Posts

Posted on

the same team

“I have a serious concern to bring up with you, my friends… I’ll put it as urgently as I can:  you must get along with each other.  You must learn to be considerate of one another, cultivating a life in common.

 

I bring this up because some brought a most disturbing report to my attention — that you’re fighting among yourselves!  I’ll tell you exactly what I was told:  you’re all picking sides!”

 

For the first time since the leadership of Ronald Reagan, the President and Congress — led by 2 separate parties — are united.  I know that may surprise you.  The government is shut down, but they’re united.  They actually wholeheartedly agree on something.  They agree that the other party is totally to blame.

 

Yep, it’s totally the other party’s fault.  And by reading several cyberspace posts, it also appears many of us have been seduced into the same line of thinking…  One party is all right.  One party is all wrong.  How stupid can the supporters of that other party be?

 

The Intramuralist believes that this process is not good and not pure and not right.  And since both parties are fully involved in the process, I hold them both responsible.  Perhaps you favor one party over another.  But recognize that both have contributed to this process… perhaps by current tactics… perhaps by previous budget approaches… perhaps by lack of them.  Both parties have sufficiently contributed to the now.

 

“I’ll put it as urgently as I can:  you must get along with each other.”

 

My sense is that one of our greatest challenges as a nation is that we are awful at appreciating different opinion.  We fail to recognize that varied opinion has the potential to sharpen; varied opinion can ironically solidify what’s true.  And yet, we’re bad at both allowing and appreciating it.  Congress is bad at it.  Pres. Obama is bad at it.  Pundits and politicians and people on TV are bad at it.  Arguably worse, we are bad at it. Instead of allowing dissenting dialogue, learning to be considerate of one another, recognizing we’re on the same team and thus cultivating a life in common together in this country, we work instead to squelch.  Hence, we don’t negotiate… hence, we keep saying the same thing over and over… hence, we keep saying the same thing louder… hence, we play victim… hence, we become overly dramatic… hence, we trot out in front of the cameras… hence, we quit meeting face-to-face… hence, we work more to rally the masses than to solve the situation.

 

For smart people, we are not always wise.

 

Wise people on the same team do not pick sides.  We are not a nation of Republicans and Democrats.  We are not any 99 and 1% nor 37 and 63; we are not separate percentages.  We are not the rich and poor, the black and white, the majority and minority, nor the educated and uneducated.  We are not the Catholics and the Protestants nor the atheists and the Jews.  We are also not even Patriots or Saints.  We are Americans.  We are cultivating a life in common.  We live here together.  We’re on the same team.  Hence, we must learn to allow, appreciate, and grow from dissenting opinion — as opposed to squelch it.

 

So as for the current shut down, here’s the Intramuralist quick fix:

 

  1. Stop payment of congressmen’s and the President’s pay.
  2. Get the biased media out of it.
  3. Meet with dissenters face-to-face with the intent to listen better — not simply restate own opinion.
  4. Compromise.  (You ask where can we compromise?  At the very least, in this layman’s opinion, we can require all members of the executive and legislative branches to abide by the same healthcare rules they are requiring of the rest of us.)  And…
  5. Be humble and quit saying and thinking that the other party is entirely wrong.

 

Such an approach may not quickly solve the shut down, but it would be a good start… especially for people who’ve forgotten which team they’re on.  That would be the same.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the games we play

Once again there was a full weekend slate of games, with each earnestly attempting to win.  The challenge is that such an account could easily depict either the National Football League or the President and Congress.  At least in the NFL, a struggling team takes more responsibility for the situation they’re in.  The President and Congress — regardless of party — spend more time blaming the situation on the other than they do in solving the problem.  They spend too much time in front of the cameras.  Too much time rallying the troops.  Too much time playing games!  They play political games.

 

Unfortunately, we, the public, too often camp in front of biased, un-objective “news” sources, allowing them to rhetorically seduce us, as we join in the reindeer games.

 

Geepers.  With all due respect (and “due” seems temptingly relative at the moment), the President and Congress need to halt the insults, turn away the cameras, roll up their sleeves, and learn to work together.  If we can negotiate with Syria, we can negotiate with senators and representatives.  I don’t care if their offensive lines are depleted.  I want our leaders of both parties to realize this is not a game.

