Posts

Posted on

veterans & heroes

With all the rhetoric and broken promises…

With all the valuing of celebrity and materialism…

With all the focus on that which is less good…

 

Thank God for yesterday.

 

Something about Veterans Day is incredibly refreshing.

 

It wasn’t yet another holiday in which retailers or radicals have somehow zapped the sacred… like how Christmas becomes about Santa… or Easter about rabbits and eggs.  (P.S.  Rabbits don’t even lay eggs.)

 

For the most part, Veteran’s Day has remained pollution-free.

 

At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, the armistice ending World War I began.  While May’s Memorial Day honors those who’ve died representing America, Veterans Day, November 11th, honors all those who’ve served.

 

In the wake again of all that is less good, Veterans Day gives us hope, highlighting those who have sacrificed more than most of us have ever even contemplated…  honoring men and women who made choices in consideration of others, arguably more than consideration of self…  honoring — lest one could say any better — our authentic heroes.

 

I am convinced that society knows not what a hero truly is.

 

In the days where the Lady Gaga’s and Miley Cyrus’s of the world get far too much attention — where politicians actually encourage division in order to advance their own initiatives (and selves) — and where too many believe they are entitled to too much too often — we are a country in need of heroes.

 

We are a country in dire need of bona fide examples of humility, valor, selflessness, faithfulness, integrity, courageous leadership, and quiet strength.

 

My sense is that’s what we honored yesterday.

 

The Census Bureau reports that there are approximately 21.2 million veterans in the United States.  Along with those who’ve passed away, those are our authentic heroes.  We’re in need of them.

 

Thank God for Veterans Day.  Thank God for our veterans.

 

May we always honor you well.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

pausing

I intended today to post an epilogue to our government repairs series.  No worries; we’ll post it here soon.  But some of life’s events make me pause and reflect on what’s most important.

 

From Reuters:   One of the most powerful storms ever recorded killed at least 10,000 people in the central Philippines, a senior police official said on Sunday, with huge waves sweeping away coastal villages and devastating one of the main cities in the region.

 

Super typhoon Haiyan destroyed about 70 to 80 percent of structures in its path as it tore through Leyte province on Friday, said police chief superintendent Elmer Soria, before weakening and heading west for Vietnam.  As rescue workers struggled to reach ravaged villages along the coast, where the death toll is as yet unknown, survivors foraged for food or searched for lost loved ones.  “People are walking like zombies looking for food,” said Jenny Chu, a medical student in Leyte. “It’s like a movie.”

 

Most of the deaths appear to have been caused by surging sea water strewn with debris that many said resembled a tsunami, leveling houses and drowning hundreds of people in one of the worst disasters to hit the typhoon-prone Southeast Asian nation.  The national government and disaster agency have not confirmed the latest estimate of deaths, a sharp increase from initial estimates on Saturday of at least 1,200 killed by a storm whose sustained winds reached 195 miles per hour (313 km per hour) with gusts of up to 235 mph.

 

“We had a meeting last night with the governor and the other officials. The governor said, based on their estimate, 10,000 died,” Soria told Reuters. “The devastation is so big.”

 

We have a couple ways we could wrestle with the reality.

 

We could quietly concede we live on the other side of the globe and thus pay little attention… kind of the out of sight, out of mind strategy.  We could feel bad, but not take things too much to heart.

 

We could also focus on the fact that these people are different than us… different language, different ethnicity.  It’s sometimes easier to have compassion only on the likeminded, like-lifestyles, and like-demographics.

 

Or…  We could wrestle with the fact that the deceased had little forewarning that this would be the hour and the day they exited Earth.  Certainly, when they awoke that morn, they did not know this would be their time.

 

If we awoke each morning not knowing the time, how would we live differently?

 

Would we be kinder?

Less judgmental?

More compassionate?

 

Would we practice what we say we believe?

Would we be quick to say “I’m sorry” and even quicker to say “I forgive you”?

 

Would we quit fighting for only the Democrats, only the Republicans, only the blacks, only the religious?  Would we quit fighting?  Would we eradicate the hypocrisy from our own lives?

 

Some of life’s events make me pause.

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

government repairs: part 5 of 5

If the government is not irreparably broken, then how can we fix it? 

 

Through the course of our repair posts, I’ve actually become even more convinced that the government is not irreparably broken.  In fact, perhaps what’s swayed me most is the significant feedback I’ve received both publicly and privately — from those of you on the far left, far right, solidly in between — and those who are too disgusted or disillusioned to lay stake to any such position.  It’s fascinating to see the agreement among you.

