Category: Current Issue

Posted on

we’ve got something — how ’bout you?

There was a great cheer when I was in high school (and no, we will not discuss today how actual long ago that was). But I remember being somewhat enthralled with the “we’ve got spirit — yes, we do” line, to which the perceived opposing side took their turn chanting the same…

“We’ve got spirit — yes, we do! We’ve got spirit; how ‘bout you?!”

The chants would continue for a seemingly prolonged amount of time — loudly, in unison, joined by a plethora of finger pointing at the other team. As the pointing and shouting lost a bit of their vocal luster, one side would alter their intonation by instead shouting simply, “We’ve got more! We’ve got more!”

To which the adolescents — not wanting the other to have the last word — would immediately retort, “That’s what they all say! That’s what they all say!”

Many days I wonder how much we’ve actually grown; let me say it another way… Many days I wonder how many patterns repeat themselves and how adolescent/teen behavior is contemporarily made manifest, although the adults involved now use bigger words, a few more syllables, have a little more money, and dress maybe more maturely.

True, we don’t seem to hear chants of one societal group having far more spirit than another, but we do hear less rhythmic refrains, such as…

“We’ve got compassion, yes, we do! We’ve got compassion; how ‘bout you?”

And we then certainly hear the…

“We’ve got more! We’ve got more!”

And…

“That’s what they all say!”

Maybe it’s verbalized; maybe it’s not. Yet one could easily argue the compassion self-assessment is generously implied… and the rest of the onlookers, watching at the so-called game, get lured into believing that only one side is motivated by compassion.

Think about the current refugee resettlement situation, for example…

I so admire those who desire to love the refugee well, exemplifying the message of “The New Colossus,” the words engraved inside the pedestal’s lower level on the Statue of Liberty. “… Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” I see such compassion, in wanting to care for the person who has less than we, wanting to share what we have and give them what they need.

I also so admire those who desire to care for our citizens well, exemplifying the message of the Constitution, the words articulated in the introductory Preamble… wanting to “… insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare” of the American people. I see such compassion, in wanting to care for the people with whom we live, wanting to be more scrutinizing of those who come from terrorist-harboring countries.

Here’s the unpopular reality. Both of those above two motives are full of compassion. They simply prioritize which group of people to show the most perceived compassion to.

Hence, it’s inaccurate to chant “we’ve got compassion — yes, we do” while assuming another side has none. Yet sometimes we’re so busy shouting and pointing fingers, that we make such careless assumptions.

There is simply no logical place for the “we’ve got more” chants…

… even if that’s what they all say.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

the pendulum

Oh, how the pendulum swings…

First to one side
Then to the other
Extreme on both ends

One goes higher
The next goes faster
Boasts of higher and faster swell

Oh, how the pendulum swings…

Constantly in motion
Never staying long in the opposite ends
Seemingly most stable in the middle

Yes, oh, how the pendulum swings.

I had a great conversation with a new friend the other day; I loved it… instantly authentic, lots of truth, active listening, deep topics, no offense, with the highly valued bonus of great wit and exceptionally well-timed sarcasm… yes, my kind of conversation.

We discussed the challenge of current political climate — a climate full of falsehoods and “fake-ness,” minimal truth, limited listening, all sorts of mountain-out-of-molehill topics, and ample offense… with unfortunately, no added wit nor sarcasm.

And we talked about the political pendulum.

Some find relief in the recent pattern of 4/8 years of one ideology more promoted and accepted, then 4/8 years of an opposite ideology, with the political pendulum swinging back and forth from the extremes. The idea is that if a person can persevere through the presidency and prominence of one for a limited number of years, the pendulum will soon be back to a place more desired to that individual… granted, again, for only a limited number of years. The pendulum never lasts at the extreme.

