Month: December 2015

Time Magazine will announce tomorrow their 2015 “Person of the Year.” Originating in 1927 with the selection of Charles Lindbergh (in an attempt to remedy the previous editorial embarrassment of not featuring the aviator on the front cover after his trans-Atlantic flight), each year the periodical selects a person, group, idea or thing that they believe has most influenced the news during the calendar year. Positive or negative impact is irrelevant; the selection simply signifies who/what has most influenced the news flow.

As mentioned by the Intramuralist in recent years, previous so-called “winners” include Walter Chrysler, Mahatma Gandhi, and Adolf Hitler… every sitting U.S. President except Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Gerald Ford… also, inanimate objects such as “The Inheritor” in ’66, “The Computer” in ’82, and “The Good Samaritans” in 2005.

So I’m pondering who may be announced tomorrow; many come to mind…

From foreign figures such as Francois Hollande, Vladimir Putin, and Bashar al-Assad… to surging new leaders here and abroad in Pope Francis and new House Speaker Paul Ryan… not to diminish entertaining individuals such as Abby Wambach, Tom Brady, and (“hello”) Adele…

Yet while each of the above significantly influenced the news flow in 2015, there are two selections I think stand out:

(1) The Candidate; and…
(2) The Terrorist

First, “The Candidate”… Some will clamor for “The Candidate” to be a specific someone. I’m not there yet. Allow me to share a small Intramuralist supposition…

Whenever there’s a personnel change for whatever the reason — good, bad, voluntary or involuntary — from a president to a pastor to any working professional — there is a tendency to over-emphasize what was perceived to be most lacking in the previous position holder when searching for someone new. For example, when Pres. George W. Bush was perceived by many to be too colloquial and casual in speech, candidate Obama’s eloquent oratorical skills became especially attractive.

With a personnel change occurring in the White House next year, we are again subtly assessing what characteristic seems most absent; it’s like taking advantage of the opportunity in front of us — albeit the over-emphasis can be blinding elsewhere. I see such in the current lure of two men in particular: the self-avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders, whose authenticity has attracted multiple fans — and — in business mogul Donald Trump, whose straight talk entices many… even if that straight talk isn’t always true. The challenge is that when we over-emphasize what was previously most lacking, we miss important, necessary traits for the next office holder to possess. Hence, “The Candidate” could be our “Person of the Year.”

Second, “The Terrorist”… I really wish he/she/it wasn’t so deserving. There is no doubt they have dominated our headlines way too many times.

Persons connected with militant Islamic ideology have been wreaking havoc on innocent others since day one, month one, all of 2015. There was the massacre on northern Nigerian villages by Boko Haram, killing an estimated 2000 in January… the attack on Charlie Hebdo shortly thereafter… car bombs by al-Qaeda… mass shootings by Al-Shabaab in April… shootings, stabbings, suicide bombings, kidnappings, and decapitations by ISIS, ISIL, the Taliban, and more.

Let me be semi-subtle in my bottom line: “The Terrorist” has been too involved in the news flow.

With multiple attacks, the American public seems especially, increasingly irritated and angry that we have not made obvious, significant progress in halting these horrific attacks; the violence keeps happening. We struggle with what to call it. We struggle with what to do. Our leaders struggle. Should we be specific? Should we not? Should we change our strategy? Should we not?

Will “The Terrorist” continue to dominate? What would “The Candidate” say?

Perhaps only Time will tell.

Respectfully…
AR

Allow me a moment of total transparency: one night last week I got really mad at my spouse. I was really mad.

Earlier in the evening we were working through a challenging conflict with one of our sons. The son was not complying with our expectations. The situation was also not unfolding nor progressing in a positive way. It was frustrating, hard, and no fun for any of us.

As the conflict continued in absence of an immediate, foreseeable solution, my son left the room and my spouse and I pressed on with the dialogue. Yet with my son no longer present, I turned my frustration toward the only person left in the room: my loyal, loving spouse.

Oh, right. He wasn’t responsible. But in the moment, that didn’t matter to me. He hadn’t fixed the problem, even if my frustration wasn’t his fault. Still, it did not matter; I was really mad. I wanted the conflict to go away. So I justified my anger — no matter at whom it was directed.

Last week’s San Bernardino shooting was another gut-wrenching heartbreak. Once again, persons connected with militant Islamic ideology justified the intentional killing of innocent others. Across the country, we then reacted in different ways with different words, thoughts, passions, and stabs at solution. One aspect was obvious: the clear majority of us want the violence to stop. We want it to stop.

Chew on that for a moment… Whether an individual reaction manifested itself in a loquacious Facebook rant, a scathing newspaper editorial, or a call for increased legislation or military action, the bottom line is the same: we want the violence to stop. The repeated proclamation that “enough is enough” is a call for the innocent, evil killing to come to an end.

It is important, friends, to remember that we are not each other’s enemy. We are not the ones doing the killing. As much as we may disagree as to what to call the terror or what needs to be done to either diminish or eliminate the threat, it is truer still that we are not the enemy. We are not responsible for this evil exhibition.

