Month: October 2024

This post was all set to publish. Over the month of October, the Intramuralist has recorded every question we’ve seen the media ask in regard to the upcoming election. And believe me; while not every outlet is a frequent employer of the punctuation piece, there have been some excellent questions posed by the media, biased or not. For example…

• Are Harris and Trump Held to Different Standards?
• Can the World Series help us predict who will win the presidential election?
• Did CBS edit their ’60 Minutes’ sit-down interview with Kamala Harris?
• Does Dissatisfaction Signal Change in Washington?
• Do Voters Favor Harris or Trump on the Economy?
• How does a VP debate affect candidate favorability?
• How Will Undecided Voters Affect the Presidential Election?
• What if Joe Biden Was the Better Candidate All Along?
• Want Some Fries With That Big MAGA?
• What would happen if Harris and Trump tie in the Electoral College?

But the challenge in asking the above questions (and more) is that it didn’t feel transparent enough in the season before us. And as one who deeply believes in respect and honor for all people, what questions do I sincerely have?

Sitting here less than a week from election day, what do I wonder? … wanting to enflame no one, talk about the hard, and wrestle honestly with the truth…

My thoughts are not limited to the following, but they go something like this…

• How do persons who’ve justified demeaning entire groups of voters turn around when it’s over and finally respect them?

• What makes a person vote for Trump for the first time this time?

• Why in almost every election since Barry Goldwater in 1964 (before my time — I had to look it up), do the Democrats eventually call the Republican nominee a “fascist”? Is Trump thus significantly different than all those who’ve gone before him?

• Having clearly “moved right” on many positions (with the assumption because the position is significantly more popular, ie. building the border wall, fracking, no more electric vehicle mandates, etc.), if Harris wins, will she follow through on her change in positions?

• If Trump wins, what would he do differently? Would it be more of the same as when he was in office before? Would the economy be better? Would the wars cease?

• If victorious, how would each address the lack of unity in the country?

• If not victorious, would each refrain from enflaming the disappointed and partisan?

• Will each recognize that as close as the polls are, should they win, neither will have a mandate for extreme left/right policy implementation?

• If Harris wins, will she be able to speak more intelligently, articulately and concisely about the issues? Will she continue to have the significant staff turnover she’s experienced as VP?

• If Trump wins, will he put wise people around him, people that he will actually solicit and accept wise counsel from — as opposed to simply those he deems loyal?

• What does Joe Biden think of all this? What do George W. and Laura Bush think?

• As a public, will we realize that many of the initiatives each has promised, they can’t actually do? … as living in a federal democratic republic, there are checks and balances in place preventing some of the populist promises each has made.

• What will happen to us next? Does the polarization calm down? If not, does this give rise to a more prominent third party in the next election cycle? 

• How can each of us be more respectful of the person who thinks differently? What would be wise for us individually to do more work to understand?

• And lastly… simply… now what?

I will sleep very well next week. It’s not because I’m not interested or don’t care or don’t care about the people who are so emotionally tied to this more than me. It’s just that this election is very close, and either candidate could win. Either candidate is also in my book extremely flawed; with all due respect, I oft see Trump as a bully and Harris as an actress. I can’t discern with certainly if either is being real with us. But the reality is that my hope and peace is not found in a single person or party. Regardless of who wins, the Intramuralist will continue to advocate for the respect and honor of all people. Regardless of who wins, it is simply not true that “all Harris voters” or “all Trump voters” are _______ (fill-in-whatever-adjective you wish).

The sweeping generalities are untrue. And yes, we can all learn to honor others better and more… regardless of who wins. Hence, my more transparent pondering…

Respectfully…

AR

Time to be real, friends. This election season is hard for many. It’s tough. While peace is a wonderful thing to possess, for many, that peace seems dependent on the election’s outcome. 

All should feel great grace being where they are, feeling what they do in regard to the current political state. As has been stated here multiple times, it is not any of our jobs — nor are we capable — to play someone else’s Holy Spirit. We are not each other’s convicter of truth.

I think on some level, we get that. We know that people think differently, and we often hear the acknowledgement, something along the lines of “I have no idea how a person could think that way.”

So let’s make it a little more pointed and pertinent to the moment at hand…

“I have no idea how a person could vote for that way.” Or… “I have no idea how they could vote for them.”

And that may indeed be a valid, well-founded statement. It makes total sense that we wouldn’t understand someone who has come to a completely different conclusion than we.

Here then is where wisdom implores us to be careful. Especially now.

