Posts

Posted on

who thinks we’re stupid?

images-1I wrestled this morn with which of the week’s most significant stories to write about… do we discuss how a man who assisted in writing the Affordable Care Act admitted that to pass the legislation, they had to play on the “stupidity of the American voter”? … or do we wrestle with the wisdom in the President’s approach, with his intent to bypass all others, creating legislation on his own? Bear with me, friends. I have a feeling the two stories will easily, semi-profoundly merge together.

Meet Jonathan Gruber: story #1. He’s an MIT Econ professor, teaching there for the past 22 years. He was heavily involved in crafting Obamacare. Wikipedia refers to him as a “key architect.”

As now reported by multiple sources, Gruber has said the following about the Affordable Care Act (also, please take note of the intelligence necessary to become a professor at MIT):

  • The legislation “would not have passed” had the administration been honest about the income-redistribution policies embedded in its insurance regulations.
  • The “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”
  • “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.”
  • “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Gruber visited the White House five times in 2009. Pres. Obama’s campaign featured Gruber in a re-election video. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week she didn’t “know who he is,” but a video quickly surfaced showing Pelosi directly referring to and supportive of Gruber’s work. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) once referred to Gruber on the Senate floor as “one of the most respected economists in the world.”

On to story #2….

Near two weeks ago, America sent a message to Washington via the election. As discussed, the Intramuralist believes the primary message was “one, you’re acting arrogantly,” and “two, we don’t like the way you’re acting.” That includes Congress and arguably, especially the President.

Pres. Obama announced the next day that he will take action on immigration reform on his own before the year’s end. Granted, a new Congress was just elected, but Obama intends to bypass them before they are ever sworn in.

Now the Intramuralist believes that reform should be taken on immigration; the influx of illegals in this country has posed some incredibly challenging economic, social, and national security issues. We need to manage this is a more effective, reasonable way. Yet by bypassing the legislative branch in its entirety — even though the purpose of the legislative branch is create the law and the purpose of the executive branch is to enforce the law — the President has decided to create.

It is true that immigration reform has yet to pass both houses of Congress. It is also true that when Obama had super majorities in the House and Senate, he did not prioritize any immigration measures. For Obama to proceed now via Executive Order — completely avoiding Congress — is to this current events observer, an obviously arrogant approach. It does not adhere to the message of the most recent election.

It also makes me wonder how frequently people perceive the American voter as “stupid.”

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

dignity

lauren-hill-gray-shirt-10312014Last week we chronicled the life of Britney Maynard, the 29-year-old Oregon woman dying of brain cancer, who chose the time her life would end. Contrast that with the life of Lauren Hill, a 19-year-old Ohio athlete, also dying from brain cancer. Lauren has chosen to instead maximize her believed last few days, however long that may be. Both stories have garnered significant, national news.

The day after Britney died, Lauren played her first and only college basketball game for Mt. St. Joseph University, despite her rapidly declining health. As observed by Xavier University men’s head basketball coach, Chris Mack, in a USA Today editorial: “She did it in front of 10,250 watery-eyed locals, with a few celebrities to boot. She scored a layup on the first possession of the game, and scored another basket just before the final buzzer. The game was held at Xavier’s Cintas Center, and MSJ beat Hiram 66-55. It very well could have been held at Paul Brown Stadium if not for the Jaguars/Bengals game — the only difference would have been that there would have been more tears.”

Lauren feels called to spend this time amidst her suffering encouraging other people. She has said: “One January night, I was having a meltdown. I asked God if I could do anything. I didn’t know what He sent me here for. I wanted to know what He sent me here for. Whatever you sent me here for, I’m ready to do… What keeps me going is remembering why I’m here… I told (God) I’d take every opportunity to speak for the kids who can’t speak… I’m spreading awareness on a level that’s never been spread before. I really hope it’s going to bring a change to the world. Being able to have this opportunity is all I’ve wanted and prayed for.”

Neither Britney nor Lauren should be judged for their different approaches to life’s end. Each of us has to figure out our path, wrestling with the God of the universe in how our thinking aligns with him. Britney and Lauren, no less, prompt the Intramuralist to ask multiple, major questions… like…

What does dying with dignity actually mean?

