Category: Current Issue

Posted on

not knowing

 

IMGP0831When pondering the point of today’s post, I couldn’t help but feel for the families of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.  For 239 people to be gone… instantly… to have no idea what happened or where they are… to be completely unaware… there are few things more significant to focus on this day.  Then it donned on me what’s so troubling… and where so much of our discomfort currently, often lies.

In the modern “I Era” — meaning, the age of all things “I” — the internet, iPhones, and an abundant focus on self — we take pride in knowing everything.  Everything.

 

If you don’t know the answer, Google it.

If you can’t figure something out, look it up.

If you want to know what someone or something looks like, find their pic; it will be on the worldwide web somewhere.

In other words, we never have to go without knowing.  We think and feel like we know — and can know — it all.

But we don’t.

I paused last week coming across a brief nugget of truth, buried within a traditional passage read at many marriage ceremonies.  Embedded within the concept of what love is and what it’s not, is this tiny little line that speaks of human knowledge, ability, and also, limitation.  It reads:  “When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.”

It goes on to say:  “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.  When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.  Now I know in part; then I shall know fully…”

My point is that even as we grow, we still only “know in part.”  We don’t know it all.  And yet when mysteries linger — such as the intriguing whereabouts of Flight MH370 — our “I Era” bubbles assuming we know and are capable of knowing are quickly pierced.  We come face to face with the reality of the limitations of our knowledge.

Hence, I must ask:  where else is our knowledge limited?  And where else do we ignorantly assume we know that of which we are incapable?

… on global warming…

… on cloning…

… on what will happen next in the Middle East…

… on motives of individuals…

… on the extent certain policies impact the economy forever…

… on when and why nations cease to exist…

I am not attempting to be disrespectful or partisan in any way, friends.  I am simply asking the question.  My sense is that many are unwilling to ask the question.  Even more so, I believe we are often unwilling to acknowledge that we don’t — and can’t — know it all.  The unknowing makes us uncomfortable.

God bless the families of those aboard that fateful flight.  May they know something more soon.

Respectfully,

AR

 

Posted on

trust erosion

130521_lois_lerner_2_328_js_605

Who’s got the courage to stop it?  Who’s got the integrity to stop it?  Who will end the rhetorical spin and thus end the eroding trust we have in government?

 

As said well by CBS host Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” in February:  “When government officials insult us with spin they’re doing it on our dime, which is supposed to be used to operate the government, not to hold news conferences to tell us what a fine job people on the public payroll are doing.  As we learned during Katrina, self-serving spin at the first sign of crisis does not help the situation.  It makes it worse.  Because it makes it harder to believe anything the government says.  Real security is built on trust in the government.  That requires truth, which should be the beginning of government presentations, not the fallback position.”

From Katrina to current day, from Republicans to Democrats, our federal government is making it hard to believe anything they say.  They continue to “spin” instead of offer truth and be transparent.  What happened to the realization that truth and transparency are necessary components of integrity?  Do our elected officials have such tunnel vision, that integrity is a willing sacrifice?  Why do so exceedingly many believe in not telling the truth?  Note that this deception takes various forms:  lying, exaggeration, and omission.  Each is an intentional tactic in which the truth remains untold.  Our leaders may not lie, but perhaps they have a penchant for hyperbole.  Maybe they make up their own statistics and facts.  Maybe they are eerily silent.  Maybe they commission their PR people to craft better sounding answers to the most revealing, condemning questions.  Each equates to not telling the truth.  Each is a lack of integrity.

Like many of you, I’ve watched closely what’s happening in the IRS.  This is significant; if the IRS lacks integrity, we all could become victims of injustice — not just the conservative groups the IRS was previously, knowingly targeting.  But no one will tell us the truth.  No one will answer the questions.  People who are paid and elected by the public are not acting with integrity nor forthcoming with answers.  They are only, sadly generous with rhetorical spin.  From the IRS official Lois Lerner who again pleaded the 5th last week to Pres. Obama’s offering that there wasn’t even a “smidgen of corruption” in the process, no one is being transparent with the truth.  Note the following communications by Lerner, who still refuses to testify…

In September 2010, Lerner wrote:  “Ok guys.  We need to have a plan.  We need to be cautious so it isn’t a per se political project.  More a c4 project that will look at levels of lobbying and pol. activity along with exempt activity.”