Our lack of understanding of another is exactly that — we not getting it… we not seeing how… we not comprehending why another doesn’t conclude or react the exact same as we. Note who the subject of those sentences is: we.

In other words, our lack of understanding of another is no referendum on them; it instead reveals we have work to do if we wish to empathize.

Know what the opposite of empathy is?

As encouraged via Dr. Brené Brown, the opposite of empathy is shame. Shame is a destructive form of judgment. According to Brown, the goal is to make another feel unworthy, fundamentally flawed, and not good enough as a person. And right now, in this season of political pins and needles, there are a lot of people who are choosing to handle their lack of peace by shaming others. 

Friends, with absolutely all due respect, that is an awful thing to do.

We’ve all seen it — the lashing out… how dare you… so cowardly… I will hold you responsible…

Or one that always causes me to pause: “There’s only one right choice.”

No, that would more accurately read, “There’s only one right choice I understand.”

Truthfully, friends, I understand it; to react with shame and judgment is easier than doing the long, hard work to understand the different. It is not easy, and sometimes you can do all that work and still not understand. But last I knew, none of us have cornered the market on morality. And there are enough nicks and flaws and missteps and lies and cover-ups and inconsistencies and shady associations in the candidates (and us) that prompt varying question and concern — so much so that reasonable people can absolutely come to different conclusions. The different in another is not evidence of evil, ignorance or wrongdoing. They have perceived or prioritized something different than we.

The wisest among us, therefore, would retreat to a humble position seeking to understand, rather than a boastful perch waiting to pounce. There is no place for shame in a society that truly desires to honor all people, treating them equally.

This close to the election, my sense, too, is that the shaming is a futile tactic. Last week, in fact, I sat one-on-one with three truly undecideds. They have varying questions and concerns. They have also heard the shame. Let me simply add that it’s very clear the shame isn’t having the desired impact.

Better and wiser would be to lead with respect. Seeking to understand. Always.

Respectfully…

AR

Not that long ago, even before the presidential nominee was switched absent the stereotypical primary selection process, the secret to winning became clear.

When there’s a contest between two competitors who each have high, negative favorability ratings, the goal is to make the match as much about the other person as possible. Whoever the contest becomes most about, loses.

Let’s be honest — and know that I’m not attempting to be rude or disrespectful; it is an objective reading of the plethora of polling data: both current VP Harris and former Pres. Trump have high, negative favorability ratings. Recent polling by ABC, NBC and many more affirm that fact. Neither candidate is well liked by a majority of this country.

To be clear, “well liked” does not mean voting either for or against. It does mean, no less, that voters have to find something other than popularity to base their vote upon.

I am sincerely sensitive, no less, to that being a hard understanding for some. It’s ok. Know that I simply desire to wrestle wisely with the truth.

It’s thus been an interesting dynamic to watch. I also think it’s one of the reasons American elections have lost much of their integrity. Just look at the candidates and how they are advised to run… which is not first and foremost on their own credentials.

The candidates aren’t campaigning and saying, “Hey, I want you to have an accurate idea of who I am, what I think, and how I’ll govern. I’ll be honest; as you get to know me, there will be some things we will disagree on. And when we disagree, we’ll keep listening; we’ll work together to solve. I will not lie to you. I will not act as if I know it all. Clearly, I don’t. Each of us has so much more to learn. It’s time we admit that.”

In its place we get, “You and I are so much alike! But my opponent… I am so not like him/her! He/she is awful. Evil! They want to take all your rights away. They are terrible! Not only are they evil, they are also stupid! I am so glad I’m not like them!”

[I keep thinking of the ancient Pharisees who sat in the corner thanking God for who they were not… oh, my… we have so much to learn…]

In other words candidates oft talk less specifics about self, because the more specifics we know, with a high, negative favorability rating, the less we like them. 

Such seems the collective story of candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

So who is this election most about? My observations suggest that prior to the candidate switch, it seemed most about Pres. Biden. After the conventions, it became more about Trump. And after more public interviews, it’s become more about Harris.

Who knows who will win. This race is reportedly close, which hopefully will keep all humble (respectful, too, please). Note, also, this is advocacy for no one. I simply think it’s a sad reflection of current culture that both candidates are so unpopular and not admired by a clear and present majority. It bothers me to admit that to our younger generations; we are choosing between the unpopular. Years past have given us better choices of whom to vote for.

I met a young lady and her family last weekend, with the gal celebrating a less monumental birthday. We started a conversation of the birthdays that are seemingly most monumental…

…18 … 21… 25…

“What comes with each one?” we asked.