Does suffering equate to no dignity?

Is there any value in suffering?

Where are we “playing God” — in the ending, extending, or sustaining of life?

Is “playing God” wrong?

And a last pair of questions, that always cause me to loop through some transparently tough, emotional gymnastics: what does “quality of life” mean? … and who is capable of defining such?

Being the parent of a special needs child has strongly challenged my thinking. It’s not that I know best nor that my experience translates into truth for all people. Yet what is true about the experience manifest in my household is that I care for a son who many — especially in academia — assume to have a lesser quality of life. He’s got a cognitive disability; his fine and gross motor skills are a little off. Yesterday, by the way, he accidentally, almost (thanks, God!) made an $80,000 purchase on my laptop precisely because of his impairment. But is his quality of life any lesser? I would challenge any to get to know my Josh… get to know how he loves people… get to know how he loves and encourages others arguably better than you and me… get to know how he reads people and how he loves life. Then let’s talk about “quality of life.” My simple point is I’m not sure all our measurements are all that accurate.

This end of life bit is a curious thing. It’s an easy place where judgment, arrogance, and lack of Godly submission creeps in. It’s hard. I pray we learn from the examples of Britney Maynard and Lauren Hill. There is much to learn and the answers are not neat, simple, nor easy.

Said by a local reporter covering Lauren’s thought to be final days… “Lauren will shine brightly until her light is extinguished. Even then, she hopes she’ll be remembered for the good she did. This is how to script the most perfect ending to this most imperfect story. It’s spectacular how the imminence of death can prompt so much living. That’s Lauren’s gift. To us all.”

What a gift indeed. P.S. I think Lauren’s light will shine even longer than that.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

message to washington

arrogantWith a week gone by and most partisan musings out of the way, I’ve decided to take a respectful stab at the reasons for last week’s election results. Let me alert you early: if you’re here hoping to find either excuses or emboldening, please visit a more slanted site. There are no talking points embedded in my posts. I simply have a perspective to share — albeit a limited one at that — that I feel is significant. It will satisfy no one desiring to remain entrenched in any man-created, partisan division.

In the 2014 midterm elections, the Republicans gained a minimum of 7 Senate seats, 12 seats in the House of Representatives, and 3 Governorships. While the party not “possessing” the White House often picks ups seats in non-presidential election years, the surprising extent of Republican gains was identified by many as a “wave.” A wave election is one in which one political party wins substantially more races than the other.

As alluded to, my vantage point is limited — as is each of yours. That comment is not said to degrade nor dismiss; it is merely an admission that should keep us humble, recognizing that there may be vital aspects we cannot see, and if we cannot fully see a scenario, we very well may be wrong. Given that prudent backdrop, allow me to suggest the reason for the Republican wave…

It’s not that the nation is gleefully fond of the Republican Party; it’s not that we embrace their every policy or approach… It’s not that the nation is finally done with the Democrat Party; it’s not that we wish to repudiate their every policy or approach… It’s also not that as a nation, we now detest Democrat Pres. Barack Obama, even though Obama certainly played a significant role in the evident change of tides.

The Intramuralist wholeheartedly believes that the primary reason behind the resulting wave is that the majority of the public finds arrogance within power completely unattractive. The leadership of our country has seemed astoundingly arrogant. They seem too impressed and persuaded by their own righteousness.

Now lest anyone immediately jump from an entrenched stance to dismiss my perspective, please note that the Intramuralist did not make the above supposition party-specific. I believe that when our leaders act arrogantly, people notice and it is unattractive. The party they hail from and the ideas the exude often mean less than how they actually exude their ideas.

I believe when policy is passed via manipulated tactics — as was done with Obamacare — it appears arrogant. I believe when policy is withheld from legislative floor votes — as both the Rep. and Dem. House and Senate leaders do — it appears arrogant. I believe when Executive Orders become a primary means of accomplishing party initiatives, it appears arrogant. I also believe the refusal to term limit oneself, the negative campaigning, shameless self promotions, and declarations of power or perceived mandates each aid and abet the idea that arrogance has incorrigibly permeated our elect. It’s not attractive.

