Month: January 2025

What a month… what a pace… and so we make observations, looking at January, asking what people asked… 

[Note: below are the first 65 Q’s we saw in the news. Note, too: not all news sources are good at asking questions.}

1. After Trudeau, Can Canadians Get Their Free Speech Back?
2. Are any of Trump’s Cabinet picks in trouble of not being confirmed?
3. Are arsonists responsible for the Los Angeles wildfires?
4. Are the officials on Kansas City’s side?
5. Biden’s Legacy: Bad or Worse?
6. Can Dems ‘Trump-Proof’ Government?
7. Can Fairness Fix the U.S. Economy?
8. Can Trump Make a Deal for Middle East Peace?
9. Can Trump Make America Safe Again?
10. Conspiracies Too Awful To Imagine?
11. Could Trump Fix Social Security’s Biggest Problem in ’25?
12. Decision To Move Inauguration — Weather or Security Related?
13. Did Biden, Trump Abuse the Pardon Power?
14. Did Mayor Bass Cut the LAFD Budget?
15. Did NFL refs favor the Chiefs?
16. Did Trump Just Win a ‘Tectonic’ Election?
17. Do Senate Republicans Know What Time It Is?
18. George Soros, Anti-Communist?
19. Goodbye, DEI?
20. Harris Was Set To Crush Women’s Vote. What Went Wrong?
21. Has the Decline of Journalism Hit Rock Bottom?
22. Has Trump’s Second Term Already Peaked?
23. Have the Past 10 Years of Democratic Politics Been Disaster?
24. How Governable Is Los Angeles?
25. How Sensible Are Trump’s Deportation Plans?
26. Is Intifada Coming to America?
27. ‘People Want Change’: Will Democrats Flip Their Script?
28. Rename Mount McKinley?
29. Trump Shocks System. Will He Solve Problems Voters Care About?
30. Unity or Tension?
31. Wanna Know Why People Don’t Trust the Corporate Press?
32. What are presidential pardons and who are the 1,600 people Trump has pardoned?
33. What Does an America Without Democracy Look Like?
34. What Does Trump Mean by ‘Unleashing American Energy’? 
35. What happened to Michelle Obama?
36. What Happened When DEI Came to the Military?
37. What Happens When a Wildfire Reaches a City?
38. What Happens When You Can’t Afford To Evacuate?
39. What has Donald Trump promised to do on day one of his second term?
40. What Is Birthright Citizenship, and Can Trump Take it Away?
41. What Is a Tariff and Who Pays It?
42. What Really Happened in Wuhan?
43. What Will Happen to Hollywood Now?
44. What’s ‘America First’: People or Profits?
45. What’s Trump Done on Prescription Drug Prices So Far – and What Might Be Next?
46. When Was Biden Telling the Truth?
47. Where Have All the Young Democrats Gone?
48. Where is 2025 Super Bowl?
49. Which party cracks up first in 2025?
50. Winter Weather Worse?
51. Who Is More Noble: Tim Kaine or Pete Hegseth?
52. Who’s Afraid of Melania Trump?
53. Why Are Any Democrats Still Defending Biden?
54. Why Can’t the Left Understand Restrictions at the Border?
55. Why did Los Angeles area fire hydrants run dry?
56. Why Did Newsom and Bass Make So Many Major Errors?
57. Why Is Russiagate’s Origin Story Redacted?
58. Why Is the Right Obsessed With Epic Poetry?
59. Why Wasn’t Los Angeles Better Prepared?
60. Will Biden’s Approval Rating Ever Rebound?
61. Will Dems Ever Reckon With Their Biden Groupthink?
62. Will DOGE Decide To Go Big or Small?
63. Will Harris Ever Make a Comeback?
64. Will Public Stomach Mass Deportations?
65. Will the Courts Enforce the Constitution Against Trump?

We’ll keep asking questions, friends… and making observations, too.