Quickly we acknowledged that 18 comes with the right to vote.

“Oh, I’m sorry,” I soon added. “I just feel like my generation and others should apologize to you for not having a better selection of presidential candidates to vote for. I was very proud of casting my first national vote. My dismay is that you don’t have the same choice.”

The young gal immediately affirmed that thought, bothered, and still unsure of what she’ll do in a few weeks.

Her mother then chimed in, “Just don’t vote for _________! ____ is a mess and doesn’t know what they’re talking about!”

Alas, here we go. 

Be kind to each other, friends. It just isn’t always so clear.

Respectfully…

AR

In recent months, many have quoted fact checkers to justify the solidity of their perspective. The flaw in that logic is that many have not realized that fact checkers are also not free from bias or skewing of perspective. Fact checkers are not automatically objective arbiters. In fact, often they are not.

Sometimes it matters how an argument is asked. Sometimes an analysis suggests a claim is clearly “true” or clearly “false” when it’s not known for certain one way or another. 

And living in a season when many feel empowered to fact check, inconsistently determining both who and what they will check whenever they do or do not wish, makes the process all the more confusing.

Hence, as we move further into a month where more of us are paying attention to the news — challenging and polarizing as that can so often be — let’s add fact checking to our bias conversation.

Wait… why?

Allow us to quote, AllSides, one of the rare contemporary resources where we can trust what we’re reading and hearing. As their editorial philosophy states, AllSides “strengthens our democratic society with balanced news, media bias ratings, diverse perspectives, and real conversation. We expose people to information and ideas from all sides of the political spectrum so they can better understand the world — and each other.”

The Intramuralist believes that better understanding the world and each other is a good thing to do.

So we recognize that bias exists. In news sources. In each of us.

But hidden bias is the larger problem. Hidden bias “misleads and divides us.” It also makes us ignorant and unaware of how our own perspective is skewed.

Hence, we present today’s fact checking resource to minimize division, believing the intensity and acceptance of division to be an increasingly unhealthy aspect of our society. 

Here is how the fact checkers line up:

Notice how many fact checkers lean,This is good to know, as knowing the bias of the fact checkers can help us seek out better, more balanced news, crafting more objective and actually accurate perspective.

It can also help us think more for ourselves.

Respectfully… and yes, in this together…

AR

“Journalism is what we need to make democracy work.”

“Our job is only to hold up the mirror — to tell and show the public what has happened.”

“A journalist covering politics, most of us are aware of the necessity to try to be sure we’re unbiased in our reporting. That’s one of the fundamentals of good journalism.”

All of the above are credited to the iconic Walter Cronkite, the trusted newsman, anchoring the CBS Evening News for 19 years. The nation trusted him through JFK’s assassination, Vietnam, and so much more. He was known to be credible, telling us what happened, not what he wanted us to hear. He was the standard of what journalism is supposed to be. Journalism is collectively like this no more.

Take what happened at Cronkite’s former employer last week, as reported by Intramuralist favorite The Free Press, a rare source of solid, honest journalism…

“Last week, CBS journalist Tony Dokoupil conducted an interview with the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates whose new book, The Message, includes a one-sided polemic against Israel. Coates himself describes his book as an effort to debunk the complexities journalists invoke to obscure Israel’s occupation. He complained in an interview with New York magazine that the argument that the conflict was ‘complicated’ was ‘horseshit,’ that was how defenders of slavery and segregation described these plagues a century ago. ‘It’s complicated,’ he said, ‘when you want to take something from somebody.’

So Dokoupil asked him about it. ‘Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it?’ ‘Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it?’ ‘Why not detail anything of the first and second intifada… the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits?’

In other words, Tony Dokoupil did his job. That’s when his troubles began.” 

Note that to allow Coates “simplistic telling of the Israel-Palestinian conflict omits so much complicating history that it’s no different than a lie. It would be like writing a book about the Civil War that blames the war on the Union without ever mentioning slavery.” Hence again, Tony Dokoupil did his job.  

Meeting on the one year anniversary of Hamas terrorists attacking Israel, CBS executives reprimanded Dokoupil for failing to meet “editorial standards.” As leaks of their meeting have been revealed, we learned that top CBS execs suggested Dokoupil’s interview of the outspoken activist somehow impugned the network’s “legacy of neutrality and objectivity.” 