On one hand, that gives people peace, as no one person or party can be — will be — in control for all time. On another hand, the idea is great cause for concern, as each time the pendulum seems to swing “higher and faster,” so-to-speak. Each polar opposite end vows to pick up the steam. And because they focus seemingly most on the sins of another as opposed to the sins of self (both which exist), they justify all sorts of less than honorable behavior. The extremes justify:

… falsehood and fake-ness…
… minimal truth…
… limited listening…

They also justify:

… disrespect…
… obstruction…
… and devaluing of relationship.

Add arrogance, too — even subtly or unknowingly — as it’s way too easy to feel we are so wise and omniscient, forgetting the need and benefit to submit both our thinking and emotion to divine wisdom. No, none of us have this all figured out.

The problem with the pendulum is that as the weight swings to the polar opposite side, unethical behaviors are justified. And the behaviors seems to keep getting worse, as we hear popular refrains, such as, “Well, they did this, so we must do this.” The focus seems always on the sins of the other.

Oh, how the pendulum swings…

And yes, that’s concerning.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

a tale of two testimonies

In regard to healthcare, I found the following two, recent testimonies fascinating. This is a little lengthier post than usual; however, the contrast is striking and insightful… two people, reacting to the exact same thing. First, from Lisa Morse…

“In 2010, at the age of 30, I ran my first half-marathon. A year later I ran my first full marathon (4:25:10 — you never honestly forget your first marathon time). I was in the best shape of my life. Although I gave myself a few months off from long-distance running, I started planning for my next half-marathon. Unfortunately, I began having intense joint pain in my hands, wrists, hips, knees, ankles, and feet. I was only 31 years old but felt like I was 80 — simply getting out of bed in the morning was a physically painful endeavor. Turning the pages of a book could cause ridiculously excruciating pain. It felt like my joints were being stabbed repeatedly with a knife that was on fire. Imagine going from running a marathon to just a few months later struggling to open a car door.

Numerous Google searches told me I most likely had psoriatic arthritis. I made an appointment with my doctor and the testing began. Because psoriatic arthritis isn’t something you can directly test for, I had to be tested for everything else that it might be. Blood tests ruled out rheumatoid arthritis, lyme disease, and parvovirus. I was then referred to a rheumatologist and officially diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis. Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory arthritis in which an overactive immune system attacks the connective tissue in the joints. If it is not treated, it can lead to irreversible joint damage. 15-30 percent of long-time psoriasis sufferers (I have had it since the age of 14) develop psoriatic arthritis, and I am one of the lucky ones. My rheumatologist prescribed hydroxychloroquine, a form of quinine, which suppresses the immune system. It provided some relief and life became a little bit easier — I even started running again — but my immune system still wasn’t working properly and I needed frequent doses of Aleve.
In 2014, my insurance plan changed and the rheumatologist I had been seeing for the past two years was no longer an in-network provider, so I had to change doctors. Although I grumbled about it at the time, it was probably one of the best things to happen to me medically since the pain began. My new doctor was astounded by the swelling in my ankles and in addition to telling me that I should absolutely not go on any more 10-mile runs (unless I wanted to start talking about ankle replacement surgery), he wanted to pursue a much more aggressive treatment plan. He prescribed Humira for me and the life-changing effects were almost immediate. My psoriasis cleared up entirely, the joint pain eased considerably, my energy levels increased, and I started to feel pretty good again. Humira is another immuno-suppressant. Although it sounds counter-intuitive, with a suppressed immune system I am sick much less often and much less severely than I was prior to Humira. In the two or three times a year I get sick now, I can usually work through it: pre-Humira I was sick once a month (or more) during the flu season and would miss at least three days of work at a time. Humira allows me to be a more productive, tax-paying member of society.

My two medications retail for $4,900/month and $175/month, which annually amounts to the cost of approximately 87 iPhones.

