Month: September 2013

Posted on

respect vs. rhetoric

Last week I had a tough conversation with a leader in my church.  It was tough because of the subject matter, as we disagree on a way to solve a current challenge.  It was not tough in the way we related.  It was not tough because there was a lack of respect. It was not tough in our means nor manner of communicating; neither of us worked to rally more to our side.  Respect trumped rhetoric.

 

Last week we witnessed our government’s leaders do exactly the opposite.  We watched way too many seemingly smart people employ rhetoric and disrespect, and work more to rally others to their side.  Friends, political affiliation did not — and sadly, does not — matter.

 

Once again, our federal government has spent the maximum amount of money it is legally allowed to borrow.  They have maxed out their credit cards, so-to-speak.  Funny, but regardless of party, the majority always wants to spend more; and regardless of party, the minority always desires to spend less.  Such is evidenced in the following, amazingly insightful comment:

 

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

 

The above quote is from Barack Obama, when he was a senator — and voted against raising the debt ceiling.

 

Nonetheless, as President, Obama and others now desire more freedom to spend.  This is a tough conversation.  But the Intramuralist would propose that asking to increase our credit limit is not primarily tough because of subject matter; it’s tough because of how leadership feels justified in communicating…

 

“If you go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany.  Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them.’”  — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), comparing Nazi Germany to not standing up to debt and Obamacare

 

“The reason Ted Cruz stood up and asked for a delay is so that he could have a vote during today when the ‘tea baggers’ in his Tea Party were going to watch.”  — Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

 

”We are for cutting spending. We are for reforming out tax codes, reforming out entitlements.  What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.”  — White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer

 

Or the other phrases utilized… “political terrorism” by Al Gore… “tea party anarchists” and “stupid” by Harry Reid… “legislative arsonists” by Nancy Pelosi… “holding hostage” by multiple Republicans and Democrats… “raping the American people” by television commentator Tamara Holder… even “blackmail” by Obama.

 

My point is this… this conversation is going to remain tough because our leaders have allowed rhetoric to trump respect.  They chide instead of humbly communicate and consider; they insult instead of respect and submit.  We can’t keep spending more then we take in, but we also can’t tackle the problem when our leaders continue to stand in front of the cameras and work most to rally others to their side.  They should instead be meeting one-on-one, face-to-face, listening and submitting to one another, resisting the cameras and campaign stops…  just as I did with the leader in my church last week.

 

In my meeting, I will share that we did not end by agreeing on a singular solution and then living happily ever after.  But we heard one another; we each felt respected.  We vowed to work together, listen, and go forward together, recognizing that we are on the same team.  Our leaders need to do the same.  In fact, with their generous use of disrespect, perhaps they would first benefit by going back to church.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

control

I keep thinking about the sequence of events unraveling this week and last…

 

… about the shootings in D.C., Chicago, and Kenya…

… about the church bombing in Pakistan…

… about renewed attempts to confront global warming…

… about the Sec. of State signing a controversial U.N. arms regulation treaty…

… about all the unrest in the world.

 

Recently we wrestled with the ‘some kind of evil’ in the world.  We don’t like evil.  We aren’t comfortable calling evil out, especially when it seems to manifest itself within an actual person.  We inconsistently, subjectively acknowledge evil.

 

I wonder if one of the primary reasons we inconsistently acknowledge evil is because we view it from an illusion of control.

 

And so my thoughts continue…

 

From the violent shootings to increased terrorism to global warming to the varied, proposed legislation designed to discontinue or diminish each, one perspective seems to underlie all.  In each of those circumstances, we have somehow embraced this idea that we are in control.  Yes, we have embraced an illusion of control.  We think we can control all things.

 

We think we can control the shootings…

 

… if only there were increased gun control legislation, we could stop the mad men… we could thwart all efforts… there’d be no more madness manifested in this oh, so violent, wicked way…

 

We think we can control global warming…

 

… if only people would change their environmental habits… be more sensitive… negate carbon emissions… fewer plastic bags… no aerosol cans and increased recycling… there’d be no more significant alterations to our climate…

 

Yes, we can control this.  We can rebuild.  We know best.  We can control all things.

