Category: Current Event

Posted on

advice column

In 2 intriguing developments…

 

John Rosemond has written a nationally syndicated parental advice column for years.  In addition to his column, Rosemond has authored multiple bestsellers, such as Parenting by the Book and Making the ‘Terrible’ Twos Terrific!  When responding recently to a question of how to handle their “highly spoiled underachiever” son, Rosemond advised the parents to strip the boy’s room down to essentials, take away electronic devices, and suspend privileges until the boy’s grades improved.

 

The State of Kentucky — specifically, the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology – then declared that by offering such one-on-one advice, Rosemond is engaging in the “practice of psychology” – something he is not entitled to do in the state since he lacks a Kentucky license, as even though he is a nationally syndicated columnist, his North Carolina credentials are not valid in Kentucky.

 

The bottom line:  the government says a citizen is not qualified nor allowed to do what he does without the government’s supervision, authorization, and approval.

 

Steve Cooksey, no less, is a blogger from North Carolina.  He encourages others, prompted by the passion of his own experience.  Listen to Cooksey’s brief bio:

“To summarize my story, I was an obese, sedentary, recently diagnosed diabetic when I began this journey.  I was on diabetes, cholesterol, and hypertension drugs as well as taking 4 insulin shots per day.  But within days things began to change and within a few months, I WAS A NEW PERSON!” 

Cooksey’s health improved drastically due to utilization of the growingly popular, high-protein Paleo Diet.

 

Yet alas, the State of North Carolina — specifically, the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition — told Cooksey the advice-like language throughout his blog — and his offering of personal support to those attempting to transition to a “Paleo” lifestyle — were illegal.  Let me say that again:  illegal.

 

The bottom line:  the government says a citizen is not qualified nor allowed to do what he does without the government’s supervision, authorization, and approval.

 

Interestingly, both Rosemond and Cooksey have sued the government on the grounds of free speech and the First Amendment.  Let me also add that I’m certain there exist aspects in each case that we don’t know.  My prayer regardless is that their ongoing cases will be heard and directed by wise, fair-minded persons.

 

However, what concerns me is the potential precedent and lingering questions…

 

Is only government able to decide who is qualified?

Is only government able to decide who is allowed?

 

I wonder… in the future… if not in possession of a state teaching license, will parents be deemed qualified to teach their own children?  Will they be allowed?

 

I have no idea whether the words and wisdom of Rosemond and/or Cooksey are actually wise or not; the potential precedent, however, of the government’s increasingly intrusive, larger role disturbs me.

 

What if the citizens’ words are not wise?  Does the government still need to control that?  Are only wise words allowed to be shared?  And is only the government capable of determining what wisdom is?  Must they supervise? … authorize?  … and approve? …

 

… Be honest.  Be kind.  Love people well.  Never run from truth.  Don’t be afraid of the hard stuff.  Be respectful.  Be compassionate.  Say what you mean and mean what you say.  Forgive.  Forgive again.  Figure the faith thing out.  Don’t spend what you don’t have.  Exercise.  Ponder.  Reject hypocrisy.  Be humble.  Laugh often.  Make good friends.  Be loyal.  Invest.  Embrace your family.  Love through thick and thin.  Enjoy ice cream in the summer.  And read the Intramuralist faithfully.

 

There.  There’s my advice for today.  It’s free.  You’ll have to discern whether or not it’s wise.  Actually, that’s our job.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

racist

Sometimes as I witness society’s reaction, my soul is left disturbed.

 

Perhaps like several of you, I have turned off the television after my jaw dropped too many times watching reaction to George Zimmerman being found “not guilty” of the murder of teen Trayvon Martin.  Was he really “not guilty”?  Was he “guilty”?!  I don’t know.  I wasn’t there.  I wasn’t even in the courtroom.  Like positions, however, have not kept others from adamant declarations.

 

The reality is that Trayvon Martin’s tragic death has evolved into an issue of race.  It shouldn’t be.  The question should be whether or not a criminal act took place.  However, declarations of innocence and guilt have seemingly since been driven more by ethnicity than on evidence — or the lack of it.

