intramuralist ™ – Page 147 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

03/24/201403/24/2014

unequal

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

Such truth is self-evident: all men and women were created equal. We have equal value, equal worth, and are equally loved by our Creator. We were endowed with equal, unalienable rights.

But we have unequal…

… gifts…

… talents…

… natural bents and abilities.

Unequal strengths…

… weaknesses…

… places where we succeed and fail.

Unequal challenges…

… temptations…

… circumstances and events.

Unequal ambitions…

… work ethics…

… passions and drives.

“Equal,” my friends, does not mean the same. It seems there exists a growing bubble yet to be burst that we are each — all — somehow the same. We are not.

Like the school districts who can no longer give grades — or can no longer give “tests” or “assess” or offer any difference in grades… I think of Jackson County Schools in North Carolina, where earlier this school year they implemented a grading policy in which teachers can no longer give students anything below 55% regardless of whether an assignment is even completed.

In Grand Rapids, Mich., high school students no longer receive “F”s but instead earn the letter “H.” The “H” stands for “held,” meaning their results are being “held” until their work is up to expected par.

Can we no longer honestly speak of inequality in ethic or effort? Some of us will never be “up to expected par.” And here’s a newsflash, friends: each of us will not be “up to expected par” in something… be it algebra, golf games, comprehension of Puritan literature, or understanding the nuances embedded within political rhetoric.

We are unequal people. That is not said with any judgment nor criticism; it is also not stated with an omission of compassion. It is simply an acknowledgement of reality. When we cannot acknowledge reality, such seems foolish indeed.

This past weekend, rounds 1 and 2 of the 2014 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Championship were played across the country. With hopes high and dreams even higher, several teams unexpectedly found themselves ousted in the single-elimination tournament. The #1 seeded Wichita St. Shockers… the #2 seed, Kansas Jayhawks… the 3rd seeded Orange from Syracuse and Duke Blue Devils… each found themselves making an early exit.

They also learned the often painful but authentic lesson that not all people are created “equal.” They are certainly not the same.

Respectfully,

03/22/2014

march madness

As several spend more time on their brackets than their business, I propose that the madness began long before March. Thus allow me to expediently utilize the madness of the hardwood to humbly offer my entrants into what has contributed to the craze of current events. Note that they are currently not in exact order; remember that even what some may consider a #16 seed is still allowed in the dance. We won’t all agree on the seeds nor on who/what should be included. The following aspects, attitudes, circumstances, and events are the real contributors to March Madness… at least in 2014…

#1 Seeds: “The Lackeys”

Lack of respect for all mankind
Lack of empathy & compassion
Lack of humility
Lack of gratitude

#2 Seeds: “The Unwilling”

An unwillingness to compromise
An unwillingness to acknowledge God
An unwillingness to adhere to the Constitution
An unwillingness to sacrifice

#3 Seeds: “The Selfies”

Self-centeredness
Self-reliance
Self-focus
Selfishness

#4 Seeds: “The Shunners & Ships”

1. Discrimination

2. Reverse discrimination

3. Partisanship

4. Materialism as one’s sole ambition

#5 Seeds: “The Ele-Ments”

Entitlement
Environmental disrespect
The Establishment
“Excrement” (feel free to substitute another word here)

#6 Seeds: “The Dazed & Confused”

The confusion between wants & needs…
… wisdom & intelligence
… blessing & wealth
… success & celebrity

Note that violence, famine, climate, debt, disease, hopelessness, hate, fear, poverty, political instability, war, traditional values, evolving values, income motives & assessments, the economy, Barack Obama, Republicans, Democrats, socialism, sexism, social media, too much sports, pickles (ok, sorry — that’s from me), terrorism, texting in place of real conversation, Arabs & Israelis, Russia & Ukraine, Iran & everyone else, Obamacare, obesity, gluttony, ignorance, radical Islam, inequality, equality, tolerance, intolerance, population growth, population growth myths, and red tape filled out the rest of the bracket. Each lost to a higher seed.

Yes, as previously stated, the madness began long before March.

Respectfully,

03/20/2014

2014 ncaa tournament

What’s so maddening about the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament?

Is it the diversity? After all, only in the 2014 bracket will you seem to find…

… Cavaliers vs. Chanticleers, Huskies vs. Hawks, and Aztecs vs. Aggies.

