intramuralist ™

Can 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

I was struck by conversations in multiple arenas this week when the Intramuralist humbly submitted the opinion that Pres. Obama has misused his presidential platform rhetorically. The basis for the opinion was that Obama’s “ ‘yes’ hasn’t always meant ‘yes’ and his ‘no’ hasn’t always meant ‘no’ “. He often says things that seem exaggerated, untrue, or designed to control the public narrative and impression. Note that the yes/no adage is a prioritized practice in my household. I have since wondered what additional practices we might appreciate seeing prioritized in our public servants, as after all, they are one of us, elected by us, supposed to be representing us, and thus serving us. What if they consistently practiced the following… adopting the wisdom of both scripture and Twain?  🙂

Tell the truth (… “then you don’t have to remember anything”).

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Think before you speak.

Always do right.

If a person offend you, and you are in doubt as to whether it was intentional or not, do not resort to extreme measures (… “simply watch your chance and hit him with a brick”… oh, wait… they’re already good at that).

Ladies first.

Look after the orphans and widows.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Clothe yourself with humility.

Confess your wrongs (… “acknowledge it like a man and say you didn’t mean to”).

Turn the other cheek.

Let no debt remain outstanding.

Never handle firearms carelessly.

Obey your parents (… “this is the best policy in the long run, because if you don’t, they will make you”).

Pray for your enemies.

Forgive and be forgiven.

Get your facts first.

Be very careful about lying (… otherwise you are nearly sure to get caught. Once caught, you can never again be in the eyes to the good and the pure, what you were before).

Remove the log in your own eye before focusing on the speck in another.

Value mercy over judgment.

Seek God first.

Just wondering… winking somewhat, too.

Respectfully…

AR

So Ebola seems the hottest topic of conversation… what it is… what it’s not… what are the imminent dangers. As one might expect, the Intramuralist has multiple questions…

How did this begin?

Where will it end?

How many will be infected?

Are we prepared?

Are we overhyping it?

How has the federal government failed the American people?

How concerned should we be?

When Pres. Obama seemed so unconcerned — saying the spread to American shores was unlikely — what did he actually know?

Was he once again just telling us what he thinks we want to hear?

How has the White House politicized the process?

How has the press politicized the process?

How effective would a travel ban be?

Is there any lobbyist influence involved both advocating or opposing a travel ban?

How much did prayer play a role in the healing of Ebola-infected, Samaritan Purse worker, Dr. Kent Brantly?

Why appoint an Ebola “czar”?  And better yet, why appoint a czar who has zero healthcare experience?

With elections looming and confidence in Obama waning, is Ebola the so-called October surprise?

Has anyone embraced initial Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s mantra that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste”?

And what does it say about our country that anyone would desire to take advantage of a crisis?

And one more Q: is the government completely capable of dealing with all things?

Maybe, that, too, should influence both our questions and our vote…

Respectfully…

AR

It’s election season, so you know what that means.

That equates to typically seemingly intelligent people screaming over one another, each attempting to make their point most emphatically, hoping they are able to somehow at least appear to respectfully drain out the point and attention paid to the other. That’s part of America’s biggest pollution problem — not emissions nor exhaust — sadly, rather, elections. While still clinging to our threads of democracy, we pierce the purity of the process by not only the amounts of lobbyist money infused (as some will be quick to claim) but also by all the dirty and dishonest tactics (as still more will claim). Claim both. Call it out in both parties. Wise leadership cannot turn a hypocritical eye by calling out a lack of integrity in an opponent while justifying it in the politically likeminded.

One of the more contemporary arguments, no less, where each tends to drown out the point of another is climate change. Yes, here we go again…

Democrats say “the debate is over” (thank you, Pres. Obama) and Republicans say “I’m not a scientist.” Ok, ok… I get it… both of you will net lobbyist monies by emphatically stating your point. P.S. We know you like money.

I am thus sensing it’s again time for the Intramuralist to put forth the most significant point in the climate change/global warming/whatever’s-most-convenient-to-call-it-now debate. It’s a point that all those in leadership — Democrats and Republicans, Republicans and Democrats — even those who like to claim it’s over — always omit. The glaring omission fascinates me.

Climate change adherents say the Earth is warming and man is responsible. Earth’s warming is responsible for everything from hurricanes to snowfall to tornadoes and typhoons; throw in, too, maybe Ebola and my mama’s kitchen sink (ok, maybe not the sink). The point is that the politically likeminded and talking point repeaters seemingly blame all they can’t explain on climate change.