 

Term limits.  Money limits.  Basic respect.  Several of you wholeheartedly ‘amen-ed’ those 3 suggestions.  That’s a great start.

 

Included today, no less, are other suggestions I’ve received.  Some I agree with; some I do not.  But in our efforts to fix government, I think we need to give ample, outside-the-box consideration; we need to consider ways that are different than our engrained thinking.  We need to listen to one another well.

 

In no particular order, here are other suggestions to fixing the government:

 

  • Draw congressional districts by non-partisan commissions.  Gerrymandering is the routine practice (utilized by Democrats and Republicans) of drawing voting districts in such a way as to give an unfair advantage to one party.
  • Make all members of the federal government — including all members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches — abide by the laws they promote, pass, and interpret.
  • Outlaw lobbyist organizations — the organized attempt by members of the public to influence politicians or public officials.
  • Don’t allow former congressmen to become lobbyists.  See former Majority Leader, Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO), who has substantially profited since leaving the House, lobbying on behalf, for example, of the healthcare industry, Boeing, and even the Republic of Turkey.
  • Refrain from collective bargaining with government employees, ensuring tax dollars are not part of the process.
  • Reduce the percentage necessary to break a Senate filibuster.  Also, add rules that allow the minority in the Senate and House to bring legislation to a vote on the floor.
  • Reinforce and embrace the family as the primary, basic unit of society.  We’ve lost sight of the significance and worth of family.  Policy should reflect that.
  • Have Senators be appointed by the Governor of each state as they used to be.
  • Put term limits, also, on the Supreme Court, so that ideology doesn’t become the primary driver of a judge’s decision.
  • Get the government out of our food choices.  There’s no need to legislate farms nor individual food choices.
  • Don’t allow (as Benjamin Franklin forewarned) a permanent, salaried ruling class.  We may have reached the tipping point on this.  Our bureaucrats have become bloated and permanent.
  • Follow the Ten Commandments.  They are basic rules that everyone can abide by.  Throwing them out of our courtrooms and classrooms has led to a country that is challenged in giving God basic respect.
  • Adopt a balanced budget amendment.  We differ on how to spend our money — fine.  But we cannot sustain spending more than we have.
  • Encourage and allow states’ rights.  If states desire a different set of laws, allow even for succession.
  • Eliminate political parties. Senators and Representatives should serve and represent those who elected them — not be bound to party politics.
  • Eliminate the Electoral College.  Let the popular vote decide the presidential election.
  • Eliminate tax exemptions for corporations that contribute to politicians, wherein the politicians offer favors in return.
  • Limit immigration, so as not to build a majority of people dependent on government assistance.
  • Care for “the least of these,” but don’t simply adopt policy that increases “the least.”
  • Legislate according to the Constitution.
  • Embrace the Constitution.
  • And if all else fails, revolt.  Not with might nor militia — more a peaceful but strong revolution.  We the people need to stand up and say, “We’re not going to take this anymore.  We refuse to be governed in such an unethical, irresponsible way.”

 

Good ideas.  Now what to do…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

government repairs: part 4 of 5

If the government is not irreparably broken, then how can we fix it? 

 

Today’s suggestion is simple.  Actually, it’s elementary.  The elect need to “go back to school.”  No, they don’t need to enroll in the closest Econ class (although that might be helpful).  They need to go back to kindergarten.

 

Follow me here…  In recent years and certainly weeks/months, the elect’s behavior has been absent of several key, elementary virtues.  The Intramuralist has been increasingly disturbed by their behavior; several of you have voiced similar dismay.  How they talk to each other — about each other, how they treat one another, and how they sometimes speak to us — especially if they think we share an opposing viewpoint — has been awful… all this from supposedly intelligent men and women.  Once again, neither intelligence nor party allegiance matters.  The President, Congress, and leaders of all parties have been terrible at being clearly, consistently truthful and offering regular respect to others.  Truth and respect are elementary virtues — taught to us in kindergarten.

