Category: Current Issue

Posted on

winter wonderland

Here we go again. Here in the bleak midwinter, as both the snow and temperatures fall across the country, the ice simultaneously seems to build on the minds and mouths of those passionately encamped on either side of the climate change/global warming debate.  There are many people who believe that potentially catastrophic, human-caused global warming is real.  There are also many people who don’t.  And unfortunately, instead of everyone coming together, getting on the same page as to what is true, what is not, and what other aspects and insights may be relevant, too many utilize their influence to either mock or manipulate.

 

Case in point #1:  Business mogul, Donald Trump, tweeting this week after 2 ships were trapped in Antarctica’s ice, “What the hell is going on with GLOBAL WARMING? The planet is freezing, the ice is building and the G.W. scientists are stuck — a total con job.”

 

Case in point #2:  Liberal MSNBC host, Chris Hayes, commenting on persons like Trump & company — those who see the record cold temps as contradicting global warming, and then calling their reasoning “willful stupidity.”

 

Sorry, but the stupidity, name-calling, and rhetorical manipulations do not help us get to the truth.  Even Pres. Obama referred to global warming skeptics last summer as potential members of the “Flat Earth Society” (… uh, sorry, but there actually exists a Flat Earth Society… and well, they believe that human-caused warming is real).  Nonetheless, the name-calling and mocking doesn’t help.

 

I realize that if a lot of really smart people believe something, there is great reason to believe it’s true.  I also realize that just because really smart people believe something, does not make it true.

 

The challenge, however, is that due to the mocking and manipulation of the likeminded above, we now have a society which tends to look at global-warming/climate-change/best-currently-expedient-term as a political issue.  It’s not.  It’s either happening or it’s not.  It’s either caused by man or it’s not.  And whether you hail from a left or right partisan base or camp out somewhere in the middle, it doesn’t affect the reality of what’s true.  Perhaps that reality is the most inconvenient truth of all.

 

Scientists cannot definitively prove global warming.  Please hear me.  I did not say it was not true.  I said that it cannot be completely proven to be true.  I am not a scientist.  And for the record, neither is Donald Trump, Chris Hayes, or Barack Obama.

 

My point is that we need to consider other aspects and insights which may be relevant instead of rhetorically attempting to convince others.  One factual consequence about the politicizing of this issue is that many people stand to profit significantly from an investment in climate change.

 

One key aspect I’d appreciate seeing those really smart people wrestle with is how and if any ancient scriptures apply.  Yes, I realize many of us are willfully challenged to submit to the perceived wisdom of someone else; our wills and stubbornness and sometimes even intelligence often interferes.  But we should at least add to the climate conversation 2 significant aspects included in the ancient scriptures — writings that have more preserved copies than any work by Homer, Plato, or Aristotle — writings which academia teaches to be true.  We should consider (1) scripture’s call to care for the planet, and (2) scripture’s prediction that the planet will not last.

 

Friends, there’s no good reason to mock nor manipulate.  There is valid reason, however, to discuss all potentially relevant aspects of the climate conversation.  In order to best discern what is true, what is not, and who and what bears responsibility, let’s start by depoliticizing the issue.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

banning the box

As of January 1st, Rhode Island became the 8th “united” state to adopt the “ban-the-box” law, meaning employers cannot ask prospective applicants on their initial questionnaire if they have a criminal history.  Allow me to explain…

 

For more than 40 years, an organization called the National Employment Law Project (NELP) has worked to remove the question on standard job applications about an individual’s conviction history and delay the background check inquiry until later in the hiring process.  In other words, NELP’s goal is to get government to “ban the box.”

 

Note that NELP actively pursues other policy initiatives, such as joining in the perceived, current, politically expedient push to increase the minimum wage.  While there certainly exists validity in exploring how to reasonably increase the wage for persons for whom the particular job is their lifework (in other words, not high school students), my limited perspective is that the current push has been articulated in order to find a popular political issue, hopefully taking the focus off of the negative ramifications of Obamacare.  But lest I digress… let us return to NELP’s primary initiative to ban the so-called box.