Climate change deniers simply say it’s not true. There’s no proof. No conclusive change. “I am not a scientist,” was Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) most recent claim. Note: skeptics can’t explain all they believe either.

Here’s my point: no one can prove with certainty that climate change exists or not; no one can definitively prove man’s role or responsibility — regardless of the intensity of their emphatic expression. Despite the wanting attempts of a clearly declining-in-influence President wishing to appear in charge, a wanting attempt cannot be equated with scientific proof. So acknowledging that point, let me then add the number one problem that no candidate wishes to acknowledge this close to election day…

The problem with the climate change argument is that it omits any acknowledgement of God. No Creator of the universe is considered in most stereotypical, scientific arguments. God is left out. That’s a problem.

It’s not a problem simply because acknowledgement is a preferred practice of religious people; it’s a problem because of what the historical scriptures actually say. The authenticated scriptures speak of a world that will one day end… a world marked by war and famine (as happening now), earthquakes and turmoil (also happening now), and a time in which persons become incredibly self-important, ungrateful, and arrogant in their own thinking (again — yikes — happening now). The scriptures say there will be a time the Earth will end.

The end of the Earth, however, is not correlated to plastic bag usage nor any influx of aerosol cans. There’s nothing about light bulbs, coal, or gas-guzzling vehicles. While God certainly calls us to be good stewards of our planet’s vast resources, the world’s end — according to those historical passages — comes as a direct result of man’s unwillingness to acknowledge and thank God. I would think it’d thus be wise to at least include him in the debate… even this close to the election.

Respectfully…

AR

This past weekend I had the humble privilege of leading a retreat for some seventy-five plus women who are committed to expressing gratitude despite the circumstances… persons who regardless of the depth of the irritants or piercing of the pain are intentionally choosing to trust God regardless, recognizing that they will grow — even from the ugly.

Let me be clear; it’s not that we’re thanking God for the actual irritants; but we trust him with what happens; we seek him within the tough times. And that change in focus girds us with peace and gives us joy. That peace and joy sustains all else.

We also addressed the fact that after the empowering, shared experience of the weekend, we would return home and quickly be challenged to forget what we learned — that we would undoubtedly soon be tempted to gripe and grumble more as opposed to being intentional in our expressions of gratitude.

The grumbling opportunities came quickly. All one has to do is take a brief a glance at a cross section of selective stories missed while away…

The elections… less than a month away; candidates are scrambling — doing whatever it takes to win… sometimes all ethics, all respect for one another, and all adherence to the Constitution gets thrown aside…

Gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (D-TX) runs an attack ad against her opponent, Attorney General Greg Abbott (R-TX), that begins with a stark picture of an empty wheelchair. Note that Abbott is disabled and in a wheelchair. Pundits and politicians across the ideological spectrum find the controversial “wheelchair ad” in the Texas governor race “disgusting,” “offensive,” and “a historic low” in campaign advertising. Meanwhile Davis continues to defend the ad.

Activist actress Gwyneth Paltrow throws a glitzy fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee, headlined by Pres. Obama; dinner cost $15,000 per person. When introducing the President, Paltrow gushes about Obama’s “handsome” nature, and adds, “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs” — obviously forgetting for at least a moment that we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship.

The elections are close…

Ebola is closer…

So much in the world tempts to rattle our thinking. All these headlines, stories, and too much sensationalism threatens to disrupt a person’s commitment to express gratitude. But today, I refuse to allow all the crud in the world to keep me from being thankful… to keep me from holding on to what is noble and good and true…

… which, by the way, is none of the above.

Respectfully…

AR

[Note: as the Intramuralist was leading a conference this weekend, allow the following to serve as today’s column — one of the more insightful editorials I read this week. It was written by Ed Rogers and appeared in Wednesday’s Washington Post.]

Much is being written about the revelations in former secretary of defense and CIA chief Leon Panetta’s new book, “Worthy Fights,” regarding President Obama’s inadequacies and mistakes as commander in chief. The Panetta revelations have provoked a fresh appraisal of similar disclosures from former secretary of defense Bob Gates in his book and the more gentle — but still direct — criticisms of the president found in former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s book.

None of these individuals are amateurs. They were not manipulated into writing what they did by greedy publishers hoping to sell books. They are not a bunch of Scott McClellans, the now-forgotten White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, who shamed himself by using his so-called memoir to turn on Bush 43. Panetta, Gates and Clinton are not lightweights who are in over their heads, nor do they think they need to reveal secrets to get attention. They are all distinguished leaders who don’t shoot from the hip or have anything to prove. So when they agree on something, whatever they are telling us should be treated seriously. The world should take notice.