My experience with psoriatic arthritis and Humira have taken place entirely within the timeframe that Obamacare has been in effect. I do not have a job that provides health insurance. For the past 14 years, I have worked for a sole-practitioner attorney. I am his only full-time assistant. I serve as receptionist, office manager, paralegal, and more. My boss has always treated me well and is, quite honestly, much like family. I have helped to build his law practice into the success that it is today. My husband is a self-employed public policy consultant. We purchase our insurance on the marketplace and rely on the Obamacare subsidy to make ends meet. For our family of three, our silver plan premium (without the subsidy) is about $840/month. Our premium will increase substantially next year, especially if the ACA is repealed, and we will be paying more money for less coverage. If we lose our subsidy and our rate increases the 20-30 percent that is projected, our premium will be unaffordable for us. Without insurance, my two medications retail for $4,900/month (Humira) and $175/month (hydroxychloroquine—generic), which annually amounts to the cost of approximately 87 iPhones. On a side note, Humira was $3,200/month when I was initially prescribed it two and a half years ago—the drug has been on the market for 16 years, so the research and development has been done and over with for a long time. This mark-up should shock the conscience of anyone with a soul.

Thanks to Obamacare, my insurance cannot drop me or charge me more due to my condition. I have worked, paid taxes, and been insured my entire adult life. I am college-educated. Aside from the Obamacare subsidy I receive, I have never relied on public assistance. Psoriatic arthritis is not the result of unhealthy choices or stupid life decisions. I realize I am expensive to treat medically, but I am also a valuable member of society, as are many other similarly-situated people. No one is an island, and despite Ayn Rand’s writings to the contrary, civilized society requires a bit of compassion.”

And second, from Mary Katherine Ham…

“You may know me as a political pundit and writer who has spoken publicly about how the Affordable Care Act negatively affected my family. What you might not know is two years ago, I was a seven-month-pregnant widow with one toddler who got a letter two weeks after my husband died, informing me I’d lost my third or fourth health insurance plan since the Affordable Care Act passed. If you’ll remember, the promise was that I could keep my plan if I liked it. I could not.
I predicted what would happen to my family’s insurance, and to much less fortunate people subjected to the exchanges with us, many of whom have seen doubled premiums and tripled deductibles. If you’ll remember, the promise was everyone’s premiums would go down. They did not. For predicting it, I was routinely called a lying hack in public. It’s a hazard of the job, but I wasn’t lying. I was right. I also thought it was improbable the federal and state governments could handle building these exchanges and that they’d likely blow up and be inoperable, thereby preventing people like me from actually purchasing the new plans the ACA required we purchase. Again, I was not lying for partisan gain.

ACA has helped people. I know some of them well! I have two friends with serious health challenges, one of whom I can say was probably kept alive by Obamacare; the other by the fact she was able to keep her grandfathered pre-ACA plan. I am not in the habit of asserting any piece of health legislation is either perfect or a tool of evil designed by hateful actors. They’re not. I will not assert either of these fundamentally shallow and manipulative things about either ACA or adjustments to it (and, yes, this piece of House legislation is an adjustment or a reform, not a repeal, which would change dramatically in the Senate if taken up and change again before eventual passage).

It has come to my attention that, even among those who should know, or assert they know a lot about health care policy and the market, many don’t know that people like me exist. But there are many of us, many with far fewer resources than I, who now have much more expensive, less effective, junkier, nearly unusable plans than we had back when our allegedly “junk” plans were outlawed. Again, we are not the only ACA story. But we are part of the story, we were sold a bill of goods, and we’re often overlooked.
There aren’t a lot of good answers, here. There are many reasons for that, which start in the mid-20th century with a fundamental distortion of health-care markets through wage-and-price controls, and then a tax benefit that incentivized employer-based health insurance. ACA was not a good answer. AHCA likely isn’t a super one either.
In any system, and any change to a system, there will be people who come out on both the good and bad sides of the deal. When Obamacare supporters denied this truth applied to ACA, it was wrong. There’s the possibility of marginal improvement to it, but not if you do nothing, as insurers and customers alike pull out of exchanges because they can’t afford to stay in them. Yet another major provider announced this week it will drop out of the Virginia exchange. Republicans were elected several elections over to address just this problem.