 

According to NELP, the goal of banning the box is “to restore the promise of economic opportunity for working families across America” and to assist unemployed workers with a felonious history to “regain their economic footing.”  NELP has promoted the perspective that asking an applicant if they have committed a felony when initially exploring employment, is an “unfair barrier.”

 

My first thought is to applaud the compassion behind such a law.  There unquestionably exists a societal stigma associated with a criminal record, and I’ve tenderly shared the heartache of friends who have unfortunately experienced brutal rejection in relation to their unlawful past.  The “have-you-ever-committed-a-felony-or-pleaded-nolo-contendere” question has long served as a screening process for potential applicants.

 

The challenge, though, that simultaneously tugs on me — arguably tugging more on my reason than emotion — is that once again, an organization such as NELP, is attempting to increase the size and scope of government; when government increases, it becomes more inefficient, costly, and prone to corruption.

 

In regard to banning that box, the reality that NELP fails to promote is that often a person’s past matters.  Please hear me, friends, on this sensitive topic.  A criminal record does not matter with all persons, all jobs, and in all scenarios.  But we also need to take into account that in many situations, a felony record does matter.  Not all convicted felons are reformed.  Recidivism rates remain unfortunately high.  I don’t say that heartlessly.  As longtime readers can attest, the Intramuralist believes in 2nd, 3rd — even 47th chances.  Those chances, though, are not baseless.  Those chances are based on the perceived repentant and determined heart of the individual.

 

As a Human Resource professional, the “box” should never be an instant disqualifier.  It depends on the kind of job and the individual heart.  A wise employer will work to discern both.  For example, is it necessary when hiring a cashier to know if they have a recent history of theft or embezzlement?  Of course it is.  Should an employer be mandated to spend time and money on an applicant before knowing such?  Great question.  I question the government’s mandates of time and money spent.

 

It is true, no less, that many prospective employers are not so wise; many seem to use the box as that instant disqualifier.  But mandating wisdom in places of foolishness is not the government’s job.  It is also not consistent with an inefficient, costly, more prone-to-corruption kind of government.  Government is getting too big… with too many mandates.

 

Allow me one more tangent comment…  if the ban-the-box movement becomes the law of the land… and if an employee with a violent, felonious record commits another violent crime in the workplace… who will be liable?  Will the employer bear responsibility?

 

Tough questions, friends… not absent compassion.  Not absent reason either.  May we always proceed with both.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

duck dynasty

 

“Do we always have to make people go away?”

 

It’s not like the Intramuralist to begin with or even include a quote from political commentator, Bill Maher, but irony seems oddly apparent this time of year… and Maher’s one time question begs asking again now.

 

Why is it that instead of entertaining dialogue — instead of engaging in an interactive, back-and-forth conversation — instead of listening and learning and actually humbly educating one another through public discourse — why is it we often instead attempt to silence an opposing voice?  Why can we not even entertain the conversation?  Is it just too tough?  Is it just so wrong?  Is it just that their opinion is so wrong no one deserves to ever hear it?

 

As many are now aware, popular “Duck Dynasty” patriarch, Phil Robertson, was suspended by the A&E network because of his comments in GQ magazine regarding homosexual intercourse, sharing his opinion in a rather coarse way that homosexuality is sinful.  Immediately, there were adamant calls for his firing and claims of Christian bigotry.  While questions instinctively arise as to why calls for Robertson’s release were passionately immediate — but calls for recent non-Christian rants have been similarly silent —  allow me to humbly return to what I believe is the better question:  why is there a need by some to silence Robertson?

 

Can we not handle the conversation?  Or do some, for some reason, not want us to even discuss this issue?

