Current Issue – Page 22 – intramuralist ™

06/10/201406/10/2014

restraint

Every now and then there seems an aspect of a story omitted. Let’s face it; we never quite know the reason for the omission…

Was it intentional?

Was it oversight?

Did the sharer of information simply not prioritize that specific aspect?

Does the sharer have a different perspective than I?

Bottom line: we don’t know. We don’t fully know the reason for the omission.

Last week all news seemed shifted to the second page when the story arose about Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Briefly surmised, the situation was this: the administration made the decision without specific congressional awareness to exchange five high-ranking Taliban terrorists for one American who had abandoned his post. In question is whether the White House negotiated with terrorists, broke the law by not consenting with Congress, and if the price was too high. Also, U.S. intelligence judged the released Taliban members as almost certain to “return to the fight” against America. Hence, in a seemingly rare cross-country moment, the outrage was unified in bipartisanship.

While inconsistency and scrutiny continue to swell, there is one aspect of the story that was omitted — or at least downplayed — in initial reports. It is an aspect that makes this semi-humble blogger exercise extended self-restraint…

In announcing the sergeant’s release, Pres. Obama, who was accompanied by Bergdahl’s parents, made a praising, public statement in the Rose Garden. Such is still not my cause for my restraint. After Obama spoke, Bergdahl’s father, Bob, took a turn at the mic. He began with the following:

“I’d like to say to Bowe right now, who’s having trouble speaking English, bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim. I’m your father, Bowe.”

In other words: “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful”… Bob Bergdahl thanked Allah for his son’s release. Note that on the White House’s official transcript, as appearing on Whitehouse.gov, those words are omitted. Why? I searched the transcripts myself. Why is the praise of Allah omitted?

Since these are the opening words of every chapter of the Qur’an except for one, there is valid question as to whether the use of this phrase is significant in regard to claiming, sanctifying, or some special Islamic meaning.

Without a doubt, each of us has the right to our own faith and belief. Many have adopted Islam around the world, and by no means do a majority of Muslims (at least in this country) embrace Islam’s radical terrorist wing, a devout group intent on destroying any who call upon the name of Jesus.

Let me also acknowledge that I have no idea how I would respond should one of my sons, God forbid, ever be held in captivity. I can’t imagine being Bowe Bergdahl’s parent. I am increasingly uncomfortable, however, with a country which seems intentional in suppressing the name of Jesus Christ in any class, court, or public arena, yet still showcases a celebrated moment when the only divine gratitude expressed is actually the same gratitude expressed by the terrorists who held him. Obama notably smiled at the reference to Allah. Did the White House know Allah would be the only divine gratitude expressed? Were they comfortable with that? Why that phrase? Did they know the Arabic phrase featured prominently in the Qur’an would be invoked? What was the White House thinking?

My sense is this story was originally intended to be a feel-good story about a rescued soldier, in a moment each of us would celebrate. There was a desire to bring positive publicity to a White House that seems drowning in increased allegations of scandal and inefficiency; there was a desire to highlight a positive story regarding a veteran after so many negative stories regarding veterans’ care. So the White House kicked off this story with an intended euphoric photo op. Unfortunately, the story is now far more than that, especially noting how Taliban sources were reportedly “thrilled.”

No wonder this story won’t go away… no wonder the father’s words have been omitted… and no wonder some of us need to practice increased self-restraint.

Respectfully…

05/11/201405/11/2014

more to learn

Head to head. Face to face.

The unmistakable reality is that only one person could win. Sure, there is second place — sometimes even third, maybe fourth — but a single soul is declared the victor. There’s only one gold medal, so-to-speak. The race was on.

The field was fascinating… diverse… and clearly, uniquely gifted. This was their moment in time. Some candidates were quite loquacious; others were more silent in their approach. Some had much to share, while still others kept to the seemingly simple talking points. Some, too, seemed serious or determined, no doubt resolute in their prized ambition; they would allow nothing to distract them from their cause. Others were obviously more “go-with-the-flow,” even though such wasn’t necessarily an articulated, admired status.

When the race began, it was profound…

Some began with a bang — others with more of a whimper.

Some egged the crowd on — others found the crowd too stimulating. One endeared competitor sorrowfully had to leave the arena.

There was another young man who had a physical altercation with another. I was touched by the woman and child who deliberately paused to pick him up.