 

Does skin color matter?

 

Unfortunately, to too many, it does…

 

… it matters to the female convenience store clerk, shown on a YouTube video, who told an African-American pastor, “We don’t serve your kind”…

… it matters to the Illinois, African-American man who beat up an American caucasian because he was so mad at “white boys”…

… it matters to CNN’s Nancy Grace, who during jury deliberations, said “[Hispanic Zimmerman’s been] out on bond, driving through Taco Bell every night, having a churro.”

 

It matters to too many whites… too many blacks… too many Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, etc.  Unfortunately, it matters.

 

My current sense is that most of the protests after the Zimmerman verdict were peaceful.  (Note:  the most sensational moments — however infrequent — receive the most media attention.)  Still, seemingly intelligent (and not so intelligent) persons say disturbing things…

 

For example, in response to the verdict, an associate professor at the typically esteemed, Ivy League’s University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Religious Studies called God a “white racist.”  Excuse me, but this professor who is teaching our children, is she attempting to divide — or to heal unite?

 

I look forward, friends, to a day when skin color truly does not matter to any of us… when it doesn’t matter to the whites, to the blacks, to every other color God created.  I look forward when there exists no justified prejudice — stemming either from initial ignorance or from retaliatory response.

 

I look forward to the lion laying down with the lamb… the leopard lying down with the goat… the cow feeding alongside the bear and their young lying down together.  I look forward to a day when none of the external “stuff” we so passionately cling to matters, when none of us judge by what we see with our eyes or hear with our ears.  I look forward to us being directed more by a Spirit of wisdom and understanding than by skin color and self.

 

I look forward to that day.  For each of us.  All of us.  Only then will skin color truly not matter.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

independence

As fireworks flare across the nation this day, we acknowledge the 4th of July.  We celebrate Independence Day, the day 237 years ago when America declared her intentional independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.  As infamous patriot, John Adams, penned a day prior:  “… I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.  It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty…”

 

Adams went on to encourage a “solemnization” that included pomp and parade, guns and games, and a serious yet festive acknowledgement.  I wonder what he would think of our country’s celebrations and acknowledgements today.

 

I’m a little stunned, friends.  We claim to cherish our independence, and on one hand, perhaps we do; we also so quickly contradict ourselves.

 

As discussed previously this week, we crave the right to individually discern the path that seems best to us.  But yet so many of us ‘cravers’ still clamor for government to choose the path for another.

 

As a current example, it is no secret that the Intramuralist is not a fan of Obamacare.  After reading the bill, my strong sense was that it’s an economic burden and holds huge potential for future corruption. However, here is a bill that mandates individual behavior.  How does that fit with a country that boldly claims its independence?  The only way the bill pays for those who cannot is to mandate that all pay.  Something within that logic seems to contradict a free, democratic society where we choose our own paths.

 

Even more contradicting, unfortunately, as we examine the heart of the decades old Declaration, is what we are actually acknowledging.

 

The Declaration of Independence was clear.  All men are created equal with certain, unalienable rights “endowed by their Creator.”  God’s presence and reality were never in question and never excused.   God was acknowledged regularly and consistently.

 

And yet today, while again on one hand we wish to choose the path that individually seems best to us, many often want to silence the individual who chooses to credit their Creator.  Friends, if we want to choose our own path, we must allow others to do the same.  That means allowing and respecting those who praise the name of the living God.

 

I shudder when I think of the movement in this land to remove any public acknowledgement of the God of the universe.  I shudder when any judicial branch defers to the man who claims to be offended by God’s name, but fails to consider any offense to God.  Why do we allow the individual choice of some to acknowledge their path, but hypocritically not allow the individual choice of others when God is part of their path?  Have we not seen?  Have we not heard?  How is that free?  How is that an honoring of any declaration of independence?

