Posts

Posted on

hating politics

I hate politics.  Ok, so really… that’s kind of a lie.  Sorry, I attempt to be transparent.  I’m also very human.  While several of you consider yourselves among that camp (a camp that includes my very respected spouse), I do not hate politics.  If, however, there were ever days when the Intramuralist was most tempted, Monday and Tuesday were two.

 

From this semi-humble vantage point, politics is a tool that is best used as an ethical, responsible means to govern and assist people.  When I come to the proverbial breaking point where the thought of “hate” creeps into my head, it’s typically prompted by a distortion of that responsible means — typically, too, made manifest via the perception of either arrogance or self-servingness.  It’s a point where what’s best for the country seems secondary to some other motive — a motive which may or may not be able to be discerned with certainty.

 

Afford me first the grace to offer both caveat and confession…

All parties and all people are capable of arrogance.  All parties and people are capable of self-servingness.  I am equally capable.  Note:  neither Democrats nor Republicans are overwhelmingly noted for their outstanding ethics; neither is known to consistently put what’s best for the country first.

 

Hence, follow the sequence of events leading to Monday and Tuesday…

 

Both Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama promised to enact immigration reform.  Bush promised it within term 2; Obama promised it within year 1 of term 1.  Neither prioritized such as promised.  With arguably up to 12 million persons living in this country illegally — impacting our workplace, healthcare system, etc. — this is an issue that undoubtedly has bipartisan appeal (hence, the promises)… hence, also, why the Intramuralist believes this is not a partisan issue.

 

Consistent with that thinking, on Monday, a group of 8 leading senatorial voices (which included Dick Durbin, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Chuck Schumer) excitedly and incredibly respectfully announced the bipartisan agreement they crafted in order to deal with this challenge well.  Look at the polls.  Citizens have no desire for “liberal rule,” “conservative rule,” or anyone’s dictatorship; they want — we want — effective, bipartisan agreement.  American citizens do not seem to believe that one party has the complete and always correct way.  Hence, Monday’s bipartisan agreement — where both Democrats and Republicans had to “give” on something and were still excited about it — seemed a potential, effective solution.

 

That solution may still exist.  It may not.

 

On Tuesday, the President decided it was necessary to announce his immigration proposal.  He flew to Las Vegas and back to D.C. solely to deliver this address (note:  such a trip costs taxpayers an estimated $1.6 million).  While commending the senators for their announced actions, Obama added that the Senate must move fast, saying, “If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away.”  The President’s proposal seemingly differs from the mixed group of senators in that it does not require border security prior to offering free legal status.

 

As a person who (does not) hate politics — and questions this of all parties — I question the motive of the President’s speech.  Was the proposed bipartisan solution not enough?  Was the senators’ joint excitement not ample to keep the momentum rolling toward achieving what’s best for our country?  Or does there exist some secondary motive — something that true, we cannot discern with certainty?

 

In the White House Press Secretary’s daily Monday briefing, Jay Carney added the following:  “I think it’s important before we let the moment pass to acknowledge that the progress we’re seeing embodied in the principles put forward by this bipartisan group is happening for a reason: I think it’s happening because consensus is developing in the country, a bipartisan consensus, and it’s happening because the President has demonstrated significant leadership on this issue.”  [emphasis mine]

 

“Because the President.”  President Bush?  President Obama?  My sense is that who is responsible pales in comparison to actual solution.

 

Wait.  Allow me one more significant tangent prior to this post’s end…

If you find yourself excessively irritated or joyfully ‘amen-ing’ at today’s dialogue, please be aware of the prodigious potential for naiveté on each of our parts.  Know that persons from both parties have secondary motives, and also know that no politician is exempt from hidden motive, regardless of how much of our admiration they tend to attract.

 

Ok, ok… enough…  I don’t really hate politics.  It’s just that sometimes both parties really tempt me.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

whoa whoa whoa feelings

Sunday morning the pastor took a quick poll in morning worship:  “How many of you had a leisurely, relaxing morning, and everything went smoothly on the way here?”