Most people who aren’t in the individual market, which is the one most affected by ACA, have no idea what the plans look like. It is a market where the costs of the bill’s mandates are more visible, even when subsidized. When I cite exorbitant deductibles, folks tell me to suck it up and pay $3,000. I laugh at a $3,000 deductible. What in the old system was considered a very high deductible is now among the lower available, and premiums for any kind of deductible are high, even with subsidies. Many families have to hit $12,700, and they’re paying a mortgage-sized premium. For many, the purchase becomes hard to justify or supplants an actual mortgage or similar outlays.
Arguing about this as if beneficiaries of ACA don’t exist isn’t right. Arguing about it as if people like me don’t is also not right. ACA was never the panacea it was sold as and it remains distinctly un-utopian in its results. Lazy characterizations of things you like as perfect—and of people you oppose as big fans of people dying—are not particularly helpful to actual people.
So if you’re weaving a utopian or dystopian scenario for Facebook, remember reality is almost always less extreme and more nuanced than you’re asserting, and you probably know a real human on both sides of every imperfect adjustment to our Frankenstein system.
One of them was a pregnant widow who had to spend her 32nd week of pregnancy and the first week after her husband’s funeral calling midwives, doctors, insurance companies, and help lines to make sure she’d still have the third plan she was promised she could keep.

My family may be the trade-off that was worth it for you to implement ACA. And I’m actually fine with you thinking that, as long as you don’t pretend we and the rest of the people like us don’t exist. We’re probably never going to stop arguing about this, but arguing responsibly and empathetically is better.”

Striking, isn’t it? … how for some, the Affordable Care Act has been helpful, and for others, the exact same law has been hurtful.

I’m thinking most of us need to broaden our perspective… maybe… just maybe.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

before healthcare

I really want to talk about healthcare. I see it as an important issue, worthy of respectful discussion, but finger pointing currently seems more prominent than fixing. Partisanship has surpassed any semblance of panacea. So before we can wrestle with what seemingly prompts the unhinged, sky-is-falling emotion from far too many, we need to wrestle with partisanship first. Why? Because partisanship is impeding solution.

So many emotions — coinciding within the far left, far right, Obama lovers, Trump lovers, Obama haters, and Trump haters camps — are killing conversation. This polarization then impairs our ability to solve what needs it… i.e. healthcare.

I’m reminded of “Common Ground,” a great read directed at stopping the “partisan war that is destroying America,” co-authored by liberal columnist Bob Beckel and conservative columnist Cal Thomas. They call out the hypocrisy within issues, organizations, and individuals that have deepened the partisan divide, so-to-speak, and they encourage the rest of us not to be seduced into such thinking. Yes, the intelligent are being seduced. Partisans are successfully playing to our emotions. They are luring us in.

Think about it…

This past week the House repealed Obamacare; barring any perceived more significant current events, I’d like to talk about this more later in the week. But note as some have pointed out, some/many who voted to repeal/replace, did not actually read the legislation (…hear an Intramuralist “geeeeesh” here…). That should concern us all.

Here’s an additional fact: some/many who passed the original Affordable Care Act also didn’t read the legislation (… the geeeeesh continues…). Friends, our congressmen/women, who represent us, need to read what they are voting upon — whether that is “yea” or “nay.” But here’s what happens: partisanship and polarized thinking has seduced us into believing that not reading the legislation was ok one of those times. In other words, the end justifies the means, so if a person likes the result, it’s ok that this time, the legislator didn’t read what he was voting on. That acceptance of less than honorable behavior is a direct result of partisanship and the coinciding emotions.

Where did this severe level of partisan seduction begin?

Some attribute the less than honorable behavior to Sen. Mitch McConnell’s stated strategy to oppose anything and everything then Pres. Obama put forth. Others attribute it to Obama’s forceful push through of Obamacare, ignoring conservative input and changing Senate rules to eventually ratify. Still more attribute it to the Republicans fervor in insuring Pres. Clinton paid for his personal indiscretions. And still more blame it on the Democrats response to the not so articulate Pres. George W. Bush and those perceived weapons of mass destruction.