A month later, in a speech at Duke University, referring to the Citizens United decision, Lerner said the Supreme Court “dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns... The FEC can’t do anything about it.  They want the IRS to fix the problem… Everybody is screaming at us right now:  ‘Fix it now before the election.  Can’t you see how much these people are spending?’ “

Then 4 months later, Lerner wrote:  “Tea Party Matter very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizens United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules.”

Is Lerner guilty of something?  I don’t claim to know that.

Is the Obama administration guilty of something?  I don’t claim to know that either.

The Intramuralist has not nor cannot conclude that anyone is guilty of something specific.  I do, however, humbly submit that their lack of truth telling and use of rhetorical spin are dishonest.  Such a lack of integrity causes trust in our government to continue to erode.

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the n-word

huddleCLR

There’s a significant debate raging across the country.  Granted, the Intramuralist is only a bystander — not a partaker — as one of the lessons learned these past 5+ insightful years of blogging, is that we don’t have to insert ourselves within the debate trenches of all issues.  Some may have wiser perspectives not so much due to passion, but more so based on the stance they share, a stance perhaps closer in actual proximity.

Prompted by the National Football League, within African-American circles, the debate surrounds the use of the word, “nigger” (from here on referred to as the “N-word”).  The NFL is is expected to enact a rule at their March owners meeting that would penalize players 15 yards if they use the N-word on the field.

Is use of the N-word — and each of its colloquial derivatives — ever appropriate?

Allow me to quote some with a stance closer in actual proximity…

“We want this word to be policed from the parking lot to the equipment room to the locker room.  Secretaries, PR people, whoever, we want it eliminated completely and want it policed everywhere,” says John Wooten, the head of the Fritz Pollard Alliance, which monitors diversity in the NFL.

Richard Sherman, star of the Super Bowl winning Seattle Seahawks feels differently.  “It’s an atrocious idea.  It’s almost racist to me.  It’s weird they’re targeting one specific word.  Why wouldn’t all curse words be banned then?”  

A similar stance is echoed by Sherman’s teammate, Doug Baldwin:  “I think it’s absurd… they’re trying to do this with good intentions.  Maybe.  But, if you look at it, the only people who say the N-word on the football field are African-Americans.  Whether whoever wants to agree with it or not, we have turned it kind of into a term of endearment.”

Let me add a final word from Hall of Famer Art Shell:  “That is the most vile word.  It was created to make a certain group of people feel like they were less than human.  How does that word become a term of endearment?’’

Note that Wooten, Sherman, Baldwin, and Shell are each black, and yet, they disagree.  The African-American community disagrees on whether or not use of the N-word — and each of its colloquial derivatives — is ever appropriate.

Their challenge is obvious; it matters who says the word.  While once a term intended as an ethnic slur, the N-word’s meaning has evolved via the numbing achieved through rap, hip hop, and popular comedic routines such as Chris Rock’s infamous “Niggas vs. Black People.”  In other words, the N-word doesn’t possess the same sting… that is, as long as it’s said from one African-American to another.

There seems some generational aspect, affecting differently those who were once insulted as opposed to those who have never been the recipient of the insult.  There seems also some traditional vs. progressive component.  There exists passionate, definite disagreement from many with a close-in-proximity stance.

The underlying predicament is that the problem is not the use of the word, but rather, the intent of the use.  And once we begin the subjective assessment of intent, we will frequently err in the evaluation.  Like it or not, passionate or not, well-intentioned or not, subjective intent cannot be accurately, always measured.

