Category: Current Issue

Posted on

now

While there certainly exists “a time for everything,” now is not the time for…

 

Blame.

Finger pointing.

Any “I-told-you-so’s.”

Declarations of winning.

Accusations of losing.

Arrogance.

Loquacious boasts.

Rhetoric.

Disrespect.

Nor any pats on the back.

 

While many will cast verbal stones at who’s responsible, our government experienced a partial shut down due to one primary bottom line:  our fiscal house is out of order.  We are spending too much money, too fast, with minimally restricted borrowing… AND… we have no specific, measurable plan to pay it back.  As said here amid multiple posts — just like any financial entity, such an approach is unsustainable.

 

Hence, while there exists that time for everything, now is the time for…

 

Courageous leadership.

Courage to tackle the politically unpopular.

Courage to consider specific plans to pay foreign countries back.

Courage to change the federal programs that continue to run at an increased loss.

Courage to address the meaning of “entitlement.”

 

What are the people entitled to?  Who and how shall such be paid for?  Those questions must be asked and answered — and answered free from the rhetoric and disrespect we’ve witnessed these last 3 weeks especially from the legislative and executive branch.

 

Let me add one more idea as to what, also, this is not the time for…

 

Politicians and pundits often pursue policy initiatives based on when they feel they have the strongest “political capital,” meaning they have more leverage and public popularity which could potentially propel into law policy that would otherwise be more challenging to enact.  (FYI:  The Affordable Care Act is an excellent study in political capital utilization.)  If our leaders are going to lead courageously — and not politically — they will pursue what’s most important now; they will not pursue other agenda items first.

 

In the opinion of this semi-humble blogger, what’s most important is getting our federal fiscal house in order.  Now.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

handshakes

And then there was this, according to ABC News:

 

“Post-game handshakes are meant to symbolize good sportsmanship, but the ritual has become so volatile on Kentucky high school fields that the supervising association is urging to schools to skip the practice.

 

‘We’ve had situations where young men in football this year reach across and punch a kid below the belt,’ said Julian Tackett, commissioner of the Kentucky High School Athletic Association.  ‘And we’ve had two young ladies at the volleyball net get into a fist fight when shaking hands.’

 

In an attempt to end the post-game fights, the KHSAA released a statement last month telling coaches they should stop the practice.

 

‘Personally I hate to see this change,’ Tackett wrote on Sept. 19. ‘I think we should reinforce behavior and civility, but incidents even in our own state in volleyball, soccer and football, have illustrated this need.’”

 

Now even though the Kentucky High School Athletic Association has since received significant backlash after publicity by ABC, CBS, and FOX and others, which has caused the athletic organization to clarify that they were not “banning” the practice, but rather “advising against it” and will thus hold coaches responsible for any assaults, the Intramuralist can understand the initial, potentially outrageous response.

 

How is such a response a surprise in a culture which continually preaches civility but also, simultaneously, seemingly follows the glaring mantra of “do as I say, not as I do”? …

 

… in sports… relationships… governing…

 

… for example…

 

In September, after a baseball game — note I said “game” — a 24 year old Dodgers fan was fatally stabbed after a confrontation with some fans of the San Francisco Giants.

 

And in Washington, not long after politicians and pundits flocked to the pulpits and podiums to admonish the violent vernacular that may have contributed to the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in which 6 were killed and 19 were injured — including Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), those same politicians and pundits are arguing today, justifying the use of the very words they at one time berated.  Pres. Obama and congressional Republicans and Democrats seem too busy arguing to solve the current budget/spending/entitlement crisis.

 

So why should it surprise us that a supervising athletic organization of our teens simply desires not to fake it?  Can’t you hear their huddles?

 

Shake hands?  Are you kidding me?!  Why would they shake hands with their opponent?  All these supposedly smart people, grow up and go to Washington; they don’t shake hands.  They don’t treat each other with respect.  Who are they kidding?  At least our high schoolers will no longer have to fake respect.  Why then, should we make them shake hands?

 

If we are going to teach the younger generation well, we should start by not faking respect.  Civility will only be reinforced when we truly mean every ounce of the respect a simple handshake conveys.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

winning

(FYI:  This is not a sports post.  I promise.)

