Current Event – Page 102 – intramuralist ™

02/27/201402/27/2014

accountability

Somewhere over the course of my life, I was blessed with the realization that accountability is good for me. I articulate the “a-ha” in such a manner, as I’ve learned that not all adults have come to a similar awareness. Let me first add a couple of caveats:

1. I’m not suggesting I’ve always been good at it.

And 2. I don’t share my awareness with any sense of superiority.

My point is simple: accountability is good.

Accountability is the willingness to accept responsibility for one’s own actions. By being accountable to someone other than myself — to persons who gently but generously apply liberal doses of grace and truth — I am encouraged to answer for my actions… the good, bad, and ugly. There is no deception, no manipulation of the facts, nor any rhetorical spin.

Let me go a step further… accountability isn’t always fun. Frequently I must acknowledge a poor choice, a lack of discernment, or an error in judgment. Sometimes I must admit a painful mistake. Sometimes, too, I wish no one would know.

But the “knowing” by others spurs me on. The “knowing” is what makes me better at what I do. I want to live my life/do my job ethically and well, and accountability helps me do that.

One of the veiled, intentional hindrances to today’s government efficiency, however, is the acute absence of accountability. Neither the Judicial or Legislative nor Executive Branch of the federal government seeks or desires accountability…

The Judicial Branch… an appointment to the Supreme Court lasts a lifetime. Their tenure is for life unless they resign, retire, take senior status, or are removed after impeachment (… granted, no justice has ever been removed). A lifetime appointment equates to little to no accountability, which is especially concerning if/when a judge is ideologically driven.

The Legislative Branch… the leaders of both bodies of Congress — currently 1 Democrat (Sen. Harry Reid) and 1 Republican (Rep. John Boehner) — control what measures make it to the congressional floor. In other words, when the minority party wishes to bring a bill to a vote, Reid and Boehner respectively block it. To make matters worse (from the Intramuralist’s eyes, from an integrity standpoint), both parties quickly cry “foul” when the other party is doing the blocking. There exists little recourse. Hence, the Democrats and Republicans face minimal accountability.

The Executive Branch… every president seems to push the extent of Executive Orders — and every opposing party seems to vociferously, publicly protest. Executive Orders bypass the accountability inherent in a 3 branch system. Currently, the most questionable bypassing of accountability is in the execution of Obamacare. The White House has made 18 significant changes to the law via executive action. Their obvious quandary is that because the law is increasingly unpopular, if they allow Congress to have input, Democrats and Republicans will likely join together to make bipartisan changes. Hence, Pres. Obama is avoiding accountability, especially on Obamacare.

Democrats and Republicans… Republicans and Democrats… all 3 branches of government… they do not seek or desire accountability. They are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions… the good, bad, and ugly. They will not admit a poor choice, a lack of discernment, or any error in judgment. We all make mistakes! But our government’s (supposedly) public servants — knowing they must run on their perceived public record — instead sadly and dishonestly resort to deception, manipulation of the facts, and lavish rhetorical spin. They have not realized that accountability is good for them, too.

Respectfully,

02/25/2014

diversity

Every now and then there seems a cultural concept that we’re subtly, societally, seemingly expected to embrace. It’s like one of those unwritten values that we’re each supposed to espouse, and if we don’t, something is arguably wrong, lesser, or disturbingly “off” with us. It’s almost as if when the concept is not unilaterally embraced, superiority of thought and/or looking down on another is actually condoned — if they don’t immediately latch onto that same value.

For example, we now believe in diversity. Diversity is good.

We believe in diversity…

… in the workplace…

… in the classroom…

… in all of academia…

… in college entrance exams…

… in age…

… in gender…

… in race…

… in religion…

… in the Olympics…

… in sports teams…

… in sexual orientation…

… in attraction…

… in life balance…

… in leisure…

… in politics…

… in culture…

… in medicine…

… in music…

… in art…

… in disability…

… in management styles…

… in opinion.

Oh, wait. We have trouble with that last one. But we believe in diversity, yes?

We believe in respecting and valuing the differences of all people…

… and we believe that those differences contribute to our overall good.

But do we believe in the diversity of opinion? … meaning, do we accept the opinion of someone who thinks differently than you and me? … do we then accept the opinion of the person who does not believe in diversity?