 

Friends, there exists all sorts of tangents to this controversy.  Is it a free speech issue?  Is it an issue of employment discrimination?  Is Robertson’s perspective biblical?  Is it contradictory?  Are we practicing tolerance?  Intolerance?  And why this controversy now?  As said at the onset of this post, irony seems oddly apparent this time of year.  I find it fascinating that Robertson’s interview took place some time ago; television executives had to have known what Robertson said.  However, only after the public pressure mounted by activist groups — and, immediately preceding A&E’s planned “Duck Dynasty” marathon — did the suspension — and supposed outrage — occur.

 

As typical then of the Intramuralist, let’s boldly but humbly ask the better question:  can we or can we not handle the conversation?  Can we wrestle with Robertson’s actual opinion?

 

Call me an idealist, but the Intramuralist adheres to the belief that truth always wins out in the end.  In other words, what’s good and right and true cannot be squelched by the foolish acts of an individual.  We cannot contain the truth.

 

Hence, wouldn’t it be wiser to allow the conversation?  To work less to silence an opinion but to wrestle with its validity or lack of it?  … Are we fearful? … are we righteous? … are we self-righteous?  I speak not only of this somewhat silly show; I speak also of politics… religion.  Again, quoting Maher, why do we always have to make people — and their opinion — go away?

 

My strong sense is the most effective way to influence others is to act wisely oneself — to engage in respectful dialogue — as opposed to dictating the dialogue.  No one need to ever reason nor conclude — or grow —  if opposing opinion is simply silenced.  Come now; let’s reason together, fording one another the freedom to decide what is actually good and true… regardless of irony.

 

Respectfully,

 

AR

 

Posted on

mandating behavior

In our 3 most recent posts, I’ve seen a trend appearing.  As a society, we struggle when anyone attempts to mandate behavior for the masses.  From how we teach our kids about Santa to how we care for the least of these to yes, even how and if we celebrate the Christmas season, we continually have persons who want to tell us what we can and cannot do.  Isn’t that our challenge?

 

I mean, the challenge on both sides of the equation within contemporary Christmas controversies is that people keep wanting to dictate what we do.  People keep wanting to mandate the specifics of how a holiday can or can’t or shouldn’t be celebrated.  We aren’t ok allowing the freedom of individual decision-making.  Why is that?  What’s the motive?

 

I see this pattern repeated in multiple scenarios.  Sometimes it’s packaged up a little nicer and neater — arguably a little more covertly — but there exist multiple examples of entities attempting to mandate behavior for the masses, attempting to require specific actions on our part.

 

Isn’t that the reality behind Pres. Obama’s broken healthcare promise — that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it?”  In my opinion, the President is too smart to have not known that such was untrue.  He’s a brilliant man; he had to have known the implications of the law for which he was advocating.

 

Please know I am not declaring that Pres. Obama lied.  Let’s face it; anytime we assert that one another is a liar, it complicates the conversation.  The dialogue becomes more passionate and emotional, and the temptation to become disrespectful increases exponentially.  So let me truthfully, transparently assert what I believe to be the primary motivation for the untruth:  those advocating for Obamacare are attempting to mandate behavior for the masses — and convince the rest of us that such is good.

 

All healthcare plans starting after 2014 are required to offer the same benefits but will have different out-of-pocket costs.  Question:  do we need the same benefits?  Does one size truly fit all?  Do men and women need the same healthcare?  Do men need maternity care?  Do persons in varied geographic areas need the same care?  How about the elderly?

 

Friends, I’m not attempting to be disrespectful in my questions; the reality is that by mandating the behavior for the masses, we end up mandating things for some that are unnecessary.

 

So what’s the motive?  Is the motive as some would suggest that people aren’t bright enough — that they don’t know what’s good for them — and so someone has to control the decision-making?

 

Or… is the motive more economic — that the only way to make the policy work for some is to mandate the behavior for all?