That’s not to mention skin color…

… Bearcats vs. the color Crimson, Broncos vs. Orange, and Lobos vs. Cardinal (… what’s a “lobo” again?).

Don’t confuse the color Cardinal with the bird Cardinal, as birds are again well-represented via defending champ, Louisville, and those prominent Jayhawks, Blue Jays, and even Ducks.

Let’s also not forget the nuts (… sorry, Buckeyes).

There actually exist multiple commonalities among the teams, especially noting the half dozen included Wildcats. In fact, there exist such a plethora of the animal that they will quickly become an endangered species, eliminating one another when Arizona meets Weber St. and Kansas St. meets Kentucky all in the first round… each an untamed feline. Those Wildcats tend to eat their own… just sayin’…

Speaking of eating their own, evil is again unfortunately alive and well on planet Earth, as Devils hail from both Arizona St. and Duke. Sorry, nothing against those two well-respected educational institutions; the Intramuralist just can’t support evil.

Sooners and Shockers…

Colonials and Colonels…

It’s no wonder it’s hard to know who to root for.

We might also note that it’s hip these days to broadcast any weather event not easily explainable; hence, we welcome both the Cyclones and Golden Hurricane to this year’s conversation.

We will see Spartans vs. Blue Hens (… sorry, but the whole hen idea sounds a little weak) and Rams vs. Lumberjacks (… who are respectfully taking some time off to play a little basketball).

Don’t also miss the inclusion of both Bison and Buffaloes. Is there a difference?

Ah, let’s not forget the Billikens, Jaspers, and team from Louisiana-Lafayette. What’s in a name? LOTS… especially if you’re a Ragin’ Cajun.

Speaking of individuals, there are a handful that stand out that we should at least give a mention… from UCLA’s Wanaah Bail to North Carolina State’s Staats Battle to St. Louie’s Jordair Jett… too bad Wofford’s Indiana Faithfull left the team earlier this year.

But lest we begin to think the tournament is not an accurate blend of contemporary society, remember that there will also exist jeers and cheers and tears and fears. There will be “one shining moments” and moments that no one wishes would be publicized again. There will be winners and losers, but only one team will win in the end. Some teams will be better than others. Some will simply play better. It’s not a measure of equality. It is just a game.

Welcome to the madness, friends. Personally, I kind of like those Shockers from Wichita State. I also like the Spartans from East Lansing, Michigan. And oh, yeah… I like Louisiana-Lafayette. I like to say their name.

Respectfully,

03/18/201403/18/2014

bossy

So have you seen the latest extent of so-called political correctness? Allow me to quote the current campaign, initiated by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and supported by Anna Maria Chávez, CEO of Girl Scouts of the USA, who wrote the following last week in a special to CNN:

“Assertive and bold, strong and courageous.

These are the words we use when we think of our leaders — the characteristics we look for when we elect politicians, vet CEOs or select captains of sports teams.

Yet throughout history, these terms have been primarily applied when men have occupied leadership roles. We expect men to lead and assert themselves, and we encourage and reward these behaviors when young boys exhibit them.

So why is it when a young girl exhibits these exact same characteristics, we often resort to a different word to describe her behavior? A word that says to young girls: These are not the behaviors we expect from you. Why do we call her ‘bossy’?…

When we refer to a girl who demonstrates leadership qualities as ‘bossy,’ she receives a message she is doing something wrong, that somehow, the same behaviors we praise and reward in boys are inappropriate for her, and we are limiting the scope of her potential as a result.”

Banbossy.com (yes, an actual web site) makes the assumption that “bossy” is tied to effective leadership… that “bossy” is the trait others are identifying that is similar to a positive strength in a man… that “bossy” is synonymous with assertive and bold, strong and courageous.

I have tremendous respect for Chávez and Sandberg and those such as Beyonce and Condoleezza Rice, who have jumped aboard the rhetorical bandwagon. It’s true, as they eloquently assert, that words can be limiting — that they can shape our perceptions and either encourage ambition or limit our awareness of potential. No one likes to be called “bossy.” No one likes to be called anything seemingly derogatory.