Beckel and Thomas actually go back further than the past four administrations; they also blame no singular party nor individual. They go back to the late 1970’s, when laws regarding lobbyists were eased. Lobbyists were given more access to current congressmen — more opportunity to interact with those actually crafting current law. Remember that the goal of a lobbyist is to get their law passed; they don’t care about the totality of laws; they care about their law.

Hence, when the lobbyist laws were eased, legislators began socializing with lobbyists. Previously they had socialized with one another — regardless of party. All of a sudden, however, instead of our representatives working together during the day and enjoying time and life together in the evening, they started separating in the evening. Restaurants and bars became known as hangouts of the left or the right — as opposed to places where they would hang out together. Hanging out together helps people realize how reasonable another is, despite deep political and policy differences.

Fascinating… when we stop hanging out with those who think differently, even in all of our intelligence, we lose sight of another’s reason. That is hurting us. Said James Q. Wilson, over 10 years ago in “Commentary” Magazine, who believes in spite of most of us being centrists, we are becoming a polarized nation, “By polarization I do not have in mind partisan disagreements alone. These have always been with us… By polarization I mean something else: an intense commitment to a candidate, a culture, or an ideology that sets people in one group definitively apart from people in another, rival group. Such a condition is revealed when a candidate for public office is regarded by a competitor and his supporters not simply as wrong but as corrupt or wicked; when one way of thinking about the world is assumed to be morally superior to any other way; when one set of political beliefs is considered to be entirely correct and a rival set wholly wrong.”

This one way of thinking, one set of beliefs, one set of what’s right… it’s killing conversation and impeding solution.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

ray rice, the affordable care act, & a pit bull

Years ago, NFL running back Ray Rice hit his then-fiancée, Janay Palmer, knocked her out, and drug her out of the elevator in which the altercation happened. Rice and Palmer were each highly intoxicated at the time. After celebrity media outlet TMZ released a video of the violent incident, Rice was released from the Baltimore Ravens and subsequently indicted on a charge of third-degree aggravated assault.

Said incident was serious, emotional, and prompting-of-immediate reaction. It was hard to watch that video. How people responded (and continue to respond) seemed dependent on their proximity of view.

From the viewpoint of some — especially those who have personally witnessed the horrors of domestic violence — Rice should be incarcerated for years. From the viewpoint of some others — maybe those whose focus is on football, and solely winning or losing — it was no big deal. And from still others — those who saw that Rice and Palmer married six weeks later — and continue to speak out against domestic violence — they see the experience as awful, hard, but yet a poignant story of redemption and reconciliation.

My point is: the proximity of a person’s vantage point matters. Proximity affects perspective.

Last week, the House of Representatives repealed Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act/whatever-is-politically-correct-to-call-it. For some — especially those whose premiums have gone down or who are troubled by the mere existence of the Trump administration — it was an awful, shameful thing. For others — whose premiums have skyrocketed or who have lost their desired coverage or doctor — it was to be celebrated. And yet, still from others — who realize that this has become a partisan debate, instead of realizing that neither ACA or a “repeal/replace” campaign mantra is totally good or effective and simply, the American healthcare system needs to be fixed — the reaction was mixed. As a wise friend said, “Healthcare needs fixing — doesn’t matter if it’s the ACA or not. But if both sides of Congress are not willing to sit down and work together to fix these things, nothing will change.”

On healthcare, too, our perspective is typically based upon where we sit… what we see… and how we — and those we love and do life with — are affected. The challenge is that multiple, valid perspectives exist.

Let’s try one more.

With all the plates spinning in the Intramuralist’s daily routine (house on the market, graduating senior, a few increased days of single parenting, etc.), I have become the new favorite customer at my local kennel (… at least I keep telling them I’m their new favorite…). Yesterday when I dropped off my animals, I had to step aside, waiting for a young man to exit with his pit bull.