The message sent to Washington last Tuesday is we aren’t impressed; arrogance is not a virtue, and thinly veiled arrogance cannot pass as a necessary confidence. Each of us has known great leaders; there is a distinct difference between confidence and arrogance — only one of which is attractive to the masses.

Note that in his press conference the next day, Obama did not admit any public dissatisfaction with his approach. That still seems arrogant to me, and without a change in approach, I believe Obama will have trouble moving forward. Also, if Republicans gloat instead of roll up their sleeves and work, they, too, will have trouble. Arrogance will not sustain any wave.

As one leader said after his recent “shellacking,” “We’re not… very good… right now. We’ve descended over the last three weeks and didn’t make any changes or any positives… that all starts with me.” While I have never been accused of being his loyal fan, there’s something within his humility that’s attractive — something about his humble handling of the truth that appeals to my desire to give him another chance.

Granted, that was Marc Trestman, head coach of the Chicago Bears, who also lost big time over the weekend.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

getting in the way

images-1So in the midst of persons attempting to neatly tie up all the loose end explanations of last week’s elections (and find creative ways to either absolve self, gloat, or legitimize the dismissing of reality), I found a story that resonated a little closer to my heart (… thank you, beat reporters, those of you who send newsworthy items my respectful, editorial way). As told by a CNN affiliate this week in Fort Lauderdale…

It did not take long for officials to make good on the promise to criminally charge those who violate a new ordinance that effectively outlaws groups from feeding the homeless in public. On Sunday, the city charged three people, including two ministers and a 90-year-old homeless advocate. They could face up to 60 days in jail for the violation.

“I fully believe that I am my brother’s keeper. Love they neighbor as thy self,” Arnold Abbott said. Abbott, 90, prepares hundreds of meals each week for the homeless in the kitchen of the Sanctuary Church.

“We serve two entrees at every feeding,” he said.

He faces possible jail time and a $500 fine for feeding the homeless after he was charged with violating the ordinance.

“One of police officers came over and said, ‘Drop that plate right now,’ as if I was carrying a weapon,” Abbott said.

Authorities also charged a minister from Coral Springs and Sanctuary Church’s pastor, Wayne Black.

“We believe very strongly that Jesus taught us that we are to feed his sheep,” Black said.

Mayor Jack Seiler had warned arrests were coming, but it was not the first time Abbott has fought city hall. In 1999, Abbott sued the city for banning him from feeding homeless on beach — a lawsuit he won.

Abbott said he plans to be fire up the stoves again Wednesday, when he has another food sharing plan for the beach. He said he does not want to be arrested, but he is prepared for the possibility.

“I’m going to have to go to court again to sue the city of Fort Lauderdale, the beautiful city,” he said. “These are the poorest of the poor. They have nothing. Don’t have a roof over their head, and who could turn them away?”

So let the Intramuralist acknowledge a few, brief perspectives. First, there’s most likely a valid reason the Lauderdale law was created. They are obviously attempting to limit the number of homeless persons on the street. No one wants the homeless to be homeless.

Also, in the Intramuralist’s opinion, no less — and potentially consistent with the message Tuesday’s voters sent Washington — I believe sometimes government goes too far. Recognizing a solid message or motive, government often attempts to control us via law. They justify too many rules and regulations to control our behavior. More often than not, as long as our behavior is not detrimental to the health of another, government should stay out of the way. Let the divine spirit be the convictor of our hearts — not the federal government.

Here’s a 90-year-old man who feels called to feed the hungry. Isn’t there a better way to handle all angles of this issue than the government getting in the way?

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

midterm notes

sticky-notes-1024x768This week I found a few extra sticky notes stuck around the edges of my computer desk. Seems they were prompted by Tuesday’s election…

I’ve heard rumblings of bipartisanship. Where were those calls before the election?

CNN, FOX, MSNBC… interesting watching them all.

Wasserman Schultz calls Obama Democrats’ “best asset.” If he was their best asset he would have been seen campaigning with vulnerable candidates. Please don’t lie for rhetorical sakes. Please don’t think we’re ignorant.

Obama calls election the “worst possible group of states for Democrats since Dwight Eisenhower.” Noticing a trend… the “worst”… “worst economy.” Wonder if he’ll ask how he’s contributed to the public’s discontent.