 

As of midnight last night, a Republican-led House and a Democrat-led Senate and a Democrat-led White House hadn’t passed and enacted a law allowing the federal government to spend more money.  Constitutionally, if Congress doesn’t pass a law to spend money, the government isn’t allowed to spend it.  Hence, government is required to “shut down,” thereby no longer funding “non-essential” functions or personnel.

 

At this time, 3 observations in particular exist from the Intramuralist’s perspective…

 

One, hypocrisy is rampant in this situation.

 

As pointed out in Sunday’s post, how parties feel about spending more or less is often directly tied to their majority or minority position.  See Pres. Obama’s quotes as a president and senator; they are strikingly different.  The hypocrisy is central to each party’s game-playing.

 

Two, government shut downs have happened 17 times since 1976…

 

From a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate under Republican President Gerald Ford… to a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate under Democrat President Jimmy Carter (5 times)… to a Democrat-led House and a Republican-led Senate under Republican President Ronald Reagan (7 times)… to a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate also under Reagan… to a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate under Republican President George H.W. Bush… to a Republican-led House and a Republican-led Senate under Democrat President Bill Clinton (2 times)…

 

(Did I mention that hypocrisy was rampant?)

 

And finally, three, there’s a quick way to solve this shutdown…

 

Remember that only “non-essentials” go unfunded during a shut down; however, all lawmakers — including the President, representatives, and senators — continue to be paid.  Let’s withhold their paychecks.  Let’s refrain from funding them if they cannot or refuse to compromise and forgo the cameras.  Let’s watch then if they still engage in such a dysfunctional, political game.

 

Allow me to briefly recall a childhood memory…  My brothers will tell you that I used to consistently cheat when playing “Monopoly.”  I wasn’t very good at it — nor did I have the patience to play it well — so I would quietly and yes, oh-so deviously steal money from the bank when my older brother turned his head away.  Granted, my brothers will also gleefully add that I still couldn’t manage to win.  It wasn’t fun.  I had to steal to play.   At least when I engaged in disrespectful, hypocritical activity, I realized it was a game.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

respect vs. rhetoric

Last week I had a tough conversation with a leader in my church.  It was tough because of the subject matter, as we disagree on a way to solve a current challenge.  It was not tough in the way we related.  It was not tough because there was a lack of respect. It was not tough in our means nor manner of communicating; neither of us worked to rally more to our side.  Respect trumped rhetoric.

 

Last week we witnessed our government’s leaders do exactly the opposite.  We watched way too many seemingly smart people employ rhetoric and disrespect, and work more to rally others to their side.  Friends, political affiliation did not — and sadly, does not — matter.

 

Once again, our federal government has spent the maximum amount of money it is legally allowed to borrow.  They have maxed out their credit cards, so-to-speak.  Funny, but regardless of party, the majority always wants to spend more; and regardless of party, the minority always desires to spend less.  Such is evidenced in the following, amazingly insightful comment:

 

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

 

The above quote is from Barack Obama, when he was a senator — and voted against raising the debt ceiling.

 

Nonetheless, as President, Obama and others now desire more freedom to spend.  This is a tough conversation.  But the Intramuralist would propose that asking to increase our credit limit is not primarily tough because of subject matter; it’s tough because of how leadership feels justified in communicating…

 

“If you go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany.  Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them.’”  — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), comparing Nazi Germany to not standing up to debt and Obamacare

 

“The reason Ted Cruz stood up and asked for a delay is so that he could have a vote during today when the ‘tea baggers’ in his Tea Party were going to watch.”  — Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

 

”We are for cutting spending. We are for reforming out tax codes, reforming out entitlements.  What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.”  — White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer

 

Or the other phrases utilized… “political terrorism” by Al Gore… “tea party anarchists” and “stupid” by Harry Reid… “legislative arsonists” by Nancy Pelosi… “holding hostage” by multiple Republicans and Democrats… “raping the American people” by television commentator Tamara Holder… even “blackmail” by Obama.

 

My point is this… this conversation is going to remain tough because our leaders have allowed rhetoric to trump respect.  They chide instead of humbly communicate and consider; they insult instead of respect and submit.  We can’t keep spending more then we take in, but we also can’t tackle the problem when our leaders continue to stand in front of the cameras and work most to rally others to their side.  They should instead be meeting one-on-one, face-to-face, listening and submitting to one another, resisting the cameras and campaign stops…  just as I did with the leader in my church last week.