 

Time and time again, the Intramuralist’s sincere conclusion is that as a people, we can be incredibly arrogant.  We think we’re so smart.  And smart we may be, but we repeatedly confuse intelligence with wisdom.  The arguable, number one challenge across government and society this day is that we have blindly embraced the illusion of control.

 

We have bought into the notion that somehow we are in control of all things.  We think if we do what we’ve determined to be good, if there is a God, whatever god exists will reward us.  But we don’t have to acknowledge God — if he does exist — or dare even consider any submission to a higher power — because we perceive ourselves to be in control.

 

I believe that to be an unfortunately, arrogant perspective.

 

Yes, in all of our intelligence, we have still, somehow embraced this illusion of control.  Perhaps intelligence is not always a virtue.  For while there are certainly prudent efforts we can adopt to care for our people and planet well, we cannot allow those efforts to continue to paint this illusion.  Such acknowledgement might actually be the beginning of wisdom.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

religious freedom

Allow me to briefly recap 2 outrageous weekend acts, in order to transition to the outrage…

 

In Kenya…

 

In an upscale Nairobi shopping mall — in a situation that remains fluid as of this writing — militants have shot and killed over 60 persons.  According to the New York Times, “masked gunmen moved methodically through the crowded mall on Saturday,” killing men, women and children.  The gunmen have been linked to the al-Qaeda-backed Somali terror group al-Shabaab.

 

In northwest Pakistan…

 

Outside a church where the parishioners were exiting after the service, a pair of suicide/homicide bombers killed approximately 81 people.  According to USA Today, “witnesses described a scene of dust, debris and devastation.”  Body parts were apparently gruesomely scattered amid the debris.  A wing of the Taliban claimed responsibility.

 

The glaring commonality between these 2 heinous acts?  On 2 separate continents, non-Muslims were intentionally targeted.

 

Religious freedom seems in jeopardy, friends — albeit not just in Africa and Asia; it spans across the globe… especially Christian freedom.  Hence, the Intramuralist wonders:  where is the outrage?

 

Truthfully, I think it’s hard for us to express outrage as Americans.  Why?  Because we’ve already accepted so much suppression in our own country.  The suppression may not yet manifest itself via shopping mall nor church bombings, as it currently comes in more subtle forms.  For example…

 

  • As reported here last week, a 10 year old public school girl in Tennessee was banned from writing about God for a required school assignment.
  • In Massachusetts, persons are fervently working to remove the phrase “one nation under God” from the Pledge.
  • And then there’s this…

In North Carolina, where a Christian apologetics conference, entitled “Truth for a New Generation” will take place later this week with nationally respected speakers, the local paper, The Charlotte Observer, would not allow the conference to advertise as desired, paid, and previously agreed to.  Granted, the conference planners asked some tough questions in their ad:

 

“Is same sex marriage morally wrong?”
“Are Islam and Christianity the same?”
“Are godless people going to destroy America?”

 

The questions were chosen “to encourage discourse, inquiry, and to result in a strong ad, to raise awareness about the conference.”  The Charlotte Observer, however, would not allow the asking of the questions.  It’s not that all answers to the above are wise and good and true, but when the media begins to squelch the dialogue so that dissenting opinion cannot even take place, they have sowed and watered the seeds of religious suppression.  That suppression will only get worse, as witnessed in Kenya and Pakistan.

 

So where is the outrage?  Where is the outrage in Africa and Asia?

 

And where is the outrage here?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

some kind of evil

Bad things happen on planet Earth.  Like last week… primarily according to USA Today:

 

Federal investigators believe Aaron Alexis cleared a security checkpoint with his contractor identification and carried a shotgun into building 197 at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C.  Alexis reportedly began firing at people indiscriminately from an atrium overlook.  After firing several rounds, Alexis ran down a flight of stairs where he confronted and shot a security officer. It is believed that Alexis took the officer’s handgun and returned to the overlook where he continued to shoot.  13 people, including the shooter, died.

 

Like yesterday at a Kenyan shopping mall:

 

At least 59 people were killed and 175 injured during a Saturday afternoon shooting rampage at a shopping mall in an upscale district of Nairobi.  The 5-10 gunmen carried AK-47s and other sophisticated weapons and wore vests with hand grenades on them.  They also asked Muslims to leave before opening fire.