As the man and his dog walked out, the dog asserted himself, attempted to lead, and attempted to go farther and faster than his owner desired. Immediately, the human involved here yelled at the pit bull; he was mad. “Stop it! You know better! Cut it out! NOW!” The man was more than a little agitated.

From my close perspective, it seemed like that man was being a little harsh on the dog. It’s a kennel; there’s lots of other animals there; it’s easy to be distracted. But I quickly recognized there existed other perspectives that from my vantage point, I had no way of seeing… I had no way of knowing this pup’s past record of behavior… I had no way of knowing how this pit bull best responds to direction… and I had no way of knowing what else was affecting the dog owner’s day, which would in turn affect how he communicated with his dog — and with everyone else.

My point is that even though I was the closest to the man — and even though I had a pretty good vantage point — a vantage point which served as the basis for my opinion — there were still aspects I was incapable of seeing — aspects that might provide the basis for other, different, and yes, valid perspectives.

Can we recognize that multiple, valid perspectives may exist?

Can we acknowledge that most of the time, we are incapable of seeing all?

Or are we simply too stuck in thinking what we perceive is the only possible perspective?

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

college clashes and a little bit more

Beginning with an editorial intro from USA Today this week:

“At Claremont McKenna College in California, protesters blocked the doors to a lecture hall preventing conservative author Heather Mac Donald from speaking. At Middlebury College in Vermont, a professor accompanying libertarian author Charles Murray was injured by an angry mob. At the University of California-Berkeley and its surrounding community, protests against scheduled speakers have turned ugly.”

Last week bitingly-sarcastic (and in my semi-humble opinion, sometimes both incredibly witty and incredibly rude) conservative commentator, Ann Coulter, was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. Coulter was invited by a nonpartisan, student organization. People protested. Violence was threatened. Berkeley attempted to postpone the event. Coulter eventually cancelled because of the rising intensity of security threats.

What has since ensued is a debate over free speech and the First Amendment on college campuses.

Again, from the USA Today editorial board:

“In just the place where the clash of ideas is most valuable, students are shutting themselves off to points of view they don’t agree with. At the moment when young minds are supposed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of arguments, they are answering challenges to their beliefs with anger and violence instead of facts and reason.”

USA Today does a good job in my opinion, moving this debate past the more simply-defined concept of the validity of free speech. This isn’t about free speech; it isn’t about what a person is not allowed to say.

It’s too avoidant to characterize the current college campus debate as questioning the right to individual verbal expression.

This dialogue is about an unwillingness to entertain opposing opinion.

I admit: entertaining opposing opinion is not the easiest to do. And so many who long ago left the college campus still struggle with said willingness.

So what’s happening on the college campus — which I assume includes some very smart people — seems an exaggerated manifestation of what we’re seeing on other societal avenues.

For some reason, a perceived growing number of people see the existence of opposing opinion as a threat. We can’t entertain it… we can’t listen to it… we can’t wrestle with any validity. We must resist any willingness to allow the opinion to exist. Here then, we see a stark contrast between intellect and wisdom… as a lot of bright people aren’t acting very wise.

I appreciate what Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in response. “Let her speak… If you don’t like it, don’t show up.” Note that Warren is no fan of Coulter’s, but knows the wisdom in allowing opposing opinion to exist.

In fact, perhaps what I appreciate most about this debate is the common ground crossing all societal, political lines. Warren, Bernie Sanders… Coulter… all seemingly hailing from a bit of the radical, political fringe… from the left and the right…

Agreed.

The polar-opposite, ideological, political fringe agreed.

Said Sanders, “I don’t like this. I don’t like it. Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.”

Exactly. This isn’t about free speech. This is about silencing those with whom one disagrees.

When we advocate for silencing, we simultaneously sacrifice wisdom.