 

Under Obamacare, it’s great to be a woman.  Women can’t be charged more than men.  On one hand that sounds great; we can hear the rallying calls that no longer will women be discriminated against.  But let me also ask the next logical question:  is it discrimination if the woman’s care costs more because it actually covers more?

 

My sense is that in the case of Obamacare, the motive is economic.  The federal government charges the men more to pay for the women; they charge the young more to pay for the elderly; and they charge the upper and middle classes more to pay for the lower class.  Mandating the behavior of the masses is necessary in order to make the plan work.  What any individual needs is less significant than the macroeconomic approach necessary to support the totality of the system.

 

The lingering question is whether or not such mandating is good.

 

P.S.  Merry Christmas.  Happy Festivus, too.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

“war” on Christmas?

Every year at this time, we seem to hear the recharged vernacular about the existence of a “war on Christmas.”  Funny.  I mean, as a nation, I don’t think we’re all that fond of war, but yet we seem to find the term rhetorically pleasing when it best suits our passion… a war on Christmas, war on teachers… war on drugs, poverty, marriage, you-name-it.  As a nation not so fond of war, we sure speak of it frequently.

 

The Intramuralist cannot say with certainty if any “war” exists — and as I learned well from my respected friends in the military — I’m not comfortable with such casual use of the word, “war.”  War is an armed conflict between different nations or groups.  Last I heard, we were still called a united state of America.

 

The controversy, no less, refers to the acknowledgement of Christmas in government, media, and advertising.  Christmas, as evidenced in its name, is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the long awaited day that the Messiah was embodied in human form.  That’s the meaning of Christmas.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who does not believe in him.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who — consistent with many religions, including Islam and Judaism — believes Jesus was a real person who walked this planet but was not the son of God.  I say that not with any disrespect.  I am simply identifying the basis for the holiday.

 

The controversy also is not as simple as some suggest, reducing it to the preference of articulating either “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” or something jolly old else.  A person could say “Season’s Greetings” and still acknowledge God.  Hence, the question is whether or not there is an intentional attempt to omit God during the season.

 

So… asking the better question… I won’t ask whether or not there is any existence of war; but is there an intent to omit any acknowledgement of Jesus in the holiday that originated because of him?  I ask because of what we have again recently witnessed…

 

  • Although changing their mind after a significant nationwide outrage, ESPN rejected a commercial set to run during a college basketball game from Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center.  The executive director of the foundation said the ad was rejected because ESPN found the words “Jesus” and “God” to be “problematic.”

 

  • A nativity scene was removed from Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina.  The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which works to eradicate any reference to religion and especially Christianity, pursued the removal, calling it illegal because it was not erected near a chapel.

 

  • Or in College Park, Georgia — similar to multiple places across the country — where elementary school children were to perform their annual Christmas musical program, prior to which the parents each received a letter saying, “Religious songs will not be included.”

 

Not be included.  Intentional omission.  No acknowledgement.

 

I understand that in order to be completely politically correct, we often have to “water things down.”  The inherent challenge, though, is when we water things down so much that we eventually remove the reason for the season.  Make no mistake about it; Christmas is about Christ.  Each of us can choose if and how to celebrate it.  What’s challenging is when we choose how someone else can or cannot celebrate.

 

Interestingly, there actually is a new holiday this time of year.  Perhaps you’ve heard of it:  “HumanLight.”  It was invented by secular humanists 12 years ago, celebrated annually on December 23rd.  It is not a direct attempt to secularize an existing holiday, but it is an intentional attempt to omit any acknowledgement of God.

 

I wonder if HumanLight has any songs… wonder, too, if they can actually be sung…

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

income inequality

While many may attempt to tell us they pay no attention to polls, I have one thing to say:  I don’t believe them.  They do pay attention.  The more pressing question is whether or not people act upon polls — and whether politicians actually govern by them.

