Current Issue – Page 16 – intramuralist ™

01/12/2016

what gets in the way?

What gets in the way?

What do we justify as big enough, deep enough, important enough to justify the ruining of relationship? What circumstances are just too crucial to me that I can’t let them go? … that they mean more to me than you do? … that they mean more to me than investing wisely, selflessly in another?

Such was prevalent again this past weekend, for example, as my beloved Bengals lost in the postseason to Pittsburgh’s Steelers. This loss was tougher than usual for me. I fully embrace the “just-a-game” mentality, but with a once promising season ended by a physical, rough rivalry, losing was harder for me to emotionally accept. It was a bit of an ugly game; it also didn’t help that my teenage sons were visibly upset by the result.

Except… when I was so focused on how I felt, I forgot something…

My longest, dearest friend is a Steelers fan. In fact, she has rooted with all her heart for the steely Black and Gold longer than I ever began to have a heart for the Bengals. Hence, while I was disappointed by the game’s results, she was simultaneously, thoroughly pleased. As much as I may be tempted to hunker down, tossing and turning in my own emotional pit, I cannot forget about the deep joy of one so dear to me.

Fascinating, isn’t it? When we’re so focused on self, we never have to wrestle with the emotions of another — how they may feel something or react to something differently… how their emotions may be completely different than yours or mine — yet equally valid.

(Note: I said “valid.”)

Four years ago, the Intramuralist re-published a great piece written by Taffy Brodesser-Akner, first published by Salon. The article was entitled “I Can’t Believe My Best Friend Is A Republican.” Friends, the article is excellent… for each of us. Allow me a brief, relevant excerpt here below. Said Brodesser-Akner:

“… Janet is a lifelong, passionate Republican. She does not pretend she is just a fiscal Republican, or just a Republican for Israel, as so many in our Jewish community are. She is a real, live, voting Republican. She likes Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. She admires Sarah Palin. She is for the defunding of NPR and Planned Parenthood. She is against ‘Obamacare,’ and she is for parental notification of abortions. Right now on my Facebook page, I have linked to a New York Times article on how women’s rights are being violated by South Dakota’s new abortion laws. Janet has just posted on hers — I’m not kidding — video footage of her and her husband at target practice…

Janet isn’t Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. She believes what she’s telling me, and she’s studied the issues. That might be what is so difficult: She has the same education as I have, and yet she has made different decisions, decisions that are so counter to what I believe. Decisions I find abhorrent.

And yet, I think having a Republican friend is making me a better liberal. We need friends who differ from us. It’s easy to watch Republican extremism and think, ‘Wow, they’re crazy.’ But when someone is sitting face to face with us, when someone we admire and respect is telling us they believe differently, it is at this fine point that we find nuance, and we begin to understand exactly how we got to this point in history. We lose something critical when we surround ourselves with people who agree with us all the time. We lose out on the wisdom of seeing the other side.”

Sometimes I think we are too closed off, losing out on the wisdom of seeing the other side. It’s true, friends; like it or not, two reasonable people can come to two totally different conclusions, full of totally different emotions. We do that politically… socially… I was even tempted after an NFL playoff game.

When we fail to recognize that there are different perspectives and emotions — equally valid — we are sacrificing our own wisdom.

Time to get out of our emotional pits. I’ve heard they can be blinding.

Respectfully…
AR

01/10/2016

creating news

[First, a disclosure notice for all of our non-sports enthusiastists: stay with me; this is far more than a sports post.]

Yesterday my hometown Cincinnati Bengals played the Pittsburgh Steelers in the first round of the NFL playoffs. The Bengals have made the playoffs for the past five consecutive years. Only the Bengals, Patriots, and Packers have been to the last five postseasons.

In Cincinnati, leading up to this match up and all season long, the people have been pumped regarding postseason opportunities. We couldn’t wait! We’ve played well — albeit like every NFL team, losing a few games we wish we wouldn’t have or shouldn’t have — but it has been an excellent season of accomplishment. In Cincinnati, we’ve been talking about the growth of quarterback Andy Dalton, the development of backup A.J. McCarron, the stability of head coach Marvin Lewis, the talent of the running backs and wide receiver corps, and the strength of the entire team. It has been an excellent year. That’s in Cincinnati.