Respectfully…

AR

[Sources include but are not limited to Aljazeera, All Sides, American Greatness, The American Prospect, The Atlantic, BBC, CBS, City Journal, The Federalist, Financial Times, FOX News, Free Press, The Guardian, The Hill, The Los Angeles Times, Marca, Motley Fool, MSNBC, The Nation, NBC News, New York Magazine, The New York Times, NewsNation, Newsweek, PBS, Racket News, Rasmussen Reports, RealClearPolitics, Salon, Semafor, Spiked, Substack, US News & World Report, USA Today, Vox, Wall Street Journal, WaPo, Washington Times, and YouTube.]

One of the phenomenons that I can’t quite wrap my head around these days (nor years) is how much people talk about Donald J. Trump. Love him or hate him, people like to talk about him. Reverence or repugnance, people still talk; they just use contrary words, share conflicting looks, and emote clashing convictions in their heads and their hearts. Trump talks a lot, too.

Because the reactions are so diabolically opposed to one another, for those of us who aren’t votaries or vilifiers, sometimes it’s challenging to know how to talk about him; we don’t fit into either crowd, and unfortunately, there’s a whole lot of if-you’re-not-with-me-you’re-against-me thinking going around. It’s simply not that simple. 

One challenge is that the votaries and vilifiers are typically louder but not larger than all those who are somewhere in between. Let me define “in between.” It’s not a case of false balance or the more colloquial bothsidesism; it’s more that we don’t agree nor disagree with absolutely everything and we also don’t believe that the other option was absent of significant deficiencies. 

Much of the challenge then in how we talk about him is based in the varied perception of what he says. Journalist Salena Zito coined the variance for The Atlantic years ago by saying, “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the simplicity of that response, with my concern being that such provides too generous a cushion for both the lie and the joke. Granted, I’m one who believes the majority of politicians lie from both parties; some just sound more eloquent in the act.

Let’s be candid. Trump says some incredibly disrespectful things. Some things are absolutely preposterous. His extensive use of hyperbole oft seems like an art form, and there are ways he speaks both to and about people that are profoundly rude and inappropriate.

Trump also isn’t afraid to be politically incorrect. He frequently shares blunt explanations that cut through the ambiguous ideological-speak of the established parties. The fact that Pres. Trump hasn’t been long tied to any establishment frees him from being beholden to the ingrained political perspectives and expenditures that have long passed the mark of prudence and good sense.

Hence, with the new administration up and running, we are actively making many observations, following the encouragement of CNN’s CEO to avoid “pre-judging Trump.” We are attempting to discern what’s true/not, healthy/not, scary/not, wise/not, necessary/not, etc. This isn’t always easy; the reporting isn’t always trustworthy. Many media sources have long lost their objectivity, seeking instead to create either rage or idolization instead of actually report the news. We recognize then that this is a time that is deeply unnerving for some and exceedingly sublime for others. We will thus continue to seek out objective and accurate media, so as to proceed in the promotion of respectful dialogue. Remember, friends, the goal of respectful dialogue is to be sharpened by diverse thinking; it is neither to convince another to think like me nor judge the one of varied perspective.

Journalist John Harris had an interesting take last week. Harris is the founding editor of the left-leaning Politico and former Washington Post reporter. He acknowledged the noted contrast, giving new meaning to the word “great,” but not using it in a way that’s necessarily stupendous nor good…

“Donald J. Trump in his second inaugural address was everything his supporters hoped he would be: Breathtakingly expansive about his intention to reshape the vast federal government around his vision; raucously jingoistic in proclaiming that the country will do whatever it wants to advance its interests around the world; openly triumphal in asserting his belief that his survival from an assassin’s bullet and his victory show he is God’s chosen instrument to lead an American revival. 

Trump was also everything his adversaries feared: Messianic in tone; lovingly protective of his grievances; wholly uncharitable to the people, sitting just feet from him under the Capitol Rotunda, who he defeated so convincingly. In one light, it was all quite familiar. But the second occasion of Trump taking the oath of office also put him in an entirely new light. For the first time, he is holding power under circumstances in which reasonable people cannot deny a basic fact: He is the greatest American figure of his era.