 

Borrowing from Robert Fulghum’s insightful, 1988 classic, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, allow me to suggest a few specifics our otherwise intelligent elect have forgotten.  In order to fix our government, these need to be generously employed:

 

  • Play fair.
  • Clean up your own mess.
  • Don’t hit people.
  • Don’t take things that aren’t yours.
  • Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody.
  • It doesn’t matter what you say you believe — it only matters what you do.
  • Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words will break our hearts.
  • Ignorance and power and pride are a deadly mixture.
  • Yelling at a living thing does tend to kill the spirit in them.
  • Always trust your fellow man.
  • Always trust God.
  • Always love your neighbor.

 

Allow me to also add a few more of my own…

 

  • Be honest.
  • Say what you mean and mean what you say.
  • Listen first and foremost; when you think you must speak now, take a deep breath and first listen a little more.
  • Restate what you think you hear.
  • Act justly.
  • Love mercy.
  • Practice humility daily.
  • Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.
  • Learn how to both ask for forgiveness and to forgive.
  • Don’t say anything in one audience you’d be embarrassed to repeat to another.
  • Don’t spend what you don’t have or have no plan to repay.
  • Be liberal in offering respect — be conservative in offering criticism.

 

Regardless of proclaimed intelligence, our elect have forgotten what’s elementary.  My current sense is they don’t even fake it well.  And unfortunately, too often too many of us join in their reindeer games.

 

Wait… I have one more suggestion I learned in kindergarten.  Well, actually, I didn’t learn it then because it wasn’t available.  But when I was in kindergarten, there was no way to arrogantly broadcast my opinion, have likeminded others affirm my disrespectful articulation, and then never be forced to wrestle with the validity of my own perspective.

 

As our elect “go back to school,” will someone please advise them to stay off of social media?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

government repairs: part 3 of 5

If the government is not irreparably broken, then how can we fix it? 

 

Priority #2:  Restrict the money from external influence.

 

This priority is not intended to be vague.  I have worded the priority as such because the money seems to be infused from 2 angles:  during the election — and upon the elect.

 

Many will opine the need for restrictions during the election, as corporations, associations, and labor unions spend millions annually attempting to influence political campaigns.  The money spent is designed to secure their desired outcome.

 

The money also generously flows once the elections are complete, as lobbyists and special interest groups are eroding the ethics of the elect.  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, over $3 billion was spent by lobbyists last year.  Follow my somewhat playful example, creatively sharing why this is priority #2…

 

Let’s say I’m a peanut farmer.  I love peanuts.  I love peanuts so much, I grow them in my backyard.  (I’ve got a big backyard.)  I start my own business and it takes off — so much so, it’s hard to keep up; it becomes a massive business, and we are providing ample nutrition to many across the country.  It’s a good thing, but nuts are all I think about!

 

But in order to advance my cause, I need specific legislation to be enacted — or refrained from.  Remember:  all I’m focused on is nuts.  I need to thus ensure the Food & Drug Administration doesn’t become too sensitive regarding nut nutrition.  I need to ensure my state doesn’t limit the land I till.  I need to also ensure that no new taxes are tacked on to our cultivating equipment, so I can keep my costs low.  In fact, I’m hoping they raise the speed limit so I can deliver more peanuts more quickly.

 

So many decisions affect my ability to produce peanuts — economically and socially.  I’m concerned.  Hence, I form N.U.T.S. — the “National Union for Tilling Soil” — in order to mobilize more people who share my singular focus; this way we can affect political change.  We don’t care about almonds or pecans or even those high-calorie cashews.  Our special interest is peanuts.  Nuts it is.

 

Since the lobbyist laws were eased in the late ’70’s, we have more access to lawmakers.  I don’t mean to be mean, but I will let them know we will only contribute to their individual campaigns if they support our nuts.  We will speak out against their legislation regarding pickles and potatoes unless they support nuts.  We will be wholeheartedly supportive of them, however, as long as they advance economic and social policy favorable to our cause.  Our focus is on one thing and one thing only.  Our money will back that up… millions… yes, millions… oh, nuts.

 

It’s important to remember that the lobbyist and special interest groups are only focused on their one thing.  They are using their money to advance their one thing.  Hence, their money is distorting not just elections, but also the decision-making of the elect.

Hence, priority #2 is to restrict the money from external influence, by limiting lobbyists’ access to the President, Congress, and aides.  Former congressmen should also not be allowed to become lobbyists for several years after their term’s end, so they cannot ask for favors from former colleagues.

 

Lobbyists and special interest groups attempt to persuade decision-making based on their singular focus.  They do not have the totality of government in mind.  They want their issue advanced.  From the Arab lobby to the Israel lobby… from GLAAD to MADD… from the pro-lifers to the pro-choicers… even the American Peanut Council.