If not, then we don’t truly believe in diversity either.

Respectfully,

02/23/201402/23/2014

revolution

With my jaw dropped and eyes glued, this past week I’ve watched as the people have taken to the streets in the Ukraine and Venezuela. Especially escalating in Kiev, there is an obvious passion within the people; their angst is directed at their government. I wonder what could stir the citizens so much to be that frustrated, that defiant, and that willing to boldly confront the established civic order. What’s stirring within the people? What’s stirring that they’re so angry with their government — angry at those who are supposed to have the citizens’ best interests in mind?

It’s more than a singular issue or particular passion. It’s more than one desire or demand. Synonymous with such large scale revolts is the belief that government no longer has the citizens’ collective best interests in mind.

I wonder… could that happen here?

Even with the enactment of the most controversial, American policies — ie. Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, or whatever is one’s current, most convenient terminology — like it or not, my sense is that the law was crafted by those who believe it has the citizens’ best interests in mind. Whether the law actually does care well for our citizens is another question; however, because of the perceived purpose, a revolution due to the law’s enactment seems a less legitimate reason to rise up against those who enacted the law.

Interestingly, no less, last week there was a circumstance that caused this current events observer to deliberately pause, questioning whose interest our government had in mind… questioning whether their focus was best for you and me…

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — the agency of the federal government which regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, etc. — was moving ahead with its taxpayer funded “Critical Information Needs” study (CIN). First revealed last October, according to the FCC, its purpose was to uncover information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.” The study would have sent FCC regulators into newsrooms across the country, asking questions such as the following:

(To media owners) “What is the news philosophy of the station?”

(To editors, producers and managers) “Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic ‘beats’? If so how many and what are the beats? Who decides which stories are covered?”

(To reporters) “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?” (Follow-up questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was cut.)

Upon confrontation of the growing controversy — and asked why tabulating speculative, perceived bias was necessary for our federal government for regulatory purposes — FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler agreed that survey questions “overstepped the bounds of what is required.” The extent of the questions raised serious First Amendment concerns. Why was the government looking into this? Why were they spending taxpayer dollars? And what would they do with the information? Better yet: whose best interests did they have in mind?

After a current FCC commissioner shared a concerned op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last week — an editorial in which he labeled the CIN study as a first step down a “dangerous path” — the FCC suspended the onset of the study, scheduled for spring.

Good thing. I was beginning to wonder about revolt.

Respectfully,

02/20/201402/20/2014

winner doesn’t take it all

There’s something about the Olympics that just sucks us in. Ok, summer more than winter — and maybe not all of us — but there’s something about the competition, fanfare, backstories, and patriotism that totally captures our attention. Granted, I could use a little more sleep this week and last, but for the most part, this semi-competitive current events observer is loving these games. I did, however, recently find myself reverting back to a less mature pattern. Allow me to humbly explain…

Years ago, I was challenged by Dr. Tim Kimmel’s book, Raising Kids for True Greatness. I found it revolutionary. I recommend it genuinely and generously.

The book challenges us to cede our individual pursuits of success. We each want the best for ourselves and our children; there’s nothing wrong with that. But what if there was something more? What if there was something better? Could our definition of success be omitting the most important part?

Kimmel asks about greatness. Where does it fit in? “If you aim your children at anything less than greatness,” says the author, ”you’ll set them up to miss the whole point of their lives.”

Greatness isn’t defined in terms of wealth, prosperity, or even an SAT score. Greatness is a measure of character — a purposeful maximizing of our potential — where the commitment to virtue is never in question. I think first of the quiet uniqueness of Mother Teresa, who undoubtedly discerned the value of true greatness. When greatness is prioritized, we recognize that our worth comes from something far more than materialistic success. The opportunities are thus endless.

When this pursuit of greatness then replaces our societally-encouraged success barometers, we are freed to root for those other than our own. We no longer envision the success of another as something less for “me.” There is no “you vs. me” or “us against them,” as there exists none of this pitting against other people. We each are blessed and gifted in different ways.

So during the Olympic hockey game, when the Americans faced the Russians 24 years after the original “Miracle on Ice,” I cheered with my young son nearby. We grinned and grimaced through each shot of the shootout. And when the United States finally won the non-medal-meriting, intense arctic match, I almost jumped off my couch… yes!

