Category: Current Issue

Posted on

the impact of personalized news sources

medijsko_sredisceOne of the things I enjoy about living in 21st century America where we have relative economic prosperity and technological innovation are all the choices available to me.

When I was a kid, we’d go to McDonald’s, and I could choose between the Big Mac, the Quarter Pounder, and the Filet-O-Fish.  That was it.  Today my options at the Golden Arches include hamburgers with all sorts of toppings such as bacon habanero ranch, chicken (grilled, crispy, or even nuggets), a McRib, wraps, salads, yogurt, not to mention multiple latte and smoothie flavors.

Of course, Mickey D’s isn’t the only fast food restaurant in town any more, and now I can go to Subway, Qdoba, Jack-in-the-Box, Jimmy John’s, Chick-fil-A, Culver’s, Five Guys, Noodles & Company, or Rally’s, none of which were around when I was young.

Henry Ford famously said you can have any color Model T you want, as long as it’s black.  Today, your local car dealer can offer you shades of Smoky Topaz, Techno Pink, Lemonade Yellow, or Jalapeno Green.  (I did not make any of those up!)  There are plenty more product examples I could provide, but you get the picture.

Where I am going with this is that as I was growing up, our news came primarily from either ABC, CBS, or NBC, period.  Now there’s Fox, CNN, and MSNBC on cable TV, plus a plethora of Internet sites too many to list.  Overall, I think having more choices is better, but in this instance there is a downside.

Because these multiple news sources have a smaller share of the overall market than the big three networks from forty years ago, each of them are able to tailor their news toward the preferences of their audience.  Even if they’re not editorializing, opinions still come out in how stories are presented.  Further bias is demonstrated through what current events are covered (as well as what events are not covered).

Someone who gets their news from the Drudge Report, Breitbart, and the Gateway Pundit will get a totally different view of the world from their neighbor who frequents the Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos.  Those two people could check the news the same morning and end up thinking very different things happened the day before.

I consider myself a political junkie; however, I no longer enjoy engaging in political debates.  So often when I talk with someone from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, we just end up shouting past each other.  It’s fun and intellectually stimulating to explore differing philosophies and understand why others come to opposing conclusions.  It’s boring and uninteresting argue about what the facts are, and that’s what our political discourse seems to amount to today.

This situation isn’t going to reverse course anytime soon.  In fact I would predict even more customization of our news.  What’s to stop right-leaning news sources from dividing into (for lack of a better term) Tea Party and Establishment news channels?  The left might separate into liberal and full-fledged progressive information sites.

Andy Warhol said that in the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes.  I say, in the future, everyone will have their own personal news source.  And it won’t be pretty.

Respectfully…

Pete

Posted on

guest writer series

4263193267_fb5cee0c57_z‘Tis time to reflect upon why we do what we do — on the purpose of the infamous Intramuralist.

Contrary to the blogs of many, my goal has never been to make you think like me.  Sorry, but I have news for you:  there are places where I’m wrong; there are places where my perspective is unknowingly limited; there are places where my perspective is not so limited and I’m still wrong.  There are also places where my reasoning is wrong and I have no idea.

Hence, the purpose of this blog is not to encourage likeminded thinking.  In fact, that approach by many of our elect and supporting activists disturbs me.  This country has never focused on likemindedness.  Wisdom has never equated to the robotic toeing of an ideological line.

The purpose of our posting has always been to model respectful dialogue.  That means stating our opinion in such a way that it’s respectful to all — even and especially to the one who disagrees with us.  The subsequent goal is to encourage dialogue — and then really listen, — because (1) listening is a basic form of respect, and (2) we craft solution from respectful dialogue.  Friends, one thing all leaders need to learn is that they do not solve an issue by shutting an opponent down.  Such is merely a foolish escape deliberately guised by the intelligent, albeit not the wise.

Thus, a primary belief I have always adhered to is that we’re in this together.  As recently written, we are “doing life” together; therefore, we grow.  While three days a week, I pick up my figurative pen and promptly post a semi-humble sentiment, it is my sense that we are in this together.