 

From my limited vantage point, that’s been obvious the past month.  With ongoing, bipartisan criticism of Obamacare — and its flawed rollout, higher premiums, false promises, etc. — the President’s approval rating has fallen to the lowest point of his presidency.  The White House has thus attempted to change the subject; they have returned to the primary, passionate subjects that initially propelled Obama to office.  There seems intent to rally the base, his most passionate partisan supporters, since his approval numbers have dropped significantly even among them.

 

Note that this poll-driven tactic of rallying one’s base is by no means indigenous to Obama.  I have little doubt that if it was a Republican president whose support was eroding, we would be hearing him on FOX News talking about cutting taxes.  Instead, we’re hearing Obama on MSNBC talking about income inequality.  My question isn’t in regard to drumming up support for a passionate, partisan cause; my question is in regard to the logic behind such cause…

 

Isn’t it interesting that when we want to sway people to our side, we package perspective in a way it sounds best?  From fantastic food to super savings to magnanimous, wonderful, wise whatever, products and policies are always promoted in a way that makes them sound most pleasing and persuasive.  Hence, in the past decade, we have been lured by a newfound focus on fairness and equality…  foreclosure fairness, the Marketplace Fairness Act, Paycheck Fairness Act, the Fairness Doctrine… ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, Employment Equality, Marriage Equality, and the Equality Act.  I am not proposing that any of the above is or is not a wise pursuit; I am simply suggesting 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?

 

So in order to comprehend the challenge inherent within income inequality — as currently promoted — we must first move past the rhetoric.  The reality is that poverty is significant on this planet, and the compassionate, wise person has what I believe to be a calling to care for them.  The challenge, however, is when government mandates the means of that calling for the masses.

 

To support the current income inequality cause, people are pitted against one another:  the rich vs. the poor.  There is a strong suggestion and belief that if the rich weren’t as rich, then the poor wouldn’t be as poor — that success only stems from the expense of another.  There is a belief that wealth is limited, and thus, if it could simply be a little more redistributed, then life would finally be fair.

 

What I’m not always certain of is whether the intentional “pitting” is based on persuasion ploys or true belief.  Undoubtedly, when 2 groups are pitted against each other (i.e. Yankees vs. Red Sox, Duke vs. North Carolina, or Arabs vs. Israelis), we tend to more passionately favor one and denigrate the other.

 

The challenge within this argument then is that such assumes that wealth and money are equated.  Friends, wealth and money are not the same; money is a form of wealth.  Wealth can be manifested in a product or service or effort that adds value to someone else.  Wealth can then be traded for what the wealth creator needs or desires.  Hence, to assume that the “gain” of one is reflected in an identical “loss” of another — that his success only stems from that expense of the other — is a false concept of an economic transaction.  Furthermore, in my opinion, it is an illogical basis for the argument currently utilized to fight income inequality.

 

I do realize that the above discussion is undoubtedly incomplete.  It is also not offered without a genuine, gut-wrenching awareness of our ongoing need to care for the “least of these.”  But my point today is that the current call to combat income inequality — potentially driven by a drop in the polls — is based on incomplete logic… and possibly upon increased rhetoric and persuasion.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

the santa tradition

As the Christmas/holiday/yuletide/etc. season is quickly, post-Thanksgiving thrust upon us, a respected friend wrote about her family’s chosen approach in teaching their kids the meaning of this season.  Her approach is not necessarily the Intramuralist’s approach.  Still, I found her thoughts insightful, challenging, and at the very least, reasonable to wrestle with…

 

We don’t “do” Santa in our home. Or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Some may gasp in dismay as they feel like we are robbing our children of the magic and fun of being a child and believing in such things. And these are also the ones who gasp and become offended when we share why we have chosen not to do what most of our society does.

Simply put, we don’t want to lie to our kids. “It’s not lying,” some will assert… “It’s pretending. It’s allowing them to believe in something magical… I grew up believing in Santa and turned out just fine.”