 

While some will reject the historical scriptures outright, the wise man would be prudent to pay attention.  The ancient scriptures always forecast the demise of the country that no longer credits the Creator.  Bad things happen to countries where men continually forsake God, instead worshipping and accrediting manmade objects and ideals, somehow believing that we are wiser than the divine.  Perhaps better said, too often we act as if we have no need for God.  We give more thought and care to God’s omission than existence. Study history.  Look at the numerous countries which quit acknowledging the God of the universe — and that now no longer exist.

 

Happy Independence Day, friends.  I am apt to believe it should be celebrated…  with pomp and parade…  guns and games… and solemn acts of devotion to God.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

covering a multitude of sins

“Love covers a multitude of sins.”

 

Wise words, no doubt.  Wise words that most of us seem to believe in.  Love is a virtue.  Love is good and pure and right.  Love “covering sin” makes sense.  We, however, allow far more shallow things than love to “cover sin.”

 

Over the course of the past 2 weeks, we have watched the professional career of one NFL star come to a crashing halt.  New England Patriots tight end, Aaron Hernandez, is currently incarcerated on charges of first degree murder.  11 days ago the body of a “friend” was found only a mile from Hernandez’s home.  Hernandez has been denied bail.

 

As the events ensued and the cameras continued to roll — as for some reason, as a society, we are seemingly incredibly fascinated with every aspect of celebrity — we have learned the following:

 

… that Hernandez received “deferred prosecution” after being arrested following a fight shortly after arriving at the University of Florida in 2007…

… that not too long after the fall fight Hernandez was questioned by police about an early morning Gainesville shooting…

… that Hernandez was at a Boston nightclub last summer when a double homicide occurred…

… that Hernandez is being sued for shooting the eye out of a friend this past February in Miami, upon leaving a local strip club…

… that his multiple tattoos are now being scrutinized for gang identification…

 

While we should be well aware that no verdict of guilt has been rendered, it astounds this semi-humble observer that the above seems only news now.  It is obvious that something far different than love has “covered” Hernandez so-called sins.

 

To date, when Hernandez has run onto the field, the fans have enthusiastically cheered.  He earned All-American honors in college, was named an NFL All Star in only his second professional year, and the contract he signed with the Patriots just last summer was reportedly worth up to $40 million.

 

All that for a man currently incarcerated.

 

Friends, I will never be the thrower of the first or second stone.  The Intramuralist will forever be an encourager of forgiveness and the giver of second, third, and forty-seventh chances.  However, forgiveness and forty-seventh chances do not equate to an ignorance of truth.  They do not equate to a so-called “covering” or blindness in which we no longer wrestle with reality.  There have been multiple activities over Aaron Hernandez’s career which depict a character that doesn’t seem so worthy of cheering when he takes his place on the field.  But yet our sports-crazed loyalties and our societal fascination with celebrity have undoubtedly covered a multitude of sins.

 

It’s why so many overlooked Tiger Wood’s terrible temper because he was such a fantastic golfer — and yes, that temper was readily apparent even before his rampant infidelity.  It’s why so many jumped on the Dallas Cowboys bandwagon when Jimmy Johnson became the head coach, even though he divorced his wife because of coaching.  As he told the Dallas Morning News, the day Johnson was hired, he took his wife to dinner and fired her.  “I told her, ‘I can either be head football coach of the Dallas Cowboys or married to you.  I’ve decided to be head football coach of the Dallas Cowboys.’”  But yet, so many celebrated the new, supposedly successful coach.

 

Yes, love indeed covers a multitude of sins.  Sometimes we allow less virtuous aspects to do the same.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the rest of the story

In Sunday’s blog there was one embedded comment that is perhaps relevant in most — maybe all — of the events we examine.  It’s arguably applicable in each of our opinions.  And it’s probably the one aspect that’s hardest for us to admit, especially when our emotions are enflamed.

 

As previously stated:  “None of us know everything; we continually make judgments and build perspective based on limited information.”

 

We continually make judgments based on limited information — although we assume we either know it all — or at least enough to form (and adhere to) an opinion.