 

Bad things do happen.

 

In wake of the so-called “badness,” many respond with immediate, perceived necessary solutions.  On Monday, the Navy Yard shooting was only hours old when Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) took to the microphones to call for increased gun control measures.  “When will enough be enough?” she asked.  While Feinstein repeated details that were inaccurate but fueled the passion behind her plea — as many and the media are often apt to do, even though pausing would be prudent — she was not alone in her plea.

 

When bad things happen, we have a desire to fix it.  We have a desire to ensure the bad things will never happen again.

 

On that note, the Intramuralist has great respect for Feinstein, etal. in their stated desire to curb violence.  Who among us desires to see the innocent die?  The challenge, no less, is whether or not the proposed solution is actually effective — or is more proposed and applied because it makes us feel better; it makes us feel as if we are doing something.

 

In the wake of last week’s shooting, in multiple circles, I thus posed the following question:  where does this “badness” come from?  Is it evil?  Where does the evil come from?  What, in fact, is evil?

 

The answers were fascinating…

 

Most would acknowledge an existence of evil, but few seemed comfortable with evil dwelling within a person.  Some called the behavior of Aaron Alexis evil; still others said the identification of evil would be dependent on whether or not the gunman had a mental illness.  If he had any mental deficiency, the evil — if it existed — rested in the hands of someone or something else, perhaps in the institution or people who allowed him to have a gun in his hands.

 

My conclusion from this certainly unscientific polling is that we’re not comfortable with the idea of evil, and when we do utilize the label, we seem to do so inconsistently and subjectively.  We don’t like it.

 

Bad things happened on planet Earth last week.  I didn’t like it.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

media duplicity?

One of the questions I routinely ask is:  “What don’t we know?”

 

Opinion, passion, and policy are often drummed up based on reactions to incomplete information.  In other words, we allow incompleteness — which may thus equate to inaccuracy — to frequently — often blindly — serve as justification.  I wonder… What don’t we know?

 

What we don’t know can be due to either an inability or unwillingness to hear all sides of a story; it can also simply be an unknown lack of information.  In moments such as those, my sense is the wise man learns to pause.  The Intramuralist is more disturbed, however, when the incomplete information is intentional — or as in this week’s glaring case — in the form of potential media duplicity.

 

On Tuesday, Time Magazine unveiled their weekly periodical across the nation’s newsstands.  Across America, an enticing photo featured a college football player, leg up in the air, accompanied by the headline, “It’s Time to Pay College Athletes.”  The question of whether or not college athletes should be paid is a good one— and one which may one day end up as the subject of this respected space.  However, the college athlete question was only posed to Time’s American readers.

 

The rest of the globe saw a strikingly different Time cover.  It instead featured a confident-appearing photo of Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the headline, “America’s Weak and Waffling, Russia’s Rich and Resurgent.”

 

I have 2 immediate questions:  (1) What don’t we know?  And (2) what is Time Magazine’s motive?

 

Why did Time intentionally alter their American cover?

 

Time contributors Joe Klein and Michael Scherer — neither of whom is known for their conservative views — wrote the following after Putin’s lead in Syria:  “[Obama] has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world. It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed.”

 

And…

 

“For generations, the American people have had a standing deal with their Presidents: Go ahead and mess with the prime-time lineup once in a while, interrupt Who’s the Boss, Seinfeld, NCIS: Los Angeles, or whatever. But you better make it count. You better have something new to say. And when it comes to speeches of national security, you better leave the impression that you have this thing under control.

 

On Tuesday night, President Obama decided to test this unspoken pact. For 16 minutes from the East Room, he took over the nation’s televisions to repeat the same complex and contradictory case for bombing Syria that he has been making for two weeks, even though he acknowledged at the end, there is no longer an imminent need for the country to make a decision. He delayed the start of America’s Got Talent to announce he would be delaying a congressional vote.”

 

Time was highly critical of the President’s handling of Syria.  However, their criticism was intentionally hidden from American readers.  Why would the rest of the world receive a different cover?  In fact, why would the rest of the world receive the same cover — and ours be so strikingly different?