But I realized that I was again seduced into cheering solely for my team — and thinking lesser of the other team. Yes, of course we have favorites, but I think we also root against certain others and demonize them to some degree primarily because they are our opponent; they stand in our way. We see this in sports, politics, life in general. And so we often make the other out to be bad or something lesser somehow, when in reality, they, too, are attempting to maximize their potential and embrace their gifts.

As the pomp and circumstance concluded the weekend hockey competition, I decided to take the opportunity to teach my youngest a few added nuggets of wisdom, so I thought. Thinking of the days of both “Rocky” and Reagan, I said, “You know, Josh, years ago, Russia was considered a ‘bad guy.‘ Lots of people thought they wanted to blow us up.”

Josh in his greater wisdom, deliberately paused and then meekly shared, “Mom, I don’t need to know all things. Seriously.”

He’s right. While we can be proud of our team and celebrate their on field/ice success, we have to remember that there exists something greater. There’s no need to demonize our opponents. They, too, are working to purposefully maximize their potential. And they have been blessed differently than you and me.

Respectfully,

02/18/2014

no more debate?

Why do people keep telling us the debate is over?

Why can they not talk about it?

Why don’t they want us talking about it?

As has been expressed here on multiple occasions, I am not a rocket scientist (… shocking, I know). I am no scientist whatsoever. I don’t know exactly how the inconvenient or convenient truths specifically apply to the legitimacy of global warming/climate change. What I do know, however, is that for some reason there are a growing number of other non-scientists who seem to be telling us to quit talking about it… quit questioning. They know what’s right… they in their infinite wisdom know best…

From Pres. Obama’s January State of the Union:

“The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”

From Sec. of State John Kerry, over the weekend:

“We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts, nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand.”

Why is it we chastise those who question? Why, too, must we insult? But better yet, why are some now saying we can’t even question it?

Again, I don’t know whether the Earth is warming due to man’s behavior. I am not a scientist. Most of the people attempting to silence the skeptics are also not scientists. But I do know that the climate has always changed. As respected author George Will said, too, over the weekend, “Of course the climate is changing. It’s always changing. That’s what gave us the medieval warm period. That’s what gave us subsequent to that for centuries, the brutal Ice Age. Of course it’s changing. But when a politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economic science, social science says the debate is over, you may be sure of two things. The debate is raging and he’s losing it.”

I don’t claim to know that the debate is raging nor that anyone’s losing it. The Intramuralist’s long-stated stance has been that no accurate discussion of the Earth’s trends can be logically had without including a study of the Earth’s Creator.

What the Intramuralist also believes is that many, many people stand to profit politically and monetarily by convincing us that man is responsible for a disastrous warming of the Earth. My question today is whether or not that potential profit is what’s ratcheting up the rhetoric in regard to this debate — or desired lack of it.

Note the claims of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) who proposed a congressional resolution last month, encouraging Congress and the White House to combat climate change due to its adverse affects on women. She wrote: “Insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health. More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt ‘marginalized’ women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV.” Lee tied climate change to prostitution, omitting any discussion of poverty, choice, or other factors.

Friends, there is no need to stop a debate unless a debate cannot continue logically and respectfully. I am thus assuming other motives are in play. Granted, it we actually did stop the debate, some of the unique, emotionally-charged, ratcheted-up rhetoric would cease, as well.

Respectfully,

02/15/201402/16/2014

fruit in jello

As is well known, the Intramuralist values respect. It’s the primary approach to this blog. Whatever the issue, whatever the opinion, whatever the circumstance or scenario, we can talk about it as long as we each embrace respect. It’s also why I feel increasing frustration in so many issues in today’s increasingly polarized culture. Pick your issue. Pick your point. No matter how we feel about war, women, or the latest, greatest pursuit of rhetorical equality, we will solve no issue unless we learn to respect those who feel differently than we do. Note that I didn’t say we need to embrace compromise. Note that I also didn’t say adopting another’s opinion as equality good and true is wise. My priority is recognizing that while each of us has value, we were also each created differently. We have different viewpoints and select passions. And we must learn to honor one another whose viewpoints and passions are different than our own.

That said, there is one character aspect that completely, colloquially “gets my goat.” I find it perhaps the most troubling obstacle in my personal efforts to respect another. I find it challenging to respect another when hypocrisy is either obvious or rampant.