Wish this would finish soon. I’m getting sleepy. Need to go to bed.

Crist/Scott or Scott/Crist… geepers… can they decide which party they actually wish to be from? Charlie Crist has officially represented 3 different parties now. Geeesh.

Scott Brown is challenging the New Hampshire results. Ok, I get it. Close election. Congratulations. But accept the outcome.

Ed Gillespie… where’d you come from? No one seemed to think your race would even be close. And now… what… a recount in Virginia?

All these graphics. Much improved. Could use one of those big interactive computer screens in my family room.

How do they call these races with only 7% of the vote in? Oh, my. Doesn’t always make a lot of sense.

Obama calling leaders from both parties to the White House on Friday. Could this be a little more regular and all be more considerate?

Still need sleep by the way.

Pelosi calls the potential results a “catastrophe.” Get some perspective, please. Go to Africa; see spread of Ebola. Then let’s talk catastrophe.

How to win and lose graciously. Seems like we could all learn something there.

Facebook. Twitter. (See winning and losing graciously again.)

Too much money. Yep. No doubt they could all be better stewards. Why don’t we use all that to pay down the debt?

Anti-incumbent? No. More anti-Washington. 

This election is over. Well sort of. Still a run-off. Sorry, Louisiana.

Alaska… where are you?

No more commercials or robo-calls. Thanks, God.

Hope and change. Again.

Elections have consequences.

Now quit campaigning, quit the disrespect, and get to work. P.S. Some of us also still need sleep now, too.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

sundays & tuesdays

10532136_10204417077048664_2802010865682159839_oFor 17 Sundays most of the nation joins with the likeminded, typically sitting on the family room sofa, sometimes in our favored garb, cheering on our favorite team. Like this past weekend… some rooted for Denver instead of New England, Pittsburgh instead of Baltimore, and St. Louis instead of San Francisco. We enthusiastically and loyally cheer for our team. “Who dey” and “Go Bengals,” for example, were heard multiple times, echoing loudly amid our household (… yes, some days it’s hard to be a Bengals’ fan). But let’s face it: not only are we zealously rooting for our team, we are also actively rooting against the other.

Today, however, is Tuesday; it’s not Sunday. Yet with today’s midterm elections, it seems many have the two days confused.

Many highly intelligent people are rooting zealously for their team — and — actively rooting against the other. Many of the elect are encouraging us to do exactly that. From Pres. Barack Obama to congress to our local municipalities, many are encouraging us to choose sides — to choose a single side — choosing only one team. It’s as if only one team can win.

[Sigh.]

It’s not that I don’t believe certain candidates are better. It’s not that I don’t believe certain policies are wiser. Wisdom and foolishness exists across all parties.

I will add that no party’s candidates have cornered the market on integrity, and the Intramuralist will always support a man or woman of integrity before a candidate who shares a preferred party (note:  I don’t have a preferred gender or ethnicity). That’s one of the most significant, gaping, moral loopholes that seemingly intelligent people seem to miss. They fight for their party. They don the favored garb. But they forget that not all people of all parties are good — they aren’t all men and women of integrity;  they also forget that both Pittsburgh and Baltimore have good people on their team; hence, it’s understandable that some would favor the plays of the Steelers to the Ravens or the Ravens to the Steelers. It’s not so understandable to  rhetorically vilify an entire team in order to propel oneself or one’s party; such seems a silly exercise for the otherwise intelligent to embrace.

This past weekend Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) joined in a conference call with progressive activists, attempting to help a Democrat keep hold of Iowa’s currently open Senate seat. He said of his desired candidate, “Bruce Braley is a fine man. He has a good record of public service.” Of his opponent, Joni Ernst, Reid said, “She’s so out of line with mainstream Iowans… she has spent the entire campaign talking about what she did as a young girl, castrating animals.”

Friends, please vote for the person of your choice, but don’t be influenced by Reid’s words; they aren’t accurate. They are part of an inflated rhetoric designed to prompt us to put on our partisan garb and root actively against the other team. Democrats and Republicans alike join in this exercise; it’s as if they are attempting to get us to hate the other team — to turn a blind eye to the fact that there may exist candidates of integrity on both sides of the ballot.