As evidence of such, on Tuesday we begin one of my favorite, summer activities.  It’s time for our 6th annual Intramuralist Guest Writers Series!  For half a dozen years now, we have featured the writings and perspectives of a wide variety of people — people I know… people I deeply respect… people who may or may not think like me.  Thinking like me doesn’t matter.

We will hear from thirteen creative, expressive individuals who have agreed to model our respectful mantra over the next four weeks.  Their topics of choice are diverse.  From a writer to a state senator to a food bank director… from a retired teacher to a current teacher to a young man living overseas… from a college kid to a stay-at-home mom to a career pastor… from a psychologist to nonprofit director to a realtor and wise  new grandma… We have a creative, articulate, passionate group of writers sharing wit and wisdom, strength and sorrow, learnings and leanings, and all sorts of other wise nuggets in between.

Let me state one aspect to be clear:  the Intramuralist may or may not agree with the opinions expressed; that’s not the point.  The point is that each of these admired men and women desire to share their thoughts with you in a respectful way.  At times you will undoubtedly jump out of your seat and cheer along.  You may ‘amen.’  Other days you may grimace.  You might share in their triumph or gasp in their heartache.  But along the way, you will witness respectful, encouraged dialogue.

So join me for this excellent series.  I promise two things:  one, it will be good; and two, I will be back.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

49

Route 49After celebrating another joyous birthday this week, I’ve decided maybe I should make a few notes of what I’ve learned before I’m 50.  I could publish such a post next year, but then everyone might find out I’m actually turning 50.  So with minimal tongue, cheek, and added rhetorical fodder, I humbly submit a few life lessons, learned by age 49.

  1. We complain about seasons a lot… in the summer, it’s too hot — in winter, too cold; maybe we should do a better job of enjoying what we have when we have it.
  2. We aren’t good at admitting weakness… for some reason we think it makes us look bad, when maybe the admission is the first real sign of strength.
  3. As we get older, some temptations don’t go away… except for that sticking your tongue on a cold fence thing.  (Granted, parents to-the-rescue in their pajamas look pretty funny.)
  4. Wisdom and intelligence aren’t the same thing… they just aren’t.  Wisdom is far better; sometimes, though, I think society teaches exactly the opposite..
  5. There truly is a time for everything… everything; the reality is just that we like some things better than others; there’s a time to sing… time to dance… time to be silent and still; there’s a time for war and a time for peace.  I don’t believe anyone really “likes” war, though.
  6. Social media has completely altered the meaning of “like”… it’s changed the meaning of “friend” and “privacy,” too; there are some excellent things which have resulted from the constant of social media in our lives… some not so great things, too.
  7. People are finicky about soccer… it’s not just all the faking and the flopping.  There are some incredibly talented athletes out there; there just isn’t a lot of scoring; and at least in this country, we like to score.
  8. People crave a savior… always… for all time.  The challenge is that no human — even if named “LeBron” — is so capable; salvation is not a human ability… makes me wonder why we crave.
  9. Some of us cling to faith; some of us avoid it; but everyone has a religion…  as no belief in an ultimate, loving Father is still a belief; it just prompts varied behavior.
  10. Politicians can be so silly sometimes (I’m being nice with the word “silly”).  We then fall prey into thinking all Democrats or Republicans are good because an ideology resonates deeply within us.  But some put ideology before treating others well.  I’m thinking the establishment is a huge part of problem.
  11. People have a hard time refraining from spending… especially if they really want something.
  12. Discipline goes with wisdom… not punishment.
  13. We idolize so many of the wrong things.
  14. We forget about God… worse yet, we think we have no need of him; that can’t be good.
  15. Respect is vital… always… but remember — I know we say this often — but respect does not mean accepting as equally good and right; it means listening, seeking to understand, and resisting the temptation to become the convictor of truth in another’s life.  Yes, yes… far too often we justify disrespect.  Some may even avoid this blog.

Still learning.  Can’t wait for 50.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

illegal immigration

BorderFenceImage_jpg_800x1000_q100Once again our leaders have managed to do what-should-be the impossible.  They have managed to politicize a problem instead of solve it (sigh).

