AR – Page 122 – intramuralist ™

07/03/201407/03/2014

hobby lobby

This week we’ve been exposed to plentiful perspectives regarding the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. First, a factual synopsis prior to the point of today’s post, as reported by the Independent Journal Review:

“In the 5-4 ruling, the court sided with Hobby Lobby in its effort to prevent the Affordable Care Act from mandating that the company cover emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, to female employees; it will still provide most other forms of birth control to its employees… Hobby Lobby argued that the requirement was in direct violation to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion. This is the first time the Court has ruled in favor of a for-profit company presenting a case to defend religious freedom.”

In the wake of schismatic societal response, I am a bit stunned; the rants fill the rhetorical realm. From those who declare “an incredible victory for people of faith” to yet another “war on women” (… didn’t we learn anything from the Gabby Giffords shooting?) to a House Rep’s intentional unwillingness to call the court’s majority opinion writer a “justice” — I have two, actually uniting, current conclusions. One, we are often an arrogant people; and two, our opinions are laced with contradiction.

The arrogant aspect is easy. Allow me to first acknowledge wrestling with my own arrogance on a regular basis. It’s not attractive; and it creeps in so easily, subtly, and seemingly justifiably. Arrogance is not just the “I’m right and he’s wrong” attitude; it’s the “I’m right and there’s no possible way I’m wrong” idea. There is a notable lack of humility in the rhetorical response that is most disappointing to this observer. Persons on all sides who preach respect and tolerance show that their tolerance is often only advocated within agreement. Therein lies one of the initial contradictions.

Another contradiction that seems glaring from a more removed perspective is the way in which all sides of an issue utilize the colloquial classic of wanting the “government out of our bedrooms and boardrooms.” In other words, we don’t need legislation dictating our individual, private activity. But yet, we call on the government when it’s convenient. On both sides of issues, we chomp and cheer when government rules what we can and cannot do — what’s appropriate and not. Allow me to humbly submit the following as perhaps a truly inconvenient truth: what would be wrong with the government completely staying out of it? That means the government refraining from personal regulation… refraining, for example, from restricting or supplying birth control… refraining from any definition of marriage. It means recognizing that the government is not our nation’s highest moral authority — and that it is incapable of being that authority, as no law or legislation is capable of convicting the individual heart. Last I looked, the convictor of truth concerning righteousness and wrongdoing had zero to do with the federal government.

One final aspect of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision, no less, is one that too many have too quickly dismissed. The fact is that many activist groups have self-serving purposes which are prompting them to inflame minute aspects of the court’s opinion. Their intentional, manipulative goal is to rile us up in order to advance their own cause. Allow me a simple question: since when have women’s rights and religious freedom diabolically opposed one another? Can they not co-exist? To assume they cannot is an illogical conclusion.

No one will like what I’m about to say, but I also have no desire to be disrespectful. The Hobby Lobby decision is neither a major “defeat” for women nor a major “victory” for the faithful. Women and faith are not in opposition to one another. But we continually justify pitting one thing against another in the “must-always-have-a-winner-or-loser” society in which we live. That pitting divides us. And my sorrowful sense is that the activist groups, politicians, and loyal followers actually intend for that division — because it prompts us to act; it makes us want to go out and do something. As witnessed by the week’s ongoing vitriol, the approach is unfortunately effective. Friends, know that the narrow Hobby Lobby ruling acknowledged that birth control can still be available to all, but that a small, “closely held” company should not have to pay for the all. A viable, resulting question is the implied personhood of the company. Another viable question is how many other ambiguities exist within Obamacare — and why can’t we fix them via something other than the administration’s very controlled, calculated Executive Orders.

I have a few more brief questions resulting from this decision. First, can the morals of a company be placed upon its employees? Second, can the morals of an administration be placed upon its citizens? And one more: do we support one of those moral impositions but not the other? Hence, I ask: are there other ways in which we are laced with contradiction?