Outside Cincinnati, Dalton, McCarron & Co. are mentioned in the media — but such seems not the press’s primary focus. Outside Cincinnati, the media’s mantra is that there is no satisfaction in merely making the playoffs. Coming into yesterday, the Bengals had not won a game in the previous four years; in fact, they have not won a playoff game since January of 1991. That is the focus for those who do not live here.

Let me not suggest that those who live here are unaware of the record nor completely satisfied; my point (and this is where it becomes “far more than a sports post”) is that those who live here and those who don’t are focused on different things.

As recently acknowledged by the Intramuralist, we live in a contemporary news cycle that seems to create more news than it actually, factually reports. They assume angles and promote perspective that — while they may exist — may also not be the most accurate. They then promote their desired, chosen angle.

I am not suggesting that their angle is wrong.

I am suggesting, however, that their angle may not be of greatest significance to the people nearest the situation.

The media is creating the significance.

So my question is where else is the media promoting a perspective that is comparable to “outside Cincinnati”? … where are they creating news and promoting a perspective that does not resonate best with the people who are actually involved?…

… in regard to how they report on Donald Trump?…

… on Pres. Obama’s current leadership — negatively or positively?
… on climate change advances or consensus?
… on terrorism developments?
… on gun control lobbying and legislation?
… on Netflix’s “Murder for Hire” or Sen. Ted Cruz’s citizenship?

My point is that while news media may report fact, their presentation of the facts may emphasize angles that are out of touch with the people most involved. Media is choosing what angle to emphasize; we then are prone to respond to the emphasis — as opposed to the aspects of greatest significance to those who know the subject best.

Yesterday — granted, in a tight fought battle — yet for the fifth consecutive year, the Cincinnati Bengals lost in the first round of the postseason, this year to the Pittsburgh Steelers, 18-16. With all due respect to my favorite Steeler fans… daggone-it.

Looks like the media will have something, sadly, to still talk about.

Respectfully…
AR

01/07/201601/07/2016

untainted analysis

I’m penning this post on Tuesday afternoon, having just watched Pres. Obama’s East Room announcement in regard to taking Executive Action on gun control. As soon as the President was done speaking, I turned off the television and shut down my server… no Facebook, no nothing. In other words, I write this having read nothing, seen nothing, nor heard anyone offer their two nor seventeen cents on the address. I have not been subjected to any analysis. In a contemporary news cycle that seems to create more news than it actually, factually reports, I didn’t want any blatant nor subtle subjectivity to permeate my opinion.

To be clear, it is important to wrestle with this topic well — fully acknowledging that gun control is a subject that sets many people off and often prompts blood pressure to immediately rise. I get that. It’s an understandable, emotional issue.

The most prominent measure announced seemed that Pres. Obama is issuing an Executive Order to expand the number of gun buyers subject to background checks; this will be done by increasing the number of sellers who are legally labeled as “dealers.” Dealers must be licensed and are required to conduct those checks on their customers.

Also, the President clearly articulated that he has no desire to repeal the 2nd Amendment and that this was not a first step in a “plot to confiscate guns.” His stated motivation is to reduce gun violence.

So let me offer my two — I mean seventeen — cents… (Please note that while my thoughts are untainted, they are by no means comprehensive. The two approaches should not be equated with one another; more thoughts may come at a later date.)

I appreciate the President’s stated motivation; I think it’s wise. I think we’d all like to see gun violence diminished. One of the blessings in the hollow heartbreak after each horrific incident is that as a nation — black, white, conservative, liberal, gay, straight, Jew, Christian, whatever — we are typically united in our tears. We’d like to see all violence diminished — gangs, terrorism, public protest destruction, etc.

I appreciate the President’s tears; the killing of innocent babes is unspeakably atrocious. It makes me cry, too.

I think, also, the stated idea of subjecting more buyers to background checks is wise. Americans have a right to bear arms, but a convicted felon, for example — who has already shown an intent and willingness to infringe upon the rights of another — should always be subject to a background check. In my opinion, he has sacrificed his 2nd Amendment right by his own, previous choice.

