intramuralist ™

With Joe Biden finally, officially bowing out of the 2016 presidential race that he was never officially in (much to the semi-contained, private glee of the Hillary Clinton campaign), I’m reminded of a fantastic question I read a few weeks ago: why do good men pause?

Here we are — a country in desperate need of wise, courageous leadership… strong, humble, ethical leadership… leadership marked most not by consensus or agreement, but rather, leadership marked by its unquestionable integrity.

I’ve watched my loyal Democratic friends, wanting in general to support a more progressive policy agenda, but cringing at the thought of an ethically-challenged, candidate Clinton. I’ve also watched my loyal Republican friends, wanting in general to support a more conservative policy agenda, but unsure if they could ever get on board for a President Trump.

And then we see VP Joe Biden and House Rep. Paul Ryan — a Democrat and a Republican — but two men regardless of partisan agreement who are best known for their authenticity and integrity. They are good men. However, Biden bowed out of a potential presidential run… and Ryan is reluctantly willing to run for Speaker of the House only after weeks of prodding and still with conditions. Good men/women are avoiding the higher office. Good men are pausing.

Read the words of Salena Zito, a writer for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s blog. Her insight is excellent… why are good people pausing?

“ ‘One hesitates because of the grief of a family broken by loss, the other because of the commitment to a new family’s bright future,’ [Bruce] Haynes [GOP media expert] said, adding both are good and noble reasons for reluctance.

At the same time, these hesitations, coming from both sides of the aisle, serve as glaring symbols of another problem: Too many good people don’t want to be in politics anymore.

Haynes said that’s because they are turned off by what they see and hear.

The best do not want to put their families through the over-reactive, faux outrage ridiculousness of social media, which too often bleeds into regular media coverage. If you look at someone cross-eyed, it’s going to become a thing.

The zealots – both on the hard right and the hard left – are intent upon destroying anyone for anything that might be considered a slight to their cause. This all-or-nothing online thuggery expects every candidate to agree all of the time – and it’s ruining governing for us all. Governing actually does matter.

Our system no longer bestows distinction upon those who serve. It devours them…

Biden and Ryan are two of the quintessential good guys in American politics, said Haynes: ‘Politics aside, no one questions whether or not they are good people.’ They are the kind of good people we want to run into the fire and help.

There was a time in this country when folks like this set aside personal considerations and accepted what they believed to be the honor of serving.

But the personal considerations have become more fraught. The take-no-prisoners mentality evident among the zealots on both sides extends past once-common professional boundaries. The honor of serving may now be counterbalanced by the burden of almost certain character assassination and unwarranted family stress.

Good people have reason to pause. That, perhaps, is the greatest indictment of our system today.”

Such is a sad, sobering reality.

Said Biden in his Wednesday announcement, “While I will not be candidate, I will not be silent. I intend to speak out clearly and forcefully to influence as much as I can where we stand as a party and where we need to go as a nation.”

Go Joe, go. Go Ryan, too. While we need men like each of you, we understand why you pause. That makes us sad.

Respectfully…
AR

“I fear we might be close to teetering on total, civility failure. The idiots are getting far too big a voice nowadays,” said Joe Tessitore of ESPN.

Tessitore spoke this weekend in regard to the college gridiron. He was speaking of how fans reacted to a student on the University of Michigan football team, whose error led directly to a win by the opponent in the closing seconds of the game. I wonder… where else are his words applicable?

“Fueled by irrational hate, and numb by a far too easy to kill by keystroke mentality,” continued Tessitore.

So many of us sit behind the cowardice of our keyboards — as opposed to meeting and dealing with people face-to-face — and we make all sorts of bold statements… except… the statements are not always factual and true — and while they may be factual, they may also be pointedly disrespectful of other people.

Our society continues to too often assert opinion in such a bold way, believing that what we say is good and true and right — and then justify insult if others feel differently. Friends, if our opinion evolves into the justification for insult, there is no such thing as equating to, at least the “good” or “right” part. We must quit using our perspective as a weapon. Such is the harm of the keystroke mentality.