But when my child point blank asks, “Is Santa real? Is he the one who really puts the presents under our tree? How would he get into our house? How could reindeer actually fly? How would it even be possible for one man to deliver presents to all of the children everywhere?” I am stuck with a decision. I can either perpetuate a mistruth or I can be honest with them. The root of the Santa tradition (which is also now completely commercialized and heavily marketed) is fiction.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. When my son figured out the truth about all of these make believe characters (when he was 4-5-years-old), his response was: “So every parent lies to their kids? Is everyone a liar?” He seemed appalled at the perceived injustice; he went on to say, “I am going to tell all of my friends. They need to know the truth. They are not going to be happy when they find out about this.” I spent a long time trying to help him understand why people do this. I said things like, “They feel it’s more like pretending; they don’t see it as lying. Different people believe in different things, and that’s okay. We each have to make our own decisions.  And you can’t tell other kids the truth because their parents will be very upset with you, because that’s their job — not yours.”

He eventually calmed down. But how silly it all must sound as we are working so hard to teach our kids about telling the truth and not lying. Lying is bad… but it’s okay for us adults to sometimes lie to our kids — even lying about good or fun things — yet leading them to believe in something that so obviously could never exist. It’s a bit confusing.

Which is another reason we chose to be real with them about these things. We talk a lot about God in our home. We talk about having faith in the unseen. We want them to know and believe in God, and we want them to trust that when we say that God is real, that we aren’t just pretending. We don’t want our kids to question us down the road or be hurt because we led them to believe in something that wasn’t real. It could ruin our credibility.

I am simply sharing why we have chosen to do things the way we have. Each of us really does have to choose our own path, regardless of how less or frequently travelled. We also need to respect one another’s chosen path. Just as we do not condemn others for choosing to embrace the tradition of Santa, we, too, should not be condemned for choosing not to perpetuate what’s untrue.  But it’s funny how defensive people get.  As a society, we aren’t very good at allowing one another to choose; too many get too defensive by the different choice of another.  Why would others be offended when I say we didn’t want to lie?

We each have the freedom to raise our children the way we see fit. In our family, we do things differently. It may not make us the most popular or the most liked. But we do “real” in our home. Real love. Real life. Real celebration. Our hope is that we can raise kids who have real faith in a very real God.  And for us, Santa just didn’t fit into our family.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

JFK

Over the course of the past week, we’ve heard many tributes, remembrances, and questions about the life and death of JFK.  Friday was the 50th anniversary of those shots reportedly heard ‘round the world, the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy.

 

I never heard those shots.  As a person whose most significant ‘I-remember-when’ moments are 9/11 and the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger, my thoughts on JFK stem most from the impressions shared by others.  I was not alive on that fateful November day in ’63.

 

Hence, with all due respect to the many who have far more knowledge than me, I thought it would be interesting to share/wrestle with my perspective.  Let me be more specific…  I thought it would be interesting to share my perspective, which I know is limited and incomplete.  (Wouldn’t we be more respectful and respected if we each knew and acknowledged an incomplete perspective??)  My observations are as follows:

 

JFK seemed iconic…  There seemed more fascination with him than with other presidents.  Maybe the iconic status manifested itself due to being so young… maybe so handsome.  Maybe it was that he had such young, playful children in the White House.  Maybe being the first Catholic president was a factor.  Maybe, too, his iconic status was more cast and preserved via his shocking, untimely death.

 

The nation didn’t know him…  Granted, in the days before TV and celebrity were synonymous — far before Facebook — much less was known about our leaders.  Kennedy was the first president regularly seen on TV, but there were some things people didn’t see.  The rumors of Marilyn Monroe, others, the unfaithfulness… I don’t know what really happened there.  I don’t know how faithful or ethical the man really was.  I don’t think those that were alive then truly knew either.