As each finished the so-called fight, the entire crowd cheered.

In fact, the entire crowd cheered for every competitor.

No matter the pace — no matter the candidate — no matter how they ran or how they played the game — each entrant was celebrated for who he was and what place they came in… even if said placement was something other than number one.

No competitor was viewed as adversarial. The idea of being “evil” or an “enemy” simply because one was the identified opponent was obviously furthest from every mind. Each competitor was celebrated. Each hand was either shaken or high-fived. Losing did not equate to anything lesser.

I remain struck, my friends, by the consistent lack of civility within the competitive process… whether that be a politician vying for position… a parent cheering on only their child, thinking he or she must make the team… or one of us advocating for one person or party only and always.

We could learn a lot from the competition the Intramuralist witnessed yesterday, as there’s nothing quite like the Special Olympics. As first introduced by Eunice Kennedy Shriver at the inaugural 1968 Special Olympics international games, each athlete vows the following:

“Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.”

Every politician, parent, and pundit should vow the same regardless of the game they play. Every athlete, candidate, and competitor should be celebrated. And opponents should not be viewed as evil or adversarial.

Yes, we have much to learn from the special, Special Olympic athletes. Perhaps we have more to learn from them than they actually do from us.

Respectfully,

05/01/2014

what have we learned?

After a week of storms — via both the atmosphere and articulation, what have we learned?

That racism unfortunately still exists…

That civil rights can still be an issue…

And that bigotry is not indigenous to any one ethnic group.

Friends, bigotry will only cease to exist when no one fights solely for a single group of people no matter the prudence of a particular situation.

Hence, I find it absolutely ironic that on May 15th, both LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling and Rev. Al Sharpton were set to be dually honored by the NAACP in Los Angeles. Sterling was to receive their “Lifetime Achievement Award” and Sharpton an award for “Person of the Year.”

And yet it was Sterling, who spoke so offensively this week, privately asking his mistress not to bring black people to his games.

And it, too, was Sharpton, who for decades has refused to apologize for publicly, vociferously chastising multiple white men for the cover up of an assault on a black teen girl, that the teen admits making up.

Bigotry will only cease to exist when no one fights for only for one group, all the time, no matter the prudence of the particular situation. Bigotry will only cease when…

… the guilt or innocence of an OJ Simpson is not presumed by the color of his skin…

… the effectiveness of a President Obama is not gauged by his ethnic heritage…

Bigotry will not cease to exist as long as white, black, Asian, Arab, Jewish, Christian, gay, straight, disabled, etc. … until none of it matters.

Unfortunately, as a society we still seem to hypocritically pick and choose which prejudice to pounce upon. Someone like Sterling, who for over 30 years has displayed aspects of racially discriminatory behavior, has been banned for life and may actually be forced to sell his property. Someone like Sharpton remains celebrated on a weekday, evening newscast, even though only 20 years ago, the Rev. Sharpton made this college address:

“White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

We must always remember the prudence of the particular situation. We must not pick and choose the prejudice.

Hence, I again ask, what have we learned?

Respectfully…

04/29/201404/29/2014

stupid

In an audio recording between a woman and allegedly NBA team owner Donald Sterling:

“It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people,” the voice attributed to Sterling says. “Do you have to?”

“You can sleep with [black people],” he allegedly adds. “You can bring them in; you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games.”

And for these words, the Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is being investigated by the NBA — and is expected to be punished today.

Now never mind that Sterling has long exhibited questionable character. Never mind that such is no secret in the NBA. Never mind, also, that the woman who made the recording is Sterling’s mistress and is being sued by Sterling’s wife. Never mind that he is 81 and she is 31. Never mind, too, that she has been accused of extortion and that both her character and motives are questionable. Sterling’s comments — even if taken out of context — are disrespectful and highly offensive.

While never supportive of such sobering disrespect, the Intramuralist is also intrigued by society’s response. It’s been swift, serious, and especially strong.

Understandably, many have called for extended discipline. Some have called for Sterling’s suspension; others have called for a boycott of Clipper games. The players association wants Sterling banned from playoff games this season in addition to the league’s maximum punishment. Still more have called for Sterling to lose his team; many have said Sterling should not be allowed to own a professional franchise. His ownership should be taken away.

Therein is where the intrigue arises. I have two, sincere questions:

One, (sorry to be somewhat crass, but attempting to cut to the point…) are people no longer allowed to say anything stupid? Are they allowed to even believe something foolish?