Please pause for a moment before throwing the first proverbial stone in yet another ad hominem attack.  One of the aspects that most gets my goat or some other colloquial critter is how we say “yeah, but” when justifying our response… “Yeah, but he did it first…  Yeah, but it was the President…  yeah, but Congress…”  “Yeah but’s” are the intellectuals covert, clever means of justifying something within their own response that doesn’t make total logical or compassionate sense.  “Yeah but’s” are what allow both our current President and Congress to politicize a problem instead of solve it.  We have a problem with illegal immigration — especially now with child migrants.

This is a tough one, friends.  I remember as a hope-filled child, proudly singing those words with my elementary peers…  “Give me your tired, your poor… Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;  the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.  I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Today there are huddled massed just across the Texas border, masses no doubt yearning to breathe free.

First, a brief synopsis of the facts so we can speak intelligently (and avoid the “yeah, but’s”):

  • More than 52,000 children have been picked up illegally crossing the border since October — nearly double last year’s total and 10 times 2009’s numbers.
  • Most are from Central America and are unaccompanied by adults.
  • Many are motivated by safety concerns in their own country.
  • Many believe they will not be deported, due to both rumors and public statements by our government.
  • U.S. policy allows Mexican child migrants to be deported quickly.
  • A 2008 law calls for all Central American children to be given a court hearing; the purpose of that law was to combat child trafficking.
  • Court hearings often take up to 2-3 years to take place; many often fail to appear.

Immigration policy has long been the balance of logic and compassion (…remember the two things the “yeah, but’s” allow our leaders to omit).  We can’t allow for total amnesty, as that doesn’t address the very real motive of many in this world, whose chief desire is to destroy America (see September, 2001).  We also can’t simply arrest and ship home, as that doesn’t recognize those tired and poor masses that our country was founded upon to serve.  So what do we do?  While by no means do any of us know exactly the way to solve this problem, let the Intramuralist submit a means of where to — and to not — begin…

We can’t begin by simply throwing more money at the problem.  As a whole for years, our government has not acted faithfully with our money — spending too much on political priorities; hence, hiring more agents, judges, etc. means increased debt, and it doesn’t solve the long term problem.

We can’t begin by fortifying the border.  That takes time.  Securing the border doesn’t solve the short term problem.

What we do first in my semi-humble opinion is semi-simple.  We ask the Central American governments to get involved.  They don’t have to solve the problem alone, but until they choose to be responsible for a solution governing their own people, we halt their current financial aid.  Collectively, the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras receive over a billion dollars annually in military and economic assistance from the U.S.  Granted, we need to be sensitive here, as we don’t want to destabilize the drug-infested area significantly more, but it is logical to expect these governments to be part of the solution and not just the problem.

What we do second is less simple.  Our leaders need to gather together, with no political strategists or schemers — maybe no cameras — role up their sleeves, and set all political motives aside.  That means not adopting any policy motivated by how it impacts a specific voting bloc.  Together they must develop a logical, compassionate, cost-efficient short term and long term strategy.  No one is king; no one person sets the policy; and all refrain from saying “yeah, but.”

In other words, our leaders would serve us best — and craft solutions best — by not politicizing another problem.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

hobby lobby

HOBBY LOBBY STORE OPELIKA ALABAMA, Hobby Lobby Crafts Store TigerTown Center Opelika Auburn AL.This week we’ve been exposed to plentiful perspectives regarding the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.  First, a factual synopsis prior to the point of today’s post, as reported by the Independent Journal Review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

supreme decisions

sky and columns of supreme court building in washington d.c.As told by the Supreme Court Historical Society…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking…

Respectfully, of course…

AR

Posted on

flopping

busquets1The extroverts scream; the introverts scowl.  “There he goes again!  Can’t everyone see it??  It’s so obvious… so manipulative!”  It’s also — sadly — part of the game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

IRS timeline

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully…

AR

 

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

Posted on

scandal or skin?

IRSbuildingwashington-redskins-600x361When initially pondering what current event to loquaciously pounce upon today, two events seemed especially notable.  And then it dawned on me how the two, eventually, seemingly somehow fit together…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

honesty: the best policy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully…

AR