Month: January 2026

How sad I was recently to read the public post from former Nebraskan Senator and President of the University of Florida, Ben Sasse, who announced the following: 

“Friends, This is a tough note to write, but since a bunch of you have started to suspect something, I’ll cut to the chase: Last week I was diagnosed with metastasized, stage-four pancreatic cancer, and am gonna die. Advanced pancreatic is nasty stuff; it’s a death sentence. But I already had a death sentence before last week too — we all do. I’m blessed with amazing siblings and half-a-dozen buddies that are genuinely brothers. As one of them put it, ‘Sure, you’re on the clock, but we’re all on the clock.’ Death is a wicked thief, and the bastard pursues us all. Still, I’ve got less time than I’d prefer…”

In 2018, Sasse wrote a book the Intramuralist believed to be spot on and brilliant. It’s entitled “Them: Why We Hate Each Other — and How to Heal.” In it he argues how America’s current state of extreme political polarization is not primarily a political crisis, but rather, a byproduct of a profound loneliness epidemic. 

His point is that the erosion of “local tribes” — faith-based groups, neighborhood associations and service clubs — has left Americans feeling isolated. This isolation then activates physical pain responses in the brain, which often manifest as anger and resentment. No doubt in the 8 years since publication, we’ve all seen increased anger and resentment. One could look at the last few weeks alone.

Sasse maintains that to fill the void left by the community collapse, people have turned to partisan media. Sasse cleverly calls this “polititainment,” which is no doubt alive and well. This model and these partisans thrive on stoking outrage and “nutpicking” — plucking extreme examples from the opposing so-called side to justify painting them as a representative enemy. Here he suggests that hosts such as Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow aren’t attempting to inform you; they want to make you mad. Such feeds the rage politics so in play today. It also highlights how journalism has eradicated the distinction between news and opinion.

Realizing its contemporary relevance, especially this week, allow us to share more nuggets of wisdom from “Them”…

“Right now partisan tribalism is statistically higher than at any point since the Civil War. Why? It’s certainly not because our political discussions are more important. It’s because the local, human relationships that anchored political talk have shriveled up. Alienated from each other, and uprooted from places we can call home, we’re reduced to shrieking.”

“Lacking meaningful attachments, people are finding a perverse bond in at least sharing a common enemy.”

“There is a deep and corrosive tribal impulse to act as if “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” But sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just a jackass.”

“Many of our television hosts are modern-day carnival barkers. We get dopamine, adrenalin, and oxytocin all at once. It’s an adult video game. But instead of expertly separating us from our wallets, they’re separating us from things much more valuable. Our time, our sense of perspective, and our judgment. And they are separating us from each other.”

“Freedom depends on an informed citizenry, and an informed citizenry depends on serious journalism that takes facts seriously and grapples with those facts honestly. But good journalism is less and less likely when there are fewer and fewer readers with an appetite for something more than titillation. Producers and consumers work in tandem—for better or for worse. Right now, the pool of trust that once made that relationship constructive has all but dried up.”

“When one half of the nation demonizes the other half, tendrils of resentment reach out and strangle whatever charitable impulses remain in us.” 

“We want an America with free speech, religion, press, assembly, and protest – even for those we disagree with.”

Thanks, Ben. You’ve got less time than we prefer, too.

Respectfully…

AR

Oh, friends… there is a heaviness so many of us share. What’s happened in Minnesota has been awful.

Let me be clear. I believe in secure national borders and prudent local law enforcement. I believe in both addressing crime and applying compassion. I believe that policies enacted by administrations past and present have contributed significantly, negatively to the current situation. The Biden administration did not effectively filter out criminals from immigration; the Trump administration is not effectively applying compassion to those who are not illegal. Much has led us here.

Thankfully, it seems as if federal and state authorities have realized the need to work together. Such is necessary, as our political debates and rhetorical temperatures are impeding solution.

So in the meantime, what can the rest of us do?