 

That was quickly followed by:  “How many of you have had a stressful morn so far?”

 

I swiftly raised my hand to the second of those 2 Q’s (… love the freedom and grace to be authentic on Sunday mornings…).  My morning stunk.  My youngest son had a major meltdown.

 

When I refer to a major meltdown, I mean major.  It was ugly and loud and nothing I’d want noticed when focused too much on Impression Management 101.  It didn’t make either my son nor me look good.  He was a mess.  So was I.

 

Not only was Josh a mess, but he was disobedient and disrespectful.  He was tired and cranky and such evolved into obstinacy and arrogance.  Like I said, it was ugly.

 

Every now and then, I find one of those rare moments of parenting when everything within me seems to converge, and I humbly realize this is a huge teaching moment.  My sense is that such probably occurs a whole lot more often than I realize; but far too frequently I am too impatient, too busy, or too self-focused to recognize the meaning of the moment.  I am too distracted by daily life to teach the lessons that will serve my kids for all their life.

 

Not last Sunday morning.

 

As my son’s temper turned to tears and his disrespect morphed not-so-calmly into regret, I simply sat beside him — silently but not ostensibly nor overtly compassionate.  Truth be told, my heart welled will enormous compassion — recognizing the potential teaching of the time.

 

Josh’s body, which previously shook in accordance with all tears, was calm now.  The tears, though, continued to quietly, abundantly flow.  After a few more pregnant pauses, Josh drudgingly but deliberately raised his eyes to meet mine.  “I’m sorry.”  The sincere admission prompted even more tears, but now he was listening.  Now he could hear me.  Now was the time my words were most important, carrying the most significant of weight.

 

“Josh, you have to choose to be obedient no matter how you feel.  You still have to choose what’s right.”

 

Therein lay my ‘a-ha’ for the week; my words to this precious, teachable young man were words so much of the rest of the world has so obviously, so quickly, and so seemingly, callously discounted.  We aren’t even always so young.  And certainly, we are not always nor even consistently teachable.  Of course, the Intramuralist often wonders as to why.  I suppose we’re too often too impatient, busy, or self-focused; we’re distracted by daily life.  Arguably instead, we are distracted by emotion.  Our emotion tends to trump what is right.

 

Instead of choosing what’s right no matter how we feel, my strong sense is that the rest of the watching world is more likely to actually change what they previously perceived as right.  Instead of consistently doing the right thing, we allow our emotions to justify what we once knew to be wrong; we allow our emotions to actually change what the right thing is…

 

“Because I feel this way, it must be right…”

 

Perhaps we’re too emboldened by our self-serving practice of Impression Management; perhaps we are so emboldened that we don’t actually articulate the practice aloud, although the bottom line point remains the same…

 

We aren’t always as teachable as my precious, young Joshua.

 

True, Josh has much to learn.  So do we.  Hopefully, none of us will continue to be so distracted.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

fact as opposed to rhetoric

Every now and then a story strikes me as so significant that my sense is we need to discuss and highlight such amidst these postings.  The depth of the news deserves our attention.  Today is such a day.

 

Allow me to initially note that this account is very current; that being so, details are evolving daily.  I would encourage you to pay attention to those details.  Hence, take note of the following name:  Saeed Abedini.

 

Abedini is a 32 year old American citizen.  He is originally from Iran.  Abedini has a wife and 2 small children.  His extended family remains in Iran.

 

Abedini returns regularly to the Arab country in order to both visit his extended family and oversee a humanitarian effort he began years ago to build an orphanage; he has been arrested multiple times upon his return.   What has Abedini been arrested for?

 

Abedini is a pastor.  He is an American Christian pastor.  Abedini converted from Islam to Christianity.  As we logically wrestle with fact as opposed to rhetoric, know that any Muslim who apostatizes — literally “regresses” — or specifically goes on to at some point, somehow reject the Islamic faith — commits an offense which may be punishable by death.  Islamic scholars disagree on this assessment; the reality exists, however, that a sizable number of scholars believe execution is the appropriate consequence.  Under Shariah law, a Muslim who converts to Christianity is on par with someone waging war against Islam.

