activity. Maybe we’re ranting and raving in private. That is, until someone breaks, supposedly looses it, and does something as awful as they did in North Carolina.

In the last few weeks, in fact, with the presidential campaigns ratcheting up before winding down (thank God for the winding down, at least), it seems we’ve heard multiple, loud choruses of “I am woman, hear me roar combined with shut up and dance with me.” We keep forgetting that both the roar and call to shut up are conversation killers. Neither is typically laced with respect.

I am not suggesting that there is no time to ever cry out; there absolutely is. What I am observing, however, is that we are increasingly justifying expression in our desired means — whatever that looks like — and we are doing such in place of reasonable, respectful dialogue… dialogue that leads to understanding, empathy, and solution.

What happens on November 9th? What happens 21 days from now? When the election is over, are we then finally all going to get along? Will we then start offering respect? Or… will those who align with the electoral victor greet us with more roars and calls to shut up? Will those who lose the election increase their blaring screams and shouts?

Those who firebombed the political headquarters are guilty of a criminal act. We are not engaging in criminal activity, but we are, I’m afraid, encouraging disrespectful expression. We are encouraging no longer listening to anyone other than the likeminded and no longer generously offering respect. Our potential complicity lies not in the “I’m mad as hell” proclamation; rather, it lies in what comes after the not being willing to “take it anymore.”

Respectfully…
AR

let’s be real. can we?

photo-1473952434042-a59f293c13f5

Let’s cut out the crud. Let’s remove for a moment all expression of passion and perspective that sometimes impedes respectful dialogue and communication. Please hear me… I am not in any way denying the validity of your passion or perspective. I’m not denying mine either. What I am saying, however, is that sometimes the way we express how we feel gets in the way of others hearing us clearly. Believe me, if I feel something deeply, I want others to be able to hear me. I’m not out to merely affirm the likeminded.

So let’s be real. Let’s pause for a moment. Let’s come and reason together. Can we?

This election cycle has been trying. It started a long, long time ago, in sometimes seemingly a galaxy far, far away. We began with two first-name-only candidates on the left, and about 37 would-be candidates on the right. In fact, part of me wonders if our current scenario would be different if the left didn’t feel like a coronation and the right didn’t feel like a dogfight. But alas, I digress. This is the situation we are in, and I intend for us to navigate through it humbly, wisely, and well.

The situation, as I see it — and friends, I could be wrong — but I see the American people having a choice primarily between two unpopular people. We are gauging who is the least unpopular.

I hear you. There are good people arriving from all angles who love “their person”… Hillary Clinton… Donald Trump… even, for some, Gary Johnson, and for fewer still, Jill Stein. That is ok. I have complete respect for any who are passionate about the above. Unlike many, I don’t believe that all or most of any of the above’s supporters are ignorant, illiterate, racist, sexist, unpatriotic, or deplorable. I realize that’s not a popular thought. I also believe that to ascertain such about entire people groups is unfortunately a form of judgment.

But just to make sure I’m being real with you, I don’t have “a person,” so-to-speak; I don’t have a candidate that I am completely comfortable with as President, considering past behavior, current assertions, and all the consistent inconsistencies. Sadly but sincerely, my current, desired choice is thus “none of the above.” My challenge is that “none of the above” isn’t actually running. But I believe in voting — and so I will — but I’m not looking forward to it.

And so I come to the conclusion that prompts my plea to be real. Join me. Agree for a moment to put away the rhetoric and rants. Here’s the fact: assuming no unforeseen circumstance, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will soon become the President of the United States of America. One of them will be inaugurated at noon on January 20, 2017.

For the record, regardless of victor, I will not be moving to Canada along with the every-four-year entourage that threatens such a ploy. No matter my comfort level or desire, either Clinton or Trump will be my President. And here’s the unconventional kicker: I have great peace with that. As a person who cares for neither, I have peace with either.

My peace does not come because deep down I believe that either Clinton or Trump is “not all that bad.” No, with hesitation that this, too, may seem judgmental, I do believe that both candidates are significantly, ethically compromised. I know people would like to have me rail on Trump’s nothing less than misogynist comments, Bill’s rampant infidelity and treatment of women, and Hillary’s handfuls of lies and chastising those women — and truthfully, it’s all relevant — that’s what compromises each of them. My peace, though, truly, comes from elsewhere.

I believe in a sovereign God. I believe in an omnipotent, divine Being that is totally aware of all that’s going on. I don’t like all that’s going on and I certainly don’t understand it all, but my lack of comprehension does not change who God is. For whatever reason, God has allowed this current scenario to exist. He is not surprised by the evolution and awfulness of this election cycle. He is not surprised by how we’ve gone after one another on Facebook and social media. He is not surprised.

And so I must ask what he wants us to learn…

Is he giving us opportunity to learn to scream and shout and shove our opinions down one another’s throat? Is he teaching us how to point out the glaring lack of integrity in someone else without first wrestling with it in ourselves? Is he hoping to divide us more and even justify the rants, raves, and disrespectful name-calling?

Doubtful. My sense is he always desires from us something better and more. I’m just afraid we’re missing it.