The explosive conclusions they all independently report about President Obama should not be seen as acts of disloyalty or selfishness, as The Post’s Dana Milbank suggests in his latest piece, “Leon Panetta, other former Obama subordinates show stunning disloyalty.”  What else could have motivated their so-called disloyalty? Maybe we should look at their revelations not as selfish, disloyal acts, but as sincere warnings from patriots. Are they trying to tell others still serving in this administration that President Obama has the wrong instincts and a misguided worldview? Do they think the president needs to be aggressively hounded into doing the right thing to protect America’s interests and not be left to his own devices? Perhaps Panetta, Gates and Clinton are telling those who still serve in government that President Obama’s biases and instincts need to be challenged. The few adults left in the administration should not roll over, and the Republican opposition needs to be constantly vigilant in order to try to shape a more protective American national security posture. Maybe Panetta, Gates and Clinton are putting loyalty to a country at risk ahead of deference to the president who appointed them.

All three knew their disclosures would be flashpoints in the media and that many would find fault in their decision to go public. Gates and Panetta have both held their last government jobs, they don’t need the money and they don’t have an agenda beyond contributing to the historical record.  Clinton may have a more tangled mix of motives behind her latest book, but the points she makes are still valid when reinforced by Gates and Panetta.

The bottom line is that all three have made it clear: There are problems within the Obama administration, and they saw those problems up close. As Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told Milbank, “Secretary Panetta and others are echoing what is obvious from the outside, but it’s more powerful when it’s coming from people on the inside.”

So rather than have a knee-jerk reaction, rush to protect President Obama and see character flaws in three people who have served their country in a variety of capacities, maybe we should listen more closely to what they are telling us. The Obama apologists who are howling that Panetta, Gates and Clinton are just trying to sell books know better.  

Respectfully written by Ed Rogers

[Follow Ed on Twitter: @EdRogersDC]

He picks up his cell phone, calls into a witty Sirius radio show on Sunday, and after only a few short seconds, he hands me the phone, and says, “What’s this?!”  A look of genuine confusion had usurped his entire countenance.

I put the phone up to my ear and responded with an immediate chuckle, deciphering the supposedly foreign sound. I realized that my clearly, budding-in-maturity teens, living in this digital age of abundant texts, Tweets, selfies and Snapchats, are quite possibly still ignorant of the infamous, decades-old, non-melodic “busy signal.”

“A busy signal? What’s that?”

Yes, even in 21st Century America, where cell phones often come as an extra bodily appendage, we are not used to someone or something being unavailable… too busy to talk to us… unable to be contacted, found, or Googled on an immediate whim. We aren’t used to “busy signals.”

We also aren’t used to something else — perhaps something even more significant. We aren’t used to being ignorant; better yet, we aren’t used to admitting our ignorance.

Friends, to say that one is ignorant is not an insult. To be ignorant means there is something we don’t know. Let me be clear: there are lots of things we don’t know! I’ll speak for myself… I don’t know how to fly a plane… I can’t ice skate (woe is me)… and I have no idea how to teach either rocket science or complex music theory.

Granted, there are lots of things I do know — lots of things, too, I have learned because I am responsible for their activity or for what happens in that area — but I had to be intentional, take the time, and humble myself enough to learn what I needed to know. We should also note, no less, that when the topic or task is something we are responsible for, then our ignorance may actually be a weakness. But when the topic or task is outside the realm of our responsibility, our ignorance is evident of neither shortcoming nor failure.

My sense, however, is that far too many are unable to admit that of which they are unaware. These persons may be highly intelligent. They may be our leaders. But neither intelligence nor leadership automatically equates to wisdom — especially if there exists an inability to admit ignorance.

Much of this seems happening in the world today. I see it in America’s current, shaky, foreign policy approach. I see the world crumbling. Just this weekend, I ran into a young woman who said, “Is it just me, or does it seem like the world is falling apart? America doesn’t seem to know what she’s doing.”

Not knowing what we’re doing… not knowing.

Friends, I don’t claim to know all the right approaches. I am ignorant in many of these areas. Now while I do attempt to humbly educate myself on what I do not know, let me also add that the areas are not my responsibility; hence, my ignorance equates not to weakness.

Thank God I’m only dealing with busy signals. And thank God my son had no issue admitting what he did not know.

Wishing more would humbly do the same…

Respectfully…

AR