And then two, who decides what “stupid” is? After all, as a culture, are we consistent in what foolishness we will allow?

My honest question is whether we are overly sensitive to specific subjects — and if sometimes we dilute the credibility of both our emotion and point because we pick and choose what to tolerate. Make no mistake about it: Sterling’s comments reek of foolishness; reportedly, he has long been known to be a man of questionable moral, discriminatory character; he’s owned an NBA team for over 30 years. But for some reason, this issue is heightened now. And for some reason, it seems we ignore that reeking aroma when the insensitivity is blatant elsewhere.

I think of Bill Maher, who has routinely slammed God, women, people of varied faiths, and even the city of Boston after last year’s bombings. And yet Maher continues to host a regular talk show spewing daily disrespect. Should Maher be allowed to host a show? Should he be allowed to spew foolish opinion? Should we take that right away from him?

While the Intramuralist will never knowingly support foolishness, I am equally concerned about a world where we feel we must punish the opinion holder by eliminating individual liberty — a world in which we feel the need and even capability to police moral opinion… believing, it seems, that we have the discernment to assess all foolishness. A wiser approach, I believe — as I practice with Bill Maher — is to intentionally opt not to reward such persons with our time, money, or attention. I won’t be paying attention to Bill Maher any time soon… nor to Donald Sterling.

Respectfully…

04/12/2014

ethnic objectivity

Kobe Bryant, perennial NBA all-star, made news for something far less athletic recently. When asked about fellow pro players’ Twitter activism after Trayvon Martin’s death, posing in hoodies as a protest against racial profiling, Bryant offered the following, even though significant time has passed since Martin’s death:

“I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American. That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and as a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American, we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, if we’ve progressed as a society, then you don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right? So I won’t assert myself.”

Unsurprisingly, many immediately lambasted Bryant, especially African-American commentators — proclaiming Bryant’s “disingenuous appeal for colorblindness” to suggesting the star was “promoting Rush Limbaugh’s opening monologue” to one former CNN contributor who questioned whether or not Kobe Bryant actually had “a brain.”

Let’s look at what Bryant actually said…

While acknowledging his own ethnicity, he said he cannot nor will not make a judgment solely based on ethnicity. My sense is that Bryant called for each of us to embrace objectivity. He called for us to be color blind. And he called for none of us — none of us — even if we share his ethnicity — to base our opposition or support based on the color of our skin.

Bryant’s critics continued. They called him a “cornball,” “clueless,” and a “jerk.”

His critics called his names because they disagreed with his opinion.

Thank God for Stephen A. Smith, the loquacious, outspoken ESPN host, who while he, too, shares Kobe’s ethnicity, sees the bigger picture…

“Kobe Bryant basically has the attitude that justice should be equal, no matter what, in regards to race or gender. And that was his position. All he was trying to say was that, ‘Excuse me. Let’s listen to the facts first. Let’s make sure we know everything before we jump out and judge accordingly. You can’t sit there and take somebody’s side just because they’re an African American. You can’t turn around and assume that people from other races are ever going to be fair to you if you’re not willing to exercise fairness yourself. Lay back listen to the facts and then accord justice where it should be served.’ I don’t have a problem with that. Me personally, I definitely think he was right on point with that.

… Even though the system sometimes is unjust — it sometimes is unfair — it doesn’t accord us the license to be unfair as well. We have to make sure that if we’re shining a light on issues we’re just as fair-minded as we’re asking other people to be toward us. If we’re not willing to do that, then we don’t have a strong argument.”

No argument, friends, from any of us, is strong or wise if absent of objectivity. We need to learn to discuss and disagree with respect, fair-mindedness, and without instant criticism and judgment.

Respectfully,

04/08/201404/08/2014

debate over?

On Sunday we penned a poignant post about the self-proclaimed tolerant being intolerant. While it is rare I wish to primarily borrow from another source, the following weekend editorial in the Orange County Register insightfully expanded upon that thought, calling it “the debate is over syndrome.” Written by Joel Kotkin, I thought his analysis was excellent. It has been edited slightly for space purposes — and of course, so I can add my own emphasis and editorial comments…

The ongoing trial involving journalist Mark Steyn – accused of defaming climate change theorist Michael Mann – reflects an increasingly dangerous tendency among our intellectual classes to embrace homogeneity of viewpoint. Steyn, whose column has appeared for years on these pages, may be alternatingly entertaining or over-the-top obnoxious, but the slander lawsuit against him marks a milestone in what has become a dangerously authoritarian worldview being adopted in academia, the media and large sections of the government bureaucracy.