Hence, I don’t question the primary content of the President’s speech. Save for a few political jabs that it seems most of our leaders sadly can’t resist these days, I think the desire to curb the violence without caving to those who wish to repeal Americans’ rights makes sense. I do, however, have some valid questions in regard to the process.

While some previous presidents have utilized Executive Orders more frequently, the motive for utilization has varied. I struggle with the motive to bypass Congress because of an inability to pass desired policy initiatives. I have sincere concern about the expanding precedent of the Executive Branch becoming the crafter of law. What if, for example, the next president declares new law on abortion — making it significantly more or less restrictive, pending his or her political bent? What if the next president decides he/she can make more military decisions on his or her own? Even with all of its noted dysfunction, I appreciate the accountability within the combination of a Congress which makes the laws and a President who executes them. I don’t want single executives making the law on gun control or abortion. And I don’t want my opposition or support of this process to potentially hypocritically fluctuate with what the law is, who is the enactor, or how emotional I am.

I also question the legitimacy of the Executive Order being valid because “a majority of Americans” support it; what a majority of Americans desired in regard to ACA/Obamacare, for example, was considered irrelevant. It thus seems obvious to this semi-casual political deserver, that what the majority wants is only considered when the leader is in the majority. Where is the current national leader who has said, “A majority of Americans do not want this measure, so I have respectfully decided to refrain from its pursuit”? Note problem #1 with our democracy: what a party wants is prioritized over what the people want.

Yes, this subject is tough; it’s tough to navigate through respectfully; please know that is my desire. There is much I appreciated in this week’s gun control address; there is a significant some I did not; please remember, too, that my initial analysis is nowhere close to comprehensive, but it does help to edit out those who come from the standpoint of this President being the most awful or awesome man ever. I don’t feel their perspective is objective. Hence, the “untaintedness” helps with the blood pressure.

Respectfully…
AR

12/20/2015

honest conversation

Are we capable of having an honest conversation regarding one of the most challenging issues of our time? Are we capable of examining the facts objectively? … evaluating the subjective, distinguishing between what is true and what is instead designed to control opinion?

Omit the rhetoric. Relinquish the bias. Let’s also acknowledge that none of us have coined the market on expertise in this area.

I wish to speak honestly and sincerely about the current threat of terrorism. As witnessed in the news flow and public polling, Americans are increasingly concerned about the danger radical Islamic terrorists pose. The incidents in Paris and San Bernardino have refreshed our fears that have become somewhat subdued the past fourteen years. According to multiple pollsters, the belief that the terrorists are winning the “War on Terror” is near its highest level ever in the past decade. We are concerned.

But… can we talk about it?

I ask because I’m not quite comfortable with some of the semantics in how this sobering issue is being approached.

On one hand, there are those who seem insensitively careless with their words… those who far too easily embrace the quote in response to North Vietnam in the 60’s, most often attributed to Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, proclaiming that if the enemy doesn’t comply, “We’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age!” Republican Presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, has repeatedly utilized such a phrase. Dropping the bomb on not only the enemy but also on the included, adjacent innocents seems hasty to this semi-humble current events observer. Such seems an attempt to incite emotion, control the public narrative, and appeal to specific voting blocs.

On the other hand, there are those who seem tiptoeing-ly careful with their words… those who attempt to assuage the public narrative and ensure no one makes any association between the current terrorist threat with any aspect of Islam. Democratic Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, for example, has repeatedly said that, “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” It is true that Islam is not our adversary, but it is untrue that Muslims have “nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Again to this semi-humble observer (emphasis on the “semi”), such seems an attempt to damper emotion, control the public narrative, and appeal to specific voting blocs.

My point is that both careless and careful speech are inauthentic; they are not helpful in honest conversation — which is necessary in discerning a solution. Yet here’s where our partisan bias distorts our observations; depending on our engrained bent, we call the inciting comments either “factual” or “fear mongering”; we also call the dampening comments either “strategic” or “stupid.”

Oh, how I crave honest conversation…

The current, most pressing terrorist threat arises from persons who identify themselves as adherents of Islamic ideology. While by no means are all Muslims radical, a significant percentage is.