Respectfully… always…

07/01/201407/01/2014

supreme decisions

As told by the Supreme Court Historical Society…

“I thought they would, well, talk Latin or something.” The visitor had heard argument at the Supreme Court for the first time. On another occasion, a high-school student reported “shock” that a black-robed Justice would rock in his high-backed chair and actually laugh out loud…

To its majestic setting and moments of sheer ritual, the Supreme Court brings its distinctive manner of working in public—by listening to one lawyer at a time and asking tough questions. Its atmosphere mingles informality with dramatic tension. In a city of bureaucracy, it keeps the directness of a group of nine. It cherishes its courtesies. But formality, courtesy, and dignity are not empty custom; they are vital to colleagues who are compelled to disagree publicly in print, expressing their deepest convictions, but always respecting the equally deep convictions of their fellow Justices.

Dare I thus humbly submit — based on that last statement — that the Supreme Court and the slightly-less-popular-often-more-sarcastic Intramuralist have a common goal: respecting the deep convictions of another.

In a government system of three equal branches (note to the current Congress and President: much to your obvious dismay, neither of you trump the other), the Supreme Court was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, as called for by the Constitution. Consistent with their long history, yesterday, on the final session of their 2013-14 term, the high court released the following decisions with significant implications…

In BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s argument that the owners of companies forfeit all protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ruling that Obamacare’s mandated provision of perceived abortifacient methods conflicts with the faith of the proprietors. As written in the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, “Because RFRA applies in these cases, we must next ask whether the HHS contraceptive mandate ‘substantially burden[s]’ the exercise of religion… We have little trouble concluding that it does.”

In HARRIS ET AL. v. QUINN, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, ET AL., the Supreme Court determined it is a violation of the First Amendment to force non-union members — in this case belonging to an Illinois rehab service — to pay union dues, thereby subsidizing the speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support. As also written in the majority opinion by Justice Alito, “The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from personal assistants in the Rehabilitation Program who do not want to join or support the union,” reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Resist being lured into thinking a decision is foolish or wise because of who or how your emotional strings are tugged. We have to learn to discuss and solve absent the bias and disrespect. A prudent first step for each of us would be to read the court’s written opinions as opposed to reacting instantly, emotionally — typically not fully understanding the totality of the arguments.

The bottom line in these two cases contains a common thread; what violates our First Amendment?

In other words… how far does religious freedom extend? … for persons? … for proprietors? What’s the relationship between one’s religious beliefs and being incorporated? Also, how far does freedom of speech extend? … can unions force the payment of dues if that payment then subsidizes issues with which we disagree — issues we would never choose to subsidize? When does forced compliance violate our constitutional rights?

And one more question: are there places — most likely due to passion or unchecked emotion — where we’re a little blind? … where hypocrisy within our opposition or support may also be a common thread?

Just asking…

Respectfully, of course…

06/28/201406/29/2014

flopping

The extroverts scream; the introverts scowl. “There he goes again! Can’t everyone see it?? It’s so obvious… so manipulative!” It’s also — sadly — part of the game.

For years, grown, seemingly mature adults have “flopped.” They fake injury by another in order to draw a sympathetic, perceived foul.

Watch the current, uniquely exciting FIFA World Cup, for example. While never accused of any soccer fanaticism, the Intramuralist is repeatedly baffled by the feigned fraudulence on the professional futbol field. The number of times the players attempt to seduce the officials into flagging the opposition for wrongdoing is astoundingly frequent! I will, in fact, admit to a hearty chuckle last week, when Uruguay’s star striker, Luis Suárez, actually bit another player (the 3rd such incident of his career), and then immediately fell to the ground, as if he was the one most hurt… feigned foul… at least exaggerated emotion… all in a desire to seduce a sympathetic response.