Yet there’s a bit of a glaring challenge: some people actually are “bossy.” Some people actually are fond of giving others orders; some are domineering, overbearing, authoritarian, choleric, controlling, dictatorial, imperious, and at least one other “B” word that I’d prefer not to post. There are “bossy” men, and there are “bossy” women. And the primary challenge that potentially bursts the bubble of the current campaign is that being “bossy” is not synonymous with positive, effective leadership; being “bossy” is not an accurate measure of strength or effectiveness. To this frequent female boss, being “bossy” means something else (something more synonymous with that other “B” word), and it is not a necessary nor effective trait for anyone’s leadership, especially if there exists any authentic attempt to actually win friends and influence people.

While I believe the motive of Sheryl Sandberg’s initial campaign was rooted in positive encouragement, the challenge is that it misses the mark. Once again in our seemingly, constantly watered-down society, we seek to ban something in order to avoid dealing with the reality. Instead of acknowledging that there are good female leaders and poor female leaders — just as there are good male leaders and poor male leaders — and that there are “bossy” and non-bossy professionals, the focus is aimed at the use of the word. That seems off to me. Not all men nor women are good at what they do. Being “bossy” is often a part of that.

Chávez states that the “Ban Bossy” campaign promotes “equality.” My sense is that it instead promotes an ignorance to the fact that “bossy-ness” exists… and yes, among both men and women.

Respectfully,

03/15/201403/16/2014

not knowing

When pondering the point of today’s post, I couldn’t help but feel for the families of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. For 239 people to be gone… instantly… to have no idea what happened or where they are… to be completely unaware… there are few things more significant to focus on this day. Then it donned on me what’s so troubling… and where so much of our discomfort currently, often lies.

In the modern “I Era” — meaning, the age of all things “I” — the internet, iPhones, and an abundant focus on self — we take pride in knowing everything. Everything.

If you don’t know the answer, Google it.

If you can’t figure something out, look it up.

If you want to know what someone or something looks like, find their pic; it will be on the worldwide web somewhere.

In other words, we never have to go without knowing. We think and feel like we know — and can know — it all.

But we don’t.

I paused last week coming across a brief nugget of truth, buried within a traditional passage read at many marriage ceremonies. Embedded within the concept of what love is and what it’s not, is this tiny little line that speaks of human knowledge, ability, and also, limitation. It reads: “When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.”

It goes on to say: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully…”

My point is that even as we grow, we still only “know in part.” We don’t know it all. And yet when mysteries linger — such as the intriguing whereabouts of Flight MH370 — our “I Era” bubbles assuming we know and are capable of knowing are quickly pierced. We come face to face with the reality of the limitations of our knowledge.

Hence, I must ask: where else is our knowledge limited? And where else do we ignorantly assume we know that of which we are incapable?

… on global warming…

… on cloning…

… on what will happen next in the Middle East…

… on motives of individuals…

… on the extent certain policies impact the economy forever…

… on when and why nations cease to exist…

I am not attempting to be disrespectful or partisan in any way, friends. I am simply asking the question. My sense is that many are unwilling to ask the question. Even more so, I believe we are often unwilling to acknowledge that we don’t — and can’t — know it all. The unknowing makes us uncomfortable.

God bless the families of those aboard that fateful flight. May they know something more soon.

Respectfully,

03/13/2014

beauty

Let’s embrace the road less travelled on the Intramuralist, wrestling with a subject atypical of our daily dialogue… did anyone watch “The Bachelor” finale Monday night?

Now lest you believe we’ve strayed too far from the wisdom (or lack of it) within current events, I humbly submit to you that Monday’s so-called “reality television” made manifest one glaring cultural value. Let me first provide a brief synopsis, as creatively editorialized by The Baltimore Sun…

I come to you with good news: The season is over and we never have to see El Bachelor Juan Pablo again. Things certainly have changed since “Juanuary” when we were so excited to join Juan Pablo on his “adventura.” What we didn’t know was that “adventura” meant “journey taken by a rude, arrogant, egotistical, racist, cocky, douchebag, lying, hypocritical, self-centered, offensive jerk.”