 

That means from where we stand, we can’t tell what Paula Deen did or did not say…

We can’t discern the guilt — or innocence — of either George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin…

We can’t tell if the administration lied about Benghazi… or if the previous administration lied about known weapons of mass destruction…

We truly don’t know if the unfair targeting of conservative groups by the IRS generated from Washington or anywhere near the White House…

We don’t know with certainty if LeBron James is an arrogant or humble winner…

We have no idea if the Justice Dept. is telling the truth — or lying — regarding their motive for identifying reporters as potential criminals in order to secretly spy on them…

We don’t know if the current immigration legislation being crafted is all good or all not (… granted, those senators voting on it would know a little more if they’d actually read the proposed bill)…

 

We don’t know; our information is limited.  That should alter the passion prompting our perspective.

 

Years ago I was involved in a professional situation in which most all who articulated an opinion were seduced by the limited-information lure.  An angry hotel employee of mine had alerted the local papers and television stations, that our staff had unfairly discriminated against him because he was gay.  He told the awaiting microphones that we wanted to fire him because of his sexual preference/orientation.

 

The tapes were rolling; there was much to record.  “Discrimination!” was uttered in some of the shouts.  The employee was passionate and articulate.  He seemed to have a believable story, as yes, it was true that he was gay and also that we planned on terminating his employment.  However believable, it was also incomplete.

 

The information he chose not to share with the media that morn is that in an elegant setting, he began publicly cooking breakfast for our hotel guests wearing Spandex shorts and flip flops, while smoking a cigarette.  When he was asked to exit and don an appropriate uniform, he refused — and instead locked himself in a hotel room.  It was from that room in which he called the local media.

 

Friends, I never felt free to disclose all aspects of that scenario.  While the employee chose not to share the “rest of the story,” so-to-speak, neither did I.  We never made our case to the media.  We never gave them complete information.  Hence, all conclusions made in regard to the fate of our former breakfast cook were based on limited information.

 

What don’t we know?  … about Paula Deen?  Benghazi?  … the IRS, Justice Dept., George Zimmerman, and more?

 

In each of the above — no matter whether we passionately believe or doubt the account shared — our passion is based solely on limited information.  We will most likely never “know the rest of the story.”

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

oh my

Infamous, celebrity butter connoisseur, Paula Deen — the Paula Deen of the millions of dollars Deen cooking empire — acknowledged the previous use of a racial slur.  On Friday, Deen apologized for “the wrong that I’ve done,” following this week’s admission that she said the “N-word” years ago.  Almost immediately, the Food Network fired her.  The Emmy-winning chef has worked for the Food Network for the past 14 years.

 

Allow us to begin with a few caveats and statements of fact.  First and foremost, none of us know everything; we continually make judgments and build perspective based on limited information.  Second, the name calling was not (at least admitted to be) in public.  And third, the “N-word” is a racial slur that many of all skin colors still reserve the right to say for some reason.  That said…

 

I wonder… (as you knew I would…)

 

How forgiving of a society are we?

When exactly does a person “cross the line”?

When has their debt or wrong choice gone too far?

70 times 7?  When do we legitimately choose to forgive… or to not?

 

Please don’t equate consequence with forgiveness.  Such is a separate topic; there are consequences for poor choices.  Today my question centers around forgiveness… especially as we hear the “aghast’s,” “oh my’s,” and “she should pay” in regard to a Paula Deen.

 

Can we extend forgiveness that far?

 

For many we say they don’t deserve to be forgiven…

 

I’m reminded of the historical king’s account who decided to forgive the monetary debts of his servants.  As he got under way in the squaring up process, one servant was brought before him who had run up a debt of a hundred thousand dollars.  He couldn’t pay up, so the king ordered the man, along with his wife, children, and goods, to be auctioned off at the slave market.  Yes, an awful fate.

 

The poor wretch threw himself at the king’s feet and begged, “Give me a chance and I’ll pay it all back.”  Touched by his plea, the king let him off, actually erasing the debt.

 

The servant was no sooner out of the room when he came upon one of his own peers who owed him only ten dollars.  The servant seized him by the throat and demanded, “Pay up.  Now!”