 

His liberal affiliation didn’t mean what it means now…  Many seem to enjoy the debate as to whether Kennedy would be a liberal or conservative if alive today — not this semi-humble blogger.  I am far more interested in thought-provoking dialogue.  No doubt JFK supported several stereotypical, liberal positions, such as Keynesian Econ (an Intramuralist “egad”) and the expansion of Social Security.  But Kennedy also advocated for more conservative ideas, such as limited government, a reduction in taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and more autonomy given to cities and states.  While it seems incomprehensible to suggest JFK would definitely be a strong Democrat or definitely lean Republican, the reality is that Kennedy was a moderate.  What he stood for 50 years ago is not wholly in sync with the current platform of the Democratic National Committee.

 

And my final, perhaps most poignant observation about Pres. John Fitzgerald Kennedy…  We’ve forgotten what he taught us.  Kennedy shared some incredible wisdom which has been generously repeated over the past 5 decades…  “ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”  How refreshing in a debt-ridden country that appears plagued with a growing entitlement epidemic!

 

But Kennedy taught the generations one more thing, more in his death than his life — one thing I believe we’ve forgotten far too quickly.  We’ve forgotten that we’re vulnerable… that we’re not in control of all things.

 

People die — sometimes in their prime.  Too many are taken so early, and no matter their power or influence or money or other earthly matters, we are a vulnerable people.  We are not God.  We are not in control.  If we truly realized our own vulnerability — and yes, limitations — my sense is we’d be wiser… nicer… more respectful, compassionate, and empathetic.  We’d be kinder, humbler, and better.  We certainly would not be so arrogant.

 

Like I said, there are people who have far more knowledge than me.

 

… working on that humility… always before knowledge…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

why/when race matters

Tell me:  why does skin color matter?  When does it matter?

 

In an interview with the BBC to promote her new film, “The Butler” — a film about race relations — Oprah Winfrey discussed race relations and the White House.

 

The BBC interviewer asked:  “Has it ever crossed your mind that some of the treatment of Obama and the challenges he’s faced and some of the reporting he’s received is because he’s an African American?”

 

Noting the celebrity status and thus power of Winfrey, there is ample credence to the notion that Oprah’s public relations team most likely provided this question to the interviewer beforehand.  Nonetheless, here is Oprah’s response:

 

“Has it ever crossed my mind? … Probably it’s crossed my mind more times than it’s crossed your mind.  Just the level of disrespect.  When the senator yelled out, ‘You’re a liar’ — remember that?  Yeah, I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, and that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American.”

 

While the timing of Winfrey’s public assertion may have more to do with her theatrical release, it’s interesting indeed that the claim comes simultaneously with Pres. Obama’s approval ratings sinking steeply.  With the flawed rollout of Obamacare and the recognition of unknowns, mistruths, and broken promises, Obama has plummeted to approval numbers comparable to Bush after Katrina and Bill after Monica (… sorry, that line flowed off the keyboard just a little too quickly).

 

But my point today is not about approval numbers.  In fact, my personal impression is that our leaders and their staffs pay far too much attention to polls and perceptions; too much decision-making is guided by their perceived image.  My question today centers more around race.

 

Regardless of whether the question was posed prior by her own PR staff, I have little doubt Oprah said what she meant and meant what she said.  She believes that Pres. Obama has been disrespected many times because he is black.  In other words, she believes skin color matters.

 

I struggle with that.  I don’t struggle because I disagree with her.  No, the reality is that there exist people in this country who dislike and disagree with this President and his policies solely because he’s black.  The reality is equally true, however, that there exist people in this country who like and agree with Obama and his policies solely because he’s black.  Neither of those scenarios represents objective, critical thinking.  In both select situations — regardless of opposition or advocacy — skin color matters.

 

Where I hesitate is when a person asserts a definitive conclusion from a limited vantage point… when someone such as Oprah concludes a motive exists, which may be based more on their own passion and opinion than on a complete and comprehensive perspective.  For example, when the congressman yelled, “You lie,” what logical, irrefutable information do we have that ties the assertion of falsehood to the color of Obama’s skin?  Note that no president should ever be chastised like that; no leader should be chastised publicly, so disrespectfully.  Let us also note that the comment was in response to an Obamacare promise, a subject which we are painfully now learning was enacted with some significant mistruths.