While the above may be a little harsh, on Monday’s finale, Juan Pablo chose between 2 women, Nikki and Clare. At the climactic decision point, Clare went first (never a good sign). Back to the Sun…

For some reason, Clare talks first and launches into a speech about how much she loves him and how much she believes in him. Juan Pablo can barely keep from yawning. Please stop talking, Clare. Juan Pablo finally speaks and tells her she is amazing woman but he “wishes the earth sucked me today because this is hardest decision but I have to say goodbye to you.” He goes in for the adios hug and Clare pushes him away, which elicits huge applause from the live audience and the National Organization for Women. In her whiney baby voice, Clare tells him off and leaves with “After what you put me through I would never want my children to have a father like you”… Juan Pablo’s response to Clare’s verbal whipping is to casually shrug and say, “Whoo I’m glad I didn’t pick her”…

And then came the victor…

Nikki arrives and can’t wait to hear Juan Pablo tell her he loves her. She too launches into a speech about how great he is and that she can’t imagine spending her life without him. Please stop talking, Nikki. He tells her “I love so many things about you. You are like me, very honest.” He doesn’t tell her he loves her… Juan Pablo tells Nikki that he is not 100 percent sure that he wants to propose, but he is 100 percent sure that he doesn’t want to let her go because “I like you, A LOT.”

In the televised interviews after the announced selection, the ambience was odd. There was much talk from many women about how Juan Pablo never connected emotionally with any of the women in the room. He didn’t ask them questions. He didn’t get to know them. And then to the woman he chose, he could not, would not, acknowledge whether he loved her or not.

And here then is why ABC’s popular dating show is the content for today’s post… (thank you, those of you who’ve stayed with us even after the frequent sighs…)

When Juan Pablo first met each of these women, his most frequent utterance was “wow.” As the show proceeded, he kissed many. He kissed many one right after the other. He did more than kiss. There were multiple times he spoke gleefully about some great connection, when the supposedly tethered woman didn’t seem to feel it. It was all about the looks. It was about physical attraction. From my limited vantage point, this year’s bachelor was driven by external appearance.

Real beauty, however, comes from our inner self. It’s the only beauty that never fades. Current culture doesn’t seem to get that… as witnessed, sadly, on “The Bachelor.”

Respectfully,

03/11/2014

life is short

We’ve heard it lots: life is short. I suppose the idea that “life is short” is somewhat relative; however, what I do know is that life doesn’t last forever. For everything there is a season… a time to be born, a time to die…

It’s hard to shake what’s happened to Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. It seems to no longer exist… no longer on anyone’s radar screen.

There were 239 people on board…

Citizens of America, Australia, Austria, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Taiwan, and Ukraine… 2 infants… the oldest, age 79, I believe.

Vanished.

Gone.

In an instant.

What would their loved ones want to say to them now? Better still, for those on that presumably tragic trajectory, what would they have said or done differently? … what would they have done had they known such would be their last hour?

Would they have made a final phone call? … expressing their love, respect, adoration, or forgiveness?

Would they have said a prayer? … acknowledging One bigger, better, and more powerful and knowing than self?

Would they have spent intentional time in reflection? … focusing on what they have in common with others? … or would they still somehow have dwelt on differences that they once allowed to divide?

The question is: what would have been most important?

What if it was us? … what would we think? … what would we do? … what would we hope for and believe in if we truly realized life was short?

This is hard question, friends; it affects each and every one of us. I sometimes think we live so much in the moment that we’re oblivious to life’s shortness. In our world of instant gratification and lack of over-flowing gratitude — in our world that so often embraces dissension over unity in the name of personal passion — in a world where each of us have blatant blind spots — each of us — I feel like we’re missing something. We’re missing the reality of the limitation of life; we don’t typically live with the end in mind.

As a friend’s elementary school daughter penned for a school project last week, “What if you woke up today with only the things that you thanked God for yesterday?”

Wow… through the minds of babes… that would certainly change what we said and did; would it not? It would certainly amend our focus.

There was 1 American adult, Philip Wood, on board the fateful flight of Malaysia Airlines Saturday. In the immediate aftermath, his mother’s words were as follows: “I know in my heart that Philip’s with God. Only people who know God can survive things like this.”

And from his brother: “I just wanted to say to all the other families that are around the world: we’re hurting; we know you’re hurting just as much, and we’re praying for you.”

I see a recognition of God… a submission to him… and an awareness of other people and what we have in common…

Life is short.

Respectfully,

03/09/201403/09/2014

trust erosion

Who’s got the courage to stop it? Who’s got the integrity to stop it? Who will end the rhetorical spin and thus end the eroding trust we have in government?