Consider the observations of popular American author Sam Harris — note, atheist author Sam Harris: “We have 1.5/1.6 billion Muslims… Just imagine some concentric circles here. You have at the center, you have jihadists. These are people who wake up in the morning, wanting to kill apostates, wanting to die trying; they believe in paradise; they believe in martyrdom. Outside of them we have Islamists; these are people who are just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity, but they want to work within the system. They’re not going to blow themselves up on a bus. They want to change governments; they want to use democracy against itself… The next, largest circle is the fundamentalists… they hold views about human rights and about women and about homosexuals that are deeply troubling.”

Hundreds of thousands of persons are considered as those inner, most violent “jihadists.” The outer, equally troubling circles arguably contain millions more.

This, friends, is tough to talk about. It’s too easy to fall into the narrative-controlling traps that are either disrespectful or watered down. We must be respectful — as opposed to the inciting, bombing and Stone Age comments. We must also be honest — as opposed to the dampening, acting as if Islam-isn’t-part-of-the-problem comments.

I thus find myself soberly returning to question #1: are we capable of having an honest conversation regarding one of the most challenging issues of our time?

Respectfully…
AR

12/13/2015

at risk society

As I sort through what’s most current in our conversation, I keep coming back to all the shouting going on. Truth is, I’m not all that fond of it. Someone, somewhere, says something seemingly foolish, and we are tempted to do primarily three things in response:

Say something foolish back
Lambaste an entire people group
Attempt to squelch the speaker

I suppose, at times, we do all three.

With “the Donald” dominating the news flow, many have justified the disrespect right back… what an idiot… how stupid his supporters… he’s doing so much damage; someone please shut him up…

I get it. We want to stop the foolish speech. We don’t want to hear it anymore. We go so far to even question the embedded freedoms of the First Amendment. I thus sense an arrogance that disturbs me… in Trump… and in us.

It’s just that we are so good at thinking we are right. And when we think we’re right, we justify the screaming at others. We justify lambasting people groups. We justify not listening. And we subconsciously justify never being sharpened by different opinion. We have forgotten the good that can come from different opinion.

Let’s be clear: Trump’s idea of banning all Muslims conflicts with the religious freedoms also constitutionally embedded in this country. Trump’s perceived, specific, overly non-compassionate-toward-Muslims approach to dealing with the terrorists isn’t striking because it’s a popular idea; rather, it’s striking because it’s a direct contrast to Pres. Obama’s perceived, non-specific, overly compassionate-toward-Muslims approach. Trump tells us what new we need to do. Obama tells us what he’s already doing. (Ugh. Sigh. Fill in your exasperated uttering here.) My point is that neither approach seems effective. And yet, we jump on bandwagons, saying something foolish back, lambasting entire people groups, and eagerly wishing somebody would please shut up.

I tend to agree with a recent Washington Post editorial shared by a wise friend…

“…I am just as concerned about the destructive tone of the Trump campaign as I am about its demagogic content. How can you hear what someone else is saying, no matter how important, when you’re shouting? How can you bring people into a constructive search for solutions to our national problems when you do nothing but belittle them, and even suggest they are stupid, weak or corrupt?

A truly free society, one that gives its citizens the responsibility of participation, can function only to the extent there is civil discourse. We can engage in a mutual search for solutions only to the extent that we agree a problem exists. That can never happen unless we talk to each other, listen to each other and respect the fact that honorable people can reach different conclusions. When that sense of comity is missing, we are at risk.”

Friends, we are at risk. Most of us justify both the shouting and not listening to one another because we say “the other guy did it first.” It’s like which person chose not to listen first: then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, when he said his “single most important” goal was to stop Obama — or Obama, who pursued healthcare without working with a single Republican legislator? Tell me, truthfully: who’s the better listener and respecter of different opinion?

So I say it again: we are at risk. We are at risk because our leadership does not practice nor model civil, respectful discourse and solution. Do I blame Trump? No. While I’m no fan, I simply see him as the current most magnified manifestation of our lack of willingness to pursue a constructive, respectful search for solution.