And yet, we sometimes forget that. We forget that we are not responsible.

That glaring forgetfulness was obvious in last week’s New York Daily News. (Granted, it’s a paper struggling with declining readership, but…) In their sensationalized front page, they headlined the news with: “God Isn’t Fixing This.” Their subtitle read: “As latest batch of innocent Americans are left lying in pools of blood, cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes.” They then featured multiple presidential candidates encouraging us to pray for the victims in California.

Then, too, came the flurry of copycat comments and proclamations — such as Gene Weingarten’s tweet from the Washington Post: “Dear ‘thoughts and prayers’ people: Please shut up and slink away. You are the problem, and everyone knows it”… or even the senator from Connecticut’s tweet: “Your ‘thoughts’ should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your ‘prayers’ should be for forgiveness if you do nothing — again”… or Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos: “How many dead people did those thoughts and prayers bring back to life?”… and still more who suggested we stop saying that “our thoughts and prayers are with you,” because as the rhetorical chorus imposed, our prayers aren’t working.

I have many sobering thoughts. Let me pose a simple, small few…

First, we are not divine beings; none of us are omniscient enough to know if or how our prayers are working. All we can conclude is that the violence has not stopped; no man can accurately discern the effect of the prayers.

Second, we must continue to remember that the clear majority of us — whether we lash out or stay silent — are disturbed at the violence. There is no need to judge the person who responds differently. We want the same thing; we want the violence to end.

And finally, when in our disgust, we turn our angst toward the sincere prayer of another — instead of focusing on the actual enemy — we resemble the conflict with my son and my spouse. We are yelling at “the only person left in the room.”

Remember that “the only person left in the room” is not the one responsible.

Respectfully… always…
AR

Every now and then I come across one of those profound “a-ha moments” that causes me to pause, knowing I can’t simply shake it away nor quickly become immersed in something else, so as to miss the striking relevance to current day. Before sharing publicly, let’s first acknowledge the true horror happening in the world; let’s specifically acknowledge the radical, Islamic terror that is piercing any global potential for peace…

ISIS is known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Daesh, or simply Islamic State (IS). They began as an al Qaeda splinter group 11 years ago in Iraq, rebranding themselves 2 years thereafter.

Their stated goal is to create a “caliphate” across Iraq, Syria and beyond; this means a unified federal Islamic government, ruled by an elected head of state or “caliph.” They have been killing countless — murdering the innocent via public executions, crucifixions and other awful, evil acts of violence, as witnessed most recently on the streets of Paris, France.

They have moved into Libya; they are less than 400 miles away from the Italian island of Sicily. Their known stronghold is primarily, currently located across Syria and Iraq — an area in which they control tens of thousands of square miles.

Key to today’s “a-ha” is that Iraq’s second largest city — Mosul — is now also under terrorist control. While the city fell the summer before last, the so-called “fall of Mosul” was considered a significant development in the escalation of the conflict with the terrorists. CBS called it a “heavy defeat”… the Wall Street Journal, a “strategic disaster”… and as one former senior Pentagon official said, “The fall of Mosul was something that we had not anticipated. And the suddenness with which that fall occurred was something that — that was a shock. They seized everything from small arms to light-armored vehicles to anti-aircraft weapons. When terrorists of this kind get their hands on weapons, it was a huge concern to us. I don’t think we truly understood the depth of the problem until the fall of Mosul.”

The fall of Mosul was significant.

Hence, on to my “a-ha”…

Centuries ago there existed a powerful, corrupt city. For 50 years, it was the largest city in the world, as the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. It was destroyed in 612 BC, after an Assyrian civil war. This major Mesopotamian city was known as Nineveh.

Many of us have arguably, unknowingly repeated a story surrounding Nineveh for years. We know it better as the story/scripture/you-name-it about Jonah in the belly of that seemingly very hungry whale. Some believe it; some don’t; that’s not the point. I am struck instead by what happened prior to sea animal’s swallowing.

Remember that the reason Jonah ended up in the ocean was that he was attempting to avoid his divine calling. He was on a ship out to sea that encountered a violent storm; the man was running from God, and God seemingly used multiple angles (and animals — or at least one very big one) to get Jonah’s attention.

What was God imploring Jonah to do?

Go to Nineveh.

God told Jonah to go to Nineveh because Nineveh’s wickedness — or “evil” — had come to God’s attention; he could bear it no more.

Friends, the ruins of Nineveh lie on the eastern bank of the Tigris River. What’s directly across the river?

Mosul.

Mosul now actually includes metropolitan areas on both sides of the Tigris, thereby encompassing the former ancient, evil city.

In Jonah’s account, after the whale incident, Jonah eventually went to the city and proclaimed the need for the people to humble themselves, repent, and turn from their wicked ways.

Fascinating how the need so direly exists once more… in the exact same spot in the world.

Respectfully…
AR