 

In an epic shootout, neither team seemed able to miss.  Each was continuously on the offensive.  They would sling the ball down the field, seemingly with ease, with previous rumors of solid defense having eerily dissipated as the game continued to unfold.  Fans in the stands, proudly donned their colors, cheering loudly and only for the team they’ve become devoted to via passion and habit…  habit and passion.  Yes, the fans have been rooting for their team for so long, so loyally, so blindly, that it did not matter the epic effort both teams were putting forth.  It did not matter the significance of the moment nor any semblance of ethical play.  The reality is that the play of the other team did not matter regardless of how historic or unprecedented.

 

It also did not matter what the other team said — before or after the game.  They are, after all, the other team.  The other team always talks trash… right??  Or so we perceive.

 

The bottom line is that the fans and the team only want one thing.  They want to win.

 

Our culture’s prioritization of winning unfortunately often allows foolishness to fall under the guise of something it’s not.  We want to win.  And so we quit listening and considering and offering one another the respect each man deserves in order to form that more perfect union.  As opposed to looking for the best, most effective solution, we instead focus on winning.

 

Friends, regardless of how often the President and congressional Democrats and Republicans examine their internal polling data, no one is winning the current government shut down.  Regardless of the cyber space status updates by the fans in the stands, no one is winning.  In fact this game is not about winning.

 

There is a problem that needs to be solved more than the scoring of any political points.  The problem with the current shut down and debt ceiling debate is that Democrat and Republican congressmen and presidents have kicked the budgetary can down the road for far too long.  They have each utilized a politically expedient approach to fund their party initiatives instead of responsibly fund the federal government.

 

Let’s face it… our elect have been arguing (and yes, the so-called mature are arguing) over a “C.R.,” a “continuing resolution.”  Continuing resolutions are only necessary when no budget exists.  No federal budget has existed for the last 5 years.  Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has even said there’s “no need” to have one.  Every financial entity, my friends — from our minute households to major corporations — operates on some kind of budget.  Our federal government has avoided crafting and passing a budget for 5 years.

 

Budgets let us know the specifics of how much we’re spending and what we’re spending our money on.  They provide a framework for fiscal accountability, financial prudence, and future planning; they thus allow us to ensure entitlement spending doesn’t exponentially — and unsustainably — expand.  Without a budget, there is little to no accountability, prudence, and planning.

 

Hence, the bottom line of the current issue is not about Obamacare nor about the Republicans or Democrats holding anything “hostage” (geepers).  The bottom line is that the stalemate exists because our elect continue to kick the fiscal can down the road and neglect dealing with an unsustainable pattern of deficit spending.  CR’s are not budgets; they are only provisions for continued spending.  The debate over more unsustainable spending — without accountability, prudence, and planning — is the bottom line of the current shut down.

 

Back to the epic shootout… I was actually thinking of Sunday’s Broncos-Cowboys game, the 4th highest scoring game in the history of the NFL.  Each team was playing to win…  unfortunately, for far too many of us, just like them, just like the elect, winning is often more important than recognizing the significance of the moment and any semblance of ethical play.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the same team

“I have a serious concern to bring up with you, my friends… I’ll put it as urgently as I can:  you must get along with each other.  You must learn to be considerate of one another, cultivating a life in common.

 

I bring this up because some brought a most disturbing report to my attention — that you’re fighting among yourselves!  I’ll tell you exactly what I was told:  you’re all picking sides!”

 

For the first time since the leadership of Ronald Reagan, the President and Congress — led by 2 separate parties — are united.  I know that may surprise you.  The government is shut down, but they’re united.  They actually wholeheartedly agree on something.  They agree that the other party is totally to blame.

 

Yep, it’s totally the other party’s fault.  And by reading several cyberspace posts, it also appears many of us have been seduced into the same line of thinking…  One party is all right.  One party is all wrong.  How stupid can the supporters of that other party be?

 

The Intramuralist believes that this process is not good and not pure and not right.  And since both parties are fully involved in the process, I hold them both responsible.  Perhaps you favor one party over another.  But recognize that both have contributed to this process… perhaps by current tactics… perhaps by previous budget approaches… perhaps by lack of them.  Both parties have sufficiently contributed to the now.

 

“I’ll put it as urgently as I can:  you must get along with each other.”