Just because… I can type it… say it… post it on a placard… doesn’t make it true nor necessarily wise to post or say. Ah, yes… the cowardice of our keyboards. I’m reminded of the insight from one of our summer guest writers…

“… Turns out Facebook confrontations are the same thing as real confrontations-go figure? Those arguments I was typing with the distant relatives of my best friend from nursery school? Turns out they were actual people and not just dialog boxes and the ‘discussions’ we were having were being read and judged by all of our friends. And you know what else? The only opinions any of that critical closed-minded dialog changed were of me and the others who participated in it. No one suddenly changed their entire belief system based on a Facebook argument. Shocker right?”

Shocker. Joe Tessitore made his statements this past weekend in regard a punter who is only 22 years old. It matters not; the young man has been verbally eviscerated on Facebook and elsewhere…

“I fear we might be close to teetering on total, civility failure. The idiots are getting far too big a voice nowadays.”

The reality is that the words said about the Michigan punter are the same words said about many in office or running for office. Friends, the 2016 Presidential election is over a year away; the thought of this keyboard cowardice continuing for another 385 days is exhausting!

Said again by my trusted friend… “Another Presidential election is upon us… Editorials are being printed in our newspapers and opinions, lots and lots of opinions. And slowly but surely, those one sided political posts are starting to make their way into my newsfeed. I shudder to think how this one will go. After all, we’ve had years to sharpen our blades and our social media skills. How many of us will let our passion trump our reason?”

I share in the shuddering — allowing our passion to trump our reason. When did we become a country that justifies such disrespect? When did we become a country where so many of us began either intentionally or unintentionally fueling this culture of irrational hate? When did we become a country where we couldn’t see the big picture? … where we couldn’t recognize that a game is just a game? … that political opponents are not enemies? … that we are called to love our neighbor? … and when we justify such disrespect?

I close with the recognition that the Intramuralist, for one, is thankful for the many fancy-dancy techno gadgets of this information age; I love my iPad, MacBook, and all things Apple. But when any of these impersonal keyboards provide the place for us to hide behind and the impetus for disrespect, something is wrong not with the gadgets — but with us.

Respectfully…
AR

Tonight in Las Vegas is the first Democratic Party debate for the 2016 Presidential nomination. Just as during the thus far, two Republican presidential debates, the Intramuralist will be watching. We plan to watch each debate, as we care deeply about who becomes President — and what each candidate says and believes in. We watch because we want to know; we want to understand; and we want as much information as possible — especially embracing any info which has not been manipulated via the editorialized efforts of any media or by the hands of any intentionally crafted campaign.

I must admit, I was a little dismayed by the many who took to the tweets and airwaves after the initial Republican debate turns. I heard some cries in regard to what “fools” or “losers” they were/are — with no candidate deserving their attention — none having anything worthwhile to contribute or say. I wondered if those observers had watched the same few hours I did… I wondered if such is appropriate to say about any person or party… I also wondered if some had their minds made up before they ever started watching…

Oh, we can be such an arrogant people… we each can… we all can… I so crave humility and objectivity…

I thus look forward to tonight’s debate. I look forward to what the following will say…

— Former Sec. of State/First Lady Hillary Clinton
— Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont
— Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley
— Former U.S. Senator from Virginia Jim Webb
— And Republican-turned-Democrat, Gov. Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island

Coverage begins at 8:30 p.m. EST on CNN.

I look especially forward to insights from O’Malley, Webb, and Chafee. They seem somewhat drowned out by the current sounds of mainstream media; I want to hear the candidates speak for themselves. I’d like to hear what they have to say and attempt to sense what’s most important to them.

I also look forward to the comments from Clinton and Sanders. Hillary seems potentially, significantly ethically scarred. I mean no disrespect. I simply can’t discern what she most believes in and whether or not she is honest with us; I sense too many responses that seem overtly calculated. She’s certainly not alone in being intentional in how she responds, yet her perceived, detailed calculation makes this semi-humble observer uncomfortable. Granted, my perception may be inaccurate; it also is a perception shared by many across the country. Authenticity is a problem.