 

In my meeting, I will share that we did not end by agreeing on a singular solution and then living happily ever after.  But we heard one another; we each felt respected.  We vowed to work together, listen, and go forward together, recognizing that we are on the same team.  Our leaders need to do the same.  In fact, with their generous use of disrespect, perhaps they would first benefit by going back to church.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

control

I keep thinking about the sequence of events unraveling this week and last…

 

… about the shootings in D.C., Chicago, and Kenya…

… about the church bombing in Pakistan…

… about renewed attempts to confront global warming…

… about the Sec. of State signing a controversial U.N. arms regulation treaty…

… about all the unrest in the world.

 

Recently we wrestled with the ‘some kind of evil’ in the world.  We don’t like evil.  We aren’t comfortable calling evil out, especially when it seems to manifest itself within an actual person.  We inconsistently, subjectively acknowledge evil.

 

I wonder if one of the primary reasons we inconsistently acknowledge evil is because we view it from an illusion of control.

 

And so my thoughts continue…

 

From the violent shootings to increased terrorism to global warming to the varied, proposed legislation designed to discontinue or diminish each, one perspective seems to underlie all.  In each of those circumstances, we have somehow embraced this idea that we are in control.  Yes, we have embraced an illusion of control.  We think we can control all things.

 

We think we can control the shootings…

 

… if only there were increased gun control legislation, we could stop the mad men… we could thwart all efforts… there’d be no more madness manifested in this oh, so violent, wicked way…

 

We think we can control global warming…

 

… if only people would change their environmental habits… be more sensitive… negate carbon emissions… fewer plastic bags… no aerosol cans and increased recycling… there’d be no more significant alterations to our climate…

 

Yes, we can control this.  We can rebuild.  We know best.  We can control all things.

 

Time and time again, the Intramuralist’s sincere conclusion is that as a people, we can be incredibly arrogant.  We think we’re so smart.  And smart we may be, but we repeatedly confuse intelligence with wisdom.  The arguable, number one challenge across government and society this day is that we have blindly embraced the illusion of control.

 

We have bought into the notion that somehow we are in control of all things.  We think if we do what we’ve determined to be good, if there is a God, whatever god exists will reward us.  But we don’t have to acknowledge God — if he does exist — or dare even consider any submission to a higher power — because we perceive ourselves to be in control.

 

I believe that to be an unfortunately, arrogant perspective.

 

Yes, in all of our intelligence, we have still, somehow embraced this illusion of control.  Perhaps intelligence is not always a virtue.  For while there are certainly prudent efforts we can adopt to care for our people and planet well, we cannot allow those efforts to continue to paint this illusion.  Such acknowledgement might actually be the beginning of wisdom.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

religious freedom

Allow me to briefly recap 2 outrageous weekend acts, in order to transition to the outrage…

 

In Kenya…

 

In an upscale Nairobi shopping mall — in a situation that remains fluid as of this writing — militants have shot and killed over 60 persons.  According to the New York Times, “masked gunmen moved methodically through the crowded mall on Saturday,” killing men, women and children.  The gunmen have been linked to the al-Qaeda-backed Somali terror group al-Shabaab.

 

In northwest Pakistan…

 

Outside a church where the parishioners were exiting after the service, a pair of suicide/homicide bombers killed approximately 81 people.  According to USA Today, “witnesses described a scene of dust, debris and devastation.”  Body parts were apparently gruesomely scattered amid the debris.  A wing of the Taliban claimed responsibility.

 

The glaring commonality between these 2 heinous acts?  On 2 separate continents, non-Muslims were intentionally targeted.

 

Religious freedom seems in jeopardy, friends — albeit not just in Africa and Asia; it spans across the globe… especially Christian freedom.  Hence, the Intramuralist wonders:  where is the outrage?