 

It is well known here that I believe the Affordable Care Act, in totality, to be an unwise law.  It’s too big, too costly, and too prone to corruption.  Let me also state unequivocally that my perspective has zero to do with the color of anyone’s skin.

 

Race does matter in our country.  It matters to many blacks, whites, Hispanics, you-name-it.  We don’t always know why.  But unknown to Oprah, we can’t tell you when.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

this used to be my playground

As we watch the events of the past 6 weeks — the flawed rollout of Obamacare and the resulting rhetorical responses — the opportunists who partisanly pounce on perceived Armageddonish, administrative activity — and the loyalists who adhere blindly to minimizing or even dismissing the negativity — I struggle with how to discuss this well.

 

As said, I believe the Affordable Care Act makes government too big, costs too much, and allows for too much potential corruption.  There are better ways to care for those in need of affordable health insurance, as a one-size-fits-all insurance policy does not actually fit all.

 

Let me repeat, too, that I am disturbed at the unprecedented enactment, as no law of this economic magnitude has been previously passed without at least some bipartisan support.  This isn’t a game.  More than one point, one vote, or one run-batted-in should be necessary to enact such major legislation.  However, Pres. Obama advocated and executed this approach, and I thus respectfully hold him responsible.

 

I’ve learned, however, from my thoughtful friends who consistently camp on a distinct side of the partisan aisle that when a like scenario unfolds, many lose respect and trust in our nation’s leaders.  Many, for example, lost trust in Bush 43 due to the Iraq invasion and/or his response to Hurricane Katrina.  Many now are losing trust in Obama due to the way he’s handled healthcare.  Throw in the fact that the trust of 2 more of our most previous presidents, Bush 41 and Clinton (1) also was eroded.  Bush 41 promised not to raise taxes, but did so anyway.  Clinton, no less, split microscopic grammar hairs attempting to alter the definition of “is” via his extra curricular Oval Office activities.

 

And so, yes, I struggle with how to discuss this well.  I must thus again return to what is elementary.  If our leaders only governed with the basic, ethical, elementary rules, perhaps then our trust would not evaporate so dramatically.  Let’s go back to what we learned in kindergarten.  Let’s return to the playground…

 

Healthcare, etal., should have been handled like this (with my semi-subtle, editorial comments in between):

 

  1. Let everyone play.  (Not just those who think like you.)
  2. Don’t judge a kid who’s different.  (Yes, we’re all kids.  You’re kids.  And If you can’t  talk nicely to a kid who’s different and consider how they feel, you’re acting superior.  When you act superior, you’re being judgmental.  Judgment is ugly.  Even in kids.)
  3. Let the children run.  (If they fall and scrape their knee or break something, they’ll learn from it — and be wiser in the future.  We don’t have to make a rule that prohibits children from running.  We don’t have to legislate everything!  Geepers.  Let all of us learn!)
  4. Say what you mean and mean what you say.  (Lying is bad.  We learned that in preschool.)
  5. No throwing dirt.  (I repeat:  no throwing dirt.)
  6. Know your job and respect authority.  (Recognize that you are not an authority on all things; and refrain from doing things that are not within your job description.)
  7. Be a good sport.  (In the minority or majority.)
  8. If you choose to lick the monkey bars during cold weather, don’t blame anyone else.  (Don’t blame the person who dared you; don’t blame the weather.  Take responsibility for your own actions.)
  9. Remember these rules are only for the playground.  (Our job is not to establish rules for the bathroom and the gym.  We don’t have to govern every area.)

 

And the number one playground rule Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, and Congress should have learned:

10. If you can’t abide by the rules, then don’t play on the playground.

 

Respectfully,

AR