Let’s face it. There are times, I surmise, that each of us have engaged in some form of hypocrisy. For example, the Intramuralist has a few “texture issues” when eating. I really don’t care to eat something that is a combination of “liquids and solids,” so-to-speak. Like tapioca pudding, any fruit in any Jello — the childhood staple at all after church fellowships — those foods drive me crazy. I thought my texture issues were clear… until I married… and my spouse gently pointed out that my affinity for chunky peanut butter and vegetable soup totally contradicts my previously stated issue. My very mature “texture issue” passion — which I had oft, loudly, proudly articulated — totally, hypocritically fell apart.

As we witness current day events, I see seemingly larger issues fall apart. I see our politicians embrace arguably more significant hypocrisy. Each party. Each president. Each opposing party likes to claim hypocrisy is indigenous only to the other. Let me make a bold, respectful point: that is not true. Hypocritical games are played by both. Just watch each party approach extending the debt ceiling. They want to spend more when the president shares their party affiliation; they want to spend less when the president is of the other party. The approach of these grown men and women is with all due respect, hypocritically ridiculous.

The most recent rant where hypocrisy is glaring is in Pres. Obama’s approach to Executive Orders. Granted, Obama seems stifled by having 3 equal branches of government, in which a politically divided Congress is able to thwart his desired policy initiatives. Such is why Obama has been emphasizing that he can and will “go-it-alone.” Those are not my words. Those are his…

“I’ve got a pen, and I can use that pen to sign Executive Orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”

Note that Executive Orders bypass Congress.

Every president has used Executive Orders. Some have used them incredibly controversially… such as Pres. Clinton utilizing one to fight the 1999 Kosovo War and Pres. Bush (43) in 2001, utilizing one to restrict public access to the papers of former presidents. The WWII Japanese internment camps also were a result of Executive Order.

Here, however, is the aspect that drives this current events observer crazy. Pres. Obama, who is now claiming his willingness and right to generously enact Executive Order, said this in 2008 when campaigning for the office:

“I taught constitutional law for 10 years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the Executive Branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Bringing more and more power into the Executive Branch. Bypassing Congress.

I really disrespect hypocrisy — no matter who it comes from — no matter the justification of the time. Dealing with any fruit in any Jello would be far easier.

Respectfully,

02/13/201402/13/2014

redemption

Let’s see if we can somehow make these two fit together… headlines from this week’s New York Post and Kansas City Star, respectively:

“‘Catastrophic’ winter storm threatens Atlanta”

“Apologies go all around in Marcus Smart-Texas Tech fan incident”

Weather and sports.

It’s amazing how life all fits together. We could also add politics, if 2014 found Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, or Anthony Weiner running once more.

In each of the above, there is an underlying theme.

First in Atlanta.

As previously noted here, 2.6” of snow fell suddenly upon the otherwise identified “Hotlanta” 2 weeks ago. It was the day the Big Peach actually stood still. Cars and kids and trucks and teachers were stuck in their tracks. Transportation and communication systems were frustratingly jammed. Without a doubt, errors in decision-making, blame, and apologies overflowed.

Then in Lubbock, Texas.

Marcus Smart is considered one of the best college basketball players in the country. There is talk of him potentially being pick #1 in the NBA draft. After an opposing fan said something crass on Saturday, Smart went into the stands and shoved the fan. Without a doubt, errors in decision-making, blame, and apologies overflowed.

What strikes me now, no less, is the obvious opportunity for each for redemption. It snowed in Atlanta again yesterday. Marcus Smart will return from his suspension on the 22nd. Both the leaders in Atlanta and college student Smart are eager to do things differently and better.

“This is not how I conduct myself… It’s something I’ll have to learn from… I’m taking full responsibility,” said Smart in his seemingly genuine apology. Redemption is the opportunity to show that it’s really not how one conducts themselves. Redemption means to atone for a fault or mistake — to be delivered into a better state. There is no doubt that Smart and all the government and school officials in Georgia are eager to demonstrate that they are responsible; they have learned from their poor decision-making; and they can thus atone for their mistakes.

I think what actually strikes me most is how attracted we are to redemption. It’s almost as if we crave it. There’s something within us that knows we need it.