 

In mid-December without initial notice of any formal charges, Abedini was again imprisoned.  As he remained incarcerated, the Iranian government ambiguously charged him with compromising national security, omitting the specifics of the compromising actions.  The government also announced the American would go on trial for this offense.  According to his attorneys, Abedini is scheduled to appear before an Iranian judge known as the “hanging judge,” a man identified by the European Union in 2011 as an individual actually subject to sanctions for human rights violations.  Judge Pir-Abassi has reportedly presided over a number of cases against human rights activists, often handing down long prison sentences and even several death penalties.

 

One more seemingly significant detail:  at the time of this writing, Abedini’s whereabouts are also ambiguous.  When his family went to visit him in Iranian prison last Wednesday, they were told he was not there.  Then yesterday, they were told he had been moved within the prison yet they were not permitted to see him.

 

A couple more related notes:  Abedini’s family reports that he has been repeatedly interrogated and beaten within prison walls.  He has also experienced injury and pain as a result of these beatings and may be in need of medical treatment.  His attorney and family seem to know few more specifics.

 

Allow me one more rather relevant detail…

 

While the American government often calls for the fair and humane treatment of its citizens — in fact, our government often simply calls for the fair and humane treatment of all people regardless of citizenship — for months the American government has said nothing.

 

Finally, this week — only after approximately 250,000 online signatures, significant negative publicity, and public appeals by 50 U.S. House Representatives — the U.S. State Department called for Abedini’s release.  As Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) stated, “Every U.S. citizen should have the assurance that the U.S. government will come vigorously to their defense in a time of need, especially when they are unjustly tried in a foreign country.”  For months, there was not only no vigorous defense; there was no defense.

 

Why would we allow an innocent man to persevere alone?  Did his religion affect our response?

 

Ensuring that we wrestle with fact as opposed to rhetoric, the Intramuralist can only concerningly, definitely offer, “I don’t know.”

 

Respectfully,

AR

[Note:  This morning, Jan. 27th, Abedini was sentenced to 8 years in prison for attempting to undermine the Iranian government.  His attorney was apparently shut out from some of the judicial proceedings.  What will now be the response of governments around the world?]

Posted on

minority status

Let’s push the envelope a bit today, shall we?  In fact, it’s quite possible that today’s post may be our most controversial.  Maybe it will ruffle the most figurative feathers.  Please know that’s not my intent; ruffling feathers — regardless as to how figurative — but ruffling for the sole sake of ruffling seems a futile exercise indeed.  My goal has always been to wisely and correctly handle words of truth.

 

Yet in the seemingly continual, digressing state of society — where discouraging words are too often heard and far more than deer and antelope play — big is considered better; more is always best; and the majority is irrefutably wise.

 

The Intramuralist does not agree.  Big is not always better.  More is not always best.  And often it is the minority which offers the most prudent message.  Yes, the minority often possesses the greatest strength and keenest insight.  Granted (and such is said with an undeniable, sober sigh), the minority often face unfathomable, dire challenge; also true, no less, is that the existence of the challenge has the power and potential to strengthen the person and thus prompt that incredible insight.  In other words, the minority often possess the greatest blessing.  And yet, my ruffling sense is that the minority too often give that blessing away.

 

Reflect upon the minority for a moment…

 

A minority marked by race, religion, gender, or geographics…

A minority marked by ambition, achievement, or athletic competition…

A minority marked by perspective, potential, or political position…

A minority marked by intelligence, institution, or physical impairment…

A minority marked by skin color, school, or social standing…

 

Regardless of what distinguishes the group, the minority is the smaller number — by some part lesser than half the whole.

 

Regardless of being “lesser,” within that minority still, we find incredible insights, values, and places of personal and corporate growth…

 

Among them, perhaps?  … humility… perseverance and pride…  work ethic and wisdom… faith and self-awareness…  (… did I mention humility?)

 

The majority, however, is instead too often marked by an unattractive arrogance —  possessing no perceived desire nor even believed need to persevere.  Far too often the majority even replaces faith and self-awareness with an over emphasis on self.