Let’s quickly exhale: Great in this context is not about a subjective debate over whether he is a singularly righteous leader or a singularly menacing one. It is now simply an objective description about the dimensions of his record. He began a decade ago by dominating the Republican Party. He soon advanced to dominating every discussion of American politics broadly. Now, his astonishing comeback after his defeat by Joseph Biden in 2020 and the notoriety of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot makes clear there are certain things he is not and one big thing he is.

He is not a fluke, who got elected initially in 2016 almost entirely because of the infirmities of his opponent. He is not someone the American public somehow misunderstands — as though Democrats and the news media have not spent 10 years forcefully highlighting the risks of his record and character. He is someone with an ability to perceive opportunities that most politicians do not and forge powerful, sustained connections with large swaths of people in ways that no contemporary can match. In other words: He is a force of history…”

“Great” presidents, Harris writes, have the potential to become unifiers mostly in retrospect. They often divide “the nation before reuniting it on a new level of national understanding.” As is no secret, we’re pretty divided; there are so many issues, issues in which we struggle with comprehensive understanding, making solutions not so simple. The reality also is that we are not divided into two nice, neat, easily-explainable, different camps. We have a lot to learn from other people. 

Looks like we’ll have lots to observe and talk about. Lord knows it won’t always be easy, but we will strive to do so respectfully, honestly and well.

Respectfully…

AR

Yes, one more thing.

There’s a new administration, meaning a new “head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces”… a new President who is now “responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress”…

And let me again say this; we will understandably have varied reactions; this is celebratory for some — difficult for others. Some will clap. Others will cringe. My guess is most of us are somewhere in between. 

Friends, here at the Intramuralist, we will go forward as watchful observers, fearful of no topic, intentionally respectful of all. We look forward to all the conversations, even when the topic is challenging; such serves as zero excuse to sacrifice respect.

But before we move on to all that’s next, there’s one more thing that needs to be addressed from the election season we’ve left behind. And dare I suggest — being no political strategist nor election analyst nor fan of the three primary, one-time 2024 presidential candidates — this is an angle that clearly both elevated Trump and discredited his opposition, as it’s hard to believe all one says about one candidate is true, when a major claim about another candidate so clearly is not. Our observant eyes told us what the New York Times and others previously would not. We say this not with any pro-Trump/anti-Biden, anti-Trump/pro-Biden nor any anti/pro Harris avidity. We are making observations.

On Friday, January 17, 2024 — just 3 days from the end of Pres. Biden’s 4 year term — the Times published an article entitled “How Biden’s Inner Circle Protected a Faltering President.” The in-depth editorial shares how as the sitting President, Biden’s closest advisors knew he wasn’t ok for years. It wasn’t just age. It certainly wasn’t a speech impediment. There was something cognitively diminished and wrong. 

As described by author Matt Margolis: 

“A new report from the New York Times not only goes into detail about how aides adjusted his schedule to ensure he was in good spirits, limited his exposure to negative news, and shielded him from public scrutiny, surrounding him to shield him from view, even modifying his use of Air Force One’s steps to avoid highlighting his physical challenges, but tells us who in the inner circle masterminded the efforts to curate his public appearances, provide pre-scripted teleprompter responses for private events, and, of course, coordinate responses to negative media coverage. The story highlighted Biden’s family’s and inner circle’s efforts to manage growing concerns about his age and health, even as they publicly downplayed them.” 

Straight from the New York Times…

The President was protected by a small group of people…

He used a teleprompter all the time… even for small fundraising events in donors’ homes…

Questions for him had to be submitted beforehand and pre-approved…

Concerns from voters were dismissed…

Talk of him being as sharp as always, better than ever, was all untrue.

The report’s bottom line was that Pres. Biden’s decline was covered up by those closest to him. It was intentional for years.

Friends, I have no desire to pour on the former President. What does cause me pause, though, is that the media no doubt knew this, and they only publicly acknowledged such 3 days from the end of his term. If the media is clearly only now admitting the cover up, what else will they hide or deceivingly report in the years to come? What else are they covering up now?

It’s why the media and more have lost credibility; it’s what has hurt their trustworthiness in what they say about other candidates. It’s also why we will continue to make thoughtful observations in far more than the four years to come.