 

What was Time’s motive?

Why would they do that?

Why would they hide constructive criticism of an American president?

 

And yes…  what don’t we know?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

reunited

And one by one, so they came…

 

Attorneys and actuaries…

Politicians and professors…

Or my sweet friend, the creative, comic book store owner…

 

Pharmacists and philanthropists…

Owners and operators…

Salesmen and stay-at-home moms…

 

Moms and dads of several, of some… adopted or none…

Single parents and parents who’ve admirably called other children “son”…

 

All races, religions, and ethnic, gender, and demographic backgrounds…

White collar, blue collar, no collar at all.

 

Last weekend was my high school reunion. What a treat it was. See if you can follow me here, from the Intramuralist’s perspective…

 

We came from various places…  Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, California, Rhode Island, Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and more.  We are a diverse group — albeit probably not as diverse as others — but diverse in scenario… circumstance… in both obvious and non-obvious ways…

 

Some came full of joy, expectation… others, perhaps, a little anxious, wondering who they would see… how they would feel… how they would be viewed and valued after so many years.  Still others arrived with hidden heartache; some have tough circumstances at home.

 

Introverts and extroverts… there were incredible stories to share… of triumph.  Of grief.  Of sadness and success.

 

Yet regardless of story, we listened.  We cheered. We consoled and we danced. It was a joy to gather together.  It was a joy to dance.

 

It wasn’t a joy because we all act the same, believe the same, nor feel the same.  It wasn’t a joy because we’re all healthy or happy or hopelessly getting along at home.  It was a joy because our differences didn’t matter.

 

It wasn’t a substitute nor excuse.  It wasn’t a denial of truth nor an acceptance of what’s not good, not healthy, or not true.  It was a commitment to remain in relationship, no matter what.

 

Far too many seem to sacrifice community because of individual difference. Far too often the individual becomes more pronounced and celebrated than the whole. From foreign countries to the federal government, they forget far too quickly how to operate effectively and empathetically with the differences that are ever present.

 

I don’t know if my high school class could ever come close to solving the world’s growing and glaring problems.  But I can tell you this…  We’d work together, acknowledge the differences, refrain from denying truth, and always appreciate what we share.

 

We might also, just even, dance.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

a big deal

With the current Colorado flooding — p.s. the pictures are jaw-dropping — did you notice the official, early alert from the National Weather Service?

 

AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE  DENVER/BOULDER CO

941  AM  MDT  THU  SEP  12  2013

 

UPDATE… MAJOR FLOODING/FLASH FLOODING EVENT UNDERWAY AT THIS TIME WITH BIBLICAL RAINFALL AMOUNTS REPORTED IN MANY AREAS IN/NEAR THE FOOTHILLS.  PRECIPITABLE WATER VALUES IN EXCESS OF AN INCH AND A QUARTER ON GPS SENSORS CERTAINLY SUPPORT LOTS MORE RAIN TODAY

 

Question about “biblical rainfall”?

 

I’m often intrigued how so many work so seemingly hard to omit any reality of God, Jesus, or what’s “biblical.”  I typically pause when intentional efforts are made to diminish any truth or power of Christianity.  We witness instead the so-called “wisdom” of the world…

 

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is currently deciding whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance phrase, “under God,” violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the state constitution and is an issue of discrimination.

 

A 10 year old girl at a public school in Memphis, TN was told last week that she could not identify “the Almighty” as her idol for a required school assignment.  The teacher told the young student that she could not use language that “has something to do with God.”  Michael Jackson, however, was acceptable.

 

Earlier this summer, the Samuel Adams beer company ran an ad utilizing the Declaration of Independence.  They spoke of all men being created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights; however, they intentionally omitted the Declaration’s phrase acknowledging that those unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator.

 

Some people intentionally omit any reference to God…

… that is…

… until a “big deal” happens.

 

The flooding in Colorado is a big deal.  The resulting heartache after 9/11 was a big deal.  The shootings and violence and situation in Syria are a big deal.  In my own life, sadly at times, I’ve experienced some pretty challenging big deals.  Sometimes it takes a big deal for us to be prompted to mention God’s name… and to wrestle with the evidential reality.