As said well by CBS host Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” in February: “When government officials insult us with spin they’re doing it on our dime, which is supposed to be used to operate the government, not to hold news conferences to tell us what a fine job people on the public payroll are doing. As we learned during Katrina, self-serving spin at the first sign of crisis does not help the situation. It makes it worse. Because it makes it harder to believe anything the government says. Real security is built on trust in the government. That requires truth, which should be the beginning of government presentations, not the fallback position.”

From Katrina to current day, from Republicans to Democrats, our federal government is making it hard to believe anything they say. They continue to “spin” instead of offer truth and be transparent. What happened to the realization that truth and transparency are necessary components of integrity? Do our elected officials have such tunnel vision, that integrity is a willing sacrifice? Why do so exceedingly many believe in not telling the truth? Note that this deception takes various forms: lying, exaggeration, and omission. Each is an intentional tactic in which the truth remains untold. Our leaders may not lie, but perhaps they have a penchant for hyperbole. Maybe they make up their own statistics and facts. Maybe they are eerily silent. Maybe they commission their PR people to craft better sounding answers to the most revealing, condemning questions. Each equates to not telling the truth. Each is a lack of integrity.

Like many of you, I’ve watched closely what’s happening in the IRS. This is significant; if the IRS lacks integrity, we all could become victims of injustice — not just the conservative groups the IRS was previously, knowingly targeting. But no one will tell us the truth. No one will answer the questions. People who are paid and elected by the public are not acting with integrity nor forthcoming with answers. They are only, sadly generous with rhetorical spin. From the IRS official Lois Lerner who again pleaded the 5th last week to Pres. Obama’s offering that there wasn’t even a “smidgen of corruption” in the process, no one is being transparent with the truth. Note the following communications by Lerner, who still refuses to testify…

In September 2010, Lerner wrote: “Ok guys. We need to have a plan. We need to be cautious so it isn’t a per se political project. More a c4 project that will look at levels of lobbying and pol. activity along with exempt activity.”

A month later, in a speech at Duke University, referring to the Citizens United decision, Lerner said the Supreme Court “dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns... The FEC can’t do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem… Everybody is screaming at us right now: ‘Fix it now before the election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?’ “

Then 4 months later, Lerner wrote: “Tea Party Matter very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizens United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules.”

Is Lerner guilty of something? I don’t claim to know that.

Is the Obama administration guilty of something? I don’t claim to know that either.

The Intramuralist has not nor cannot conclude that anyone is guilty of something specific. I do, however, humbly submit that their lack of truth telling and use of rhetorical spin are dishonest. Such a lack of integrity causes trust in our government to continue to erode.

Respectfully,

03/06/2014

the n-word

There’s a significant debate raging across the country. Granted, the Intramuralist is only a bystander — not a partaker — as one of the lessons learned these past 5+ insightful years of blogging, is that we don’t have to insert ourselves within the debate trenches of all issues. Some may have wiser perspectives not so much due to passion, but more so based on the stance they share, a stance perhaps closer in actual proximity.

Prompted by the National Football League, within African-American circles, the debate surrounds the use of the word, “nigger” (from here on referred to as the “N-word”). The NFL is is expected to enact a rule at their March owners meeting that would penalize players 15 yards if they use the N-word on the field.

Is use of the N-word — and each of its colloquial derivatives — ever appropriate?

Allow me to quote some with a stance closer in actual proximity…

“We want this word to be policed from the parking lot to the equipment room to the locker room. Secretaries, PR people, whoever, we want it eliminated completely and want it policed everywhere,” says John Wooten, the head of the Fritz Pollard Alliance, which monitors diversity in the NFL.

Richard Sherman, star of the Super Bowl winning Seattle Seahawks feels differently. “It’s an atrocious idea. It’s almost racist to me. It’s weird they’re targeting one specific word. Why wouldn’t all curse words be banned then?”

A similar stance is echoed by Sherman’s teammate, Doug Baldwin: “I think it’s absurd… they’re trying to do this with good intentions. Maybe. But, if you look at it, the only people who say the N-word on the football field are African-Americans. Whether whoever wants to agree with it or not, we have turned it kind of into a term of endearment.”

Let me add a final word from Hall of Famer Art Shell: “That is the most vile word. It was created to make a certain group of people feel like they were less than human. How does that word become a term of endearment?’’