 

So what happens when minorities grow?  … in number?  … in power?  … in significance?  What happens when their numbers evolve into that bigger half of the whole?

 

My prudent hope would be that we/they would remember where we came from… that if we were ever once in the minority we would not forget the values learned nor the blessing gained that evolve when meeting challenges wisely…

 

Too often, though, I think we fall prey to simply adapting and absorbing the unattractive traits observed in many of the majority…

 

Humility is zapped for arrogance…  Faith and self-awareness are replaced with that over importance of self.

 

Regardless of what marks one as a minority — by race, gender, or Senate standing — by not making the playoffs or by a lower GPA — regardless of what distinguishes us and places us within any lesser or bigger half of the whole — may we hold on to the humility that propelled us to persevere.  May we hold onto the blessing.

 

P.S.  Blessing is good.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

inaugural

A subjective review of history suggests that most second term inaugural speeches error a bit on the boring side.  While each of us can discern for ourselves whether such was true of Pres. Obama’s address yesterday, one second term speech stands out with certainty… written in 1865…  penned by Pres. Abraham Lincoln.  With the end of the Civil War and slavery in sight, Lincoln still spoke not of great hope nor previous promises.  Lincoln spoke of sadness… and of what binds us together…

 

“Fellow-Countrymen:  At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

 

[Still acknowledging conflict, Lincoln widely recognized what so many forget — that more can often be said with fewer actual words…]

 

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

 

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’ If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

 

[Wow… in an address that audiences would attend to for years, Lincoln not only acknowledges the reality of God but also a submission to God…]

 

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

 

With just over 700 words and a remarkable reliance upon the divine, the revered Lincoln soberly recognized the depth of division within our country.  There’s a focus on unity, a call for healing, and a humble commitment to heal the wounds together; there is also a respect for all people regardless of position or politics.  Yes, today, we have much to learn.

 

41 days after this address was delivered, Pres. Lincoln was assassinated.  Let’s face it:  the brave call to unification and reconciliation is not popular.  It is a far easier route not to unify and not to heal.  As we face the next 4 years together, I pray for the braver, more humble, more difficult route.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

executive orders… round 2

In recent days, there has been much conversation about the appropriateness and legality of bypassing the legislative process via executive order.  The Intramuralist is certainly no expert, yet as Pres. Obama averred his presumed certain authority to exert specific decrees, my mind wandered (albeit fairly facetiously) as to what decrees I would declare, should I perceive such authority…

 

… I hereby declare that all young men under the age of 23 must pull up their pants, with underwear waistlines fully covered…

 

… I hereby declare that no texting, Facebook, Twitter, or alternative social media shall substitute for authentic dialogue…

 

… I hereby declare that Congress and the White House must work together and actually listen to one another…

 

… I hereby declare that Congress cannot simply, solely arrogantly obstruct the desires of the White House…

 

… I hereby declare that the White House cannot simply, solely arrogantly decide what is wisest and what is not…

 

… I hereby declare that Pres. Obama must discontinue use of the self-focused phrase “I won”…

 

… I hereby declare that the government can no longer spend more money than it takes in…

 

… I hereby declare that again…

 

… and again…

 

… I hereby declare that the Constitution must be adhered to…

 

… I hereby declare that term limits be imposed immediately…

 

… I hereby declare that radio stations must quit over-playing “Gangnam Style”…

 

… I hereby declare that “Keeping Up the Kardashians” is not reality…

 

… I hereby declare that most all reality shows are not reality…

 

… I hereby declare that we will no longer borrow money from China…

 

… I hereby declare that we will no longer borrow money from anyone…

 

… I hereby declare that we will not print money in order to make money, thus decreasing the American dollar in value…

 

… I hereby declare that no one is allowed to scare people via the inexact science of global warming or climate change…

 

… I hereby declare that no one is allowed to scare the elderly via inflammatory rhetoric so that they will be more prone to vote a certain way…

 

… I hereby declare that politicians will not and cannot lie… ever…

 

… I hereby declare that I will not and cannot lie… ever…

 

… I hereby declare that no politician will overlook what is good or right or true in order to advance their own political agenda…

 

… I hereby declare that no more executive “actions” or orders will be allowed.