Hence, in one more realm of society we must ask ourselves… if we cannot fully alleviate a problem, must we eliminate all that potentially contributes to the problem?

Great question.  An even better debate.

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

overreaction

nunst004

 

We are a nation of reactors.  No, I take that back.  We are a nation of over-reactors.

One person misuses something, so the something must be put out of use.  Another person says something awful, so we all must omit the word.  Still one more misuses some sort of liberty, so the government then feels the need to legislate the entire liberty.  Why must so many liberties be legislated?  Why does the government feel a need to restrict and control?  Are we not capable of deciding for ourselves?  Do we each not have the opportunity to be convicted by the same spirit of truth?  We continue to overreact…

 

In the ’20’s people drank too much, so we outlawed alcohol.

In the ’40’s Japan attacked us, so we interned the Japanese.

Still today…

A person utilizes patriotic symbols for slander, so a court bars wearing the American flag to school.

Another says he’s offended by his peer’s mention of Jesus, so all public prayer is banned.

At an Idaho high school, the cheers for some kids were more than others and some of the cheers were rude, so the high school prohibited cheering.  (I’m not kidding.)

 

A person is offended, so we must erase any source of the offense.

A person is rude, so we must eradicate the source of the rudeness.

A person responds to a situation foolishly, so we must diminish any possibility of the situation occurring again.

Yes, we are a nation of over-reactors.

 

Like many of you, I watched closely as the events in Arizona unfolded last week.  We watched them wrestle with Arizona S.B. 1062.

 

This was hard.  Cycling through emotional, rhetorical circles, on all sides of the issue, people became understandably passionate.  And instead of debating any actual wisdom or waste in the legislation, the discussion evolved into a debate of “religious freedom” vs. “gay rights.”  Freedom vs. Discrimination…. a “lose/lose situation,” if you ask me.  Aspects of each of those perspectives seemed true; other aspects were not.  The hype on both sides became bigger than the bill itself, skewing public perspective.

 

Arizona S.B. 1062 amended an existing state law, giving individuals and/or legal entities an exemption from any state law if it substantially burdened their exercise of religion.  I’m not quite sure why some felt such a law was necessary.  The First Amendment gives each of us the right to the free exercise of religion.

My sense is such was an over-reaction to situations that manifested themselves in Colorado and Oregon last year, where a judge in each state ordered a respective bakery to provide their services for a gay wedding, even though each baker was uncomfortable being a part of a ceremony which they believed was inappropriate due to their faith.  In a capitalist democracy, business entities have the right to choose with whom they will work.  Such happens daily, routinely, and without offense.  With multiple other bakeries available — bakers who would welcome and appreciate participating in any special ceremony — I also believe the judge and plaintiff over-reacted.  I don’t mean to be disrespectful, friends.  I simply believe we need to respect and honor all people — from those who wish to marry and those who wish not to partake.  We each have the opportunity to be convicted by the same spirit of truth.

Amid then the backdrop of massive, polarized publicity, late last week Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the controversial law.  From the Intramuralist’s perspective, her decision was appropriate.

I wonder who will say what next, though.  Someone.  Somewhere… as we are a nation of over-reactors.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

redemption

76467_160844633957818_100000968467983_288157_6512369_n

Let’s see if we can somehow make these two fit together… headlines from this week’s New York Post and Kansas City Star, respectively:

 

“‘Catastrophic’ winter storm threatens Atlanta”

“Apologies go all around in Marcus Smart-Texas Tech fan incident”

 

Weather and sports.

It’s amazing how life all fits together.  We could also add politics, if 2014 found Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, or Anthony Weiner running once more.

In each of the above, there is an underlying theme.

 

First in Atlanta.

As previously noted here, 2.6” of snow fell suddenly upon the otherwise identified “Hotlanta” 2 weeks ago.  It was the day the Big Peach actually stood still.  Cars and kids and trucks and teachers were stuck in their tracks.  Transportation and communication systems were frustratingly jammed.  Without a doubt, errors in decision-making, blame, and apologies overflowed.