I continue to wish for something better and more.

Respectfully…
AR

11/19/201511/19/2015

on the side of love

Which of the following images is most disturbingly etched in your mind?

A still shot outside the Bataclan theatre in Paris, where multiple victims of the radical Islamic terrorists lie. Or…
A shot of a 3 year old refugee lying still on the shore, as he and his family fatally attempted to flee the terrorists in Syria.

Both are — in a phrase recently articulated here — by all means, awful. How are we to choose between the two? They are equally heartbreaking… equally awful. Each is evident of all that is not good, not true, and not right in this world.

In recent days, sadly, a “whole lot of awful” has entered into our national conversation. Shocked by the evil on the streets of Paris and in the Egyptian air, we feel helpless; we haven’t been able to halt the radical Islamic terrorists who are determined to destroy us. And so in our shock and horror, we react — sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, sometimes respectfully, sometimes not. Predictably, in our efforts to stop this obvious evil, we gasp and grasp for solution, yet we approach it from varied angles. We then are lured into finding something new about which to argue, something fresh that divides, and finding fault in perceived, opposing perspective. The rhetorical battlefront is now how to handle the thousands of Syrian refugees attempting to flee their country’s civil war. Should they stay or should they go?

You will remember the scenario which was magnified late this past summer… Actually beginning in 2011, Syrians began fleeing their country en masse as a means of survival, with over 300,000 refugees crossing into the European Union in the first half of 2015 alone. The story gained increased global attention when the lifeless body of 3 year old Aylan washed up on a Turkish shore. It was awful. The U.S. has thus sent more than $2.9 billion in aid so far, and along with multiple other countries, the U.S. announced we would welcome up to 10,000 refugees here in our land of the free and the brave. Sec. of State John Kerry then later announced that the administration “will increase the number of refugees the United States is willing to accept in 2017 to 100,000.”

In Friday’s horrific incident in Paris, one of the terrorists possessed a passport from Syria. Just yesterday, in fact, Honduras detained 5 Syrian men with stolen Greek passports, reportedly heading for the United States. Hence, many are now concerned that in the mass welcoming of Syrian refugees on American soil, we will also inadvertently welcome some radical Islamic terrorists. Note that the terrorists have vowed to come here. Remember, too, that 9/11 was executed by only 19 men. It is also admittedly difficult, according to FBI director James Comey, to accurately vet the massive number of current refugees.

Let me state the bold, challenging, underlying reality…

Each of the above perspectives — both the laying out and withdrawing of the metaphorical, refugee welcome mat — is a position that may be motivated by compassion. One is moved most by the refugee in need of safety and security; the other is moved most to ensure the American citizen’s safety and security. Both positions — as difficult and challenging as this is for many to see and admit — are valid. Let me say this again: both positions are valid. Both may be motivated by love. We would all like to be on the side of love.

Want to know what gets my goat, so-to-speak?

The person, legislator, or lawmaker — from either perspective — who says, “Side with me. I am right. Those other people don’t know what they’re talking about. They are motivated by the impure. I am looking out for all people. I am the only one motivated by love.”

The reality is that each perspective is looking out for some people. Thus…

Can we quit choosing?
Can we quit taking sides?
And can we quit labeling only one perspective as loving and compassionate?

Impure motives certainly exist on all sides of this equation. These motives include both fear-mongering and political posturing; they do not include caution and alertness. Let me also propose a related tangent that may be included in the impure motives: (1) the desire to portray all Muslims as terrorists — and (2) the desire to ignore the terrorists’ motivation, which is embedded within Islam. It is inaccurate to identify only one side as good and true and right.

Hence, let’s instead find a way to work together, respect opposing perspective, vet the refugees adequately, pause a little, assume some risk, recognize we can’t eliminate all risk, and love all people well… domestic and abroad, both here and there. Let us never be heartless toward any. Let us also quit encouraging a clearly divisive, taking of sides.

Respectfully…
AR

11/02/2015

election day

Today is election day. (For the record, another way to look at such is that there are precisely 371 days until next year’s presidential election. Yes, you did hear me sigh.)

So what’s on the ballot across the country?