 

Truthfully, I think it’s hard for us to express outrage as Americans.  Why?  Because we’ve already accepted so much suppression in our own country.  The suppression may not yet manifest itself via shopping mall nor church bombings, as it currently comes in more subtle forms.  For example…

 

  • As reported here last week, a 10 year old public school girl in Tennessee was banned from writing about God for a required school assignment.
  • In Massachusetts, persons are fervently working to remove the phrase “one nation under God” from the Pledge.
  • And then there’s this…

In North Carolina, where a Christian apologetics conference, entitled “Truth for a New Generation” will take place later this week with nationally respected speakers, the local paper, The Charlotte Observer, would not allow the conference to advertise as desired, paid, and previously agreed to.  Granted, the conference planners asked some tough questions in their ad:

 

“Is same sex marriage morally wrong?”
“Are Islam and Christianity the same?”
“Are godless people going to destroy America?”

 

The questions were chosen “to encourage discourse, inquiry, and to result in a strong ad, to raise awareness about the conference.”  The Charlotte Observer, however, would not allow the asking of the questions.  It’s not that all answers to the above are wise and good and true, but when the media begins to squelch the dialogue so that dissenting opinion cannot even take place, they have sowed and watered the seeds of religious suppression.  That suppression will only get worse, as witnessed in Kenya and Pakistan.

 

So where is the outrage?  Where is the outrage in Africa and Asia?

 

And where is the outrage here?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

some kind of evil

Bad things happen on planet Earth.  Like last week… primarily according to USA Today:

 

Federal investigators believe Aaron Alexis cleared a security checkpoint with his contractor identification and carried a shotgun into building 197 at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C.  Alexis reportedly began firing at people indiscriminately from an atrium overlook.  After firing several rounds, Alexis ran down a flight of stairs where he confronted and shot a security officer. It is believed that Alexis took the officer’s handgun and returned to the overlook where he continued to shoot.  13 people, including the shooter, died.

 

Like yesterday at a Kenyan shopping mall:

 

At least 59 people were killed and 175 injured during a Saturday afternoon shooting rampage at a shopping mall in an upscale district of Nairobi.  The 5-10 gunmen carried AK-47s and other sophisticated weapons and wore vests with hand grenades on them.  They also asked Muslims to leave before opening fire.

 

Bad things do happen.

 

In wake of the so-called “badness,” many respond with immediate, perceived necessary solutions.  On Monday, the Navy Yard shooting was only hours old when Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) took to the microphones to call for increased gun control measures.  “When will enough be enough?” she asked.  While Feinstein repeated details that were inaccurate but fueled the passion behind her plea — as many and the media are often apt to do, even though pausing would be prudent — she was not alone in her plea.

 

When bad things happen, we have a desire to fix it.  We have a desire to ensure the bad things will never happen again.

 

On that note, the Intramuralist has great respect for Feinstein, etal. in their stated desire to curb violence.  Who among us desires to see the innocent die?  The challenge, no less, is whether or not the proposed solution is actually effective — or is more proposed and applied because it makes us feel better; it makes us feel as if we are doing something.

 

In the wake of last week’s shooting, in multiple circles, I thus posed the following question:  where does this “badness” come from?  Is it evil?  Where does the evil come from?  What, in fact, is evil?

 

The answers were fascinating…

 

Most would acknowledge an existence of evil, but few seemed comfortable with evil dwelling within a person.  Some called the behavior of Aaron Alexis evil; still others said the identification of evil would be dependent on whether or not the gunman had a mental illness.  If he had any mental deficiency, the evil — if it existed — rested in the hands of someone or something else, perhaps in the institution or people who allowed him to have a gun in his hands.

 

My conclusion from this certainly unscientific polling is that we’re not comfortable with the idea of evil, and when we do utilize the label, we seem to do so inconsistently and subjectively.  We don’t like it.

 

Bad things happened on planet Earth last week.  I didn’t like it.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

media duplicity?

One of the questions I routinely ask is:  “What don’t we know?”

 

Opinion, passion, and policy are often drummed up based on reactions to incomplete information.  In other words, we allow incompleteness — which may thus equate to inaccuracy — to frequently — often blindly — serve as justification.  I wonder… What don’t we know?

 

What we don’t know can be due to either an inability or unwillingness to hear all sides of a story; it can also simply be an unknown lack of information.  In moments such as those, my sense is the wise man learns to pause.  The Intramuralist is more disturbed, however, when the incomplete information is intentional — or as in this week’s glaring case — in the form of potential media duplicity.