 

My sense is that one of our greatest challenges as a nation is that we are awful at appreciating different opinion.  We fail to recognize that varied opinion has the potential to sharpen; varied opinion can ironically solidify what’s true.  And yet, we’re bad at both allowing and appreciating it.  Congress is bad at it.  Pres. Obama is bad at it.  Pundits and politicians and people on TV are bad at it.  Arguably worse, we are bad at it. Instead of allowing dissenting dialogue, learning to be considerate of one another, recognizing we’re on the same team and thus cultivating a life in common together in this country, we work instead to squelch.  Hence, we don’t negotiate… hence, we keep saying the same thing over and over… hence, we keep saying the same thing louder… hence, we play victim… hence, we become overly dramatic… hence, we trot out in front of the cameras… hence, we quit meeting face-to-face… hence, we work more to rally the masses than to solve the situation.

 

For smart people, we are not always wise.

 

Wise people on the same team do not pick sides.  We are not a nation of Republicans and Democrats.  We are not any 99 and 1% nor 37 and 63; we are not separate percentages.  We are not the rich and poor, the black and white, the majority and minority, nor the educated and uneducated.  We are not the Catholics and the Protestants nor the atheists and the Jews.  We are also not even Patriots or Saints.  We are Americans.  We are cultivating a life in common.  We live here together.  We’re on the same team.  Hence, we must learn to allow, appreciate, and grow from dissenting opinion — as opposed to squelch it.

 

So as for the current shut down, here’s the Intramuralist quick fix:

 

  1. Stop payment of congressmen’s and the President’s pay.
  2. Get the biased media out of it.
  3. Meet with dissenters face-to-face with the intent to listen better — not simply restate own opinion.
  4. Compromise.  (You ask where can we compromise?  At the very least, in this layman’s opinion, we can require all members of the executive and legislative branches to abide by the same healthcare rules they are requiring of the rest of us.)  And…
  5. Be humble and quit saying and thinking that the other party is entirely wrong.

 

Such an approach may not quickly solve the shut down, but it would be a good start… especially for people who’ve forgotten which team they’re on.  That would be the same.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

control

I keep thinking about the sequence of events unraveling this week and last…

 

… about the shootings in D.C., Chicago, and Kenya…

… about the church bombing in Pakistan…

… about renewed attempts to confront global warming…

… about the Sec. of State signing a controversial U.N. arms regulation treaty…

… about all the unrest in the world.

 

Recently we wrestled with the ‘some kind of evil’ in the world.  We don’t like evil.  We aren’t comfortable calling evil out, especially when it seems to manifest itself within an actual person.  We inconsistently, subjectively acknowledge evil.

 

I wonder if one of the primary reasons we inconsistently acknowledge evil is because we view it from an illusion of control.

 

And so my thoughts continue…

 

From the violent shootings to increased terrorism to global warming to the varied, proposed legislation designed to discontinue or diminish each, one perspective seems to underlie all.  In each of those circumstances, we have somehow embraced this idea that we are in control.  Yes, we have embraced an illusion of control.  We think we can control all things.

 

We think we can control the shootings…

 

… if only there were increased gun control legislation, we could stop the mad men… we could thwart all efforts… there’d be no more madness manifested in this oh, so violent, wicked way…

 

We think we can control global warming…

 

… if only people would change their environmental habits… be more sensitive… negate carbon emissions… fewer plastic bags… no aerosol cans and increased recycling… there’d be no more significant alterations to our climate…

 

Yes, we can control this.  We can rebuild.  We know best.  We can control all things.

 

Time and time again, the Intramuralist’s sincere conclusion is that as a people, we can be incredibly arrogant.  We think we’re so smart.  And smart we may be, but we repeatedly confuse intelligence with wisdom.  The arguable, number one challenge across government and society this day is that we have blindly embraced the illusion of control.

 

We have bought into the notion that somehow we are in control of all things.  We think if we do what we’ve determined to be good, if there is a God, whatever god exists will reward us.  But we don’t have to acknowledge God — if he does exist — or dare even consider any submission to a higher power — because we perceive ourselves to be in control.

 

I believe that to be an unfortunately, arrogant perspective.