Note that Wooten, Sherman, Baldwin, and Shell are each black, and yet, they disagree. The African-American community disagrees on whether or not use of the N-word — and each of its colloquial derivatives — is ever appropriate.

Their challenge is obvious; it matters who says the word. While once a term intended as an ethnic slur, the N-word’s meaning has evolved via the numbing achieved through rap, hip hop, and popular comedic routines such as Chris Rock’s infamous “Niggas vs. Black People.” In other words, the N-word doesn’t possess the same sting… that is, as long as it’s said from one African-American to another.

There seems some generational aspect, affecting differently those who were once insulted as opposed to those who have never been the recipient of the insult. There seems also some traditional vs. progressive component. There exists passionate, definite disagreement from many with a close-in-proximity stance.

The underlying predicament is that the problem is not the use of the word, but rather, the intent of the use. And once we begin the subjective assessment of intent, we will frequently err in the evaluation. Like it or not, passionate or not, well-intentioned or not, subjective intent cannot be accurately, always measured.

Hence, in one more realm of society we must ask ourselves… if we cannot fully alleviate a problem, must we eliminate all that potentially contributes to the problem?

Great question. An even better debate.

Respectfully,

03/04/2014

this side of war

I must confess: I only know what it feels like on this side of war. I’ve never been in the middle of a military conflict, where the sights and sounds cause me to shudder on a daily, hourly basis… where my external and internal peace is threatened by a fight seemingly so bigger than me. “Why can’t we all get along?” many must mutter in their disgust.

But people don’t all get along. They don’t. And unfortunately, we, at times have encouraged the not getting along. How many times have we been disrespectful in our words, diminishing the opinion of another? How many times have we been judgmental — not judging in the sense of wise discernment, but rather, passing judgment on opinions, as to which one is to be preferred as the more correct? We do that all the time. Our leaders do that all the time. They look down on others every time they denigrate or refuse to debate.

That’s been happening in recent weeks, for example, regarding climate change. Many are refusing to discuss. Stop it. I get that many scientists believe man’s actions are directly responsible for the planet’s perceived warming. But why must the debate be extinguished? Note what happened with Charles Krauthammer, a well respected conservative journalist. He prepared a piece for the Washington Post in which he challenged the premise that the science on climate change is settled. Environmental activists petitioned the Post not to publish Krauthammer’s column.

Let the debate proceed. Let the people talk. If a person’s perspective is good and true and right, it will persevere. If the only way a perspective can persist is by eliminating diverse opinion, then the perspective is not rooted in wisdom. Allow the people to talk. Hear them. When we don’t allow people to talk, when we don’t listen to them, when we shut them (and their opinions) down, we move eerily closer to the other side of war.

The world is a volatile place. Look around us. Conflict spans the globe. From Afghanistan to Syria to Venezuela, to the Middle East and now the Ukraine. This is scary, friends.

Ukraine is a country of approximately 45 million citizens, situated between Europe and Russia. The citizens are divided as to which of the two they identify with more. Ukraine was actually part of the Soviet Union until 1991, when they declared their independence, with 90% of Ukrainians voting affirmatively. As with any new nation, economic, social, and political struggles ensued.

In the past decade, some of their leadership embraced more West-leaning, European policies. Russia — and specifically, Pres. Vladimir Putin — seemed wanting to punish Ukraine for their newfound Western affinity. Putin cut the flow of gas to the country in 2006 and 2009. In November of last year, the Ukrainian Prime Minister embraced more Russian policy. Large numbers of people felt the government was no longer listening to them. Hence began an initially peaceful, public protest. But the protest turned violent when clashing with law enforcement. The Ukrainian government then passed a series of laws that essentially banned all public protest. And with the cameras rolling from the recent adjacent, Olympic Russian slopes, the protest has significantly escalated. The Russian military has moved into Ukraine, attempting to regain control.

The world is in a tough place. There seems little we can do, this side of war. It’s not an enviable position for Pres. Obama or for any president for that matter. What president desires war? (… geepers…) While there is certainly a time for peace and a time for war and a time for every season under the sun, no wise president earnestly desires engaging in military combat (… the only persons I know who earnestly engage are teenage boys playing the latest “Call of Duty” game).

Hence, keep watching. Keep praying. And be thankful to be on this side of war, where our peace is not threatened… and we are still, hopefully heard.

Respectfully,