Allow me to share some wise words from a longtime colleague and friend, Rev. Dr. Alvin Sanders. Alvin speaks to those who follow Jesus, meaning primarily they desire to love God and love those He created. Many fit in that category of followers. Alvin then encourages us to let scripture and proximity be the number one directors of our current response [note: all emphasis mine}…

“… We are called to love God fully and others selflessly. Our faith shows in our care for one another, our compassion for those in poverty, and our pursuit of justice for the oppressed. Rooted in the Bible, strengthened by the Spirit, and sustained in prayer, we follow Christ by sharing and demonstrating the gospel with our words and lives.

We believe the church’s response to immigration must be shaped by Scripture and meaningful relationships, not by political rhetoric or media narratives…

Many of those we serve are immigrants whose lives and churches are deeply affected by current federal policies. Our response must be rooted in a biblical, compassionate understanding of immigration. Only by returning to foundational Christian principles can we offer a credible public witness and address this crisis faithfully.

It starts with moral clarity. When Scripture and proximity, not political talking points, shape our response, we’re less divided by partisanship. People find relief knowing their convictions stem from faith and experience, not media outrage. That clarity eases anxiety and internal conflict.

We also need freedom from fear-based narratives. Political discourse on immigration often stirs fear. Scripture and proximity foster courage and trust. We gain emotional freedom, leading to less reactivity, greater discernment, and steadier responses to complex issues.

Proximity to the vulnerable spiritually shapes our souls. It is impossible to be close and not be spiritually formed in one way or another. Those who are closest often grow in humility, compassion, and dependence on God, not just as ideals, but as practiced virtues…”

My desire is to grow in humility, compassion and dependence on God — not just as something I intangibly believe in, but in something I practically, personally, abundantly apply.

May we each strive to love all people well… challenging as that may sometimes be.

Soberly…

AR

I’m not quite sure how to wisely deal with all the expectations around silence — who should speak, when they should speak, and how loudly they should do it. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Albert Einstein echoed a similar concern when he said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

Those quotes matter. They should challenge us. But I also wonder if we sometimes apply them too quickly and too narrowly.

We observe other people and assume they are being silent. But maybe they aren’t silent at all — maybe they’re just responding differently or not as loudly as we are. Maybe we assume silence equals doing nothing, when in reality it often means doing something quieter, slower, or less visible. Not all responses come with a virtual megaphone.

I’m reminded of the words of American writer Elbert Hubbard: “He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand your words.” There’s truth there. If someone can’t make room for how another person processes or responds, they probably won’t hear them even when they do speak.

I was also struck by the recent words of contemporary writer Matthew Royse, who named what he called “the uncomfortable truth no one wants to hear”:

“We live in a world that rewards noise.
Social media has led us to believe that every thought deserves an audience, every opinion requires a platform, and silence equals irrelevance.

But the smartest people… fostering genuine relationships…
They have mastered something the rest of us haven’t. They know when to shut up.”

In other words, the most successful people don’t win by talking more. They win by knowing when not to.

There is, in fact, a time to speak and a time not to. I remember sharing my concerns about the primary presidential candidates in 2016, 2020 and again in 2024. Multiple people told me it was important that I only express concern about one of the candidates, because the other was “the lesser of two evils.” I’ll admit, that logic confused me; the lesser of two evils is still, so-to-speak, evil.

My assessment wasn’t that Biden, Clinton, Harris and/or Trump were evil people. It was that each had serious-but-different competency flaws. Given that reality, it makes sense to me that people would disagree — not only on what was right or wrong, but on how to respond, and even whether to speak at all.

Which brings me back to this: there are moments when speaking is necessary and moments when silence is the wiser response. Neither is a failure of conviction. Too often, we judge others by the volume or timing of their words, assuming that those who don’t speak like we do must not care as deeply or think as clearly. In reality, restraint can come from reflection, humility, prayer or a genuine desire to listen before reacting.

In polarized times, it makes complete sense that wise people would respond differently. Some feel called to speak plainly and immediately. Others choose patience, quiet action or careful timing. Wisdom does not always look the same, and integrity is not measured by how loudly or publicly it is expressed. Making room for different responses isn’t weakness — it’s an acknowledgment that discernment takes many forms, especially in complicated and emotionally charged moments.

Respectfully,
AR

Sometimes I wonder if we just become softies as we age.