 

This poor wretch threw himself down and begged, “Give me a chance and I’ll pay it all back,” but he wouldn’t do it.  The original servant had him arrested and put in jail until his debt was paid.  When the other servants saw this going on, they were outraged and brought a detailed report to the king.

 

The king summoned the man and said, “You evil servant!  I forgave your entire debt when you begged me for mercy.  Shouldn’t you be compelled to be merciful to your fellow servant who asked for mercy?”

 

Isn’t that seemingly half our problem?  Even if it’s a poor choice we have also made, we still often hold others to a higher standard than ourselves.  We ask for mercy; yet at the same time, we often withhold it from others.  We withhold mercy.  We refrain from freely offering forgiveness.  “They don’t deserve it!” we are tempted to adamantly reply.  Paula Deen obviously made a poor choice, but the reality is that many among us — including those at the Food Network — have most likely said the exact same thing or something comparable or even worse.  And yet, there is no forgiveness.  There is sadly, seemingly, only more “aghast’s,” “oh my’s,” and “she should pay.”

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

truth in advertising

Here’s the challenge…

 

No matter the merits…

No matter the goodness…

No matter the efficiency…

No matter the cost…

 

Instead of engaging in dialogue that encourages actual, objective analysis, we instead attempt to seduce audiences into thinking all is good or all is not.  In other words, we don’t fairly evaluate the merits of an issue, policy, or proposal.  We don’t examine efficiency.  We instead spend more effort and energy into “talking people into things.”

 

This summer “Organizing for Action” — the organizational successor to Pres. Obama’s campaign arm — began advertising their perceived positives regarding Obamacare…

 

“The truth is, Americans are already seeing the benefits…

Better coverage and lower costs.  That’s what Obamacare means for them.”

 

Are the above statements true?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But “Organizing for Action” is spending over a million dollars on their current cable television ad buy in order to appeal to us emotionally — and thus convince us such is true.

 

As one who has watched the healthcare debate closely and carefully studied the legislation, my sense is that the above claims cannot be made with certainty.  However, such misses the point of today’s post.  This is not an analysis of the merits of the newly imposed Patient Affordable Care Act.

 

The point is that many (on multiple issues) encourage little to no honest dialogue.  There are seemingly few attempts to forthrightly decipher what is good and what is not… what will work and what will not… and what works for one person but for another will absolutely not…

 

Instead of objective analysis, far too often our goal seems to manipulate the audience — bypassing any unbiased examination — bypassing total truth in advertising — and emotionally convince others that our perspective is entirely accurate and good.  In other words, once again, we stink at dialogue.  Actually, we don’t stink; we simply skip the step.

 

Let’s instead ask better questions.  Let’s work to inform, discuss, and help all affected comprehend.  Let’s understand the positives and pitfalls together — as both exist and both are relevant.

 

Let’s do that instead of spending massive money on emotional appeal.

 

True, the current ad buy is only an approximate million dollars by a political action committee.  That number, however, can be added to the federal government’s previous tens of millions of dollars — taxpayer dollars — spent hiring PR firms to promote the law.  Something tells me that such can’t be all good either.

 

Dialogue would be better.  By far.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

actions louder than words

Let’s start with what we believe to be the facts:

 

The federal government has been secretly collecting information about the telephone records of millions of Americans for years.  In addition to phone calls, under a surveillance program code-named “Prism” — a covert collaboration between the NSA and FBI — online activity is also being monitored by the federal government, as they’ve had unprecedented access to citizens’ internet behavior via scouring the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple, etc.  While there exist claims of this being solely to prevent terrorism, the claims are ambiguous, as the reality is the federal government has been secretly spying on people for years.

 

Transparently speaking, I find myself with multiple instantaneous — sometimes even emotional — reactions…

 

“Hmmm… doesn’t sound good…  doesn’t sound healthy… sounds a little deceitful… dishonest… doesn’t sound like a practice that’s good and pure and right… sounds like it has way too much potential to be corrupted by those in power… how can it not be corrupted by those in power?…”

 

The Intramuralist hasn’t completely made a conclusion regarding the goodness of this practice.  One bottom line is that if bad people are up to bad things, then it would help us to know about it ahead of time.