Back to The Free Press’s account…

“Not everyone was buying it. CBS reporter Jan Crawford, who has been the CBS chief legal correspondent since 2009, rushed to Dokoupil’s defense. ‘It sounds like we are calling out one of our anchors in a somewhat public setting on this call for failing to meet editorial standards for, I’m not even sure what,’ she said. ‘I thought our commitment was to truth. And when someone comes on our air with a one-sided account of a very complex situation, as Coates himself acknowledges that he has, it’s my understanding that as journalists we are obligated to challenge that worldview so that our viewers can have that access to the truth or a fuller account, a more balanced account. And, to me, that is what Tony did.’

Crawford went on: ‘Tony prevented a one-sided account from being broadcast on our network that was completely devoid of history or facts. As someone who does a lot of interviews, I’m not sure now how to proceed in challenging viewpoints that are obviously one-sided and devoid of fact and history.’” (Note that Crawford “is one of the most respected journalists at CBS.”)

To be clear, journalism today is increasingly not journalism. Note that Dokoupil was admonished for asking questions based on truth.

My sense is “the most trusted man in America” would be uncomfortable with the state of journalism today at CBS and elsewhere. As noted in his final closing…

“As anchorman of the CBS Evening News, I signed off my nightly broadcasts for nearly two decades with a simple statement: ‘And that’s the way it is.’ To me, that encapsulates the newsman’s highest ideal: to report the facts as he sees them, without regard for the consequences or controversy that may ensue.”

Miss you, Walter… a whole lot.

Respectfully…

AR

It’s the calm before the storm.

People are doing what they need to do. Making preparations. There are actually all sorts of varied preparations to make. Some are physical. Many are emotional.

We’ve seen what’s happened previously. To be honest much has been hard to watch. Some activity has just seemed so devastating. It might be really difficult to recover from all this. At least it appears that way at times.

Sometimes, too, in the tension, we treat each other well — we help each other out. Sometimes we don’t.

Sometimes we respect and help our neighbor, no matter who they are; other times we’re a little judgmental of our neighbor. Who they are matters, and that judgment dictates the extent of both our effort and sincerity.

I get it. And many have reached out. Thank you for your heartfelt wishes, even if you are not experiencing what I am experiencing or feeling what I’m feeling.

The reality is that we have different perspectives, depending where we sit.

We have different feelings, depending on what we’ve experienced.

And whether we’re sitting in Florida or North Carolina or someplace else with perceived lesser unease, each of our perspectives is still valid no matter how much it differs from one another. Friends, I can’t say this enough; multiple different perspectives can be true at the exact same time.

We’re not really good at recognizing that. No. I admit; it’s a tough one.

How can good moral people conclude the same activity or person or event is something different than the other? … That one is so bad. One is so good...

One is something to work through. One is just completely detrimental.

I by no means have all the answers. I don’t expect to this side of heaven. But I do know that’s true. There are so many wonderful people who don’t think exactly the same as me. Thank God for them. They make me better.

And so I sit here in the calm before the storm, wondering about the convenient, quirky memes seen in recent weeks… wondering about the plethora of clips and social media posts (that never substitute for authentic communication)…

Is what I’m seeing only a part of what really is?

Is this storm not something that’s going to disrupt my life but rather clear my path?

Is it true that how well I’ll fare is most determined by my attitude walking through it?

Will I truthfully come out OK on the other side?

And will worrying about today empty self of the strength I need for tomorrow?

Friends, I do not know the answers. But I do know that one of the reasons it’s so important to have a solid faith, is so that it keeps us from being rattled by all that we see. We need more.

I thus write this as I sit clearly in the current path of hurricane Milton. He’s barreling right towards us here in Central Florida.

I also write this as one planning to vote in the November election. That’s hightailing it right here, too.

My reality is that I’m comfortable with neither, but I’m also not rattled. We will deal with whatever happens, walk through logically, and compassionately… and continue to find peace and hope in other, more enduring things.

Respectfully… be safe, my friends…

AR

I really hate disasters.

No, sorry. Allow me to rephrase. I really hate the destruction and death that so often accompany disaster. It’s hard to turn on the TV. It’s hard to watch. It’s hard to watch people hurting so much. From so much unexpected, tragic loss.

The uncanny thing about disasters, no less, is that they also present the opportunity to bring out the best in us… 

Why?

Because we’re reminded of what’s most important.

What’s most important?

Honoring people regardless.

Regardless of what?

Everything. 

We craft too many reasons why honor isn’t necessary. Oh, wait… we have better words than that… necessary boundaries… next steps in my mental health… they really have some work to do… Absolutely boundaries and mental health next steps are wise tools to discern in life, and all of us have some inner work to do.

However, in current culture my strong sense is we use said terminology not to craft reasons, but rather to create excuses… and to create excuses as to why honor is unnecessary.