Okay, I’ll speak for myself.

Sometimes I wonder if I’m becoming a softie because my edge is wearing off. Things that never made me cry before can now open the floodgates. Things that used to rattle me no longer carry the same power. I also find myself learning from people and places I once couldn’t—or maybe simply refused to.

I can cry with someone I never knew, whose story we only learn after tragedy strikes. I can empathize with a passionate, hurting person even when I don’t share their perspective. I can put aside differences to care for—and even learn from—the unexpected.

Maybe it’s not about getting older.
Maybe it’s about getting wiser.

Each of these is valuable, especially when we acknowledge the wisdom in loving our neighbor, refraining from judgment, and being generous with honor and respect. And yet, I think of how many relationships and rivalries exist where we intentionally withhold those very things. We forgo wisdom, somehow convincing ourselves that withholding honor and respect is a good idea.

Think of the distinct sides for which at least someone justifies withholding respect…

Adams vs. Jefferson
Hamilton vs. Burr
India vs. Pakistan
Yankees vs. Red Sox
Real Madrid vs. Barcelona
Adidas vs. Puma
Hatfield vs. McCoy
Churchill vs. Chamberlain
Jobs vs. Gates
Michigan vs. Ohio State

And sometimes, when rivalries become so fierce and passions run so high, we forget something simple: rooting for the opposite side doesn’t make someone a bad person. Different interests, experiences, and upbringings lead people to choose different sides. That doesn’t make them wrong. And it certainly doesn’t mean our side holds a monopoly on virtue.

Speaking of that list, few rivalries are as ferocious as those in college athletics.

As is no secret, this semi-humble blogger is a loyal Purdue alum. I don apparel year-round, know when Drew Brees’s birthday is, and never miss a basketball game. And as a Purdue fan, let me be clear: we never root for Indiana. I do mean never.

Two nights ago, the Indiana Hoosiers played in the College Football Playoff National Championship. Before this season, IU football was widely considered the most losing program in NCAA Division I history—holding the record for most losses ever, over 700. And yet, there they were: undefeated, with all eyes on them.

It was a great game—competitive till the end—with Indiana victorious. Head coach Curt Cignetti took a program known mostly for its futility and turned it into a champion. Quarterback Fernando Mendoza—the 2025 Heisman Trophy winner—was humble, kind, and endlessly complimentary of both his teammates and opponents.

In years past, I would have grimaced at the mere thought of Indiana having even a chance to win. I would have sat on the edge of my couch, passionately rooting against them. I do not like Indiana. Under no circumstances does a Purdue fan cheer for IU.

But on Monday night, something was different. Here we were, cheering, “Go IU, go!”

What a story. What a season. And what an achievement. Congrats, Indiana.

I guess I am a bit of a softie now.
A little wiser, too.

Respectfully,
AR

I’m not one who has ever had a lot of pet peeves in life. I’m just not that easily irked. But if I had to come up with something that I find mildly more irritating than perhaps others do, it would be the number of times after a person reads a good book, that they respond to others and say, “You should read this.”

It’s not about reading. I enjoy reading. I’ve read at least 19 books on race, six on the conflict between China and Taiwan, books on gender identity, cultural amnesia and nearly everything ever penned by attorney-turned-author John Grisham.

It’s about the should. 

It’s not just the fact that if I read every book that a person has told me I should read, I’d have no time left for anything else. It’s the subtle implication behind it — the not-so-thinly-veiled I know what you should do.

And it doesn’t stop there.

Just like that our attention shifts from self-reflection to managing other people.

Let’s be honest: this is a wild time in our culture. Or perhaps more accurately, a wild, messy, uncertain, turbulent, concerning, polarizing and peeving time. But let us also posit that the wild, messy, uncertain, turbulent, concerning, polarizing and peeving time has existed far longer than many of us care to remember.

The world feels deeply unsettled. In just the past few weeks, a nonviolent protestor was shot and killed by a federal agent in Minnesota, followed by more unrest; Iranians have taken to the streets as their economy collapses under authoritarian rule; China has increased military exercises around Taiwan; a physician testified before Congress and declined to answer whether biological men can get pregnant; the President has expressed interest in acquiring  Greenland; and immigration fits every adjective above, remaining complex and polarizing and something we’ve yet to handle well as a country.