Let’s call it “the debate is over” syndrome, referring to a term used most often in relationship with climate change but also by President Barack Obama last week in reference to what remains his contentious, and theoretically reformable, health care plan. Ironically, this shift to certainty now comes increasingly from what passes for the Left in America.

These are the same people who historically have identified themselves with open-mindedness and the defense of free speech, while conservatives, with some justification, were associated more often with such traits as criminalizing unpopular views – as seen in the 1950s McCarthy era – and embracing canonical bans on all sorts of personal behavior, a tendency still more evident than necessary among some socially minded conservatives.

But when it comes to authoritarian expression of “true” beliefs, it’s the progressive Left that increasingly seeks to impose orthodoxy. In this rising intellectual order, those who dissent on everything from climate change, the causes of poverty and the definition of marriage, to opposition to abortion are increasingly marginalized and, in some cases, as in the Steyn trial, legally attacked.

Kotkin then references the case of Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla Firefox [see post entitled “Tolerance,” 4.6.14], who was pressured out of his position for a 6 year old donation in support of traditional marriage. Some gay activist groups decided “the debate is over.”

…Liberals should find these intolerant tendencies terrifying and dangerous in a democracy dependent on the free interchange of ideas…

But what started as liberation and openness has now engendered an ever-more powerful clerisy – an educated class – that seeks to impose particular viewpoints while marginalizing and, in the most-extreme cases, criminalizing, divergent views…

Those who dissent from the “accepted” point of view may not suffer excommunication, burning at the stake or other public rituals of penance, but can expect their work to be vilified or simply ignored…

Climate change is just one manifestation of the new authoritarian view in academia. On many college campuses, “speech codes” have become an increasingly popular way to control thought at many campuses. Like medieval dons, our academic worthies concentrate their fire on those whose views – say on social issues – offend the new canon. No surprise, then, as civil libertarian Nat Hentoff notes, that a 2010 survey of 24,000 college students found that barely a third of them thought it “safe to hold unpopular views on campus.”

This is not terribly surprising, given the lack of intellectual diversity on many campuses. Various studies of political orientation of academics have found liberals outnumber conservatives, from 8-to-1 to 14-to-1. Whether this is a reflection of simply natural preferences of the well-educated or partially blatant discrimination remains arguable, but some research suggests that roughly two of five professors would be less inclined to hire an evangelical or conservative colleague than one more conventionally liberal…

The lack of intellectual diversity is hurting our country. Hopefully, that debate is not over, too.

Respectfully,

04/06/201404/06/2014

tolerance

Are all men and women entitled to their own opinion? Rightly or wrongly? Wise or not? Can we allow dissenting opinion? … even if it’s perceived foolish?

In 2008, Brendan Eich gave $1000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, an amendment that defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman, which was later judicially struck down. Last month, Eich was appointed as CEO of Mozilla Firefox, the world’s second largest Web browser.

Upon Eich’s appointment, the popular dating site, OkCupid, called for their visitors to boycott the browser. Their boycott had nothing to do with Eich’s resume nor professional qualifications; in fact, Eich actually invented the programming language Javascript and co-founded Mozilla. OkCupid’s boycott was based solely on that $1000 donation.

As written by OkCupid: “Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people-all people-together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.”

On Thursday, Brendan Eich resigned as CEO.

Mozilla released the following statement: “Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all. We have employees with a wide diversity of views.”

The White House was asked about Eich’s resignation in Friday’s daily press briefing: “Does the White House think that there should at least be tolerance… and that there should be other views heard?” The White House said they’re not “in a position to weigh in on decisions made by a private company.”

Never mind that the White House regularly weighs in on decisions by private companies. Never mind that the White House has consistently called out both companies and citizens to point out agreement and/or disagreement. And never mind that in 2008, the year of Eich’s donation, Pres. Barack Obama was also against gay marriage.

Friends, there are good people on all sides of our nation’s most intense issues. There are also “bullies” on all sides of these issues. Bullies are not confined to middle school playgrounds; bullies are people — regardless of age — who by definition, use their influence or power to intimidate others, forcing them to do what they want. Bullies see holders of dissenting opinion as “enemies.”