I think the contrast is equally true; it is highly unattractive when people and especially politicians do not know they need it — when they do not recognize their need for redemption. It seems to this current events observer that arrogance obstructs their awareness of the individual need for atonement. And as said here multiple times previously, arrogance is never attractive.

Think still on Smart’s profound words: “this is not how I conduct myself.” The reality is that it’s not how Smart typically conducts himself. It may also not be the manner in which the man he shoved typically conducts himself. What I do know, however, is that even if it’s not our typical manner — for Smart, for all the officials in Atlanta, for any politician or person, for that matter — we are each capable of errors in decision-making. Whether it’s typical matters less than if we are capable.

And if we are capable, then each of us is in need of redemption.

Respectfully,

02/11/2014

oblivious to the blessing

‘Tis rare we begin a post with a prayer, but I continue to be unable to shake the profound, contemporary relevance…

Lord, forgive me for so often being forgetful of your goodness, for acting as if I deserve anything more or different than what I have received…

It persists in plaguing me that we don’t live in a “have/have not” society. We simply live amid the “have not’s.” Regardless of stuff, status, wealth, or wonder, we continually compare ourselves to others, focused on what we “have not.” We focus more on what we don’t have, than on how each of us has been blessed.

I understand the admirable ambition in being aware of what we don’t have and working toward that goal; such ambition seems zapped, no less, when instead of embracing the process of attainment, the pursuit is exchanged for feelings of entitlement — feeling that stuff or status is deserved. The feeling only comes from a comparison of others… and its passion expands as we focus on the have not.

According to Gregg Easterbrook’s The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse:

Since 1960, real per-capita income has doubled.
Over the past century, life expectancy has doubled.
Since World War II, the average size of a new American home has doubled.
Also, the average Westerner is more prosperous than 99.4% of everyone who’s ever lived.

We are blessed with circumstances and stuff. And yet, the number of Americans who describe themselves as “happy” is no higher today than in the 50’s.

Friends, there is no magic pill. There is no magic policy. There is no magic that makes everyone suddenly feel better when the pill, policy, or rhetorical promise is rooted in comparison of someone else. Comparison only pits people against each other; it does not satisfy the soul.

As acknowledged recently, my son’s show choir group of 50-some talented teens performed in a highly competitive contest over the weekend. They faced several nationally recognized groups, not knowing where they would stand at day’s end. When the entertaining day ended — out of a total of 500+ points — my son’s group was named 1st Runner Up — by only 4 points. They almost won! In our “have not society,” there’s a problem, though. Too many of us — and too many will teach our kids — to focus on those 4 points. Focusing on those points — on the “have not’s” — keeps us oblivious to the blessing.

On a related tangent… my family also recently travelled to an NBA game. As our family of 5 strode to our seats, my youngest son (whose special needs have been previously shared) was suddenly, completely paralyzed with fear by the excessive stimulation of the environment and the height of our seats. For lack of better words, he freaked out, throwing his body on the ground in the middle of a crowded walkway. There was nothing I could do or say to ease his legitimate, yet irrational fear. And so we paid $40/50 each to instead sit in the corridor outside the arena. We didn’t see the game.

Near the end of regulation, some sort of internal switch went off in my sweet son’s head. With zero prompting, he made a proclamation: “I’ll be brave. I don’t want to spoil your fun. Let’s go.” And on that note we headed to our seats. Yes, with 3 minutes left in the 48 minute game.

With 8 seconds left, my hometown favorites hit the shot that sent the game into overtime. Excellent! I was so thankful! Yes, instead of focusing on the 45 minutes I missed, I was thankful to have an extra 5. That was a blessing.

Respectfully,

02/09/201402/09/2014

joining in the dance

Black. White.

African. Asian.

All religions, demographics, ethnic, and socio-economic groups.

Singing. For joy. Together.

I’ve heard it said that a “child shall lead them.” The youth shall lead us…

The wolf with the lamb…
the leopard with the kid.
The lion and calf, cow and bear…
their calves and cubs will grow up together.
The whole earth will be brimming…

Yesterday the Intramuralist had the privilege of observing a midwest, high school show choir competition. It was great fun — singing and dancing, dancing and singing. It’s a fun, formidable, intense competition. There’s something about the commitment and creativity combined with talent and hard work that sends this show choir parent into always humbling, simultaneous smiles and fairly vocal cheers. Yesterday was no exception.