This is hard, friends. But let’s be clear: suggesting that one of us knows what everyone else should do, feel or think — however well intentioned — is a weak argument.

Take immigration, for example. It’s undeniably complex. More than 11 million immigrants entered the U.S. between 2020-2025 with a peak of over three million people in 2023 alone. To claim that most are criminals is unfounded. To claim that most are simply good people seeking a better life is also unproven. In many cases, we rely less on evidence and more on what we want to believe, shaped by personal experience.

That’s not a criticism — we all do it. 

For my part, I’ve worked as a human resources professional in Central and South Florida, one of the top states for immigrant populations. In trying to comply with existing law, I’ve encountered a wide range of people: those seeking a better life, those who knowingly overstayed because they simply preferred it here, and yes, criminals as well. My experience is just that — my experience. It’s not a scientific basis for prescribing what anyone else should believe.

My point is simply this: all of these realities exist. And we might be wiser if we lowered the volume, tempered the rhetoric, and worked together to thoughtfully address what is undeniably tricky and complex.

I know that’s difficult. It may require us to stop shouting, stop shaming, and stop telling others how they should feel.

Maybe — just maybe — there’s a book on that.

Respectfully…

AR

It certainly has been a lively news cycle. In fact, the word “lively” simply doesn’t do it justice. There’s been seemingly a ton of significant activities and events. For example… 

Suffice it to say, it’s a lot.

So how do we handle it? How do we stay objective? How do we know what we see is the truth?

I thought this was an excellent conversation recently between Geoff Bennett of PBS, David Brooks of the New York Times and Jonathan Capehart of MSNow, all left-leaning or far left organizations. They made an especially insightful, cultural point, discussing the ICE incident in Minneapolis…

BROOKS: Yes, let me talk first about the public debate, and then about the event, which Jonathan was talking about.

In 1951, there was a brutal football game between Princeton and Dartmouth. And after the game, researchers sent the Princeton kids and the Dartmouth kids film, the exact same film video of the game. And the Princeton kids said, look, this film proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Dartmouth kids did twice as many penalties.

And the Dartmouth kids said, this film proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Princeton kids did all the penalties. And so they were looking at the same video. And it’s a very famous social science experiment. And I watched it play out in real time this week, because every single Trump person on my feed, my social media feeds was saying, this proves he shot her with just cause.

And every single anti-Trump person on my feed said it was murder. I did not see one exception. And so I think what this tells us is the norm, which is essential to democracy, of putting the truth above your party and your team, that norm is eviscerated, at least on social media, hopefully not in real life.

As to the events of what actually happened, I’m not going to render a judgment on what happened, because we’re going to have an investigation. I will leave it to them. And I hope Minnesota has full information to do the investigation.

But what Jonathan [Capehart] said is absolutely correct., that the atmosphere that ICE has created is incendiary, that people who have power and have guns are supposed to exercise restraint, and they are doing the opposite. And the crust of civilization is thin. And once people with guns and with power began acting like thugs, well, then things are going to spiral. And that’s what we have seen.

BENNETT: Jonathan, to David’s point about the public debate, it does feel like we live in this moment where this idea of seeing is believing has been replaced by what you believe now determines what you see…

* * * * *

Hear that, friends…

The idea of seeing is believing has been replaced by what we believe now determines what we see.

Of course we quote people and media and all sorts of sources — especially those who preface their opinion with the reason why they are of course objective — but our belief still permeates objectivity, albeit most often unknowingly. 

That’s indeed insightful… concerning, too. 

Respectfully…

AR

Dusk was setting in on my Wednesday late afternoon drive. It’s a path I take multiple times weekly, near to my home. I take backroads behind some local suburban businesses to pick up my son from work, roads with a speed limit of no more than 30 m.p.h.

The car in front of me was a ways away, following a similar path, and he turned left maybe 50 yards down the road. As soon as he turned, someone laid on their horn. Long. Loud. Very loud.