If we are going to be a tolerant nation — if we are going to be a nation that “reflects diversity and inclusiveness” — then that means we also tolerate the person who thinks differently than we do.

Otherwise, we are not as diverse, inclusive, nor near as wise as we like to think.

Respectfully…

04/02/201404/03/2014

squelching opinion

Together we are a collective bunch of “pro’s” and “anti’s.” Some of us are pro-abortion; some of us are anti-abortion. Some of us are pro-gay marriage; some of us are anti-gay marriage. Some of us are pro-yada-yada-yada; still others are anti-yada-yada-yada. The bottom line is that there are good people who disagree on challenging issues.

The Intramuralist is comfortable with our differing. It’s not my job nor your job nor anyone’s job — nor even anyone’s capability — to be the convictor of truth. No one, my friends, is capable of usurping such a sacred role. What disturbs me, however, is when one works not to “win the argument,” so-to-speak, on the merits of the opinion itself, but instead works tirelessly to squelch opposing opinion. Allow me to borrow from Tuesday’s editorial in USA Today, written by Jonah Goldberg, member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Let’s discuss the yada yada yada… [Note that the emphasis will be mine.]

“… A writer for the website Gawker recently penned a self-described ‘rant’ on the pressing need to arrest, charge and imprison people who ‘deny’ global warming. In fairness, Adam Weinstein doesn’t want mass arrests (besides, in a country where only 44% of Americans say there is ‘solid evidence’ of global warming and it’s mostly due to human activity, you can’t round up every dissenter)… Weinstein suggests the government simply try the troublemakers and spokespeople… ‘Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.’

Weinstein says that this ‘is an argument that’s just being discussed seriously in some circles.’ He credits Rochester Institute of Technology philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello for getting the ball rolling. Last month, Torcello argued that America should follow Italy’s lead. In 2009, six seismologists were convicted of poorly communicating the risks of a major earthquake. When one struck, the scientists were sentenced to six years in jail for downplaying the risks. Torcello and Weinstein want a similar approach for climate change…

The truth is this isn’t as new an outlook as Weinstein suggests. For instance, in 2009, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insisted that ‘deniers’ in Congress who opposed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill were committing ‘treason’ while explaining their opposition on the House floor.

‘The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected,’ Krugman insisted. How fast the earth is changing is open to all kinds of debate, but short of an asteroid strike it won’t change as fast as the global warming pessimists have claimed. For example, in 2008, Al Gore predicted that the North Pole Ice Cap would be ice free by 2013. Arctic ice, which never came close to disappearing, has actually been making a bit of comeback lately.

Gore’s prediction — echoed by then Sen. John Kerry and countless others — was always ridiculous hyperbole. But even most serious, non-hyperbolic, computer-modeled predictions have overestimated the amount of warming we’ve experienced. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has had to retract several histrionic predictions, such as its erroneous prophecy that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Its new report, out on Monday, contains a new raft of dire prophecies requiring trillions in new spending. If I greet it with skepticism, shall I pack a tooth brush for my trip to jail?

Climate change activists insist that in science, revisions are routine, and that such corrections prove the good faith of scientists. Even if that’s true, one might still note that incentives are unhealthily arranged so that even well-intentioned researchers are encouraged to exaggerate the dangers of climate change and discouraged to criticize hyperbole. Moreover, were it not for the skeptics and deniers, many such corrections would never have been brought to light…

The real problem is that political activists and many leading institutions, particularly in the news media and academia, are determined to demonize any kind of skepticism — about the extent of the threat or the efficacy of proposed solutions — as illegitimate idiocy…”

The point is not the proposed validity of global warming. The point is that it’s foolish to squelch opinion — whatever the yada yada yada.

Respectfully,

03/29/2014

SEBELIUS v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.

In the week that was, we witnessed an especially interesting set of juxtaposed events, as the proprietors of Hobby Lobby met with the Supreme Court and Pres. Obama met with Pope Francis. Religious liberty was at the forefront of both discussions.

As always, we must first sift through the plethora of stabs at rhetorical spin, knowing that political motivations unfortunately always pierce the transparency objective observers crave. In fact, I found the dueling press releases from the White House and Vatican somewhat ironic, as the administration emphasized the topic of “growing inequality,” a phrase absent from the Vatican’s public statement.