This past Sunday the Jacksonville Jaguars visited Cincinnati’s “Jungle” on week 9 of the NFL’s regular season. We were (obviously) rooting for the Bengals, but we no longer cheered actively against the team from North Florida. We were changed by this past summer, when my family had the opportunity to visit extensively with several of the Jaguar players, including blossoming rookie, star quarterback, Blake Bortles. Blake was very intentional with my sons; he was especially good with my child with special needs. While the Jaguars lost the game Sunday, thanks to Blake, we had no doubt there were people of integrity on both sides.

Maybe all those talking about today’s ballots should recognize that, too.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

maynard’s choice

cover-768Today was the day. Today was the day Brittany Maynard’s family and friends were to begin life without her. Today was to be the beginning of her surrender… and of, her family’s grief. Allow me to provide some brief background info, as shared by Brittany herself…

On New Year’s Day, after months of suffering from debilitating headaches, I learned that I had brain cancer. I was 29 years old. I’d been married for just over a year. My husband and I were trying for a family.

Our lives devolved into hospital stays, doctor consultations and medical research. Nine days after my initial diagnoses, I had a partial craniotomy and a partial resection of my temporal lobe. Both surgeries were an effort to stop the growth of my tumor. In April, I learned that not only had my tumor come back, but it was more aggressive. Doctors gave me a prognosis of six months to live.

Because my tumor is so large, doctors prescribed full brain radiation. I read about the side effects: The hair on my scalp would have been singed off. My scalp would be left covered with first-degree burns. My quality of life, as I knew it, would be gone.

After months of research, my family and I reached a heartbreaking conclusion: There is no treatment that would save my life, and the recommended treatments would have destroyed the time I had left.

I considered passing away in hospice care at my San Francisco Bay-area home. But even with palliative medication, I could develop potentially morphine-resistant pain and suffer personality changes and verbal, cognitive and motor loss of virtually any kind. I did not want this nightmare scenario for my family, so I started researching death with dignity. It is an end-of-life option for mentally competent, terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live. It would enable me to use the medical practice of aid in dying: I could request and receive a prescription from a physician for medication that I could self-ingest to end my dying process if it becomes unbearable. I quickly decided that death with dignity was the best option for me and my family.

Brittany moved to Oregon, obtained the prescription, and after finishing her so-called “bucket list,” planned on dying yesterday, November 1st. Brittany, however, changed her mind. She remains alive today.

Let me thus add a few thoughts and questions. Please perceive no judgment; there is none. I have no idea what it would feel like to be in Brittany’s shoes. Walking in her shoes, however, does not lessen my emotion nor question.

Brittany says she changed her mind because she “still feels good enough”… “I still have enough joy and I still laugh and smile with my family and friends.” She also is still “reserving the right” to die on her own terms.

I can’t imagine being Brittany. I can’t imagine the sobriety that encounters her every day, the sobriety so many of us fail to face as it’s so easy to take a month or minute or moment for granted.

Amidst all the heartache, within Brittany’s seizing of the moment, there is a wisdom so many of us miss. Brittany makes me want to take nothing for granted.

More questions directed to this articulate young woman and her heartbreaking situation… why exactly did you change your mind? With circumstances the same, why have you decided to currently live? What keeps you here?  What do you think happens next? Do you know God? Do you trust him? Can he comfort you? Can he help you die with dignity? What will be the first conversation after death you have with God?

I have no answers this day… no judgment either… I am walking away, just hugging my family and friends right now… really tight.

Respectfully…

AR

[NOTE:  At 9:35 p.m. EST on Sunday, Nov. 2nd, long after this column was posted, USA Today reported that Brittany did indeed end her life.  USA TODAY Network is awaiting further details.  Rest in peace, Brittany. ]

Posted on

black enough

zebra_stripes“Scout,” said Atticus, “nigger-lover is just one of those terms that don’t mean anything—like snot-nose. It’s hard to explain—ignorant, trashy people use it when they think somebody’s favoring Negroes over and above themselves. It’s slipped into usage with some people like ourselves, when they want a common, ugly term to label somebody.”