I wasn’t immediately sure what prompted the audible angst until after the turning car cleared. I realized then he had turned directly in front of an oncoming vehicle. The oncoming car looked like he had to slam on his breaks in order not to t-bone the turner. His car was a dark black or blue, tinted windows, and he didn’t have his lights on; dusk was just setting in. Regardless of his lights, from my vantage point — which was a close, clear, direct view — the turning car was completely in the wrong. Thank God the situation was not worse.

Let’s add some brief, relevant context…

Selective content refers to choosing only certain pieces of information, material or media while leaving other info out. The choosing may or may not be intentional; we may not even realize we are being selective.

Because our view is close… because our view is clear… there is no need to take the time to investigate or discern further. We react; we know what we know.

I quickly passed the car that had previously slammed on his brakes. Covering those 50 yards, I then came to the same turn. And fascinatingly, something became visible that was impossible for me to see from my original vantage point. 

It was a few minutes before 6 pm. Sunset began less than ten minutes ago, with the sun to be completely down within 15 minutes. Remember I was behind all the businesses. There were also multiple trees lining the road. There were no light poles. Friends, it was unexpectedly, oddly, completely dark. I could see nothing coming from the other direction.

Soon, no less, a new car coming toward me entered the road. He had his lights on. I could see.

It dawned on me that the previous turning car never saw the oncoming car because the other car did not have his lights on. And yet the driver of the oncoming car never knew — and most likely will never know — that he contributed to the negative situation. Not only will he never know, he probably went home that night and said something along the lines of the following:

“You’ll never guess what happened to me today. I was driving down the street just past Starbucks, and all of a sudden this crazy driver turned right in front of me! They didn’t slow down at all! I had to slam on my brakes not to hit them! Geesh. Drivers these days.”

And both he and whoever he tells walks away thinking only one person contributed to the terrible situation. His content is selective. And he has no idea.

It was hard not to think of this interaction on Wednesday, the day we also learned of the horrific situation in Minneapolis… a woman obstructing an ICE operation, who was fatally shot by an agent. How absolutely awful.

I have no definitive answers here; again, it was awful. I wasn’t there. I’ve watched various videos which provide varied perspective. But respectfully disagreeing with the characterizations of many, I don’t believe the woman was a domestic terrorist nor the agent was an assassin. There is more to investigate and discern.

I don’t believe she should have been shot. I also believe she shouldn’t have interfered with law enforcement.

What a tragic, awful situation.

Soberly…

AR

What a wild world we live in. It’s no wonder more and more people admit to keeping their “head in the sand.” When it comes to paying attention to the socio-economic-political landscape, the stories can feel overwhelming—full of contradictions and inconsistencies. One year a person is adamantly for or against something; then leadership changes, and suddenly so do the positions. What people support or oppose often seems to shift depending on who is making the decisions.

Because of this, it’s hard to know whether what we’re hearing is a reliable perspective. Those inconsistencies often offer a window into just how uncertain that reliability may be.

With the latest wild world event—the capture of perceived illegitimate Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last Saturday—there’s no doubt it has caught much of the world’s attention, even among the sand-buryers. Still it can be challenging. It’s challenging when people lead by telling us how to think, proclaiming how right or wrong an action is regardless of what they may have said previously. In other words, our advocacy or opposition should depend more on what actually happened than on who made it happen. That’s why the reliability of reporting and perspective is so often in question.

The following voices, however, seem particularly reliable—offering thought-provoking questions and insight.

From retired General David Petraeus:

“Frankly, first of all, I’m pleased to see Nicolás Maduro brought to justice. He was obviously a brutal, murderous dictator who did enormous damage to his country—and to the world, really—through his narcotrafficking activities and so forth. It’s also an extraordinary demonstration of U.S. military capabilities.

Our forces demolished the supposedly sophisticated Chinese and Russian air and ballistic missile defense systems of which Maduro was so proud. We had 150 aircraft launched from 20 different locations—the coordination, the synchronization, the rehearsals for this and, of course, conducting all this with law enforcement, with the DEA, FBI, Justice Department, and so forth. It was very similar to the operation that brought Osama bin Laden to justice, as well as other al-Qaeda and Islamic State leaders over the years.”