Maybe he wants us to look at things in a new way. Maybe he wants to confront us with our own arrogance and judgment. Maybe he wants us to think outside the box. Maybe he desires we come back to our first loves. Maybe even, as a nation, he wants us to finally focus on what’s most important and get off our political high horses. All those “maybe’s,” all that wrestling… well, it can be unsettling indeed.

So why then do I have peace?

Because regardless of what we do or how we act — regardless of all the “maybe’s” — God remains unsurprised. My trust is in him. Not in anyone running for President.

Respectfully…
AR

questions for the candidates – part 2

photo-1458419948946-19fb2cc296af

When the latest crude comments relevant to the 2016 Presidential campaigns arose on Friday, my heart sank; I detest disrespect to anyone. As I watched the media and social media response — and all the justifications for “no more civility necessary, dam*&$%^!!” — my heart sank even more. It’s as if even the most intelligent among us believe respect is not always necessary. Friends, I am not talking about respect for the candidates. I am talking about respect for one another. The Intramuralist will always advocate for such. We advocate for a civility in discussion that currently seems secondary to the “I’m-mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” attitude.

Hence, today, allowing passions and perspectives to cool down somewhat, we will continue our two part “Questions for the Candidates” post, as debate #2 is tonight. Remember: these questions are from a diverse, active group, a group that is concerned about this race, a group that no doubt is concerned about the latest revelations of behavior, but a group that is committed to civility and respect. Also, even with the crude comments and questions of spousal activity relevance, the below questions remain the things I’d rather know most.

First, questions targeted to individual candidates… To Hillary Clinton…

You have experience dealing with ministers of foreign countries. They and we have changed leadership and policies while ensuring agreements made by predecessors. What would you say to ease their minds and those of Americans at home concerning American commitment to our longstanding treaties should the Executive Branch change from Democrat to Republican?

Your husband was unfaithful. What did you say to or about the women Bill was involved with that was untrue?

Are you open to accepting members of the Republican Party in your cabinet? Will you picking the most qualified person over party loyalty?

To Donald Trump…

With world leaders concerned about your diplomacy changes, how would you ease their minds and Americans at home by explaining the “Trump Doctrine” in a clear and precise way?

If you are elected, will you appoint intelligent qualified women in your cabinet?

Over your lifetime, honestly, specifically, how has the way you’ve felt about women changed?

More questions now, for both…

Have you ever volunteered your time, not simply made an appearance for a photo op, more than once to help serve the needy? 

What has the American public misunderstood about you?

How do you plan to continue health care reform, and make health care truly affordable?

Should drug prices be regulated?

Do you believe deductibles on health insurance are ethical?

There seems complete freedom of expression in today’s society — marry whomever you want, worship whatever you want, use whatever bathroom you want — except for those with traditional values. How will you promote religious freedom for all Americans, not just the irreligious?

How do you manage the separation of church and state without diminishing the presence and value of either?

We now live in a society that terror organizations have successfully and continually made attacks all over the world. This is not just “an American” problem. As the possible leader of the free world, what will you say to those that continue to attack our way of life? To those that use their religion as a weapon of destruction…

With regard to terrorism, George W. Bush took the fight “over there,” and under Pres. Obama, the fight has come back “over here.” How will you keep us safe?

King Abdullah II of Jordan is fighting ISIL using outdated helicopters from the Vietnam era he purchased on EBay or wherever he can find them. He, along side his troops, drill using live ammunition they can ill afford. How will your administration go about increasing military aid to a trusted ally who alone, is fighting ISIL on a daily basis?

How can we trust Iran, a country which calls America “The Great Satan” and is committed to the extinction of Israel?

We have a military that is sending home soldiers who are fighting wars and conflicts in ways never seen before. They are watching their friends being blown up by IED’s; they are coming home without limbs and suffering with PTSD at record levels. And yet, VA’s across the country are unable to offer the needed help because of lack of funds, loose oversight, corruption and apathy. What will you do in your first 90 days to ensure that these soldiers are cared for upon their return, and what changes are you willing to make to guarantee these measures will be taken and continued?

Considering Va Tech, San Bernardino, Columbine, etc.— what is your plan to work across the aisle to propose and sign legislation to close gun show and internet loophole sales, a longer waiting period, as well as linkage to mental health concerns?

Will you help to get common sense gun laws in place?

What do you intend to do about the mental health crisis in this country?

How can you remove partisanship from debates over the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms?

Is unity in our country important to you, and what will you do to reach across the aisle to find common ground and get Congress functioning again?

Can you be the true leader of our county and not just the leader of your party?

If elected, what will you do to end hunger, alleviate poverty, and create opportunity in the United States and worldwide? (This question word-for-word is being pushed by a broad coalition of hunger-relief groups called “Vote to End Poverty.”)

Can you state how your policies are going to improve our country without attacking the other candidate?

From Benghazi to bankruptcies, deleted emails and undisclosed tax returns, deceptive language and inflammatory language, what do you say to the many Americans who are disappointed with their choices in this campaign and can’t believe we can’t do better than the two of you?

Tonight is debate #2. Let’s see if any of the above questions are asked and answered. Let’s see if substance reigns over style. And let’s see if people can listen more than interrupt. That would be a gift to us all.