 

It’s not that the passion of any of the above is right or wrong; the problem is that they are not concerned about the totality of effective, responsible government.  They are concerned about their one issue, and they utilize their money to advance that issue.  Thus, we must somehow restrict the access of lobbyists.  We must limit the flow of money.

 

If we can limit the money in both the election and upon the elect, we can begin to restore the ethics that should never be questioned in either.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

government repairs: part 2 of 5

If the government is not irreparably broken, then how can we fix it? 

 

Priority #1:  congressional term limits.

 

Several of you have publicly and privately affirmed the above; the first step to fixing our broken government is to establish term limits for the elect.  The length of each term should be debated.  Presidents are given a maximum of 8 elected years.  I believe a reasonable approach is 12 years for senators — meaning 2 elected terms — and 8-12 years for representatives — meaning 4-6 terms.  If 8-12 years is not long enough to complete one’s job, then perhaps one is in the wrong job.

 

In preparation for suggested priority #1, I sought conservative, liberal, and independent opinion — gleaning insights from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, BalancedPolitics.org, and RestartCongress.org among others.  Utilizing several of their articulations, let me offer the following reasons for congressional term limits:

 

  • Politicians would be less likely to focus on special interests because they cannot stay in office indefinitely.
  • If the elect are less focused on special interests, they will also be less likely to become comfortable with “pork barrel” spending.
  • Being less focused on lobbyists and special interests, chances for corruption will be limited.
  • More of a “citizen” Congress would be created, as opposed to congressional bodies primarily consisting of lawyers and career politicians.  Congress would thus be better in touch with their constituents as opposed to in touch with national party platforms.
  •  If better in touch with constituents, the vote of the elect would also more accurately reflect those they represent.
  •  The elect will then not be too far removed from their experiences in the private sector; hence, they should more easily comprehend how the private sector is affected by their legislation.
  •  Those in their last term of office are more likely to ignore politics and media criticism when considering prudent policy measures.
  •  The need for re-election becomes less important — as then does toeing the party line and holding onto party seats.  Too much of that is the current driver behind individual legislative decisions, which complicates passing legislation.
  •  Committee assignments would be determined by merit and expertise, rather than tenure, another area that currently wields significant potential for corruption.

 

The bottom line is that term limits would help restore ample respect for Congress.

 

One more thing that was eye-opening to me during this research process was the answer to the following question:  who typically opposes term limits?  What people groups seem to be most against the concept — especially when you look at the substantial, ethical reasons above?

 

Primarily in opposition to term limits are political scientists, lobbyists and special interests, and the elect themselves.  The concern among some political scientists is that amateurs may end up running the government.  But the lobbyists? … the special interest groups?  They see their influence as potentially lesser.  The elect?  They like being in office.

 

Term limits, hence, are priority #1.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

government repairs: part 1 of 5

Recent events have me thinking.  Actually, the events aren’t even all so recent.

 

As we’ve witnessed the shut down and the healthcare rollout failure, we’ve also had the even lesser pleasure of witnessing partisans return to their camps.  It’s almost as if, when all else fails, when push comes to shove, the partisans believe they must cling to their camps; they must hold most fiercely what they believe to be true; they adhere to a passionate ideology.

 

Even though to date, for example, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has been unprecedentedly poor, how the politicians and pundits speak of it often depends more on their chosen ideology than on accurately addressing the problem.  Hence, persons in “Camp Obama” are more likely to minimize the failure, while “Team Boehner” or “McConnell” campers may instead utilize the moment to justify more, far-reaching criticism.  My sense is that both camps cloud the conflict; both camps interfere with responsible, effective governing.

 

The bottom line is that politics are impeding government.  The polarization that has escalated and intensified over the past 3 decades has hurt us.

 

This past weekend I had an excellent, challenging conversation with a trusted friend.  Note #1:  the 2 of us don’t agree on all things.  Note #2:  I’ve yet to find a person with whom I agree on all things.  And note #3:  agreement or not does not diminish our ability to discuss nor impact our “trusted friend” status.

 

In our discussion, with an acknowledgement of the partisan camps that so easily entangle, we came to a bottom line question:  is our government irreparably broken?

 

Let me ask again:  can we recover from the brokenness?  Has the polarized politicking digressed so far that we cannot return to responsible, effective governing?

 

It’s a tough question.

It should cause us to pause.