 

Then in Lubbock, Texas.

Marcus Smart is considered one of the best college basketball players in the country.  There is talk of him potentially being pick #1 in the NBA draft.  After an opposing fan said something crass on Saturday, Smart went into the stands and shoved the fan.  Without a doubt, errors in decision-making, blame, and apologies overflowed.

 

What strikes me now, no less, is the obvious opportunity for each for redemption.  It snowed in Atlanta again yesterday.  Marcus Smart will return from his suspension on the 22nd.  Both the leaders in Atlanta and college student Smart are eager to do things differently and better.

 

“This is not how I conduct myself… It’s something I’ll have to learn from… I’m taking full responsibility,” said Smart in his seemingly genuine apology.  Redemption is the opportunity to show that it’s really not how one conducts themselves.  Redemption means to atone for a fault or mistake — to be delivered into a better state.  There is no doubt that Smart and all the government and school officials in Georgia are eager to demonstrate that they are responsible; they have learned from their poor decision-making; and they can thus atone for their mistakes.

 

I think what actually strikes me most is how attracted we are to redemption.  It’s almost as if we crave it.  There’s something within us that knows we need it.

I think the contrast is equally true; it is highly unattractive when people and especially politicians do not know they need it — when they do not recognize their need for redemption.  It seems to this current events observer that arrogance obstructs their awareness of the individual need for atonement.  And as said here multiple times previously, arrogance is never attractive.

 

Think still on Smart’s profound words:  “this is not how I conduct myself.”  The reality is that it’s not how Smart typically conducts himself.  It may also not be the manner in which the man he shoved typically conducts himself.  What I do know, however, is that even if it’s not our typical manner — for Smart, for all the officials in Atlanta, for any politician or person, for that matter — we are each capable of errors in decision-making.  Whether it’s typical matters less than if we are capable.

 

And if we are capable, then each of us is in need of redemption.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

Obama’s equality

Stack Of Cash

Let’s be frank.  As I’ve said from the onset of the Intramuralist, no one need to agree with me.  Really.  I’m comfortable enough in my own skin to omit my opinions… and to admit that some of them may be wrong.  I also may not know which ones are wrong.  Guess what?  Some of yours are wrong, too…. and you may or may not know it.  That said, we must still trod through all discussion and debate respectfully; such is key to solution.

 

My right-or-wrong opinion shared this day concerns the upcoming policy push by Pres. Obama.  You can expect it to be hammered home in this week’s State of the Union address.  Friends, allow me to play most all my cards on the table…  when Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ran for president in 2008, there was much about him and his charisma that excited me.  He was/is no doubt brilliant and incredibly gifted. Privately, I admiringly called him “Barackstar.”  But the chief concern I expressed when he initially ran for office was his lack of economic experience.

 

In all honesty, I care less about the party a person hails from than their background and experience.  The fact that then Sen. Obama had little economic experience concerned me greatly.  I desire a president who is first and foremost ethically above question — and then has proven experience working with diverse people groups and running a multi-million/billion dollar state/operation.  The U.S. economy is a 16 plus trillion dollar operation; it’s important to me that our leader has some experience with such.  Pres. Obama, oratorically attractive as he was, did not have such experience.

 

Economists can gather and respectfully debate how such has affected his policy advocacy thus far.  That is not the point of today’s blog.  The point is that in 2 days, on Tuesday, Pres. Obama is going to stress “income equality.”  In his annual State of the Union address, he is going to make the point for all the world to see (or at least for the United States) that wealth among American households is unequally distributed — and that the federal government has the responsibility to redistribute that wealth, in a way for all intents and purposes, that’s arguably fairer to all.

 

Great.  That makes many of us feel good.  Here’s my question:  feel good or not, does it make economic sense?

 

Please hear me on this.  Feeling good about a specific policy means less than whether or not the policy makes sense.  Say what you want.  Say what you want to energize the people.  But if the policy does not make sense, it matters not how we feel.  If the policy is not economically logical, then the policy should not be advocated for — and cannot be economically sustained.