Yet I pen this post not to speak of the success of a single school.

No, I pen this post to acknowledge arguably my always favorite moment of these events…

After the day show — awaiting the judges’ results and the announcement of which teams will advance to the finals — there is a brief period when all schools gather in the auditorium. The kids and parents fill the seats, aisles, floor, you-name-it.

Black. White.

African. Asian.

All religions, demographics, ethnic, and socio-economic groups.

And then the music plays.

Great music.

From the Isley Brothers’ iconic “Shout” to Katy Perry’s “Firework,” when the music blares in the auditorium, awaiting the judges proclaimed assessment of those who performed best during the day, everyone joins in the dance…

The kids fill the aisles…

They dance in their seats…

They sing and dance and dance and sing and all join in one song…

The kids get all mixed up together.

Where they’re from doesn’t matter.

What they believe doesn’t matter.

Their identified “people group” doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t even matter who’s about to win.

It’s about different people doing life together, sharing their circumstances and their joy.

It’s about sharing in the dance.

Yes, the youth shall lead us.

And yes, we have a lot to learn.

Respectfully,

02/06/2014

blame it on the boogie

Perhaps you noticed. Last week, in the lead up to the Super Bowl shuffle and Seattle and television’s biggest stage, an unusual event occurred; it snowed in the South. From New Orleans to Texas to the top tips of Florida, the flaky white stuff fell from the sky.

And then there was Atlanta.

As editorialized by PoliticoMagazine:

“On Tuesday, snowfall of just over 2 inches shut down metropolitan Atlanta’s roads, schools, churches, government offices and businesses. Thousands of flights were cancelled at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. More than 2,000 school children were separated from their parents, and spent the night in buses, police stations, or classrooms. It seemed that the only places open were Waffle House and Home Depot, the former serving hash browns and coffee and the latter opening up its stores as makeshift shelters. People who didn’t camp out in supermarket aisles and hotel lobbies were trapped in cars for 10, 16, 20 hours as they tried to make commutes that normally take just 30 minutes.”

Now let me begin by acknowledging how frustrated, annoyed, and even infuriated many could legitimately be if they couldn’t get to their kids. Let me also add that the situation worsened: a baby was delivered by her father in a car on the interstate; many elderly were without medication; and 13 deaths were considered a result of the storm. All this from 2.6” of the flaky white stuff.

Let me add, too, that not everyone did everything well. In an area where snow rarely falls, unusual, subjective decisions had to be made in what to open, what to close, when to send home, and how to tackle the slippery streets. Any time subjective decisions are made — precisely because the decisions are subjective — there will be error.

What happened next, however, struck me as somewhat profound. Parents and pundits rushed to their publicized platforms and pens to share their frustration, annoyance, and infuriation. Friends, I have no problem with the expression of passionate emotion as long as it’s respectful to others. I also have no problem with the expression of passionate emotion that questions whether everyone did everything well — again, as long as it’s respectful. But what happened in those publicized platforms seemed an evolution of emotion that was striking. Because people were passionate, they were seduced into doing what passionate, emotional people often do; they began to blame.

Who did they blame? Logically, they would find fault in the subjective decision-making of municipal authorities. Remember: any time subjective decisions are made, there will be error. But the blame continued. The emotion continued. I then heard blame boldly cast on suburban sprawl, racism, the Governor, and an actual government conspiracy. Really.

Years ago Harold Kushner wrote a book entitled, When Bad Things Happen to Good People. The thought-provoking, contemplative work wrestles with how to respond to the “why them’s” and “why me’s” in life. How do we deal with difficult circumstances? After all, bad stuff happens. Frustrating, annoying, infuriating stuff happens. How we deal with it matters.

It would seem to me a wiser response to acknowledge the circumstances, changing what can, accepting what we can’t, and having the wisdom to know the difference. Casting blame wherever possible is not healthy nor wise.

The Intramuralist so desires us to be a less finger-pointing, blame-oriented society. I wish we could accept both the good and the bad instead of using our legitimate emotion to cast blame on other people. I desire us to be wise. P.S. It’s snowing outside my house today. I think I’ll enjoy it.

Respectfully,