Respectfully…
AR

redemption

photo-1468934047141-60c4fecdcc00

First, from Dictionary.com:

redemption

[ri-demp-shuh n]

noun
1. an act of redeeming or atoning for a fault or mistake, or the state of being redeemed.
2. deliverance; rescue.
3. Theology. deliverance from sin; salvation.
4. atonement for guilt.

Then from other, more blog-oriented, subjective sites:

… “the act of delivering from sin or saving from evil.”

… “the act of buying something back, or paying a price to return something to your possession.”

… “It means bought back, redeemed.”

Best I can tell, colloquially speaking, it means a person screws up — meaning a significant, seemingly character-defining, severely negative mistake — and then over some course of time, they change. The change is marked not only by the grieving of their own error/sin/offense, but they also make amends (as able), ask forgiveness, and they commit, as best as possible, to “sin no more.”

My sense is the scenario that allows for redemption is an incredibly ugly thing. My sense is that it also has the potential to be incredibly, amazingly powerful.

Here, though, is the problem…

While personally when we screw up (because yes, we all do), we believe in redemption — we know we’re capable of better and we want to grow and become wiser — we withhold that from other people, especially public personalities.

It’s like we say “I saw them when they said ______… I watched them when they did ______…” And then we forever put them in that box, so-to-speak. We forever act as if we know who they really are… and we don’t give them the grace and space to grow and change… even though we reserve that grace and space for ourselves.

Chuck Colson is the first person I think of… a man who was known to be politically ruthless, termed by one Slate Magazine writer as “the evil genius” of the Nixon administration. When he later repented and even founded Prison Fellowship in 1976, “the nation’s largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, and their families” today, I wonder how many held onto their own, previously held position, the “in-my-box” idea that Colson was still that ruthless man, because “I saw them when…”

I think, too, of Pietro Maso, the Italian man — 46 now — who bludgeoned his parents to death with heavy kitchen pans and then suffocated them, all to receive his inheritance when he was 20. For such a crime, I’m certain many would aver “no way is that guy ever changing!” … except in prison, he repented. In fact, Pope Francis called him after he was released, acknowledging his changed heart. Maso has now dedicated himself to helping others.

It makes me wonder… who else are we putting in a box?

Who else are we withholding the right to grow and change?

Who else do we believe is incapable of redemption?

(Scary thought. We can be a little judgmental sometimes…)

Respectfully…
AR

“conduct issues”

www.frsphoto.co
www.frsphoto.co

On a recent trip out West, we took time out for a baseball game at Chase Field in Phoenix, Arizona. It was a fun game, with the local taco joint promising the tortilla treat to all in attendance if the Diamondbacks scored at least five or six runs.

There were multiple non-sports aspects that got my attention that night — aspects other than the enthusiastic taco pursuit. It was bobblehead night… and a not-so-nice fan actually stole two of our bobbleheads (… yes, sin does exist on this planet). There was also a 9 year old birthday boy, who after ardently advertising his special day, had a ball thrown to him in the stands. His glee was immediately obvious… that is… until he dropped it.

Still, though, another aspect prompted a blog-worthy thought. It was a simple announcement — probably one comparable to messages shared across the country in our stadiums, arenas, and other mass venues — perhaps it oft goes unnoticed. On the large screen, they announced:

“REPORT GUEST CONDUCT ISSUES BY TEXTING:
DBACKS <space> LOCATION and ISSUE TO 69050.”

Simple, I know. 

Ordinary, I know.

Makes total sense.

And then it donned on me…

I understand the idea that in the setting of a game, concert, etc., that designated officials would be responsible for attending to guest conduct issues. The audience is there to enjoy the activity for which they gathered; others are taking away from that enjoyment. My sense, though, is that we often take this too far… when we get outside the venue. Notice what’s happening in our our own, small circles…

We all witness “conduct issues” — people behaving in ways that we deem disturbing, disrespectful, and/or odd.

My parents and role models instilled in me years ago that the most effective means of curbing inappropriate behavior was to go straight to the source. Go to the person. Point out the fault. Just between the two of you.

If they listen to you, you have won them over. They still feel respected because you care enough to talk to them one-on-one. You have thus positively influenced their conduct and potentially curbed future behavior. If they don’t listen — and it’s clear the behavior is inappropriate — that’s when you get others involved. That’s when you “text 69050,” so-to-speak.

What makes this a blog-worthy thought, no less, is the realization that we tend to skip a lot of these steps. If we see disturbing, disrespectful, or odd behavior, rarely do we go to the “disturber” first. We often first go to the likeminded, finding ammunition in their knowingly-biased support… and then we’re really good at making passive-aggressive comments on Facebook and elsewhere.

You know what I’m talking about… those indirect expressions of hostility. They may be cleverly worded; they may be witty and make the rest of us laugh out loud. And the slam at the other’s oddness or character sometimes even makes us feel better. Yes, the social media shouting lets the world know of our offense and disgust!

However… it avoids going to the person first.

And going to the person first, one-on-one, respectfully, is what best has the potential to curb the behavior…

Respectfully…
AR