 

By this I stand.

 

This is enough.

 

… albeit even facetiously…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

falling from grace

Today is the day.  According to multiple news outlets, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, the world’s most infamous and (previously seemingly) successful cyclist, Lance Armstrong, has admitted to intentionally using performance-enhancing drugs.  The interview is scheduled to be aired today on Oprah’s OWN network.

 

The significance of the admission is obvious:

 

  1. Armstrong has been incredibly successful; his career has included 7 Tour de France victories (albeit titles of which he has since been stripped).  And,
  2. Armstrong has vehemently denied drug usage for years; his denials have also, often, arguably, publicly defamed other people…

 

When fellow Tour winner (and fellow Tour-title-stripped winner), Floyd Landis, implicated Armstrong, Armstrong publicly declared Landis “desperate for attention and money.”

 

When the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency was investigating, Armstrong called the head of the quasi-government agency, Travis Tygart, “obsessed” with “getting” him, boldly proclaiming that Tygart was executing an “unconstitutional witch hunt.”

 

With today finally being the day, we now know that all of the above were lies.  We also know that all of the denials of truth telling around him were intentional efforts to discredit others instead of deal with self.  (We like to do that sometimes… discredit others instead of deal with self… but alas, I digress…)

 

Once more, the infamous has fallen from grace.

 

Some fall hard, friends… well, at least initially… Marv Albert, Jim Bakker, Kobe Bryant, John Edwards, Tonya Harding, Marion Jones, Richard Nixon, Sandi Patty, David Petraeus, OJ Simpson, Michael Vick, Tiger Woods… persons supposedly at the “top of their game,” widely admired, yet those who fell a long, long way down.

 

My mind wanders…

 

Did they ever deserve to initially be so admired?  Did we allow their words, athleticism, or success to substitute for a wrongful impression of sound character?

 

Did their immoral act simply unveil their true character — a character that was previously well hidden under the surface of celebrity?  That’s fascinating to me, especially as I see many of the above seem to pay only the penance of time, flying intentionally below the media radar for a specified period — and then ease back into a comparable, original role, undoubtedly hoping few will mention the reason for their fall.

 

Still, are they each capable of redemption?  I mean, most of us observed what happened at Penn State last fall — and the extent of the passion directed not only at the perpetrator but also at all associated with him.  Was/is Jerry Sandusky even capable of redemption?  What if we ever falter? … are we capable?

 

Finally — thinking again of Armstrong’s admission — how should we feel about the “good” Armstrong has previously done?  Lance Armstrong’s “Live Strong Foundation” has provided significant support and inspiration to cancer survivors for years.  Now that Armstrong’s unethical acts are evident, how are we to think about the past good he has done?  Was it all just a facade?  Can the efforts and actions now even be considered good?

 

Once again I’m humbly reminded as to how consistently through history, broken people are used for a greater good.  Warts and all — many who have at one time (or more) engaged in unethical acts — can still contribute to the good.

 

I wonder then what the future holds for Lance Armstrong.  Is he capable of redemption?

The better question, however, is will he be humble enough to actually seek that redemption and thus be used for the greater good.

 

We shall wonder.  Some shall pray.  Praying, too, that no other broken person feels so confident of throwing that first stone…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

blessing in the bad

Every now and then, the Intramuralist semi-gracefully stumbles upon a truth which is so counter-cultural — an ideal or behavior that seemingly opposes all prudence.  In other words, there exist areas of wisdom that the world completely fails to comprehend…  where society thinks one way… often fairly adamantly… often obliviously… often, unfortunately, at its own peril.