Respectfully…

AR

If nothing else, call it an interesting alignment of events…

Monday is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, dedicated to the equality of all people, the service of others, and caring for their physical and spiritual needs. It’s “a day on, not a day off.” As his widow, Coretta Scott King once said, “The greatest birthday gift my husband could receive is if people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds celebrated the holiday by performing individual acts of kindness through service to others.”

Monday is also Inauguration Day, where President-elect Donald Trump will be sworn in for his second term as President of the United States. The Swearing-In Ceremony is set to start at noon, with a church service beforehand, luncheon following, and multiple balls to fill out the evening. For the first time in 40 years, the ceremony will be moved inside, due to the freezing cold weather. Note, too, that Presidents Biden, Obama, Bush and Clinton will each be in attendance.

Monday, too, is the College Football Playoff National Championship, the eleventh annual CFP crowning, but first under the 12 team format. It’s Ohio State’s Buckeyes vs. the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. OSU last won the college football championship in 2014; the Irish haven’t won since 1988. Let me add a brief tangent. When former coach Brian Kelly left Notre Dame 3 years ago, leaving for the likes of LSU, he said, “I want to be in an environment where I have the resources to win a national championship.” Guess our perspectives aren’t always accurate. 

(And one more FYI, so that we omit hopefully no one, January 20th also serves as National DJ Day, National Cheese Lovers Day, and Penguin Awareness Day… go penguins, go.)

Each of the above is a “big deal,” so-to speak. What strikes me in their simultaneous occurrence is that we don’t all react the same way to them. In fact, suffice it to say, there is a whole plethora of varied reaction to MLK Day, Inauguration Day, and the CFP.

It’s not even one of those scenarios in which pretty much 80% of us all feel the same way. Not everyone is an admirer of Dr. King; some are still grieving the election of Donald Trump; and much of the country would prefer teams other than the fortunate midwestern two.

So what do we do when such a wide discrepancy of reaction exists?

It’s today’s zillion dollar question. And it just may be one of the biggest pockets of judgment even the intelligent allow. Let me explain…

There are many times a person reacts differently than we. It is thus absolutely, completely valid to say in such a moment, “I don’t understand.” A prudent, growth-mentality response would then seek to understand.

When dismissing the prudence, we pave the way for judgment. Instead of acknowledging a lack of understanding, we leap to judgment. For example…

“There’s no way an educated person could believe that… there’s no way a humble person could cheer for them… absolutely not should she be singing at the inauguration… if she really loved her country…”

Friends, it is completely ok to not understand and to not share the opinion of another. The judgment comes when we assume we know the only right response. Perhaps we don’t articulate it as such, but we often add a value assessment — as in “they aren’t bright, moral, objective, kind, compassionate, Christian, patriotic, you-name it.” We also imply that we are all that and more.

Sorry, but that’s naive. 

Often judgment embeds itself within an unknown naïveté. 

Let’s be sensitive to what we know and what we don’t… what reactions we share and those we don’t. Some of the January 20th events are easy for some — difficult for others. Some will pay lots of attention; some will pay none.

Note, too, only one day after, January 21st, it’s National Squirrel Appreciation Day. Can’t say I share the reactions of those who are exuberant. 

Guess I have more to seek to understand.

Respectfully…

AR

“Great results begin with great questions” — Marilee Adams in Change Your Questions, Change Your Life

I’ve long referred to the American University adjunct professor’s work as my favorite book. It probably, seemingly slightly influenced my perspective when a trusted friend gifted me a copy soon after it came out years ago, adding, “This is the way you think.”

Adams advocates that any of us can change our lives simply by changing the questions we ask, especially those we ask of ourselves. A quick provided example… note how “asking ‘what great things could happen today?’ creates very different expectations, moods, and energy than asking ‘what could go wrong today?’” Amen to that. 

For example, from Adams:

1. What do I want? 
2. What are my choices?
3. What assumptions am I making?
4. What am I responsible for?
5. How else can I think about this?
6. What is the other person thinking, feeling, and wanting?
7. What am I missing or avoiding?
8. What can I learn? … from this person or situation? … from this mistake or failure? … from this success?
9. What action steps make the most sense?
10. What questions should I ask (myself or others)?
11. How can I turn this into a win-win?
12. What’s possible?