The White House press office stated that the Pope “did not touch in detail on the Affordable Care Act,” and that he and Obama “actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms.” Obama added that any social schism “really was not a topic of conversation.”

The Vatican’s far more brief description stated the following: “In the context of bilateral relations and cooperation between Church and State, there was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform.”

With the Vatican referring to the case before the high court, the question is: should a company whose owners morally object to an action be forced by government to act anyway?

The issue with Hobby Lobby has zero to do with any or our personal opinions on whether or not birth control and contraception products and services should be included within Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act/whatever-you’re-most-comfortable-calling-it-now. The question before the court is whether the government is violating one’s religious liberty. The family-owned company is a crafts retail chain that objects to being compelled to provide four specific preventive services believed to be abortion-inducing.

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” Is the government burdening the owners’ free exercise?

What if we removed the specific subject? What if we spoke of something other than birth control? What if we removed the subject that causes some of our emotions to swell? Simply stated, does the government have the right to trump our religious beliefs? Is some wiser, compelling governmental interest involved?

As I wrestle with this, two aspects cause me to pause. One, if the federal government is allowed to mandate behavior here, how far will they go? What limitations will exist on what government can require? And two, I’m uncomfortable with government feeling they are wiser than the church. Friends, the Intramuralist is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but my sense is that the Pope is attempting to receive his direction from an authority greater than most. Obama uttered a similar statement, saying after their meeting, “His job is a little more elevated. We’re down on the ground dealing with the often profane, and he’s dealing with higher powers.”

My sense is we should pay more respect to anyone dealing with the divine than pursuing our own political policy and opinion. My sense is also that when we begin to justify trumping an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs — whether or not we adhere to similar thinking — we are treading in dangerous territory, less mindful of any “higher power.”

Respectfully,

03/27/201403/27/2014

yes & no

For years I’ve wrestled with Obamacare. Call it Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, the “healthcare security act” — each of which I’ve heard a person utilize when it’s most politically expedient. When the bill was perceived popular, some made certain to name it after the President; others were resolute in avoiding any name recognition. Once the act became far less popular, the utilization of the term totally changed. Geepers. Talk about Washington hypocrisy. It’s rampant. For both parties. (Please allow me one more “geepers.”)

But after the new healthcare law officially passed its 4th anniversary (note that I didn’t say “celebrated,” as it’s not a term generally thought to be compatible with the law), I believe I’ve finally discerned the Intramuralist’s bottom line on why this bill bugs me so. It’s no secret, friends; after reading the proposal, the Intramuralist has long thought the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unwise policy. While it addresses some significant problems within the application of healthcare, it also creates a whole new host of serious snags.

The snags are significant…

Rising costs…

Cancelled policies…

Loss of doctors and hospitals…

Poor execution of enrollment…

Mandates, taxes, and fines…

More mandates, taxes, and fines…

Arbitrary and inconsistent implementation…

Making people pay for services they don’t need…

Etc., etc., etc…

These are just a few of the snags. Still, none of the above are my primary problem. None are why the bill bugs me so.

Economically, I don’t believe the bill is wise. You can’t expect to cover more people more effectively and efficiently, give them more stuff, and for the care to somehow cost less. That doesn’t make economic sense. Again, however, such is not my primary problem.

The bill is still not popular. Current polling data puts support of the bill at no more than 40-42%, while now 54-56% oppose the law. Granted, the Intramuralist has never been driven by popularity.

As stated here multiple times previously, the bill was passed via a strictly partisan vote. Only one party voted for this law. I don’t like any law crafted in such a way; however, still not my bottom line.

My bottom line problem with this law is actually rather simple. It has nothing to do with economic theory nor the nuances within healthcare. It’s basic. Perhaps its one of those “all I really need to know” things from kindergarden. It’s easy. But it’s true.

I was always taught to let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no. It’s not rocket science. In other words, we should mean what we say and say what we mean. So much rhetoric and salesmanship was used to make us want this bill. It was not honest, transparent conversation. From being able to “keep your doctors” to “liking the plan once we found out what’s in it,” all seems designed to sell us on something the majority of us don’t want. Even if the majority wanted it, the Intramuralist will never be attracted to the politician whose “yes” and “no” mean something other than “yes” and “no.” That bugs me. Still.

Respectfully,