 

However, there are still 2 things that bug me.  First, the glaring hypocrisy…

 

… the hypocrisy from Pres. Obama…

 

Confronting the public uproar, Obama only defended the vast collection of data.  He said that “modest encroachments on privacy” were “worth us doing.”  Yet as a one-time senator, Obama’s words were strikingly different.  He blasted Pres. Bush for the same activity, calling it “a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.”  He continued, “I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.”  (Note:  sometimes I think all persons running for president should realize that perhaps there are a few things they don’t really comprehend prior to assuming office…)

 

There also exists hypocrisy from those who want to make this an issue all about Obama…

 

True, the warrantless surveillance has expanded under Pres. Obama, but it was initiated under Pres. Bush.  Republicans and Democrats have advocated the covert cause.  Republicans and Democrats continue to support it now.  If it’s wrong for one, it’s wrong for both.  This is not a partisan issue; it’s an issue of individual liberty and potential government overreach.

 

More than the glaring hypocrisy, however, there is one aspect that bugs me more.  I believe the root cause of a government that believes it has the right to access our private data is one thing and one thing only:  government is too big.

 

Smaller government is more efficient.  Smaller government wastes less money.  Within smaller government, the actions are less covert; there’s more transparency — less secrecy — and we can actually discern what our elected officials are doing; there is valid reason to trust.  Within smaller government, there is increased humility; there is a realization that the elect actually serve the people.  There is less narcissism — less confusion with those who desire — and desire to be — a king.  There are fewer speeches primarily designed to sway public opinion — and more actions that truly speak louder than words.

 

Yes, actions always speak louder than words.  Such is why the fact that our government is secretly spying on its people speaks very loud indeed.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

what keeps us from lying?

Too many times we turn off the news in disbelief and disgust.  Sometimes it’s ugly; there’s too much wickedness and wrongdoing in the world, as — save for one ’80’s pop song — most of us realize that heaven is not a place on Earth.

 

One of the more frequent motives for current head shaking is all the lies — or perhaps better said — all the potential lies.  The deceit.  The cover up.  The shifting of blame.  It’s almost robotic that when a person is accused of wrongdoing, they immediately claim responsibility rests elsewhere…

 

He did it.  She did it.  I wasn’t in charge then.  It’s his fault.  Who, me?  I’m a victim…

 

Not only is responsibility immediately deflected, most add an instant reason why another is actually to blame…

 

He doesn’t like me.  She’s out to get me.  He’s too young.  She doesn’t know any better.  They love persecuting Christians.  Bigots, that’s what they are…

 

… like the chairwoman of Louisiana’s Democratic Party, who said last week that much of the opposition to Obamacare is due to the color of Pres. Obama’s skin.  Please.  The Intramuralist read the legislation when proposed.  There is much to be concerned about (i.e. rising premiums, government overreach, care decisions based on cost — such as for the elderly and overweight…), but the concern has nothing to do with anyone’s skin color.  Ah, but lest I digress…

 

My point is that regardless of politics or personally awkward scenarios, there exists a huge potential for deceit.  As we watch the disturbing scandals unfold, for example, within the IRS and Justice Dept., the challenge is that we can’t tell who and when someone is telling the truth.  Friends, don’t let me infer that I believe all individuals are lying; the problem is that we can’t tell if they are.

 

And so we ask:  what keeps a person from lying?  Really.  What keeps us from being deceitful?  What stops us from sharing a little white lie or even a huge fib?  What within us stops us from shifting that blame elsewhere?  … or from just declaring “I don’t remember”? (… the current, least-damaging deceit method — because if we can’t remember, we can’t possibly tell the truth.)

 

Seriously, though, what stops us from lying?

 

It isn’t intelligence.  There is no moral compass automatically associated with intellectual brilliance.  James Frey, author of the autobiographical “A Million Little Pieces,” seemed highly intelligent when he appeared on “Oprah.”  Granted, it was fairly humbling when he had to admit that many of the events in his quite profitable bestseller were intentionally fabricated.