Kentucky and Mississippi are each choosing a new Governor, Attorney General, Sec. of State, Auditor, and Treasurer among other state offices.

Ohio has three state issues on the ballot. The most notable one seems “Issue 3,” which would legalize the medical and recreational use of marijuana. Different than in the few states which have previously specified the legal use, cultivation and sale of the drug, Issue 3 would create 10 facilities, known as “Marijuana Growth, Cultivation and Extraction” (MGCE) facilities, with the exclusive commercial rights to grow marijuana. The unwritten asterisk next to the issue is that the 10 facilities will be owned by private investors who have contributed to the campaign. Those benefitting include singer Nick Lachey, basketball legend Oscar Robertson, former Cincinnati Bengal Frostee Rucker, in addition to several others, including a local radio personality and a descendant of President William Howard Taft.

Some believe Issue 3 would grant a monopoly to the producers. Ballotpedia (an excellent, factual resource, by the way) suggests the ballot initiative is more properly called an “oligopoly” — meaning “a system where a few firms are in limited competition with one another and entry into the market is also limited and difficult.”

Note that our Intramuralist audience in Ohio may also be interested in “Issue 2,” which is a constitutional amendment regulating ballot initiatives concerning monopolies. Issue 2 was created in response to Issue 3, in regard to the creation of the 10 facilities which exclusively control commercial production. Should both issues 2 and 3 be approved, Ohio Sec. of State Jon Husted has stated that Issue 2 would invalidate Issue 3. Issue 3 supporters deny such a claim.

Ah, if only legislation and governing was clear and easy.

(…and I wonder why, more and more of us seem to be leaning Libertarian as we age…)

Colorado, no less, is facing a unique school board election in Jeffco Public Schools; such is the largest district (based on enrollment) in the state, located in Jefferson County, a far west suburb of Denver. Following the implementation of a merit pay plan and proposal for to review the AP U.S. History curriculum, many protested against the board during the 2014-2015 school year. Accusations of censorship, wasteful spending, and a lack of transparency were also directed at the current board. From this far out analysis, we cannot tell whether or not the accusations are baseless, valid, or somewhere in between. The bottom line is that the entire school board is up for grabs — and — the current board is being recalled. For lack of better ways to articulate it — and recognizing that our perspective is distant at best — it is difficult to discern what is good and true and right.

Texas has seven state ballot initiatives… including multiple property tax amendments and extending the right to hunt and fish, recognizing such activities as preferred methods for wildlife management.

The State of Washington offers six state ballot measures… more about marijuana and even an initiative addressing penalties for animal trafficking.

In other issues, states, and cities…

Again in Colorado, they will decide two tax issues in regard to marijuana-related issues.
Connecticut schools will hold elections for 42 seats.
Iowa is hosting a special election for the State House Rep. of District 5, which is currently vacated.
Portland, Maine is debating an initiative to raise the city’s minimum wage.
Maine is also voting on whether to increase penalties for violating campaign finance disclosure rules — and whether to adjust political ad disclosure rules.
Portage, Michigan is debating whether they, too, will decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.

Lots of issues… lots of votes. We the people can decide.

Thank God we can still vote in this country. Thank God, too, at least still today, we are a representative democracy.

Respectfully… and off to vote…
AR

10/18/201510/18/2015

intent

Let’s begin with 2 examples (I promise to quickly get to the point)…

Example #1: Years ago I was driving across the interstate in a state which was not my own, when I noticed two police cars parked off on the upcoming shoulder. No other traffic was near nor behind me. I slowed down and moved over in my lane, but while I hugged the dotted white line, I did not physically move my car into the other lane.

Within moments, one of the two squad cars hailed me down with those sick-to-your-stomach, bright flashing lights. When the officer first arrived at my car, asking for my license and registration, he also asked if I knew what I did wrong. I honestly said, “No.” He then said, “You failed to move over into the other lane.” I agreed — being ignorant at the time of which states had that law — as all 50 states did not. I sincerely appealed, saying, “Sir, I slowed down. I moved over. I made sure not to get close to you.” He did not care; he correctly repeated that I “failed to move over into the other lane.”