Hardly indigenous to soccer, with the foul forgery increasing with ample frequency, the NBA has instituted fines for flopping. Talented stars such as Manu Ginobili, LeBron James, and Dwyane Wade, who are known for their professional prowess, are also each known for their penchant for faking the foul. Note that the motive is to create an offensive advantage by having observant others wrongly conclude you were mercilessly attacked. You draw the foul; the opposition is penalized; and the entire process is intentionally inauthentic. It’s manipulation by mature and even intelligent adults.

The NBA identifies “flopping” as the following: “any physical act that appears to have been intended to cause the referees to call a foul on another player.” They add that “the primary factor in determining whether a player committed a flop is whether his physical reaction to contact with another player is inconsistent with what would reasonably be expected given the force or direction of the contact.”

The Intramuralist poses that flopping is not primarily a “physical act.” Perhaps such is true in athletic arenas; however, my sense is that the most frequent societal flopping is rhetorical. Politicians and pundits and ordinary people — again, often grown, seemingly mature adults — embellish injury by another in order to draw a sympathetic, perceived foul. One politician claims another hurt them, is bad, foolish, obstructive, mean, or even — egad — evil. Notice how all focus is on the other and the other’s wrongdoing. The attempt is to seduce a sympathetic response — staring at the embellished “log” in the eye of another — in order to gain a self-serving political advantage. The goal is to get observant others to cry foul in the existence of minimal foul at best; the goal is intentional; and the goal is to manipulate observers. It is an impure, deceitful approach. It’s also — sadly — part of the “game.”

Unfortunately, fans of both the professional politician and athlete tend to ignore the faking, giving the object of our admiration a very generous benefit of the doubt. The opposition — along with that extrovert, perhaps — then screams at the television… “Can’t everyone see it??” The question isn’t whether or not we can see; the question is why we choose to ignore. I have a hard time concluding such is wise.

To believe that athletes are the only engagers in this frequently repeated exercise — and to believe that flopping is only physical — is seemingly, unfortunately only a convenient exercise in naïveté. To believe that only one party rhetorically flops seems equally naive. And to believe that only one branch of government engages in this manipulative process of feigning a foul seems also, obviously errant.

Poll after poll depicts the public’s eroding trust in government. The subjective reasoning in how to rebuild that trust is substantial. Allow the Intramuralist to propose that we start by taking a page from the NBA; let’s start by fining for flopping.

(P.S. Such might actually be enough to balance our debt…)

Respectfully…

06/26/201406/26/2014

‘our gods’

“We will never again say ‘our gods‘ to what our own hands have made…”

I read that line this week in one of my daily, devotional readings, readings that hopefully help me glean a wiser perspective on what’s happening in the world. I couldn’t shake it…

Our gods.

Own hands.

To what we have made.

What have I invented that I treat like a god? What have I created that I worship and adore? … to which I’m wholly devoted? … to which I am more devoted than to any divine being?

What do I pursue most? What do I revere? What’s most precious? What am I most passionate about? … which may actually, possibly take the place of any god?

Could it then — ever actually, possibly get in the way?

I hear the immediate, deflecting declarations that “I didn’t design this”… the claims that “I didn’t create it”… or even the “but what I’m devoted to is really good.” I sometimes wonder, however, if we’re prone to deflect first as it numbs the wrestling with individual responsibility. We’re way too good at deflecting responsibility.

What have I called “god” that my own hands have made?

A passion. A pursuit.

A calling. A career.

An advocacy. An ambition.

The Intramuralist always pauses when time and time again, we see people passionately pursue some good-sounding, virtuous, empathetic advocacy — but then fail to have any compassion for someone who shares not an equivalent degree of passion; they lose any care and concern for the one who thinks differently. Something wise is missing in that… something more than respect.

I wonder sometimes. Have we allowed our advocacies and ambitions to become something more? … something that has interfered with the wisdom that seemingly should accompany our age? … something that has interfered with our worship?

Have we worshipped a passion — i.e. something other than God — so much so that the passion and pursuit actually become our god — the object of our adoration?

Has then our reliance on self become unknowingly inflated?