“You aren’t really a nigger-lover, then, are you?”

“I certainly am. I do my best to love everybody… I’m hard put, sometimes—baby, it’s never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person is, it doesn’t hurt you.”

So much truth so often overflows from fiction’s pages, as noted above in the poignant dialogue between To Kill a Mockingbird’s “Scout” Finch, the tomboy teen that perceives the goodness in others while not negating societal evils, and her father, Atticus Finch, a widowed lawyer with an undeniable, solid moral compass. Racist persons used the phrase “nigger-lover” to damage or demean; Atticus wisely shares that the term tells us more about the user than about the one the user attempts to describe, showing us “how poor” the user actually is.

Let’s face it. Racism is unfortunately alive and well on planet Earth. Sometimes it’s real; sometimes it’s more a repeated accusation. The Intramuralist wishes it weren’t real. I wish no man, woman, child, etc. were measured by the color of their skin. All men were created equal, regardless of color or creed, yet too many of us still justify judging by the color of one’s skin.

Too many people voted against Barack Obama because he is black. Too many people voted for Barack Obama because he is black. Too many people oppose or support him now for potentially the same reason (… see his approval ratings broken down by race). The point is that both positions are motivated by skin color. A judgment based on skin color fits the definition of racism.

It seems, however, racism accusations are more quickly prevalent when it’s one color posed against another. But what happens when it’s one color against itself, so-to-speak?

For example… in the 2014 Super Bowl, the Seattle Seahawks dominated the opposition; they won handily. In fact, they were so exceptional, many spoke of a potential dynasty for years to come. How could they not repeat?

Yet this year the Seahawks are not dominant; they have already lost three times — still winning but not consistently; each week their status has seemed shaky. Hence, with expectations different than reality, the questions and finger pointing have begun, as the dynasty potential has dissipated. Last week there were even reports from the Seattle locker room that their quarterback, Russell Wilson, the man who led them to Super Bowl victory was not “black enough.” You heard me correctly.

As first shared by the Bleacher Report’s Mike Freeman and then on ESPN, “There is also an element of race that needs to be discussed… it’s backed up by several interviews with Seahawks players — is that some of the black players think Wilson isn’t black enough.” Let me be clear… black players think a black quarterback may not be black enough. What exactly is “black enough”? … and is that not a judgment based on the color of one’s skin?

Racism is alive and well on planet Earth… and it’s not always one race juxtaposed against another. It’s also not always handled as wisely as in fiction by Atticus Finch.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

geeeesh

5LUQ_bP8_400x400Can we talk? Can we put all red and blue hats aside and partisan paraphernalia? Can we talk about the elections, one week from today, and objectively acknowledge what is wise and what is not? Can we talk? Can we ignore our emotional entrenchment that too often gets in the way, prompting us to justify the partisan blinders — blinders often of wisdom?

Hence, all blinders and party recognition aside, I question the wisdom in the following circumstances surrounding next Tuesday’s midterm elections…

Can someone tell me why Mitch McConnell feels like he needs another six years in the Senate? McConnell has been in office for 30 years. While I appreciate his service and his commitment to Kentucky, why is it that he feels he must represent Kentuckians? Isn’t it time for someone else? … some fresh ideas? … some new, creative articulation of ideas? One of the primary reasons the Intramuralist repeatedly advocates for term limits is because too many candidates refuse to limit themselves. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont has actually been in office since 1975. Geeeesh… (note: #1).

Speaking of Kentucky, there’s also McConnell’s opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. Sharing a political likemindedness with the President — yet noting that Pres. Obama is rather unpopular in the Bluegrass State — Grimes has repeatedly refused to say whether she voted for the current Commander-in-Chief. After stumbling with her response, she claimed she was motivated by privacy, expecting the not-so-intelligent voter to miss the warped sense of politics involved.

Ms. Grimes, it’s ok if you voted for Obama… lots of people did; a majority of us did! But not to answer the question makes me wonder where else you are being deceptive. Where else is politics your primary motivator?…

Grimes’s misstep prompted a plethora of similar questions, with multiple other candidates joining in the rhetorical fumbling, such as Georgia Senate candidate Michelle Nunn, West Virginia’s Natalie Tennant, and now gubernatorial candidates (see Tom Wolf, Pennsylvania). There’s too much politicking involved. Hence… geeeesh #2.