From The Washington Post Editorial Board:

“There are also legitimate legal questions about the operation, though Maduro was viewed as a criminal by both Trump and Biden, who raised the reward to $25 million for information leading to his arrest. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said Secretary of State Marco Rubio called him Saturday to say that Trump had the right to act as commander-in-chief. No doubt this debate will continue, and it’s good for democratic hygiene to scrutinize the decision.

With tough decisions coming and many obstacles ahead, it’s fair to look forward. Yet it’s also fair to celebrate. For years, Maduro was a symbol of the false warmth of Latin American collectivism. Now he should spend the rest of his life in a humane American prison. His downfall is good news.”

From Steve Inskeep, host of NPR’s Morning Edition:

“Six questions about the capture of Maduro:

Who is in charge of Venezuela today?
Who will be in charge in a month?
Can the U.S. force a change in government?
What do the Venezuelan people do?
How do Russia and China use this example?
Does this signal a new focus for the United States?”

[You know I always appreciate people asking good questions. Asking us what to think, rather than telling us how to think is always honorable and wise.]

Welcome to the new year, friends. What a wild world we live in.

Respectfully,
AR

Wow. Unquestionably, a major event occurred early Saturday morning. The United States conducted what it described as a “large-scale strike” against Venezuela, resulting in the capture and arrest of President Nicolás Maduro.

The first federal charges against Maduro were unsealed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2020. They include:

• Narco-terrorism conspiracy
• Cocaine importation conspiracy
• Weapons charges

Regarding narco-terrorism, U.S. prosecutors allege that Maduro led the so-called Cartel of the Suns and conspired with the FARC to use cocaine as a “weapon” to flood the United States. The FARC — short for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia — is a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group founded in 1964 as the armed wing of the Colombian Communist Party.

On cocaine importation, the allegation is that Maduro intended to move multi-ton shipments of cocaine into the U.S. As for weapons charges, they include the possession of, and conspiracy to possess, machine guns and destructive devices in furtherance of drug trafficking.

Maduro has also long been viewed as an illegitimate president by numerous countries. Both the 2018 and 2024 elections were marred by serious discrepancies, and key opposition parties and candidates were barred from participation. This included leading opposition figure, María Corina Machado (the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner), who went into hiding after the 2024 election to avoid arrest. Venezuela, by any measure, has been in crisis.

Suffice it to say, Maduro is not a good guy. But “good guy” or not, such is not justification for a large-scale military strike. And to be clear, my military expertise is minimal at best. The broader problem is that when major military actions occur, many people — also with minimal military expertise — quickly decide whether the action was good, bad, constitutional, or unconstitutional, based largely on who made the decision.

That constitutional question centers on the War Powers Act of 1973. The Act limits a president’s ability to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without congressional approval. It requires notification to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and was intended to restore balance between the executive and legislative branches.

Yet the Act has been contested ever since its passage. Every president since 1973 has argued that at least parts of it unconstitutionally infringe on executive power. Consider their record while in office:

• Gerald Ford ordered the rescue of the SS Mayaguez and oversaw military evacuations in Southeast Asia.
• Jimmy Carter authorized the Iran hostage rescue mission.
• Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, ordered airstrikes in Libya, and deployed Marines to Lebanon.
• George H. W. Bush invaded Panama and sent troops to Somalia.
• Bill Clinton deployed troops to Haiti and conducted bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as strikes in Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan.
• Barack Obama authorized a seven-month air campaign in Libya and expanded drone operations across multiple countries.
• Donald Trump (in his first term) ordered missile strikes in Syria and the strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
• Joe Biden authorized multiple airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq.

All of these actions occurred without prior congressional approval.

Was the capture and arrest of Nicolás Maduro a good thing?

I don’t know. What I do know is this: we live in a beautifully diverse community in Central Florida, with many residents from Central and South America — Venezuela included. While my polling data may indeed be inexact, to a person, the Venezuelans here are jubilant about what just happened.

Good or bad? Constitutional or not? Hard to say. But there is much to evaluate, and consistency matters — especially when considering the precedent and people.

Respectfully…
AR