Is our government irreparably broken?

 

I’ve decided to be intentional…  do a little research…  think a little longer… ponder solution.  I have to believe the broken, American system can be fixed.  Granted, it’ll be challenging… ok, hard… maybe even, well, a little daunting… intimidating… unnerving… hmmm, better stick with hard.  But the Intramuralist believes it can be done.

 

Some time ago, my older brother encouraged me to not only acknowledge a problem but to also offer a solution.  If the government is not irreparably broken, then how can we fix it?  What must be done?

 

Over the next few posts, my goal is to explore the repairs.  We will offer potential solutions to an inefficient, ineffective, irresponsible, broken means of governing.  No one solution will be “it.”  If “it” was that easy, the Intramuralist would probably be writing this from inside an oval office.

 

We will cover tangibles and intangibles, specific steps, and perhaps some virtues to embrace.  I will also include your respectfully submitted ideas.  We’re in this together — together under a broken government.  We desire something better and more.

 

Our first step will be introduced on Thursday.  Can you say term limits?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

who you work for

Attractive trait #1:  humility.

 

Note that I didn’t say dormancy nor being trampled upon nor squelched into submission.  I’m speaking of authentic, genuine, attractive and contagious humility — an increasingly rare trait… perhaps even more difficult to cultivate.

 

With all the ongoings of the week — watching the federal government attempt to administer a colossal, complex policy — witnessing the realm of reactions, I was reminded of a message I felt we need to send to each of our elect and their staffs…

 

To the President… to Congress… to the Cabinet… to each of their aides.

To the Democrats… Republicans… independents… and even the colloquially categorized extremists.

 

We have one humble message for you.  You will need humility to hear it; we will attempt to be as humble as possible in how we say it.

 

To the elect… You keep forgetting this.  You keep arrogantly spewing and spouting and thinking you know best.  You keep talking past each other.  Sometimes you even talk down to one another.

 

Why the berating?  Why the demeaning?  Why diminish your own integrity to score some sort of partisan points?

 

Rep. Alan Grayson, granted you hail not from my home state, but what would cause you to stoop so low to compare the Tea Party to the Klu Klux Klan this week?  What are you thinking?  Why are you behaving in such an arrogant way?

 

Still such is not what we most need to remind each of you.

 

Again, to the elect…

 

What’s your logic?  What’s your justification?  Why do you use your positions of power to represent only the 1%, 37% or 51%?

 

Congress, thinking of representing only a limited percentage of people, why would you pass legislation (note:  see “Care Act,” arguably “affordable”) with zero votes from another party?  How and why is it appropriate to pass colossal, complex policy that only one party supports — especially when that policy impacts 100% of the people?

 

Still not our message…

 

With growing calls for Health & Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius to resign, Sebelius took to the microphones to not-so-humbly share that, “the majority of people calling for me to resign I would say are people who I don’t work for…”

 

My message to Sebelius, to the President, to Congress, to the aides, to all persons from all parties:  you work for us.  You don’t work for a person.  You don’t work for any select percentage of people.  You work for us.

 

Remembering that should keep each of you a little more humble… and maybe even a little more attractive.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

affordable care problem

The current, primary problem with the new healthcare law isn’t all the major glitches with the website.  Truth be told, if all Intramuralist readers based their opinion of our ongoing dialogue on the initial days of our website, we, too, would probably have far fewer numbers than the some 2,000 of you that are regular visitors.

 

The primary problem isn’t even the deep polarization surrounding the law.  Democrats supposedly love it — a historic, long-coveted legislative victory!  Republicans hate it — we’re doomed via this socialist, massive government control!

 

No, it’s not even the consistently negative public opinion of the law.  From CNN’s most recent poll this month, showing 56% in opposition of the legislation to even Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart — not known for any conservative allegiance — calling the law/rollout a highly descriptive “turd” on this week’s broadcast.

 

I really don’t believe any of the above are the primary problem.

 

As stated repeatedly amidst these posts, the Intramuralist has serious concerns about the Affordable Care Act.  Having read the entire piece prior to its passage, there are multiple, specific aspects and implications driving my concern, primarily in regard to cost, inefficiency, economics, and increased government control.  Nonetheless, I don’t see it as the current primary problem.

 

Let’s return to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) profound statement from March of 2010, saying, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

 

The current, primary problem with Obamacare is that we still can’t find out what’s in it.  There’s too much controversy, too much salesmanship, and too many ambiguities or potential mistruths.