 

On Tuesday, Time Magazine unveiled their weekly periodical across the nation’s newsstands.  Across America, an enticing photo featured a college football player, leg up in the air, accompanied by the headline, “It’s Time to Pay College Athletes.”  The question of whether or not college athletes should be paid is a good one— and one which may one day end up as the subject of this respected space.  However, the college athlete question was only posed to Time’s American readers.

 

The rest of the globe saw a strikingly different Time cover.  It instead featured a confident-appearing photo of Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the headline, “America’s Weak and Waffling, Russia’s Rich and Resurgent.”

 

I have 2 immediate questions:  (1) What don’t we know?  And (2) what is Time Magazine’s motive?

 

Why did Time intentionally alter their American cover?

 

Time contributors Joe Klein and Michael Scherer — neither of whom is known for their conservative views — wrote the following after Putin’s lead in Syria:  “[Obama] has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world. It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed.”

 

And…

 

“For generations, the American people have had a standing deal with their Presidents: Go ahead and mess with the prime-time lineup once in a while, interrupt Who’s the Boss, Seinfeld, NCIS: Los Angeles, or whatever. But you better make it count. You better have something new to say. And when it comes to speeches of national security, you better leave the impression that you have this thing under control.

 

On Tuesday night, President Obama decided to test this unspoken pact. For 16 minutes from the East Room, he took over the nation’s televisions to repeat the same complex and contradictory case for bombing Syria that he has been making for two weeks, even though he acknowledged at the end, there is no longer an imminent need for the country to make a decision. He delayed the start of America’s Got Talent to announce he would be delaying a congressional vote.”

 

Time was highly critical of the President’s handling of Syria.  However, their criticism was intentionally hidden from American readers.  Why would the rest of the world receive a different cover?  In fact, why would the rest of the world receive the same cover — and ours be so strikingly different?

 

What was Time’s motive?

Why would they do that?

Why would they hide constructive criticism of an American president?

 

And yes…  what don’t we know?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

reunited

And one by one, so they came…

 

Attorneys and actuaries…

Politicians and professors…

Or my sweet friend, the creative, comic book store owner…

 

Pharmacists and philanthropists…

Owners and operators…

Salesmen and stay-at-home moms…

 

Moms and dads of several, of some… adopted or none…

Single parents and parents who’ve admirably called other children “son”…

 

All races, religions, and ethnic, gender, and demographic backgrounds…

White collar, blue collar, no collar at all.

 

Last weekend was my high school reunion. What a treat it was. See if you can follow me here, from the Intramuralist’s perspective…

 

We came from various places…  Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, California, Rhode Island, Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and more.  We are a diverse group — albeit probably not as diverse as others — but diverse in scenario… circumstance… in both obvious and non-obvious ways…

 

Some came full of joy, expectation… others, perhaps, a little anxious, wondering who they would see… how they would feel… how they would be viewed and valued after so many years.  Still others arrived with hidden heartache; some have tough circumstances at home.

 

Introverts and extroverts… there were incredible stories to share… of triumph.  Of grief.  Of sadness and success.

 

Yet regardless of story, we listened.  We cheered. We consoled and we danced. It was a joy to gather together.  It was a joy to dance.

 

It wasn’t a joy because we all act the same, believe the same, nor feel the same.  It wasn’t a joy because we’re all healthy or happy or hopelessly getting along at home.  It was a joy because our differences didn’t matter.

 

It wasn’t a substitute nor excuse.  It wasn’t a denial of truth nor an acceptance of what’s not good, not healthy, or not true.  It was a commitment to remain in relationship, no matter what.

 

Far too many seem to sacrifice community because of individual difference. Far too often the individual becomes more pronounced and celebrated than the whole. From foreign countries to the federal government, they forget far too quickly how to operate effectively and empathetically with the differences that are ever present.

 

I don’t know if my high school class could ever come close to solving the world’s growing and glaring problems.  But I can tell you this…  We’d work together, acknowledge the differences, refrain from denying truth, and always appreciate what we share.

 

We might also, just even, dance.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

a big deal

With the current Colorado flooding — p.s. the pictures are jaw-dropping — did you notice the official, early alert from the National Weather Service?