 

This is not a criticism of Pres. Obama.  He is a fantastic politician who is oratorically gifted, but again, he has little economic experience.  Liking the President, wanting to support him and his policy initiatives, speaks nothing to the credence of whether or not his initiatives are economically sustainable, good, and true.

 

Hence, it doesn’t matter how we feel.  Economically, we cannot extract wealth from the wealthy, redistribute to the un-wealthy, and then make the un-wealthy somehow prosperous.  It does not make economic sense.

 

Such then prompts me to investigate the President’s motives.  I do not know what his motives are.  I will say that again:  I don’t know — we don’t know — none of us truly know — what the President’s motives are.  But I do know that with Obamacare escalating in unpopularity, there is motive to remove the national focus off of that subject.  Let’s get the focus onto something more popular… something the people can support… income equality… yes… it’s unfair!  Let’s distribute wealth more fairly!

 

Great emotional argument, my friends.  The wiser challenge is whether it makes sense.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

meat sticks

liver-and-onions

When I was a child, my mother had this ingenious idea.  Knowing none of her children were too fond of liver and onions, she would quietly take the vitamin-rich meat, slice it into very thin strips, crisp it up in the frying pan, and then enthusiastically present it as — ta-da! — “meat strips.”  Note:  we loved meat strips.  Couldn’t stand liver… but my brothers and I loved “meat strips.”

 

Now with all due respect to each of my parents, my mother’s desire was simple.  Here were 3 young children who didn’t know any better, where she had decided what was best for us.  Granted, she knew best; we were children.  We needed someone to teach and train us in the way we should go.

 

As the Intramuralist sees it, one of our culture’s current challenges is that we have men and women who believe they know best, and they have decided that they know what’s best for the rest of us — even though the rest of us aren’t children; we don’t need someone to teach and train us in the way we should go.  That’s not someone else’s job.  Government should never be confused as our parent.

 

I shuddered this week when listening to the United Nations Climate Chief.  Yes, I know that climate change is a hot button issue… yes, I know it’s going to become a bigger issue (… especially, again, at least in part to take attention off of the negative ramifications of Obamacare)… and yes, I know that several among us passionately believe that man is responsible for changes to the Earth.  The Intramuralist’s position on climate change remains steadfast:  man’s role in any perceived earthly changes cannot be fully evaluated without an acknowledgement of and a submission to the one who actually created the Earth.

 

Lest I digress…

 

When UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres interviewed with Bloomberg News late last week, the perceived world spokesman on global warming/climate change said that China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing the issue.  Figueres added that the American system of government is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming.

 

Friends, my concern today centers not on the validity of global warming.  My concern is that a global spokesman publicly praised an oppressive means of decision-making.  Not only did she praise the decision-making of a communist government, she criticized the decision-making of a democracy.  She has decided what is best, and in order to achieve that, she believes an authoritarian dictatorship is more effective in accomplishing the end goal.  She advocates for the removal of decision-making by the people; in my opinion, she thus advocates for treating adults like children.

 

I’m concerned that because many agree with her end goal, they, too, will embrace an oppressive means of decision-making.  They will embrace not allowing diverse input when making decisions.  They feel so passionately (and arguably arrogantly) justified about their position, they don’t believe a diverse democracy should enter into the equation.  In other words — with all due respect to my mother — they’re ok with serving “meat sticks” to adults.

 

Just for the record, last week I baked sweet potatoes for my own kids.  I cut them up into very thin strips, baked them to the point of ideal crispiness in the oven, and then enthusiastically presented them as — ta-da! — “sweet fries.”  Note:  my kids loved “sweet fries.”  Can’t stand sweet potatoes… but loved the fries.