We sacrifice wisdom when we are no longer willing to wrestle with the validity of opposing opinion.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

what’s wrong?

In a very unscientific study, I asked a simple question regarding today’s culture. Fascinatingly, there seems significant belief that there is something wrong; however, there is also significant disagreement in regard to what that wrong actually is.

90 respondents offered various insight. I was struck by the overlap; many people shared similar answers. But the reality within the responses is that there are some eye-opening themes, beginning with some basics… what do you think is the biggest problem in today’s culture? (Note that answers have been somewhat simplified and combined…)

  • Forgetting common courtesy
  • No more manners and patience
  • No kindness and humility
  • Entitlement (… even “in our youth,” said one, noting the infamous “participation trophy”…)
  • Expectation of immediate results; instant gratification
  • Denial of what is true
  • Hardheartedness
  • How political correctness inhibits teaching and truth
  • Little knowledge of history
  • The value of money being placed above that of humanity
  • Politics for profit
  • Polarization
  • Government dependency
  • Basic respect and appreciation of differences
  • Intolerance of different opinions
  • Ignorance disguised as confidence
  • The abandonment of “innocent until proven guilty”
  • Becoming a culture of entertainment rather than work

There is also significant concern about ethical activity… what do you think is the biggest problem in today’s culture?

  • No common morality (no more right/wrong — do what feels right for you)
  • The erosion of any sense of moral standards
  • Fuzzy grey area being tolerated for everything

Many spoke about family and relationship… what do you think is the biggest problem in today’s culture?

  • The breakdown of the family unit and prevalence of single parent households
  • Changed parenting expectations
  • Distracted parenting and distracted people (… usually via technology…)
  • The societal devaluation of God, life, and family
  • God being eliminated from everything
  • Not much emphasis on respect for another person/relationship
  • The way we interact with and treat each other
  • No grasp of authentic love (… without love, there is no discipline; without discipline, there is no respect…)
  • People no longer  take the time to truly understand a situation before they give their opinion

One surprising thing to me was the number of different ways respondents expressed concern about how we see ourselves… what do you think is the biggest problem in today’s culture?

  • Selfishness
  • Self-righteousness
  • Self centeredness (… this idea that “your happiness is all that matters”…)
  • We actually believe the advertisers claim that “it’s all about you!”
  • A “me-centered” outlook
  • Self-love or self-worship
  • Putting self and things in a role only capable of being filled by God
  • Relativism or self-exultation (…thinking oneself is what matters most…)
  • People believing their opinions/wants/needs are more important than anyone else’s
  • Minimal concern for others (It’s all about a “me first” attitude anymore; driving, waiting in line, etc.)
  • Our human nature to focus only on “me”

Not to be outdone, many mentioned some aspect of media or news… what do you think is the biggest problem in today’s culture?

  • Social media (… it creates many different problems… from bullying, to the “keeping up with the Jones’s” or the “grass is always greener” mentalities, to the hiding behind the computer and saying things you might not say to someone’s face.)
  • Too much social media, news & no privacy (Everyone is looking at everyone’s lives and not living their own.)
  • Sensationalism in the news and everyday life
  • The free flow of information — creating, unknowingly, a surface-level-only knowledge

Lastly, I was struck by the plethora of “lack’s” (some just as above, that have been combined, and that overlap with above topics)… what do you think is the biggest problem in today’s culture?