Too much politicking, too many impure motivations, and too much money… way too much money! It’s both parties, friends. The Center for Responsive Politics projects nearly $4 billion will be spent on the elections by the time the dust settles after Nov. 4th (… uh, geeeesh #3 comes pretty easily).

Somewhere within the process, no less, is the current, seemingly awkward role of Pres. Obama. With stagnant at best approval numbers, few candidates desire photo ops with the current President, but fewer still will admit their lack of desire. Obviously, there exists an intentional strategy for Obama to not campaign with candidates who hail from bellwether or non-blue states; no prudent candidate wants to be seen with anyone or anything which might negatively affect their candidacy; also, Obama is by no means the first president to possess such a perceived, unfortunate albatross effect. My “geeeesh” thus arises again, primarily by those who attempt to deny the strategy — again, believing the average voter to be rather ignorant. As said by incumbent candidate, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the other night in New Hampshire, “The fact is, he’s busy in Washington.” Geeeeesh, indeed.

Unfortunately, when elections are near, so often is a lack of wisdom.

Geeeesh.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

where are they now?

Zisser-looting.jpg&maxW=618&cci_ts=20140815114258In one of the more tragic summer scenarios, we remember the fretful days in Ferguson, Missouri. Remember this brief timeline, extracted from USA Today…

On Saturday, Aug. 9th, a police officer encounters 18 year old Michael Brown and a friend as they walk down a street. Brown is shot to death as a result of the encounter.

The next day in a St. Louis County Police press conference, the police chief says Brown — who was unarmed — physically assaulted the officer, and during a struggle between the two, Brown reached for the officer’s gun. One shot was fired in the car followed by other gunshots outside of the car.

That evening, a candlelight vigil to honor Brown later turns violent. More than a dozen businesses are vandalized and looted. More than 30 people are arrested and two police officers suffered injuries.

As the days continue, the situation intensifies… Looting and violence continue. Local school is cancelled. Death threats are made to the police. Reports surface that Brown had been involved in a minor robbery the day of his death. Hundreds gather outside police headquarters to demand justice for Brown’s death. Over the next two weeks, the demands for justice escalate, as does the violence. Remember Brown was unarmed. Also, Brown is black; the officer is white. Injustice is assumed.

The FBI gets involved. The NAACP gets involved. The reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make appearances. Witnesses claim Brown had turned his back and was walking away — maybe even having his hands up, in some sort of surrendered posture. For weeks the protests and demands for justice loudly continue… in Ferguson’s streets, the media’s lead stories, and in social media’s passionate rants.

This past week the St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted a copy of Michael Brown’s autopsy. While some were notably frustrated by the leaked report, the confirmed autopsy shows Brown was impaired by THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. It also shows that Brown was shot at close-range, not walking away, and his arms were not raised. Brown’s blood was found on the officer’s uniform and inside the police car. While the autopsy does not give a complete account of the total truth, it also calls into question the claim that the killing was unjust. This report — solely a single piece of the investigation, although a significant piece indeed — does not substantiate claims that the shooting was racially motivated.

Please note that the Intramuralist is not suggesting what actual motives were in play. I do not claim to know. But just as I do not know the totality of the motives, neither do the Sharptons, Jacksons, any potentially opportunist activists, nor the citizens of Ferguson. Hence, I have more questions…

As we await the grand jury’s proceedings, what happens if the grand jury fails to indict the police officer?

And if the claims of injustice are proven to be either wrong or inconclusive, where will the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world be then? Will they continue to cling to what they want to be true?

One of the Intramuralist’s observations is that persons are often quick to assess and react with certainty, prompting emotion to permeate truth. This then does not allow for the wisdom that comes from patience and prudence, as there is minimal tolerance for the time necessary for all the facts to unfold. I get that; it’s easier to assume and react than it is to be quiet and wait. It’s harder still to admit we may be wrong.

My prayers remain with Brown’s family, for comfort in their ongoing grief… and for wisdom…for each of us.

Respectfully…

AR