In other words, a rule was passed to protect emergency personnel on the side of the road. I moved over with the intent to protect the men, but because I broke the actual written words of the law, my intent did not matter. I was fined $300 and given a mandatory court appearance multiple states away. My intent did not affect the consequence.

Example #2: (involving one a little more noteworthy than moi) Last week the University of Florida’s starting QB, Will Grier, tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug. (Note: for full disclosure, the Intramuralist is a blossoming Florida fan. 🙂 ) According to Gator coach Jim McElwain, Grier took an over-the-counter supplement that included a banned NCAA substance.

Two weeks ago, witnesses raved about Grier because he played on game day, having the flu — still performing solidly; nine Gators total were diagnosed with the flu that game. Grier remorsefully said this week that the over-the-counter drug he took was in response to being sick and trying to play. Such was not allowed.

In other words, a rule exists that bans performance-enhancing drugs in college athletics. Grier unknowingly took a banned substance with the intent to make it through the game — not to get an advantage on all other players. But again, his intent did not matter. Grier has been suspended an entire calendar year by the NCAA.

(Assuming Will Grier is telling the truth) Grier and I received the same consequences that would be given to anyone else who willfully and purposefully broke the law.

The point, therefore, of today’s post is not to compare moi to such a talented, increasingly accomplished athlete (although selfishly speaking, that is kind of fun). My point is that intent should matter. And intent should be considered in the administration of consequences…

What was the accused attempting to do?
What was their motive?
Were they attempting to deceive?
Were they intending to skirt the law?
Were they trying to illegally benefit?
Was there something to hide?
Why to each of the above?

This question goes far beyond me and Will Grier. It goes far beyond the breaking of law. It’s also the underlying question behind Donald Trump’s candidacy and Hillary Clinton’s emails. It’s the same question behind George W.’s never-found weapons of mass destruction and Obama’s “if you like your healthcare, you can keep it.” It’s even at the root of last year’s NFL “Deflategate” brouhaha and other ambiguous sport controversies.

In each of the above — be it their mistake, mistreatment, mistruth, or actual rule-breaking — the intent matters. Their motive matters… was it innocent or intentional? And if intentional, why?

I must admit it was a painful day, sending that $300 check away. It’s far more fun comparing myself to a star athlete.

Respectfully…
AR

10/15/201510/15/2015

do all lives matter?

One question struck me arguably most during this week’s debate: “Do black lives matter? OR… do all lives matter?”

We have had some excellent conversations regarding the #BlackLivesMatter movement, the sensitivity of the issue, and the difficulty of those from varied vantage points seeing any other side. I have grown and learned much in these discussions about this challenging, controversial issue.

I have also sincerely appreciated those who have respectfully proclaimed the validity of the #BlackLivesMatter movement because for so long — and sometimes still — persons of diverse creed and color have felt that their lives did not matter… or… that their lives somehow mattered less.

Friends, no life matters less than another…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Amen. Agreed. We are all created equal. We are created with diverse skills and unique gifting, but we each have certain, unalienable rights. And while the Intramuralist previously expressed discomfort at the inability to propose that other lives actually also matter, I empathetically understand the respectfully-articulated passion of the person who feels there is valid reason to at this time, in this season, promote the value of only black lives.

What struck me about the question in Tuesday night’s debate, no less, was not whether or not at this time, in this season, it’s appropriate to promote the mattering of only one kind of life; what struck me was the word “or.” I was astounded that the two “types” of life were juxtaposed squarely against one another. A candidate could only answer one.

“Do black lives matter? OR… do all lives matter?”

In other words — what I heard — perhaps wrongly — is that only one can be true.

Follow me here… I’m concerned…

I learned much last August from the respectful dialogue surrounding a post after the innocent policeman was shot and killed in Houston, Texas simply while pumping gas; we published the quote from his county sheriff, in which the officer said in response, “We’ve heard black lives matter; all lives matter. Well, cops’ lives matter, too.”

What I heard in response then from several respectful dissenters — who I believe stated their opinions incredibly, logically and compassionately well — was that “of course all lives matter”… “of course cops’ lives matter.” And that just because persons are passionately proclaiming “black lives matter,” that does not mean that other lives do not.