I find those to be excellent. I think often, in fact, of the tribal social media hang outs where someone will make a claim, another will respectfully ask question #5 — “how else can we think about this?” — and another will immediately shout them down and attempt to drown them out. That’s neither healthy nor mature.

Adams encourages us in a wiser way, noting that questions invite conversation. As we like to say, the question mark is the only punctuation piece that invites a response (albeit the semi-colon has a bit of an argument here). 

Such is why we often examine the questions that are being asked in current culture. Elsewhere…

Too many shout. (Really? Who wants to listen to that?)

Too many declare. (Yikes. Did they forget the value in humility?)

Too many blame. (Oh my. As Adams writes, “Blame keeps us stuck in the past.”)

So as we look to 2025, here are some questions we’re asking — each sincere, though marked by diverse levels of seriousness:

1. When will the fires end? And what will we do differently after they’re done?
2. How will the economy fare in 2025? What will happen with inflation and interest rates?
3. Will America’s southern border become more secure, and will government find a way to work together, crafting a prudent, effective immigration approach?
4. How will Pres. Trump surprise us? Now that there’s nothing more to “win,” will he execute his duties differently?
5. Can America’s deficit spending issue be fixed as long both Social Security and Medicare are currently each forecasted to be insolvent in the next 12 years?
6. Will peace pause the Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Hamas conflicts? Would a cease-fire solve the long-term conflicts, especially in Israel?
7. Will a reasonable third party become more popular here?
8. Will America’s divisiveness decrease? A better question: what will it take?
9. Will the Chiefs win the Super Bowl for a third time in a row?
10. And if so, will Travis ask Taylor to marry him?

Just asking questions, friends.

Of course, we have more. We’ll get to those soon…

Respectfully…

AR

… five football fields every minute…

I’ve been trying to wrap my brain around that reality for days now, watching the fires continue to engulf Southern California. Such is how fast authorities said the fire was initially spreading with zero containment at the time.

What an awful, awful thing.

The numbers are mind-boggling… the extent of the destruction… tens of thousands of acres burned… hundreds of thousands evacuated… still going…

When we experience awful things, we react. Fast and furiously, we want it to stop; we want to see it no more; no more hurt; and while so often there is nothing we can do, we feel helpless and find ways to react. And one of the fastest ways to react — even with the ongoing awful — is to blame a singular person.

I get it.

Blame is fast. It’s easy. And a singular individual or entity gives us a target at which to conveniently direct all of our emotion. It just may not be entirely accurate.

Let’s face it; much has contributed to California’s catastrophe. To suggest that this is all the result of climate change is an exercise in magnanimous naïveté.

To start with, greater Los Angeles was experiencing drought conditions. According to the Los Angeles Times, “The last time Los Angeles recorded rainfall over a tenth of an inch — the threshold that officials typically consider helpful for thirsty plants and the reduction of wildfire risk — was May 5, when downtown received just 0.13 inches of rain.”

Then came the Santa Ana dry winds — those that sweep down from the deserts and across the Southern California coast — which were said to be “supersized.” Topography played a role. Humidity was low. Then, too, multiple other aspects factored into both the initial and comprehensive response… land and forest management… fire department budget cuts… budget prioritization of other things… water availability… dry hydrants… ambiguous evacuation plans… emergency preparedness… inaccurate alert systems… etc. etc.

But… (Follow me here…)

Some of my friends who’ve come to a solid, Judeo-Christian faith have found their way there because of a simple, binary equation. They see evil on this Earth. They have no doubt evil is real. And they thus know a greater good must exist in order to counteract (and be victorious over) the evil.

One of the ways, no less, evil is alive and well is how satan — sorry, I don’t believe his name deserves capitalization — but how satan tempts us to focus on the wrong things at the right time.

Yes, in the current catastrophe, people certainly made mistakes. Yes, we might not like all the politics involved. True, we trust (rightly or wrongly) some politicians more than others. But the bottom line at this very moment in time is that the enormous problem needs to be solved. The fires need to be extinguished. People need help. They need our physical assistance and our heartfelt prayers. 