 

But then, my kids are kids —not adults from whom it’s necessary nor wise nor appropriate to remove the decision-making.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

equality

images

So perhaps my cranky self continues somewhat…  I will attempt to reflect more — rant less.  It’s just my opinion — semi-humble at that — but my sense is that while rants prompt more affirmation and amens, honest reflection spurs on dialogue and thus solution.  I’m afraid such may be why our elect often choose the ranting, as they are not always interested in dialogue; they too frequently seem only desiring to drive home the opinion they have privately and partisanly determined to be true.  The Intramuralist doesn’t have a lot of respect for that approach.

 

One area where this (yes, semi-humble) observer sees a ratcheting up in the rants is the issue of equality.  Follow me here.  We discussed this briefly in December, but with a need to divert the focus off of the current contempt for Obamacare, there is intent to find an issue that more soundly resonates with a plurality of voters.  There is need for the affirmation and amens.

 

And so we come to the word “equality.”  Great word!  As shared here previously, in recent decades, we’ve been attracted to ERA, Employment Equality, Marriage Equality, and the Equality Act.  The latest push (and the push which the Intramuralist believes to be ranted about even more in the months to come) is “income equality”… a fantastic idea!  Income equality is the proposed more even distribution of wealth among households in our economy.  Currently, the distribution is significantly uneven.  Some people have far more or less than others.  Isn’t it right for things to be equal?  Isn’t it fair?

 

Or wait… it’s not that all things have to be exactly equal, but certainly it should be closer.   Surely the gap between the rich and the poor is too much, and the rich among us could give away a little more.  It’s an easy argument.  Hence, it’s a fantastic idea.  Really.  But casting all emotion aside, we must recognize that it’s also a political ploy.  Bear with me, friends, for it’s a rant.

 

All men/women were created equal.  Truth.  We were each divinely endowed with certain unalienable rights.  Also true.  But let’s additionally acknowledge what is not true.  It’s not true that all men/women are as hard-working.  It’s not true that all men/women are as ambitious or entrepreneurial or are blessed with the same talents and gifts.  Don’t mistake me as being calloused.  I am not.  Without a doubt, many obtain their wealth via little effort of their own, as we are each born into certain circumstances.  Different circumstances come with different challenges.  And to those who have been given much, much is to be expected.  So again, in my only semi-humble opinion, a generous, philanthropic heart is at the top of the list of expectations for the wealthy.

 

So this fantastic idea… is it income equality?  Not from this perspective.  The fairness phrasing does not consider the entirety of the truths.  The fantastic idea here is to associate income with equality… to associate marriage with equality… to associate employment with equality.  You see my point.  Friends, I say such as one not suggesting that any of the above is unwise.  My point is simply that utilizing the words “fairness” and “equality” is an intentional tactic designed to persuade.  Who among us would not desire to be equal or fair?

 

“Equality” is a rhetorical term utilized to generate the affirmation and amens — not a word that prompts dialogue nor solution.  It’s actually a conversation killer, as there exists a strong inference within the word “equality” that those who do not support the issue do not believe all men/women were created equal… that our opponent somehow, actually, foolishly embraces discrimination.  Thus, audiences are emotionally moved, feeling now justified to join in the rant… as opposed to recognizing the inference is categorically unfounded.

 

A person can oppose an equality issue without being prejudiced or discriminatory.  On this supposed new push for “income equality,” for example, there are many economists who will openly opine that it’s impossible to “legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out.”

 

I’m done ranting, my friends.  The logical reflection will continue, no less… hopefully for us all.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

cranky

pt

I’m a little cranky today.  Sorry.  I didn’t say I was embracing any disrespect.  I simply, transparently shared that my mood is more prone to rant than reflection.  Thus, I respectfully, crankily opine…

 

I don’t understand why we so often focus on things of lesser importance…

I don’t understand why we can’t all get along…

I don’t understand why celebrities and sportsmen are paid exorbitant dollars while preachers and teacher tow behind…

I don’t understand how some scream “racism,” but oft seem racist in their own expression…

I don’t understand hypocrisy… period… how rampant it is… especially among the elect…