“We will never again say ‘our gods‘ to what our own hands have made…”

I’m wondering if we do that…

No… I’m wondering when…

Respectfully… still thinking…

06/24/201406/24/2014

IRS timeline

I am not here to incite or indict. Today I am here to inform. Below are are the facts in the IRS case. (Please note: I have attempted to be as brief but comprehensive as possible, sorting through hundreds of facts and weeding out opinion. Also note: that isn’t easy.) Below is what I believe we should know…

Feb. 2009: A FEC Enforcement Division attorney asks the IRS for information about the tax-exempt status of 2 conservative groups (including the American Future Fund). Then IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Division, Lois Lerner, asks via email, “What can we do to help the FEC here?”

Jan. 2010: In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court rules that government cannot restrict campaign spending by corporations or labor unions. Pres. Obama denounces the decision.

March 2010: The IRS Determinations Unit starts “searching for other requests for tax exemption involving the Tea Party, Patriots, 9/12, and…501(c)(4) applications involving political sounding names, e.g., ‘We the People’ or ‘Take Back the Country.’”

July 2010 – Sept. 2013: The conservative “True the Vote” applies for tax-exempt status, after which the group’s founder faces multiple IRS audits, investigations by OSHA, the ATF, and FBI for domestic terrorism.

Aug. – Oct. 2010: Obama and staffers, David Axelrod and Austan Goolsbee, speak repeatedly, publicly about “groups with harmless sounding names” possibly funded by “foreign-controlled companies” that are a “threat to our democracy.” Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group, was specifically mentioned multiple times.

Feb. 2011: Lerner emails her senior staff: “Tea Party Matter [is] very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizen’s United (sic) overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules.”

June 2011: House Ways & Means Comm. Chairman Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) sends a letter to then IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman questioning the IRS’s investigations into conservative groups and donors, demanding answers and information.

March 2012: In congressional testimony, Commissioner Shulman says IRS did not increase difficulty for politically active groups to get tax-exempt status. The New York Times also reports the IRS was scrutinizing “dozens” of Tea Party organizations.

July 2012: Then deputy commissioner Steven Miller testifies without mentioning the added scrutiny. When asked about harassment complaints, Miller said the IRS “group[ed] those organizations” for “consistency” and “quality.” He never mentions the Tea Party or conservatives.

April 2013: The White House counsel’s office received Inspector General’s reports acknowledging IRS targeting applications with “tea party,” “patriot,” and “9/12 project.” Press Sec. Jay Carney said later the Chief of Staff was informed but not Obama.

May 2013: Lerner admits to scrutiny of conservative groups’ tax-exempt applications, though she said high level employees didn’t know. The Inspector General refuted this information. Lerner later appears before Congress but refuses to answer any questions. There is also an email exchange between Lerner and the Dept. of Justice in regard to whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.

July 2013: National Review Online reports that the House Ways and Means Comm. has correspondence between Lerner and the FEC possibly detailing illegal sharing of tax information regarding the American Future Fund, the conservative group.

Jan. 2014: The Dept. of Justice appoints Barbara Kay Bosserman to lead the investigation of the IRS. Bosserman donated near $7,000 to Obama’s presidential campaigns.

Feb. 2014: In his annual Super Bowl interview, Obama stated “not even a smidgeon of corruption” was involved in the IRS scandal.

March 2014: Lerner again refuses to testify before Congress. Her attorney, however, reveals that Lerner has “given a lengthy interview” to the DOJ within the last six months.

April 2014: The assertion that the IRS also targeted liberal groups is reportedly debunked by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to Politifact, “Some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities. But it wasn’t to the same degree as Tea Party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions.”

May 2014: The IRS finally says they will turn over all of Lerner’s emails to Congress.

Then this month… After agreeing to turn over the emails a year after asked, the IRS informs Congress that they’ve lost Lois Lerner’s emails from January of 2009 through April of 2011 due to a computer crashing. Four days later, the IRS says they’ve lost emails from 6 other investigated IRS employees, as well. They then added that Lerner’s hard drive was also destroyed.