 

AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE  DENVER/BOULDER CO

941  AM  MDT  THU  SEP  12  2013

 

UPDATE… MAJOR FLOODING/FLASH FLOODING EVENT UNDERWAY AT THIS TIME WITH BIBLICAL RAINFALL AMOUNTS REPORTED IN MANY AREAS IN/NEAR THE FOOTHILLS.  PRECIPITABLE WATER VALUES IN EXCESS OF AN INCH AND A QUARTER ON GPS SENSORS CERTAINLY SUPPORT LOTS MORE RAIN TODAY

 

Question about “biblical rainfall”?

 

I’m often intrigued how so many work so seemingly hard to omit any reality of God, Jesus, or what’s “biblical.”  I typically pause when intentional efforts are made to diminish any truth or power of Christianity.  We witness instead the so-called “wisdom” of the world…

 

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is currently deciding whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance phrase, “under God,” violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the state constitution and is an issue of discrimination.

 

A 10 year old girl at a public school in Memphis, TN was told last week that she could not identify “the Almighty” as her idol for a required school assignment.  The teacher told the young student that she could not use language that “has something to do with God.”  Michael Jackson, however, was acceptable.

 

Earlier this summer, the Samuel Adams beer company ran an ad utilizing the Declaration of Independence.  They spoke of all men being created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights; however, they intentionally omitted the Declaration’s phrase acknowledging that those unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator.

 

Some people intentionally omit any reference to God…

… that is…

… until a “big deal” happens.

 

The flooding in Colorado is a big deal.  The resulting heartache after 9/11 was a big deal.  The shootings and violence and situation in Syria are a big deal.  In my own life, sadly at times, I’ve experienced some pretty challenging big deals.  Sometimes it takes a big deal for us to be prompted to mention God’s name… and to wrestle with the evidential reality.

 

FYI… there exist exponentially more reliable manuscripts of the Bible’s New Testament than there are of any writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Homer.  And yet, universities across America never assert the philosophers’ writings as unreliable, questionable, or untrue.  We do not dispute that the men wrote the words.  We do not dismiss the teaching nor avoid acknowledgement.

 

Sometimes it takes a big deal for us to wrestle with what’s true.

 

So it was said by the National Weather Service this week in Colorado.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

Syria… still.

Like many of you, I watched and listened to the President’s speech on Tuesday night.

 

Also like many of you, so much of me wished to avoid it.

 

My lack of desire had nothing to do with avoiding the sobering situations on the planet.  It also had nothing to do with who was actually speaking.  My desire to avoid the President’s speech was due to the fact that even from a distant vantage point, it is clear that politics are involved.  It’s involved in the White House.  It’s involved in the Congress.  It’s involved in the pundits and reporters who boldly pounce before the microphones.  And at a time when lives and security are solemnly at stake, my earnest desire is that all decision-making would be free from politics.

 

Because of the politics, I don’t believe the public receives the entire, unfiltered truth.  With the solicited skill of professional speechwriters, our leaders’ speeches are written and re-written multiple times in attempts to best persuade… to coax instead of communicate… to convince instead of encouraging consideration… and to influence instead of inform.  The Intramuralist is well aware that we do not all agree on the same subjects nor with equivalent fervency, but my desire — especially when lives may be at stake — is that we would be allowed to make our own decisions in regard to what is right and appropriate.  There need be no manipulation.  There need be no politics.

 

So on Tuesday, our President wanted to speak to us.  If my President is speaks, I will listen.  I want to hear what he has to say.

 

You know what struck me?

 

Pres. Obama spent much of his time on television appealing to our emotion…

 

“The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits — a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war…

 

I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor… 

 

I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?”

 

The images Obama describes are awful.  Horrific.  Condemnation of the behavior is deserving.  However, no matter the emotion the images elicit, we cannot allow the emotion to trump the logic; logic and emotion must be equally considered.

 

Logically speaking, if we attack Syria, who will attack us?  What incident will serve as the next USS Cole, the homicide attack on our American missile destroyer, set in the Yemen sea?  What will Syria — or Iran — or any Islamic extremists — do next?

 

That’s a logical question.

 

We can’t ignore it.  We cant dismiss it.  We also can’t allow our emotions to trump it.

 

Respectfully,

AR