Then there’s (“Feel the Bern?”) Sanders, who is obviously the “anti-Hillary” candidate — meaning he’s admirably authentic and we know what he believes in; we aren’t questioning whether or not he’s being honest with us (… I like that in whom I vote for!). The challenge is that Bernie is a self-identified Socialist (his words — not mine). He believes in a Socialist approach to solving our already heavily debt-laden economy, even though Socialism has historically led to an oppressive, economically-destructive form of government — as good as all the populist free stuff sounds. To be fair, Bernie says he is a “democratic socialist,” meaning he is not expressing a desire to replace capitalism nor confiscate private property. He instead lauds Scandinavian social democracy. Such still serves as a far more extensive role of government in the American citizen’s life — something each of us attracted to his authenticity should also work to comprehend. We need to research. We need to listen well.

So let’s listen. Maybe we’re wrong. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m sure I’m wrong about something… maybe lots.

But I have a feeling I will be sitting back tonight, keeping an open mind, still craving something more.

Where is Joe, anyway?

There’s just something about Biden’s gaffes that President-or-not, is relatable and endearing. I kind of like that.

… yes… desiring for relatable, endearing, authentic, and economically sound.

Can someone find the remote?

Respectfully…
AR

In light of my youngest celebrating a birthday over the weekend (which I might add, began notably, unintentionally, incredibly enthusiastically early, at 4:30 Friday morning — due to an extremely high, off-the-charts exuberance level) — there is one, brief aspect I felt necessary to expand upon here.

You see, a long standing premise of the Intramuralist is to consistently advocate for a focus on all that is good and true and right. In fact, one of our cultural challenges it seems, is that both individually and corporately, we spend so much energy and attention on that which is not good and true and right… division… strife… evil… impurity… a lack of loyalty and/or faithfulness, etc. Such takes up way too much of our time, minds, and airwaves.

“… whatever is true, whatever is worthy of respect, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if something is excellent or praiseworthy, think about these things…”

My now 14 year old son, Josh — that child born years ago with an extra special need, chromosome, and a wall missing in is heart — is one of the best, most effective ways God teaches me now in regard to all that is good and true and right.

As expected, no less, this joy-filled teen’s birthday included music and dancing, cake and cookies, and multiple friends and family. He received many day-brightening gifts, calls, texts, and visits that made his heart so obviously overflow with thanks. (It made this parent even need a nap.)

Yet the moment that seemed most “blog-worthy” was seemingly small in comparison. It was just a singular sentence — a comment Josh made before the festivities were in full swing; yet it was a moment that is still making me think…

Standing outside briefly before the sunrise, in between our daily repertoire of song and dance preceding the much anticipated school bus arrival, Josh stopped his singing, pausing for a moment of thanks. He wanted to give God thanks for the celebration of the day — and more.

And in the middle of that moment — in this conversation I felt deeply privileged to overhear — Josh stopped, leaned somewhat backwards, grinning from ear to ear, and pointing meekly to himself said:

“And God, thanks for all this.”

Thanks for all this.

There was no focus on what some may see as missing.
There was no ignoring of current circumstances.
There was no dismissal of having Down syndrome.
There was no wishing he was someone or something else.
There was no desire to be any different.
There was only a joy-laced expression of gratitude for who he is…

Thanks for all this.

Whatever is true… whatever is lovely… think about these things…

Respectfully…
AR

We cry out over the killing of the innocent…

• Some cried out for Matthew Shepard in ’98, beaten and tortured and left to die by two other, seemingly heartless young men, believed to have targeted Shepard because of his sexual orientation.
• Most cried out on 9/11, when 2,977 people were murdered by Islamic terrorists, who specifically targeted those thousands because they lived on American soil.
• And we all cried out after Charleston last June, when nine African-Americans were shot and killed while praying — at the hands of a young white man, saying he hoped to ignite a race war.

We cry out over the killing of the innocent. We even call them “hate crimes”… crimes motivated by the killer’s disdain of the different. And yet…

Last Thursday, a 26 year old, seemingly also heartless shooter, walked into Umpqua Community College in Oregon, shooting and killing nine innocent others. According to multiple reports, the shooter shot and killed those who identified themselves as Christians.

And what does our current national dialogue seem to be centered on?