Then yesterday… When asked how he found out about the lost emails as he appeared before Congress, current commissioner John Koskinen said, “I don’t remember.” Note that according to FEC records, Koskinen donated over $7000 to Obama’s presidential campaigns.

Conspiracy? Cover up? Valid questions. Concerned? Based on the facts, absolutely.

Respectfully…

[Note: Information for this timeline was extracted from CBS, the Center for Competitive Politics, Media Matters, New York Times, Politico, PolitiFact, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and the Office of the White House Press Secretary.]

06/22/201406/22/2014

“team”?

An amazing thing happened last week… and it happened on the NBA hardwood. Truth be told, the Intramuralist isn’t really a big fan of the National Basketball Association. With all references to Donald Sterling aside — and save for my beloved, once hometown Pacers — I am by all accounts and purposes, pretty much a fair-weather fan. It’s not that I don’t appreciate good basketball. It’s more that when I compare the professional league to the college game, there seems something lacking… a tenacity… a zeal… a focus on the fundamentals. Whether it’s the fact that there’s far less effort on defense or the rarity of a traveling call, it seems the purity of the game has been sacrificed for the profession.

Except for last week.

I’ll quote one of the announcer’s comments in the climactic moment: “We’ll never see this again.”

Last week the San Antonio Spurs beat the Miami Heat, 4 games to 1, to win the NBA Finals. As previously prefaced here, the Spurs are the epitome of the word “team.” The Heat, on the other hand, are most commonly identified as the “Big Three,” as three players command most of the playing time, attention, and yes, money. That’s what makes the Spurs victory so amazing, as once again the learning extends far beyond any sporting arena. (Hence, non-sports fans, please keep reading…)

The Spurs had 15 players on their 2013-14 roster. Let me briefly share with you the annual salaries of their four highest paid players:

Tony Parker: $12.5 million

Tim Duncan: $10 million

Tiago Splitter: $9.25 million

Manu Ginobili: $7 million

While each seems like a significant salary (and it is!), those numbers are revealing. Each player could have chosen to play elsewhere. Had they signed with another franchise — becoming a “big something” — they would have commanded a far greater salary. For example, future Hall of Famer Duncan could earn well over $20 million per year. 20 million. More than twice what he was actually paid last year.

What’s so amazing? Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and their athletic cohorts chose to accept less money. A lot less.

Each team has a loose salary cap; there’s only so much money a team can distribute before incurring ample penalty. Hence, the Spurs signing for less individual money allowed the whole to be far greater than the sum of their parts. Compared to a team like the Heat, which was bound by the money they committed to a grand total of three.

What’s so amazing? The characteristics that have to exist within a Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili to accept less than they so-called “earned.” They were not coerced into accepting less money. With no disrespect to those who choose to accept more, the Intramuralist admires the selflessness, humility, and valuing of “team” that is apparent in the San Antonio Spurs. That’s what’s so amazing. That’s what’s amazing outside any sporting arena.

“Will it ever happen again?”

Maybe. But only if those admirable virtues of selflessness, humility and team trump the pursuit of the individual… inside or out of the sporting arena.

Respectfully…

06/19/201406/19/2014

scandal or skin?

When initially pondering what current event to loquaciously pounce upon today, two events seemed especially notable. And then it dawned on me how the two, eventually, seemingly somehow fit together…

First, the IRS scandal, as editorialized by USA Today…

As Congress investigates the IRS chicanery, the IRS has responded to a request for emails to and from Lois Lerner, who spearheaded the Tea Party harassment, by saying, basically, that the dog ate its homework. Or, rather, the IRS claims, somewhat dubiously, that ‘a hard drive crash’ on Lerner’s computer led to the loss of emails to outside entities ‘such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.’ You know, the very people she’s accused of coordinating her harassment with.