But for the first time Tuesday night, I didn’t hear any “of course.” I didn’t hear an “or.” I heard “we can only pick one.”

Friends, if our society has digressed to a point where we must omit the “of course” — where we have to choose which lives matter and which lives don’t — my strong sense is that we are treading on nothing less than treacherous waters.

Let’s be clear; the #BlackLivesMatter movement has validity. Black lives matter and that’s ok to be shouted from the rooftops. I also have no problem with similar shouts of significance proclaimed by others who perceive unfairness and/or oppression… the police… Christians… the disabled… the unborn… the elderly. Each has a right to passionately, respectfully, and nonviolently proclaim their uniqueness — in addition to their unmistakable worth, endowed by our Creator.

The problem arises when we are encouraged to pick only one.

There is no such thing as only one life mattering. There is no such thing as one life mattering more than another. There is no such thing as the “or.” There is such a time to shout the meaning of one life. But when we pit lives against one another, trumping one over the other, making people choose — we are advocating for oppression comparable to what we cry out against.

Of course, all lives matter. None of us should have to deny that.

Respectfully…
AR

10/04/201510/04/2015

curbing the violence

Another shooting. Another predictable, rhetorical cycle. It goes something like this:

There is too much violence!
When are we going to stop this?!
We need more gun control!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!

And hence, the disrespectful debate continues. We have lots of admirably passionate leaders and individuals, but the issue is never adequately solved.

My strong sense is that the issue of curbing gun violence is never adequately solved because we never deal with all that influences the issue. We rant and rave and pick and choose what aspect to jump on; we fulminate on Facebook or utilize Twitter to take others to task… “When will this stop?!” That’s the main idea; we want it to stop. Save for a less honorable few, yes, we all want it to stop.

But we tend to harp on aspects nearer and dearer to our hearts; we tend to repeat angles consistent with our favorite partisan proclamations. We blame people, presidents, and police. We blame groups and gangs who we perceive to most contribute to the existence of gun violence. We tend to emphasize singular aspects while ignoring other aspects — as opposed to wrestle with and acknowledge all angles of the problem. Such as (in alphabetical order):

1. Evil
2. Gangs
3. Law
4. Lobbyists
5. Mental health
6. Movies
7. Rap music
8. Sin
9. Terrorism
10. Video games

And more.

Many will address only one of the above. Addressing only one aspect, however, seems a futile attempt to adhere a tiny, tiny Band-Aid on a pulsating, gaping wound — that will thus continue to bleed. The Band-Aid makes us feel better… but it isn’t effective.

For example, many will understandably direct their angst toward the lobbyists — at the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), suggesting the group’s approximate $3 million dollars spent annually distorts the legislative process. Many simultaneously ignore that the NRA isn’t included in the top 20 spenders — and were also silent when the American Medical Association (AMA) influenced healthcare and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) influenced mortgage lending legislation. AMA has spent $19.5 million and the NAR has spent near $16 million this year thus far. (Note that the Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest lobbyist spender, has spent $42 million in 2015.) We need to be consistent in our cries out against lobbyists’ influence — a stated passion of the Intramuralist.

Others examples of addressing singular aspects are seen in how some only focus on the perceived sins of the shooter — ignoring the potential mental health component or illness. Others still, will focus only on mental health — ignoring how evil so obviously permeates this world.

Forget not the impact of the music, movie, and gaming industries. Amazon, Forbes, and USA Today all show lists of the most popular video games dominated by celebrated violence.

I wonder, too, if the gunman’s motives are relevant… The shooter at Umpqua Community College in Oregon last week, for example, killed people because they were Christians. Said one witness via Twitter, if they were Christian, “Then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.” Seems like gun control isn’t the only issue here. Can we honestly wrestle with the religious persecution? Maybe the motive is the bigger picture.

My point today, friends, is that there are all sorts of angles and approaches when considering the violence on this planet. We have a desire to curb it, to stop it. But unless we are willing to wrestle with and acknowledge the totality of the problem — and the entire bigger picture — our efforts, as good and passionate as they may sound, may remain sadly futile.

Respectfully…
AR