 

What keeps us from lying?

 

A position of power?  No.  The 37th President of the United States, one Richard M. Nixon, put that reason to rest.  Does the lie depend on topic?  Many claimed President #42’s lies under oath were acceptable because “everybody lies about sex.”  Did Pres. Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction?  Did Pres. Obama lie about Benghazi?

 

If we instead suggest that people refrain from lying because of that inner moral compass, I’m not certain that theory holds true either, as a close examination of society quickly depicts morality as increasingly relative.  Many of what was once considered wicked or wrong now seems actually accepted as good and pure and wise.  Friends, don’t misquote me; I am not suggesting that discrimination or disrespect was ever appropriately “considered wicked or wrong.”  My perception is that morality has become so relative that it’s logical to conclude that “to lie or not to lie” will also become a negative manifestation.

 

People lie.  People always have the potential to lie.  Even good people.  Unless we adopt a timeless teaching of truth that doesn’t sway with the winds of society, the potential for each of us to lie will only continue to increase.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

not shocked

Perhaps what causes the public to most pause, recognizing again our shocking chagrin surrounding government, is when politics trump wisdom and integrity.  I remember my shock some 12 years ago — that ironically yet sadly — remains relevant now…

 

One of the more private, opportune acts taken by presidents of all persuasions is to pardon persons as the Chief Executive exits his term.  A pardon is the complete forgiveness of the crime and the cancellation of any penalty; it cannot be reversed.  Therefore, the effect of such act is that it’s as if the crime never occurred.

 

On Jan. 20, 2001 financier Marc Rich was pardoned by Pres. Bill Clinton.

 

From accounts shared years ago by Time Magazine, Wikipedia, and syndicated Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen…

 

“Rich was a commodities trader who amassed both a fortune and some influential friends in the 1970s and ’80s.  Along with his partner, Pincus Green, he was indicted in 1983 on 65 counts of tax evasion and related matters.“

 

Rich was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes.  He was on the FBI’s Ten Most-Wanted Fugitives List.

 

“Before he could be prosecuted, however, he fled to Switzerland. There he remained, avoiding extradition and eventually arranging to be represented by Jack Quinn, a Washington lawyer and Clinton’s onetime White House counsel — in other words, a certified power broker.”

 

“Denise Rich, Marc’s ex-wife, had made several large donations to the U.S. Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton’s time in office.”

 

“Republicans and Democrats alike were dumbstruck by the Rich pardon.  The federal prosecutors who indicted Rich are especially livid, particularly because, by definition, Rich appears to be ineligible for a pardon:  He never took responsibility for his actions or served any sentence.”

 

“It was rare to pardon a fugitive — someone who had avoided possible conviction by avoiding the inconvenience of a trial.  The U.S. attorney’s office in New York — which… would oppose any pardon — was kept ignorant of what was going on.”

 

In the hours before leaving office, Clinton quietly pardoned Rich.  Clinton and Quinn actually bypassed the Justice Department’s pardon office — going instead to the Deputy Attorney General, asking for his opinion.  The Deputy AG replied, “Neutral, leaning towards favorable.”  And then, again in the words of the never-confused-to-be-a-conservative Cohen, “With a stroke of a pen, justice was not done.”

 

The Deputy Attorney General who authorized the pardon of an unrepentant fugitive was none other than current Attorney General, Eric Holder.

 

The Intramuralist — just like each of us — has a limited perspective.  I do not fully know the heart of another man, as such seems an ability of only the divine — not you nor me.  I do not know Eric Holder’s heart.  I do know here is the man who holds the highest law enforcement position in the land.  He is currently being swarmed and swamped by accusations of unethical behavior, directed with certainty at his department — and with increasing frequency, directed at Holder himself.  Targeting the press…  Targeting conservative groups…  Acting as if reporters were criminals.  Did he allow this?  Did he authorize such?  Is being unaware his only defense?

 

Holder was fully aware of Marc Rich and yet authorized his pardon.  Hence, while our chagrin may increase, we should sadly not be shocked.

 

Respectfully,

AR