 

FYI… there exist exponentially more reliable manuscripts of the Bible’s New Testament than there are of any writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Homer.  And yet, universities across America never assert the philosophers’ writings as unreliable, questionable, or untrue.  We do not dispute that the men wrote the words.  We do not dismiss the teaching nor avoid acknowledgement.

 

Sometimes it takes a big deal for us to wrestle with what’s true.

 

So it was said by the National Weather Service this week in Colorado.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

Syria… still.

Like many of you, I watched and listened to the President’s speech on Tuesday night.

 

Also like many of you, so much of me wished to avoid it.

 

My lack of desire had nothing to do with avoiding the sobering situations on the planet.  It also had nothing to do with who was actually speaking.  My desire to avoid the President’s speech was due to the fact that even from a distant vantage point, it is clear that politics are involved.  It’s involved in the White House.  It’s involved in the Congress.  It’s involved in the pundits and reporters who boldly pounce before the microphones.  And at a time when lives and security are solemnly at stake, my earnest desire is that all decision-making would be free from politics.

 

Because of the politics, I don’t believe the public receives the entire, unfiltered truth.  With the solicited skill of professional speechwriters, our leaders’ speeches are written and re-written multiple times in attempts to best persuade… to coax instead of communicate… to convince instead of encouraging consideration… and to influence instead of inform.  The Intramuralist is well aware that we do not all agree on the same subjects nor with equivalent fervency, but my desire — especially when lives may be at stake — is that we would be allowed to make our own decisions in regard to what is right and appropriate.  There need be no manipulation.  There need be no politics.

 

So on Tuesday, our President wanted to speak to us.  If my President is speaks, I will listen.  I want to hear what he has to say.

 

You know what struck me?

 

Pres. Obama spent much of his time on television appealing to our emotion…

 

“The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits — a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war…

 

I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor… 

 

I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?”

 

The images Obama describes are awful.  Horrific.  Condemnation of the behavior is deserving.  However, no matter the emotion the images elicit, we cannot allow the emotion to trump the logic; logic and emotion must be equally considered.

 

Logically speaking, if we attack Syria, who will attack us?  What incident will serve as the next USS Cole, the homicide attack on our American missile destroyer, set in the Yemen sea?  What will Syria — or Iran — or any Islamic extremists — do next?

 

That’s a logical question.

 

We can’t ignore it.  We cant dismiss it.  We also can’t allow our emotions to trump it.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

Syria once more

When I was a first time parent, honest to goodness, I didn’t know what I was doing.  When my second child was born, I was a little better, but truth be told, I was by no means improved in all areas.  I’d like to tell you that child number three resulted in perfection, but no, I humbly share that such a status does not exist.

 

One of the areas in which all parents must improve is discipline.  In order for discipline to be effective, it needs to be 3 things:  logical, consistent, and timely.

 

Today’s post, friends, is actually not about parenting.  In fact, for the 3rd post in a row, the Intramuralist focuses on Syria.  Why?  Because world wars are started by singular acts.  Because so many uncontrollable variables are involved here.  Because like it or not, politics are in play on all sides of this equation.  And because the wisdom and results of military action are ambiguous.

 

Tonight Pres. Obama will interrupt prime time television to address us on Syria.  He proposes that the United States must take military action against Syria as a retaliatory response for their use of chemical weapons.  Retaliatory means to return like for like… to reciprocate… sometimes, thus — like parenting — it means to discipline.

 

Is the proposed retaliation logical?  Is bombing a logical response to the death of 1400 Syrian citizens at the hands of their own government?  Does the so-called “punishment” fit the crime?

 

Is the proposed retaliation consistent?  Thousands have died in other nations in recent years, albeit not via chemical weapons.  Are we being consistent when the means of death — as opposed to the number of deaths — serves as this metaphorical red line?