 

Lately, the Intramuralist has been observing society’s reaction toward suffering.  Let’s face it; there’s been a lot of “bad stuff” happening…

 

… people out of work… government bickering… Sandy Hook… Hurricane Sandy…

… death… divorce… distance between friends…

… not enough money… not enough time… sickness…

… sick children… fighting… debt… more debt…

… friends losing houses… families losing jobs… neighbors not knowing how to put food on the table each night…

 

Trials and temptations, negative circumstances, scenarios which are simply incredibly difficult to endure.  There’s been a lot of “bad stuff.”

 

Most of us — maybe, possibly, most all of us — perceive the “bad stuff” as exactly that:   bad.  Hence, we work tirelessly to alleviate the “badness” — to eradicate any situation in which suffering exists.

 

There’s only one, glaring glitch embedded within that pursuit.  If we eradicate all the “bad,” my sense is that we miss the surprising, bountiful blessing within…

 

  • Blessed are those who are poor… who are thus more likely to realize their need for God — and not allow arrogance to get in the way…
  • Blessed are those who are grieving… who are thus more likely to seek out lasting comfort — and not fall prey to numbing themselves via merely temporary means…
  • Blessed are those who don’t succeed… who thus have opportunity to learn to genuinely celebrate the success of another…
  • Blessed are those whose best laid plans have completely fallen through… who are less likely to struggle with their need to dominate or control…
  • Blessed are those who must sacrifice… who are then more likely to comprehend what is valuable and what is not…
  • Blessed are those who cannot care for themselves… who are thus more likely to appreciate the authenticity of selfless service — and in turn encourage service in others…
  • Blessed are those who have tragically lost a loved one… who are far more likely to long for something more eternal than this planet…
  • Blessed are those whose children have disappointed them… who have intensified opportunity to recognize what’s most important to teach — and surrender that which is minimal…
  • Blessed are those who cry… for they have learned the beauty of empathy…
  • Blessed are those who have less… for they are less likely to take life for granted…

 

Friends, we work to eradicate negative circumstances.  And while I would wish such specific circumstances on no one, I am concerned at the bountiful blessings society seems to simply ignore — that it completely fails to comprehend.  It’s almost as if in our perceived pursuit of rights, fairness, and entitlement — each which possesses some value — we forget that there exists blessing in the “bad.”  Joy lies ahead even amidst the trial.  Hence, if we eradicate what is arduous, if we abolish the “bad” — no matter how adamantly — we may also eradicate the blessing…

 

… and the waning wisdom of society.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

executive orders

In the wake of emotion following the shock of Sandy Hook, this coming Tuesday, a Washington group led by VP Joe Biden plans to place on the desk of the President their recommendations regarding increased gun control and safety.  Foreshadowing their report, Biden publicly remarked that while multiple options remain, “The President is going to act.  There are executives orders — executive action that can be taken.”

 

U.S. presidents have been taking “executive action” for over 200 years.  While these orders are not legislation, they still are accompanied by full force of law.  The reality is there is no specific constitutional provision for the decrees, but there exists a vague granting of executive power in Article II.  The idea is that presidents issue executive orders in order to assist in operational management of federal agencies or to carry out what they perceive as their unequivocal, “constitutional responsibilities.”   That’s what the orders are supposed to do; however, through the years — as for some reason seems typical in contemporary culture — we have digressed…

 

Initially, executive orders were issued for such as the following:

 

  •   On December 25, 1868, Pres. Andrew Johnson pardoned “all and every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion” related to the Civil War (the “Christmas Proclamation”).

 

  • In 1861, Pres. Abraham Lincoln used presidential directives to run the early months of the Civil War.  Within his first two months in office, Lincoln issued a proclamation activating troops to defeat the Southern rebellion; he also issued proclamations to procure warships and to expand the size of the military.

 

  •   After World War II began, Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the interment of Japanese-Americans — thinking they may be a threat — thereby impacting more than 120,000 Japanese-Americans, even though many were U.S. citizens.  Note:  it is widely believed that in FDR’s clear growth of government, expansion of the extent of executive orders was also his practice.

 

Via executive order, Teddy Roosevelt protected 130 million acres of land and created 5 national parks.  Pres. Ford pardoned Richard Nixon.  Executive orders have been arbitrarily and subjectively utilized, all via one man’s discretion… albeit one very powerful man.