It matters not if the people are rich or poor, citizen or immigrant, celebrity or not. It matters not if you like them or not. Those affected by the fire need our prayers. Hence, it would be wisest to put our energies there.

The time for evaluation will come. Until then, let’s withhold casting any rhetorical stones, focusing first and foremost on the biggest problem at hand.

Respectfully…

AR

One more thing… straight from the founder of Facebook himself…

“Hey everyone. I want to talk about something important today because it’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram. I started building social media to give people a voice. I gave a speech at Georgetown five years ago about the importance of protecting free expression, and I still believe this today, but a lot has happened over the last several years.

There’s been widespread debate about the potential harms from online content. Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more. A lot of this is clearly political, but there’s also a lot of legitimately bad stuff out there. Drugs, terrorism, child exploitation. These are things that we take very seriously, and I want to make sure that we handle responsibly. So we built a lot of complex systems to moderate content, but the problem with complex systems is they make mistakes even if they accidentally censor just 1% of posts.

That’s millions of people, and we’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship. The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritizing speech. So, we’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms…

We’re going to simplify our content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse. What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far…

We’re changing how we enforce our policies to reduce the mistakes that account for the vast majority of censorship on our platforms. We used to have filters that scanned for any policy violation. Now, we’re going to focus those filters on tackling illegal and high-severity violations, and for lower-severity violations, we’re going to rely on someone reporting an issue before we take action. The problem is that the filters make mistakes, and they take down a lot of content that they shouldn’t…

Now we have the opportunity to restore free expression, and I’m excited to take it. It’ll take time to get this right, and these are complex systems. They’re never going to be perfect. There’s also a lot of illegal stuff that we still need to work very hard to remove. But the bottom line is that after years of having our content moderation work focused primarily on removing content, it is time to focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our systems, and getting back to our roots about giving people voice. I’m looking forward to this next chapter. Stay good out there, and more to come soon.”

Thanks, Zuck. Yes, thanks to Mark Zuckerberg for his acknowledgement this week that “the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased… it’s gone too far.”

Kudos, too, to the many of you who sent me articles on this development… and also, to the one who shared that I can now take some satisfaction in being one of the last to be censored by Meta.

Let me be clear. When Facebook chose to remove our post 10+ days ago — and not to restore it — I don’t think they were after me, so-to-speak. I don’t think there was any malicious motive nor nefarious intent specifically targeting us. For those unfamiliar with our journey, we wrote about the clear cover up of the mental decline of two of our elect, one being the sitting President of the United States. There exist valid questions as to the extent and length of his incapacitation and in regard to whom has actually been running the federal government. Facebook removed our respectful post, stating the content was “misleading.” There was an attempt to repost; it was also removed. There was no response to our subsequent appeal.

I don’t believe Facebook was after me. But what I do believe, echoing Zuckerberg, is that fact-checking has become too political; it morphs truth into subjectivity; and prompts way too many to fall prey to a narrative saying “we need to shut diverse perspective down.”

Naturally, we disagree with such an assertion. We believe the wisest way forward is to have the conversation.

Respectfully, of course.

AR

For the first time in the 16+ year existence of the Intramuralist, Facebook removed our post from their page. The explanation was that the content shared was “misleading.” Said Meta/FB: “The post may contain misleading links or content.” It was said to go against their “community standards on spam.” They state that they “only remove things or restrict people to keep the community respectful and safe.”

Looks like we will start this year with the things that make you go hmmm…

Since November of 2008 we have spoken of many things… sports, politics, Econ, ecology… People have been plenty, too… Caitlin Clark, Colin Kaepernick, Walter Cronkite, all the Bush’s and Obama’s… We’ve dished out both fair criticism and high praise; we’ve been on the understandable receiving end of such, too. We’ve been called too conservative, too liberal, too Christian, too not. The point has always been to prompt dialogue, albeit respectful dialogue at that. We have never advocated for concordant nor tribal thinking. My sense is a reverent give-and-take is an increasingly lost art. Not only is it a lost art, so-to-speak, many also find it pointless and paltry. Hence, if we can encourage gracious, considerate discourse — even and especially among the unlikeminded — we believe that to be a meaningful thing.