 

And timely.  Geepers.  Don’t get me started.  Let me attempt to address this respectfully via an analogy from my youth…

 

When I was a kid, we often played “Stratego,” the military strategy game where all roles and options remain hidden from the enemy until the time of attack.  While I, for one, think no president should be able to authorize military intervention without a clear majority of congressional support, I do not understand the lengthy delay of the decision.  Hence, any American response no longer seems timely.

 

A clear majority do not share the President’s desire to attack.  The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 64% of the American public oppose military intervention.  Hence, tonight’s goal is to persuade us that military intervention, regardless of logic, consistency, and timeliness is necessary.

 

Perhaps instead of any persuasive rhetoric, Obama could borrow from the unfiltered responses after yesterday’s slate of initial NFL games.  In fact, I’m thinking I’d prefer all politicians were a little more unfiltered.  Obama could indeed open with or include some of yesterday’s actual quotes…

 

“First off, it wasn’t a very smart play.”

“There were a lot of question marks…  are the plays going to work?”  

“I’m disappointed in myself. This loss is on me.”

“This is just one step in the right direction.”

“It wasn’t the easiest, but I’m not a person to make excuses.”

“Obviously, it wasn’t perfect.  And there’s a lot of things we can do better.”

“We’ve got a lot of work to do.  We need to understand that.  We need to stick together and persevere.”

“We’ve got to go back and look and see exactly what they did and how they took us out of what we wanted to do on offense.”

“It’s not the way we drew it up.  We’re all going to learn from this.  There’s no reason to point any fingers.”

 

From NFL to parenting to military intervention, we must embrace logic, consistency, and timeliness.  Being unfiltered, also, often helps.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

incapable

Before we converse today, let’s lay a bit of groundwork…

 

  • While multiple factors contributed to its onset, World War I began after the assassination of the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie, by a Yugoslav nationalist.

 

  • World War II started after Poland was invaded by Germany — under the leadership of Adolf Hitler — and Great Britain and France decided to respond.

 

In other words, world wars began with singular acts.  Yes, other factors were involved and undoubtedly led to the climactic onset, but singular acts provided the spark through which wars of the world were both prompted and justified.

 

Did the men/women involved foresee the major, military consequences?

Did they know it all?

Smart as they may or may not have been, were they capable of predicting the massive extent of global devastation that resulted from singular acts?

 

Friends, I am not “anti-war” nor “pro-war.”  I’m not exactly certain how any could be either; there’s a time for everything — for every activity under the sun… a time to be born and a time to die… a time to be silent and a time to speak… a time for war and a time for peace.  And just as both Pres. Bush said last week and Pres. Obama said yesterday, using military force is one of the most grueling decisions any president or nation has to make.  The ramifications are sobering.  In instances such as above, the ramifications meant World War 1 and 2.

 

How does the potential beginning of World War 3 affect your thoughts regarding bombing Syria today?

 

As I watch our leaders contemplate an attack (and as I continue to cringe at the politics in play and the “running for cover” by far too many in Washington — the deflecting of blame, the voting of “present,” etc.), I wonder how many are considering the ramifications of a singular event.

 

They say it will be limited.  They say it will be done in 90 days.  They say there will be “no boots on the ground.”  They thus say that any lives lost will be few.

 

Here’s my zillion dollar question:  how can they predict exactly what will happen?

 

Were those involved in the initial ongoings of World Wars 1 and 2 able to predict all that would happen?  Of course not.

 

One of the aspects I find most troubling about our current American leadership is that they keep telling us exactly what will happen when in my opinion, they are not capable of making such a prediction.  It’s not that they aren’t smart men and women.  Many of them are incredibly smart.  But sometimes I question their wisdom (not their intelligence, but their wisdom) because they don’t possess the capability to predict all that they tell us they do.  So much of what our leaders say seems designed to persuade us, as opposed to sharing actual, honest, and entire truth.

 

The entire truth means the acknowledgement that all things cannot be predicted.  They are incapable of being predicted.  If the United States chooses to bomb Syria — regardless of the continued rhetorical promises outside of their control — what are they missing?  What can they not foresee?  What’s incapable of being predicted?

 

We don’t know…  and we don’t know what we don’t know.  We don’t know what singular act could prompt a third world war.  And that should add a humble, sobering pause to any affirmative vote.

 

Respectfully,

AR