With those emails missing, it’ll be harder to prove whether Lerner’s Tea Party harassment might have been at the behest of other wrongdoers, perhaps going as high as the Oval Office itself. But since government agencies seldom ‘lose’ evidence that makes them look good, reasonable people might suspect that there’s a cover-up going on. After all, nobody thought that the famous ‘18½ minute gap’ on Richard Nixon’s White House tapes contained anything positive about White House involvement in Watergate.

National Journal’s Ron Fournier thinks that ‘you couldn’t blame a person for suspecting a cover-up.’ No, you couldn’t. In fact, you’d have to be pretty gullible — or in-the-tank — not to suspect a cover-up.”

And second, Washington’s skin color, also as reported by the widest circulated print newspaper in the United States…

“Unprecedented pressure on the Washington NFL team to change its name reached a crescendo today when the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled six federal trademark registrations owned by the team, ruling that the term ‘Redskins’ was disparaging to ‘a substantial composite’ of American Indians when the marks were granted between 1967 and 1990.

The 2-1 decision by the board does not mean the Washington team must stop using the name but gives opponents of the name another opening to hammer home their contention that the term is a despicable racial slur…

The Washington team retains its federal trademark rights pending appeal. And even if the club loses on appeal, it can continue to use the name, as it has for more than 80 years. But without federal trademark protection, others could potentially use the team’s name and logos to sell merchandise with impunity, although owners of unregistered marks can still try to protect them through state statutes or common law. The team has two months to file the appeal.”

The Intramuralist has multiple opinions swirling this day. On the IRS… do you think if we failed to file our tax returns, we could use the same excuse? … and how good do we feel, knowing that this is the organization set up to oversee Obamacare? On the Redskins… each of us deserves respect… but aren’t we again applying economic pressure in hopes of making a moral change? … is that effective?

Yes, I, too, wasn’t sure how the IRS & NFL went together — even though both abide in the same state — and then it dawned on me… Politicians and pundits pick and choose what to prioritize, obviously opting for what nets the better publicity. In other words, they don’t talk about what they don’t want to talk about.

As if on cue, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) immediately, loquaciously pounced upon the Redskins, demanding change, charging the NFL owner with advocating “racism.” On the IRS scandal, however, according to The Hill, Reid is taking a “wait-and-see attitude,” deferring opinion to others.

Some things we like to talk about — some things we don’t. On the Intramuralist, we’ll talk about all things… even if they only seemingly, somehow fit together.

Respectfully…

06/17/201406/17/2014

suffering

Surprisingly, I was able to get by with a rather strong statement quietly nestled into Sunday’s post. I’m somewhat amazed no one caught it — or at least called me on it. Granted, it was subtle. It was also strong… and perhaps one of the most dual truthful and controversial statements the Intramuralist has ever publicly opined.

In the context of acknowledging the expediency of wrestling with issues in the ever-so-fast internet and information age of the 21st century, I made the following statement:

“We no longer accept that time (next to suffering) is perhaps life’s greatest teacher.”

Suffering is a great teacher. “Great” is not the best word there, for actually, we don’t like the concept. We don’t like the idea of suffering. It makes us uncomfortable. We also work tirelessly to avoid any semblance of suffering — keeping our kids, too, from any situation deemed seemingly close.

It’s as if for some reason, many of us astute, mature, intelligent, discerning or insert-other-good-sounding-adjective adults believe we can learn life’s greatest lessons without experiencing any pain. We adhere to that belief so deeply, that we attempt to help those who follow in our footsteps to also avoid any pain or suffering. In fact, my sense is we intentionally attempt to be a buffer, hoping to learn best — and for the younger generation to also learn best — via minimal discomfort at most. We toil to insulate and avoid. While wishing negative circumstances on no one, I don’t believe the efforts to avoid are entirely wise.