 

Yes, in all of our intelligence, we have still, somehow embraced this illusion of control.  Perhaps intelligence is not always a virtue.  For while there are certainly prudent efforts we can adopt to care for our people and planet well, we cannot allow those efforts to continue to paint this illusion.  Such acknowledgement might actually be the beginning of wisdom.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

religious freedom

Allow me to briefly recap 2 outrageous weekend acts, in order to transition to the outrage…

 

In Kenya…

 

In an upscale Nairobi shopping mall — in a situation that remains fluid as of this writing — militants have shot and killed over 60 persons.  According to the New York Times, “masked gunmen moved methodically through the crowded mall on Saturday,” killing men, women and children.  The gunmen have been linked to the al-Qaeda-backed Somali terror group al-Shabaab.

 

In northwest Pakistan…

 

Outside a church where the parishioners were exiting after the service, a pair of suicide/homicide bombers killed approximately 81 people.  According to USA Today, “witnesses described a scene of dust, debris and devastation.”  Body parts were apparently gruesomely scattered amid the debris.  A wing of the Taliban claimed responsibility.

 

The glaring commonality between these 2 heinous acts?  On 2 separate continents, non-Muslims were intentionally targeted.

 

Religious freedom seems in jeopardy, friends — albeit not just in Africa and Asia; it spans across the globe… especially Christian freedom.  Hence, the Intramuralist wonders:  where is the outrage?

 

Truthfully, I think it’s hard for us to express outrage as Americans.  Why?  Because we’ve already accepted so much suppression in our own country.  The suppression may not yet manifest itself via shopping mall nor church bombings, as it currently comes in more subtle forms.  For example…

 

  • As reported here last week, a 10 year old public school girl in Tennessee was banned from writing about God for a required school assignment.
  • In Massachusetts, persons are fervently working to remove the phrase “one nation under God” from the Pledge.
  • And then there’s this…

In North Carolina, where a Christian apologetics conference, entitled “Truth for a New Generation” will take place later this week with nationally respected speakers, the local paper, The Charlotte Observer, would not allow the conference to advertise as desired, paid, and previously agreed to.  Granted, the conference planners asked some tough questions in their ad:

 

“Is same sex marriage morally wrong?”
“Are Islam and Christianity the same?”
“Are godless people going to destroy America?”

 

The questions were chosen “to encourage discourse, inquiry, and to result in a strong ad, to raise awareness about the conference.”  The Charlotte Observer, however, would not allow the asking of the questions.  It’s not that all answers to the above are wise and good and true, but when the media begins to squelch the dialogue so that dissenting opinion cannot even take place, they have sowed and watered the seeds of religious suppression.  That suppression will only get worse, as witnessed in Kenya and Pakistan.

 

So where is the outrage?  Where is the outrage in Africa and Asia?

 

And where is the outrage here?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

media duplicity?

One of the questions I routinely ask is:  “What don’t we know?”

 

Opinion, passion, and policy are often drummed up based on reactions to incomplete information.  In other words, we allow incompleteness — which may thus equate to inaccuracy — to frequently — often blindly — serve as justification.  I wonder… What don’t we know?

 

What we don’t know can be due to either an inability or unwillingness to hear all sides of a story; it can also simply be an unknown lack of information.  In moments such as those, my sense is the wise man learns to pause.  The Intramuralist is more disturbed, however, when the incomplete information is intentional — or as in this week’s glaring case — in the form of potential media duplicity.

 

On Tuesday, Time Magazine unveiled their weekly periodical across the nation’s newsstands.  Across America, an enticing photo featured a college football player, leg up in the air, accompanied by the headline, “It’s Time to Pay College Athletes.”  The question of whether or not college athletes should be paid is a good one— and one which may one day end up as the subject of this respected space.  However, the college athlete question was only posed to Time’s American readers.

 

The rest of the globe saw a strikingly different Time cover.  It instead featured a confident-appearing photo of Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the headline, “America’s Weak and Waffling, Russia’s Rich and Resurgent.”

 

I have 2 immediate questions:  (1) What don’t we know?  And (2) what is Time Magazine’s motive?

 

Why did Time intentionally alter their American cover?

 

Time contributors Joe Klein and Michael Scherer — neither of whom is known for their conservative views — wrote the following after Putin’s lead in Syria:  “[Obama] has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world. It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed.”