To thus call our post “misleading” is fascinating to me. Allow us to recapitulate the content…

The intended post led by pointing out the cognitive decline and potential dementia of the sitting US President and a sitting US congresswoman. Based on reporting by The Wall Street Journal, questions were asked as to why they are still in office, why they are only reporting in detail now, and who has covered up for them. Noting that the two represent separate political parties, also noted was that (1) both parties have been engaged in deception and (2) the media is complicit; they only tell us what they want us to know.

Let me respectfully, therefore, disagree with Facebook: there is nothing misleading about our post. On the same day we attempted to share our post, on Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” chief legal and political correspondent for CBS, Jan Crawford, referred to Pres. Biden’s “obvious cognitive decline” as the most under-covered and underreported news story of the year.

Which leads me to again ask…

What did we say that was untrue? 

What automated algorithm did we hit that the media doesn’t want us to say?

Why remove our post?

Why not promote respectful dialogue?

And why be dishonest in suggesting our content is something that it’s not?

Agree or disagree that one party’s behavior is more egregious, that’s a perspective worthy of discussion. Desiring to point out the questionable mental stability of other leaders, also valid. But disallowing the noted cover up of cognitive impairment in the current, in-office elect is not based on any content that’s misleading, especially when such, with absolutely all due respect, includes the highest office in our land. If the Executive Office holder is incapacitated, that is an indubitable, disquieting conversation needed to be had. Who’s been running the country? For how long? How bad is it? And is that what the media wishes we not even discuss?

It seems timely, therefore, to note the prudence found in the words of the ever articulate, albeit oft morally repugnant Tyrion Lannister, the youngest child of Lord Tywin Lannister, in the ever popular, “Game of Thrones.” Says Lannister, “If you tear out a man’s tongue, you’re not proving him a liar; you’re only telling the world you fear what he might say.”

True, Lannister is a fictional character, but it’s amazing how much truth fiction so often provides.

Respectfully..

AR

No doubt those college days years ago were filled to the brim with prime learning. We didn’t know what we didn’t know, and while the classroom shaped our professional ambition, the moments outside the classroom grew us up. As beloved roommates Bridge and Nolan will still gleefully attest, I would oft awake after a perceived poor choice declaring myself to be “a new person.” It would go something like this…

“I just want you to know, I am a new person today!” said with great confidence and joy and a grin spread seemingly from ear to ear.

A month would go by. Maybe only a few weeks some seasons, and a new day would dawn… “I just want you to know, I am a new, new person today!’ 

And with each relational setback or moment of regret, I would add one more “new” to the previous declaration. 

We laughed a lot those days, days in which we learned all sorts of everything from the lack of nutritional value at “breakfast club” to how to compare one’s communication skills to the stoicism of the foyer’s red, velvet bench. 

We laughed then. We laugh still now. How beautiful it is when joy permeates life.

But I think one of the things I learned all those years ago is clearly foundational to the joy that coincides with the onset of another new year…

It’s a new year… a clean slate… a time to begin anew…

What new things do I wish to accomplish?

Where do I wish to grow in the year ahead?

What would I like to do differently?

And also… including a brief focus on others…

What relationships would I like to see improve?

Who can I treat better?

Of whom do I need to be more respectful?

Whether formalized via individual resolution, the turning of the calendar provides a pivot from all that was. That doesn’t mean it’s easy, the past is erased, nor we always move forward with bells on. But what it does provide is a renewed sense of hope, confidence and joy. This is a different year. We can be different, too.

Back in those college days, as the declarative statement grew in adjectival length, Bridge and Nolan and I would chuckle. There was always grace… encouragement, too. But somewhere along the line I think we realized that the added “news” were not negative. In fact, they were evidence of growth, evidence of learning — and yes, so much outside the classroom. 

What a beautiful thing…

Happy new year, friends!

May your “news” ever increase. May 2025 be one brimming with hope, confidence and joy. I look forward to what we will humbly discover together in the year to come.

Blessings…

AR