I am further bothered by the formal, federal policy stabs to also avoid any suffering. Granted, we don’t call it that; we don’t call that “avoidance.” We say “we deserve” this… or “we’re entitled”… and then we miss out on the unparalleled benefits that suffering so subtly provides…

It was the Beatles, who “suffered” when rejected by Decca Records in 1962 — saying “we don’t like your boys’ sound” — who later became a societal icon.

It was Corrie Ten Boom, who “suffered” within the confines of a Nazi concentration camp, who later became an infamous author, inspiring millions with her message of love and forgiveness.

And it was Michael Jordan, who “suffered” when he failed to make his high school varsity basketball team, whose experience obviously led to something greater and more.

Suffering teaches us. It inspires us. It spurs us on.

Our attempts to avoid suffering — via entitlement, rights, and deservingness — only get in the way of authentic growth. Worse yet, government often encourages the deservingness.

Years ago, I heard a song that made me stop in my tracks. It utilized a thorn to represent the pain in our sides, the pain that doesn’t go away, the pain that figuratively represents our suffering. It said:

When does the thorn become a blessing
When does the pain become a friend
When does the weakness make me stronger
When does my faith make me whole again…

Our thorn becomes a blessing only when we quit attempting to avoid what’s wise to learn. As previously stated, while suffering is a great teacher, “great” is not the best word. Suffering is an effective teacher. We would be wise to quit working so hard to avoid it.

Respectfully…

06/15/2014

coming soon

Every era has their issues, matters that brew and boil to a point of either acceptance or denial, as passionate advocates lobby for favorable, societal reception. A student of history would share with us issue timelines that marked entire eras, as the supporters’ perseverance was equally as important as any promotion. However, an issue often is accepted because it has proved wise or worthy over time; people have had time to weigh the impact on society and self.

A fascinating aspect of the 21st century, no less, is that we no longer utilize that time; the process is sped up. In the age of the internet, technology, and information flow, the time that once forded the wise measure of acceptance or denial has evaporated. Hence, we are lured into demanding that a perspective is right, shutting down debate, or not allowing another to feel a certain way — all because we no longer accept that time (next to suffering) is perhaps life’s greatest teacher.

We witness this now, I believe, in certainly some valid issues challenging society: climate change, gay marriage, and income inequality, for example. Instead of hammering out the wisdom and foolishness behind a perspective, persons on all sides are spending seemingly greater effort simply attempting to shut down an opposing perspective. Wisdom of the actual issue set aside, often our approach is foolish.

There is an additional issue the Intramuralist sees coming our way soon — an issue that has long been stirring in passionate circles that advocates desire to push to the forefront, utilizing that swift, advantageous information flow. As I consistently read through multiple media sources, I sense an increase in intentional promotion.

Now let me first offer a semi-stern caveat on this observation. Friends, none of us can consider ourselves objective in analysis of these issues if we adhere solely to a single news source. If you are a viewer of only MSNBC or only FOX News, your perspective is most likely not objective. If you only read the Drudge Report or Huffington Post, your opinion is most likely biased; you do not have great objectivity in your perspective. As has long been the Intramuralst’s practice (and encouragement), we consistently watch and read varied news from varied slants, with our most respected source of news being Real Clear Politics, a website that provides daily balanced perspective. A balanced perspective is wise.

That said, there is a new issue I’ve seen increasingly stirring through those sources. Be ready; with no offering of editorial wisdom or foolishness, here’s what the Intramuralist sees coming soon…

Reparations. Reparations is the idea that some compensatory payment from the federal government should be given to the descendants of slaves. Note that In 1999, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for “the West” to pay $777 trillion to Africa within five years. In 2007, Guyana called for European nations to pay. Antigua & Barbuda have called for reparations. Jamaica and Barbados are both actively studying the issue. And with each new inaugural session of Congress, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduces legislation to study reparation proposals for African-Americans.