 

And…

 

“For generations, the American people have had a standing deal with their Presidents: Go ahead and mess with the prime-time lineup once in a while, interrupt Who’s the Boss, Seinfeld, NCIS: Los Angeles, or whatever. But you better make it count. You better have something new to say. And when it comes to speeches of national security, you better leave the impression that you have this thing under control.

 

On Tuesday night, President Obama decided to test this unspoken pact. For 16 minutes from the East Room, he took over the nation’s televisions to repeat the same complex and contradictory case for bombing Syria that he has been making for two weeks, even though he acknowledged at the end, there is no longer an imminent need for the country to make a decision. He delayed the start of America’s Got Talent to announce he would be delaying a congressional vote.”

 

Time was highly critical of the President’s handling of Syria.  However, their criticism was intentionally hidden from American readers.  Why would the rest of the world receive a different cover?  In fact, why would the rest of the world receive the same cover — and ours be so strikingly different?

 

What was Time’s motive?

Why would they do that?

Why would they hide constructive criticism of an American president?

 

And yes…  what don’t we know?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

Syria once more

When I was a first time parent, honest to goodness, I didn’t know what I was doing.  When my second child was born, I was a little better, but truth be told, I was by no means improved in all areas.  I’d like to tell you that child number three resulted in perfection, but no, I humbly share that such a status does not exist.

 

One of the areas in which all parents must improve is discipline.  In order for discipline to be effective, it needs to be 3 things:  logical, consistent, and timely.

 

Today’s post, friends, is actually not about parenting.  In fact, for the 3rd post in a row, the Intramuralist focuses on Syria.  Why?  Because world wars are started by singular acts.  Because so many uncontrollable variables are involved here.  Because like it or not, politics are in play on all sides of this equation.  And because the wisdom and results of military action are ambiguous.

 

Tonight Pres. Obama will interrupt prime time television to address us on Syria.  He proposes that the United States must take military action against Syria as a retaliatory response for their use of chemical weapons.  Retaliatory means to return like for like… to reciprocate… sometimes, thus — like parenting — it means to discipline.

 

Is the proposed retaliation logical?  Is bombing a logical response to the death of 1400 Syrian citizens at the hands of their own government?  Does the so-called “punishment” fit the crime?

 

Is the proposed retaliation consistent?  Thousands have died in other nations in recent years, albeit not via chemical weapons.  Are we being consistent when the means of death — as opposed to the number of deaths — serves as this metaphorical red line?

 

And timely.  Geepers.  Don’t get me started.  Let me attempt to address this respectfully via an analogy from my youth…

 

When I was a kid, we often played “Stratego,” the military strategy game where all roles and options remain hidden from the enemy until the time of attack.  While I, for one, think no president should be able to authorize military intervention without a clear majority of congressional support, I do not understand the lengthy delay of the decision.  Hence, any American response no longer seems timely.

 

A clear majority do not share the President’s desire to attack.  The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 64% of the American public oppose military intervention.  Hence, tonight’s goal is to persuade us that military intervention, regardless of logic, consistency, and timeliness is necessary.

 

Perhaps instead of any persuasive rhetoric, Obama could borrow from the unfiltered responses after yesterday’s slate of initial NFL games.  In fact, I’m thinking I’d prefer all politicians were a little more unfiltered.  Obama could indeed open with or include some of yesterday’s actual quotes…

 

“First off, it wasn’t a very smart play.”

“There were a lot of question marks…  are the plays going to work?”  

“I’m disappointed in myself. This loss is on me.”

“This is just one step in the right direction.”

“It wasn’t the easiest, but I’m not a person to make excuses.”

“Obviously, it wasn’t perfect.  And there’s a lot of things we can do better.”

“We’ve got a lot of work to do.  We need to understand that.  We need to stick together and persevere.”

“We’ve got to go back and look and see exactly what they did and how they took us out of what we wanted to do on offense.”

“It’s not the way we drew it up.  We’re all going to learn from this.  There’s no reason to point any fingers.”

 

From NFL to parenting to military intervention, we must embrace logic, consistency, and timeliness.  Being unfiltered, also, often helps.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

baaaaaaaaack

In the words of one infamous, fairly muscular Arnold, “I’m baaaaaackkkk!”

And I’m thrilled and psyched to be here!