 

Don’t let me also act as if all of the above was deemed categorically constitutional; much, in fact — even then — was controversial.  Conventional wisdom tells us that Lincoln’s actions were most likely unconstitutional, and the purported cruelty of Roosevelt’s executive orders has been debated for decades.

 

Still, as alluded to, through the years, executive orders have digressed; they have become seemingly more arbitrary and albeit, more political.  Such as…

 

  • In reaction to 9/11, Pres. George W. Bush created the Dept. of Homeland Security.

 

  • On March 16, 2012, Pres. Obama gave the White House absolute control over all the country’s natural resources in case of a natural disaster or during a time of war.

 

There is more.

 

Friends, herein lies the challenge…

 

If you are a supporter of Pres. Obama, the probability is that you wholeheartedly support his executive orders.  If you were a supporter of Pres. Bush 43, you most likely supported his decrees.  The challenge is that wisdom must be adhered to regardless of who is president.  For example, should any president decide he or she has the discernment skills to dictate the approach to the economy — meaning proceed via executive order — such would scare me.  For example, as much as I respect Pres. Obama, his economic background, in my opinion, is strikingly minimal.  Hence, should he enact any executive order affecting our economic future, the Intramuralist would question the inherent wisdom.

 

Gun control?  Gun control?  Did VP Biden misspeak once again?  Or is it totally ok to bypass Congress and simply dictate one’s opinion, assuming it is wisest and best?  Is it ok to bypass bipartisan debate?  Is it wise?  Or is it arrogant?

 

Great questions.  Guess we’ll see on Tuesday.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

fairness (satire, too… oops…)

It’s not fair!  It’s a matter of fairness, and this is not fair!

 

I’ve decided to consider advocating for this fairness concept — this idea that everyone deserves a fair shot — equal shot — maybe even the exact, same shot… that we should all have the same opportunity — regardless of…

 

… ability…  gifting…  weaknesses…  strengths…  effort…  blessing…

 

This just isn’t fair!  We deserve to be the same!  “Equals should be treated equally!”

 

Call it fairness.  Call it justice.  Maybe it’s social justice, some would argue.

 

We live on the same planet.  It’s not fair that some have so much — and others — yes, us — have so little…  too little, I might add.  How can that be justified?  How can some stand so smugly by? … even cheering?  Cheering, I said!

 

That’s ridiculous!

 

Still even when the inequality is so stinkin’ obvious, the wealthy among us actually have the audacity to stand and cheer — almost as if they are unaware that the rest of us are also in the stands.  It’s as if they don’t even care — like we’re not even in the game.  They don’t care about the active discrimination.  They don’t care how little we have.  They must have no heart.  It’s all about them!  It’s simply not fair!

 

Monday night the University of Alabama football team won their 15th NCAA national championship.  The (semi-) Fighting Irish (based on their performance Monday night) claim 11 of their own championships — same as Michigan’s Wolverines and those tempestuous Trojans of Southern California.  But alas, my woeful, beloved Boilermakers — those prudent young men from Purdue — have won a grand total of zero.

 

Zero.

 

Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.

 

And here’s the kicker…

 

Because the Crimson Tide, Irish, Trojans, etc. historically fare so well, the best and brightest from the high school ranks prefer them over my precious Purdue.  Year after year, the best only get better; and the rest of us?  Well, woe is us.

 

It’s not fair.

 

So should we change the college football system?  Should we regulate it?  Should we limit the number of wins or good recruits allowed by Alabama football, UConn women’s basketball, or the talented men from Duke?

 

Or should we fight harder, recognizing that goal setting and hard work and even adversity are all worth something?  Should we actually wrestle with the wisdom embedded within the recognition that we weren’t all created with the same ability, gifting, weaknesses, strengths, work ethic, and blessing? …

 

Or do we instead focus on life not being fair?

 

Dare I add:  I can’t wait for the day — that incredible day — one day, someday, whenever it happens — when my Boilermakers win the national football championship — and convincingly smash that Alabama Crimson Tide.

 

Respectfully,

AR