 

Regarding the controversy, remember that the law was enacted without a single Republican vote.  When Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) was elected and the chances for a filibuster-proof bill fizzled, the Senate then utilized an obscure budgetary tactic even though the bill was not about the budget.  Any significant piece of legislation passed in such a manipulated way would seem to invite such controversy.

 

There’s also too much salesmanship.  Instead of objective analysis, the elect and their microphone-loving cohorts are trying to convince instead of educate.  Education allows for the good and the bad; however, our leadership works instead to convince us of only the good or the bad.

 

Just yesterday, for example, I received two ironically contrasting emails.  One was from a conservative writer, telling me that “Obamacare is broken beyond repair.”  The other was from Obama, telling me he needs me “to be a part of Team Obamacare” and tell everyone I know about the law.  The challenge with both of those messages is that they only include the good or the bad.  They are trying to sell us on a product or perspective.

 

Lastly, there exist too many ambiguities and potential mistruths… the whole idea that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep” it… the “death panels”… and just this week, HH&S Sec. Kathleen Sebelius (the current most likely candidate to be thrown under the bus, by the way) saying the President didn’t know anything about the website failures beforehand… former Obama Press Sec. Robert Gibbs saying “there’s no doubt” people at HHS and those involved knew… CBS News saying the website is providing “incredibly misleading” estimates.  The ambiguous examples are countless.  It’s simply too hard to know what’s true.

 

The current, primary problem with the healthcare law?  Nancy Pelosi was wrong; we still don’t know what’s in it, as we remain in the fog of the controversy.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

snarky & arrogant

From an interview last week with NBC congressional reporter Luke Russert — son of the widely respected Tim Russert — when asked if he believes the media and larger population has some sort of bias against people of faith:

 

“I think that’s absolutely accurate, and I think the current world in which we live in, specifically with the American media, snark is valued.  [emphasis mine]

 

And it’s very easy to come after people of faith no matter what their religion is — Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu.  That you’re sort of tagged with this label of being puritanical and not understanding of others or of different viewpoints and I think that’s kind of, it’s lazy, number one, and I think it’s just something that just feeds the snickering masses if you will in that regard.

 

For me, I think issues of faith are very complex.  When you cover them as a journalist, you simply can’t, I feel, stereotype somebody as fitting into a box…”

 

The Intramuralist actually finds Russert’s acknowledgement refreshing.  As one within the profession, he articulates what many of us outside have long increasingly sensed.

 

In all of culture’s efforts to supposedly refrain from being judgmental, many have still justified looking down upon persons whose faith guides their reasoning.  Yes, as acknowledged by Russert, a non-religious arrogance has permeated our media; and even more challenging is that such a perspective is then thinly veiled as “news.”

 

Let’s offer a few actual examples of such “news,” examples in which we will find both agreement and disagreement here on the Intramuralist.  It’s not that I share or do not share the below perspectives.  My question is how the media presents the perspective…

 

How does the media handle the perspective of the Catholic business man…  who based on his faith, does not believe he should have to provide free contraceptive and reproductive services via Obamacare to his employees?

 

… Does the media then look down upon his perspective — and air a “news” piece that makes him look foolish and his mandate to comply a wiser, necessary approach?

 

How does the media handle the perspective of the Washington state florist… who based on her Christian faith, refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding?

 

… Does the media then look down upon her perspective — and air a “news” piece that makes her look vindictive and the ACLU’s suit against her a victory for all of humanity?

 

How does the media handle the perspective of the Methodist man… who based on his faith, is an advocate for collective bargaining and thus supports striking union workers?  (Note:  collective bargaining is included in “The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church”…)

 

… Does the media then look down upon his perspective — and air yet another “news” piece that lambasts the man for his outdated, ineffective tactics?

 

While Russert unveils arguably one of culture’s more current, subtle but significant downfalls, the question is:  how does the media’s judgmental approach to persons of faith permeate our news?  Have we allowed a pervasive arrogance to be so meticulously morphed into an actual justification of thought, that we no longer recognize the judgment when it seeps into what is supposed to be an objective broadcast?

 

If the media and larger population look down upon reasoning which stems from spiritual thinking, by definition, that’s arrogance.  I wonder, also, then, if we justify and allow the arrogance based on whether we agree or disagree with the perspective.

 

Trying not to be arrogant in return.  Trying even harder not to be snarky.

 

Respectfully,

AR