Gun control.

From the Intramuralist’s vantage point — which admittedly, is a limited point of view — as each of ours is — here we have another awful, horrendous mass shooting… another incident in which the innocent die young. But unlike Matthew Shepard’s death — where we talked about the callousness and cruelty of a man killed because he was gay… and unlike the scene inside Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston last summer — where we talked about the callousness and cruelty of men and women killed because they were black… instead of talking about the callousness and cruelty of college students being killed because they are Christians, we talk most about gun control. Something doesn’t make sense.

Make no mistake about it; gun control is an issue worth discussing. It is an issue worth discussing after each of these tragedies; none of us wish to feel this way again. But if the conversation after Oregon focuses more on gun control than on the motive for the shooting, we are omitting an inconvenient truth. The students at Umpqua were killed because they admitted a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Then I take note of what’s happening around the world…

ISIS kills many; they kill many solely because they admit to being Christians.
I see Christians persecuted in North Korea, Somalia, and Iraq.
Christians are also often targeted in Africa — in Egypt, Kenya, and Nigeria.
They are targeted, too, in Afghanistan and Syria.

In other words, like it or not, ignore it or not, people who believe that God so loved the world that he sent Jesus to this planet to be their one and only saving grace, are being targeted in increasingly, multiple countries.

And only sometimes, we talk about it.

Let me say again that I have no issue when in response to tragedy, we respectfully debate what aspects of gun control are most effective. I also have no issue discussing the seemingly heartless targeting of innocent persons because they are gay or because they are black or because of some other, isolated factor; that targeting is — in my totally respectful, semi-humble opinion — wrong.

I do have issue, however, with the arbitrary acknowledgment of hate crimes. I have issue when we ignore the reason a man or woman was killed was because they had put their faith in Jesus. There exists an all too selective silence. I wonder why.

Respectfully…
AR

No one should tell any of the rest of us how to vote. So let me try. 🙂

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a woman or a man. I, like you, have many female and male friends, and it is a fact that their gender does not automatically make them capable — or incapable — of being a wise President.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are black. Nope. I, like most of you, have friends who are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. Their race has not made any of them more — or less — qualified to be President.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they have no political experience. Let’s face it; many of the elect have had substantial, lengthy political resumes. Resumes do not necessarily equate to wisdom nor success; resumes do not teach them how to work with other parties nor people. Hence, a political resume will not automatically garner my vote.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Christian or faithfully adhere to some other religion. I’ve known far too many who pick and choose which aspects of their faith to serve and observe. I’ve known far too many believers and non-believers alike whose arrogance and lack of humility was a clear, non-permeable obstruction to effective leadership.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Democrat or Republican. I realize this may get somewhat trickier, but the reality is we have witnessed far too many on both sides of the proverbial, partisan aisle who have been either narcissistic, crooked, or both — none of which, with all due respect, is worthy of representing me. Sharing similar political leanings is simply not enough.

Hence, I will not vote for or against anyone solely because of their gender, race, religion, party, or other demographic factor. 

I will, however, vote for the following:

(1) Someone, as best as possible, that I believe to be ethical.

(2) Someone, as best as possible, who has demonstrated sound comprehension of economic principles. And…

(3) Someone, as best as possible, with whom I agree on multiple policy issues (…notice that I didn’t say “all” nor a single, specific one.)

In that order. That’s it.

If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether they truly comprehend the economy. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether we agree on policy positions — or if they are flip-flopping, evolving, or what. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, I cannot trust them to tell me the truth.

I want a candidate whose “yes” means “yes” and whose “no” means “no.” I want a person who will say what they think — as opposed to say what they think I want them to. This means more to me than consensus and agreement. (Note that I have yet to find a person with whom I agree on all things… not even in my own household.)

Too ideal for today’s culture? Too ideal for a culture where partisan politicians incite and divide more than listen and unite? Too ideal for a culture infused with a biased, 24 hour news cycle?

Back to that ideal candidate…

Did I mention I’d also like them to be a Bengals fan, support Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, and believe Tom Brady should be suspended for “Deflategate”?

Ok… maybe I am an idealist after all.

Respectfully…
AR