Friends, what a joy it’s been…

 

First allow me to affirm our excellent guest writers…

They offered insight and opinion that was spoken from their point of view.  Please note… I have never avowed that my perspective or point of view is always right.  I have never opined that my way is the right way nor my thoughts, the right thoughts.  But I have sworn that if any opinion is not respectfully stated, both the opinion and opinion’s holder lose significant credibility.

 

Thank you, writers and loyal readers, for participating during this time.  You spur me — and others — on.

 

Nonetheless, so much has happened.

 

From Syria to sequester’s impact to seasonal summer events, we have witnessed much.  In the past month, the Intramuralist has also toured Boston, NYC, the shore and the shows.  My family has travelled the East Coast.  I have observed and reflected on much, watching people, interacting with many, witnessing both pitfalls and potential, and being both encouraged and challenged.  I want to fire you up! 🙂

 

Hence…

 

I have so much to say.

(…shocking…)

 

Going to war.  Attacking Syria.  What’s our role?  Is it necessary and/or effective for the United States to be the world’s so-called “police”?  What are the long term ramifications?  What’s the cost?  Is it appropriate for us to be the avengers of wrong?

 

When does international law apply?  Does international law apply without willing submission?

 

Congressional recess.  (They sure seem out a lot.)

 

Blurred lines.  Blurred with or without Miley Cyrus.  Blurred lines that have nothing to do with music.

 

Obamacare.  What’s happening with that?  Are you watching?  Is it all good?  Could we admit what’s good? … and what’s not?

 

Cost.  Too high a cost on far too many things.

 

The Little League World Series. The importance of little league.  The importance of play.  Have we forgotten how to play?

 

What about smiles?  Have you seen how few smile on our city subways?  We look down.  Look smug.  Avoid eye contact at all costs.  Why do so many — so many even of us — avoid eye contact?

 

Family.  Loving them.  No matter what.  (No matter what.)  Blood.  Water.  Thickness.

 

Having life figured out.  Not.

 

Balanced opinion. Learning from others.  Learning from the expression of opinion that’s different than ours. Those clever guest writers.  From beats to baseball and family bartenders… from parenting to privacy and uncanny prophecy.  Sitting still long enough to listen and hear what they say.

 

Summer. Yes, summer.  It was grand.

 

There is much to say in the days ahead, friends.  There is also much to learn.

 

Respectfully… always… (and so psyched to be back…)

AR

Posted on

privacy (guest writer #10)

“What’s the big deal?”

This is the response I hear most often when broaching the subject of privacy and the whole Snowden affair.

 

“My life is an open book. I’ve done nothing to be ashamed of, so I don’t really care who knows what I say or do.”

 

That may be true, but is that really the point?

 

Two of my children living in my house have a bevy of electronic devices (i.e. cell phone, iPods, e-readers, computers, etc.) One is 14 years old and the other is 22.

 

Now, for the 14-year old, we have total access. We know her passwords, we spot check text messages and emails, have friended her on Facebook, and look over her shoulder when she is online. It is not that we distrust her, but she is a child and still under our protection. Our job as a parent is both to keep her safe and to help her navigate through the good and bad of communicating electronically.  Whether or not you have set up the same rules for your teenager, you probably understand why we do what we do. We know that minors have yet to acquire the wisdom, life-experience, skills and discernment needed to live independently. In other words, children need parenting.

 

On the other hand, if we were to engage in this same level of involvement with our 22 year-old, you would say that we were over-bearing, over-reaching, over-protective, and, well, just wrong.

 

Why?

Because he is adult.

 

And as an adult, our gut tells us that he has some rights. These rights include the right to privacy, the right to expression, the right to his own beliefs, the right to not have unwarranted searches of his property and possessions, the right to protect himself and his property from invasion, and the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. If some of these sound familiar, it might be because our founding fathers guaranteed these rights in the amendments of the United States Constitution.

 

So what is the big deal about Snowden’s revelation that our government is actively collecting and storing every single electronic communication that you create?

 

Is it that our government no longer considers its citizens as independent adults? Are we seen by the government as children needing care and supervision? Do we want the people in our government to view themselves as responsible to oversee its citizens, or as public servants that work for and represent a free people?  And, do we as a people want our citizens to view themselves as responsible, self-governing, capable adults?

 

I think the big deal is in the answers to these questions.

 

Respectfully,

Sharon