In a well-written piece in The Atlantic last month, senior editor Ta-Nehisi Coates laid out the case for reparations, saying “America will never be whole” until we make amends for our “moral debts.” His call has gained at least some sense of vernacular steam, with one Huffington Post contributor calling the essay both “brilliant and haunting” — and another, while moved by its message, questioning the wisdom in converting our “tradition of justice into a system of racial apportionment.” The issue is making its way into increased conversation.

As a presidential candidate, then Sen. Obama said, “I have said in the past — and I’ll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.” There have been multiple reports, however, that his inner circle, very loyal senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is supportive of reparations. Will Obama evolve on the issue? Will Executive Orders be considered? And the better question: if proposed, will we have the necessary time to weigh the impact on society and self?

Respectfully…

06/12/201406/12/2014

honesty: the best policy?

Over the course of the three most recent administrations, a significant question posed to each president is whether or not honesty is a prioritized policy — if honesty is just as adhered to as policies both foreign and domestic, economic and social. Is honesty the best policy? Or perhaps better said: is there a commitment to honest communication by the White House?

Questions of honesty plagued Pres. Clinton most after his moral mischief with Monica Lewinsky. Pres. Bush (43) was dogged with the dilemma after no weapons of mass destruction were found within Iraq. Pres. Obama finds himself as the current target of questions of intentional mistruth.

Let me not suggest that we are able to ascertain 100% truth. Save for Clinton’s rhetorically silly “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” — and let’s face it — such was in regard to personal behavior, not government policy — the Intramuralist does not believe from our limited vantage points that we can always discern the deception in our leaders. I believe we witness it far too often in the White House wordsmiths (woe to you, Jay Carney), but our perspective is limited. As a nation, we are also far too gullible, naive, or blinded to ignore obvious deception when the man/woman in charge adheres to similar political beliefs.

Friends, let me make a strong statement. I care more about the integrity of the leader than about similar political beliefs. If honesty is not an administration’s policy, then they will lose respect from this semi-humble current events observer. I believe that a leader is lacking some degree of integrity if they resort to lying and deception. I also understand that there exist times when the truth cannot be shared in totality, especially when national security may be at stake. However, simply because the truth cannot be transparently shared does not mean it’s ethical to be replaced by a lie. The end does not — and will not — ever justify the means.

As noted, Pres. Obama has found himself as the current target of ethical questions. Is he being honest with us? As we watch the events unfold and the statements revised regarding the release of five terrorists for one deserting soldier, questions are intensifying as to whether Obama lied to us about the move and the motive. Allow me a concise bottom line: we can’t tell. We cannot ascertain motive or mistruth.

I must acknowledge, however, that there was at least one day when I unfortunately knew this President’s mistruth was intentional and clear. It wasn’t regarding Bergdahl, Benghazi, nor even the IRS. It was about an issue that speaks deeper to my heart — baseball — an issue I semi-humbly believe I know better than our current President…

Yes, I know baseball. I kid you not. I love it! There was a time when I could name every starting player on every Major League team. What a joy it was to be a diehard fan of the Big Red Machine! Almost 40 years later, my big brother and I can still recite that lineup from heart… Rose, Griffey, Morgan, Perez, Bench, Foster, Concepcion, and Geronimo… I can still name most the entire bench and pitching staff. Similarly, Obama has claimed to be a devout Chicago White Sox fan, often publicly donning his black and white cap. He has used the team as a means of relating to ordinary Americans. Joining the Washington Nationals’ press box a few summers ago, Obama was casually asked about his favorite team: “Who was one of your favorite White Sox players growing up?”

Obama could not answer. He stammered much, saying, “Ya know… uh… I, I thought that uh, ya know, the truth is that a lot of the Cubs I liked, too, but uh, I did not become a Sox fan until I moved to Chicago. Because I uh, ya know, I was growing up, uh, in Hawaii.” Ordinary Americans who claim to be devout fans can name at least one beloved player. Obama could name no one.

“Honesty is not the best policy. It is the only policy”… at least it should be… for each of us.

Respectfully…