I don’t understand the supporters who only wish to proclaim hypocrisy in an opponent…

I don’t understand dishonesty…

I don’t understand the name-calling — especially by seemingly highly intelligent people…

I don’t understand this continued spending-of-what-we-don’t-have-cycle… geepers… that seems to me to be Accounting 101…

Again… I don’t understand why Democrats and Republicans can’t all get along… nor Cowboys and Indians… Patriots and Broncos…  I get along with my diverse friends…

I don’t understand why football is so important, especially since last I checked, it was still a game…

I don’t understand how we can spend so much money on sports and entertainment, but forget about the starving children in the world…

I don’t understand why government sometimes seems to think we can’t think for ourselves…

I don’t understand why they often think they have to control us…

I don’t understand why they think they have a right to so much of our money…

I don’t understand how when they take so much of our money, they still expect us to trust them…

I don’t understand how some give nothing away…

I don’t understand how a country that was founded on religious freedom sometimes wishes to be free from all religion…

I don’t understand why every current, new political issue has to be labeled “equality” for someone or something…

I don’t understand how polling data is often the justification for manipulation…

I don’t understand the lack of integrity…

I don’t understand why we keep forgetting that life is short and thus it’s important to live it ethically and well…

 

I suppose if we did live life ethically and well, we may actually understand…

 

… and of course, be less cranky.

 

Respectfully… always… yep…

AR

Posted on

press secretaries

Jay_Carney_insert_cMichael_KeyOk, ok… so I’m a bit of a sucker for punishment.  For years, I have watched official press conferences directed by the White House Press Secretary.  I feel like we learn a lot in these short interactions.  I can remember moments even before my teens with Jimmy Carter’s Jody Powell and then onto Reagan’s James Brady.  I remember Marlin Fitzwater — then both Dee Dee Myers and George Stephanopoulos under Clinton.  I watched Ari Fleischer under Bush 43 — and then Tony Snow, my personal favorite.

 

In recent years, I’ve watched both Dana Perino and Robert Gibbs.  And yesterday, I again watched Jay Carney.

 

I have hence concluded — based on my totally, notably, understandably incomplete perspective — that there is no more obviously ethically-challenging job in public service than the White House Press Secretary.  The secretary’s job, no matter what, is to make the administration look good.  And sometimes, that’s seemingly impossible to do.

 

Yesterday, when the former Time-Magazine-reporter-turned-press-secretary stumbled at the podium, attempting to defer criticism from former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, I felt Carney’s pain.  Here Gates, a man with years of bipartisan respect, affirmed the current administration for some very specific aspects — such as the initial approach toward Afghanistan and the savviness of Hillary Clinton — but other aspects scathed and stung… such as political motives behind military moves… Obama’s controlling, micro-management, leadership style… and Joe Biden, a man Gates says, who “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

 

Ouch.  Note that Robert Gates’ perspective may very well not be accurate.  Accurate or not, however, such an insider perspective is hard to squelch… hard to make anyone look good.

 

And so I’d like to take this time to offer a wee bit of amateur advice for the next to stumble to the press’s podium.  Really, it’s an impossible job; but ideally, below are the top 10 things that I’d like to hear each press secretary say…

 

“I can’t answer that question.”

“Well, I can answer the question, but no one in the White House wants me to answer it.”

“I actually don’t know the answer.”

“I know the answer, but I don’t know how to make it sound good.”

“The truth might make us look bad.”

“The truth might be unpopular.”

“The truth might be appropriate, but if it’s unpopular, I don’t want to answer.”

“Yes, I know I’m dodging your question.”

“My poll tested answer is…”

And…

“Can we be real here?”

 

With all due respect to Jay Carney, Tony Snow, and all the valiant men and women who have attempted to fill these rhetorical shoes — which quite notably, the Intramuralist has not — the White House Press Secretary is a pretty tough job.  It can be ethically challenging.  It can be awkward indeed.

 

God bless ‘em.

 

Respectfully,

AR