Friends, if we only had to learn to honor those it’s easy to honor, then honor wouldn’t be that big of a virtue. If we only had to learn to hold in high esteem those who thought similarly, honor wouldn’t be all that significant.

The poignant beauty of honor is visible when we give it to another regardless. When conditions (or reasons or excuses) are creatively offered as to why honor isn’t necessary, it is we who have the blind spot; it is we who have forgotten what’s most important. 

So yes, I really hate the destruction and death that accompanies disaster.

It was really hard to watch all unfold up the coast last week. As the waters receded and extent of the damage became clear, it was gut-wrenching to see the torment attributed to hurricane Helene… 

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina… 

Buncombe County, the surrounding area of Asheville, which looks to be hardest hit.

The damage has been catastrophic, with residents turning into first responders and communities now functioning as primary care givers. People need help. They need more. They need more faster. It’s a lot.

But there is one good thing buried amidst that lot, if we can see it… if we make the most of the opportunity…

Love your neighbor. Whoever your neighbor is.

Honor others.

Regardless.

May we quit allowing lesser things to blind us to what’s most important.

Soberly…

AR

Character is a funny thing. 

I mean, I would contend that it’s important to each of us. It’s something we value, something we strive to build, and something we expect in other people.

Solid character — our integrity — guides us; it helps us weather the storms of life and keeps us from increased foolishness and wrongdoing.

Perhaps many would add that it’s a filter through which we learn to trust, support and even cheer on other people. 

The challenge is that sometimes we begin to cheer on before any thorough evaluation takes place. And so when either that character becomes more clear or we become more discerning, we have a decision to make: do we still trust and support? Do we continue to cheer on?

Better yet: do we now ignore what we know? Or do we find ways to still cheer on very imperfect people?

For me, that was Pete Rose, the fuel that flamed the “Big Red Machine,” one of the most successful, iconic time periods in the history of professional baseball.

The 1975-76 Reds were baseball’s best. With a primary lineup of the same 8 starters over 2 seasons, the Great Eight won games at an unheard of .800 winning percentage. 3 of those 8 would later be inducted into Cooperstown’s Hall of Fame, along with manager Sparky Anderson. 

Rose was not only the starting third baseman but also the captain of that team. As baseball enthusiasts know, he went on to win 3 World Series, 3 batting titles, 2 Gold Gloves, 1 MVP, Rookie of the Year, 17 All Star appearances, in addition to becoming Major League Baseball’s all time hits leader. And others on that list are not even close.

As a little girl learning to love the sport, I also learned to love Pete Rose. Not only was he an exceptional player, he played hard and fast on every ball in play. He did what every coach told me to do… try hard… give it your best… get better every day… no plays off!

And that’s what Pete did. Pete played the way we were told to play. Pete did the things, said the things, and on the field exemplified the things that I was trying to achieve. It’s not rocket science nor anywhere close to crazy that I would come to love Pete Rose. He became my earliest favorite athlete and therefore role model to this then kid.

As we grow, no less, we learn more. And hopefully, we become more discerning. 

Rose would be banned from baseball for gambling on games. Granted, he never bet on his team to lose — doing everything it takes to win — but he was penalized with permanent ineligibility. He has thus been denied entrance into Cooperstown even with the above clearly, undeniable resume. 

There were other questions about Pete on and off the field, sometimes seemingly saying or doing some stupid things; he wasn’t one marked by his noted humility. There were a couple of bitter divorces, charges of infidelity, tax evasion admissions, some rude public interactions, and seemingly shady dealings. 

But here’s the thing…

It never stopped me from loving Pete Rose.

It never stopped me from appreciating him. And it never stopped me from cheering him on, on and off the field. It never stopped me from wanting to see him in the Hall. The learning in my love for Pete is that it’s ok to still love the imperfect — even while acknowledging the imperfections. There is no need to wash over or ignore the imperfect or wrongdoing, but we don’t have to dismiss a person either when the character cracks become evident. Wisdom suggests we error on the side of mercy.

Nine years ago I was an early attender at the summer All Star Classic, held that year in Cincinnati. We had decent seats, about 7 rows up in center right. About 50 feet to my right was a temporary announcers’ booth, and there sat the one and only Pete Rose.

We locked eyes for a brief few seconds, much to my surprised glee. And I just smiled. Huge. Pete did, too, along with an added wink in my direction. My guess is he knew he was still cheered on.

RIP, Pete Rose. Thanks for all you taught me. 

Respectfully…

AR