  • Lack of empathy
  • Lack of compassion for others
  • Lack of critical thinking
  • Lack of education
  • Lack of forgiveness
  • Lack of foundation on truth
  • Lack of commitment and loyalty
  • Lack of moral values and faith
  • Lack of reverence for God
  • Lack of knowledge/belief/honor/respect of God
  • Lack of decency and civility
  • Lack of personal responsibility
  • Lack of respect for the sanctity of human life (… including unborn, elderly, disabled, minority races…)
  • Lack of trust
  • Lack of tolerance
  • Lack of respect for other nationalities, religions, customs etc.
  • Lack of respect for our fellow man
  • Lack of self-awareness
  • Lack of perspective on how good a life we have and what we’re capable of accomplishing
  • Lack of thoughtfulness
  • Lack of accountability for one’s own actions
  • Lack of love — true love — wanting the “best” for another
  • Total lack of respect

That’s a lot of concern. Hence, allow me to conclude by sharing a single, brief reflection…

90 persons responded to my question. Of those 90 — people who hail from totally varied age, stage, circumstance, political leanings, etc. — there was much common ground and ample overlap. It thus seems to me that if we could somehow get past the age, stage, circumstance, political leanings stuff, then maybe, just maybe, we could start to wrestle with what’s actually wrong.

Respectfully… (yes, always…)
AR

Posted on

the american dream

As stated here previously, one of my favorite authors is Peggy Noonan. She’s witty and wise, articulate and animated. I’ve watched her on multiple networks, from ABC and NBC to MSNBC and FOX News. While conservative in nature, she is fair-minded. This week she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary.

In an election season when the individual emotions of many journalists seemed far more vocal than any presentation of news or balanced perspective, Noonan was a consistent, fair, thought-provoking editorialist. The prize judges said Noonan rose “to the moment with beautifully rendered columns that connected readers to the shared virtues of Americans during one of the nation’s most divisive political campaigns.”

Ah, those shared virtues… so many seem to have forgotten…

Last week, Noonan had yet another great column, attempting to again connect us. She wrestled with “What’s Become of the American Dream?”

She started by saying that the dream is not dead, but “it needs strengthening.” She defines it as “the belief, held by generation after generation since our beginning and reanimated over the decades by waves of immigrants, that here you can start from anywhere and become anything.”

She then gives some tremendous examples… Abraham Lincoln, the one time “backwoods nobody”… Barbara Stanwyck, who lost her parents… and Jonas Salk, the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland. One became President, another a “magnetic actress,” and another cured polio. But then Noonan makes an important distinction…

“… The American dream was about aspiration and the possibility that, with dedication and focus, it could be fulfilled. But the American dream was not about material things—houses, cars, a guarantee of future increase. That’s the construction we put on it now. It’s wrong. A big house could be the product of the dream, if that’s what you wanted, but the house itself was not the dream. You could, acting on your vision of the dream, read, learn, hold a modest job and rent a home, but at town council meetings you could stand, lead with wisdom and knowledge, and become a figure of local respect. Maybe the respect was your dream. Stanwyck became rich, Salk revered. Both realized the dream.”

Somehow we got the dream mixed up. Part of that, Noonan opines, is that when Grandpa shared that “this is the American dream,” the kids looked around, saw the houses and car, and assumed the American dream is “things.” But it is not; “material things could be, and often were, its fruits.” Noonan poignantly continues…

“… The American dream was never fully realized, not by a long shot, and we all know this. The original sin of America, slavery, meant some of the oldest Americans were brutally excluded from it. The dream is best understood as a continuing project requiring constant repair and expansion, with an eye to removing barriers and roadblocks for all.

Many reasons are put forward in the argument over whether the American Dream is over (no) or ailing (yes) or was always divisive (no—dreams keep nations together). We see income inequality, as the wealthy prosper while the middle class grinds away and the working class slips away. There is a widening distance, literally, between the rich and the poor. Once the richest man in town lived nearby, on the nicest street on the right side of the tracks. Now he’s decamped to a loft in SoHo. ‘The big sort’ has become sociocultural apartheid. It’s globalization, it’s the decline in the power of private-sector unions and the brakes they applied.

What ails the dream is a worthy debate. I’d include this: The dream requires adults who can launch kids sturdily into Dream-land.

When kids have one or two parents who are functioning, reliable, affectionate—who will stand in line for the charter-school lottery, who will fill out the forms, who will see that the football uniform gets washed and is folded on the stairs in the morning—there’s a good chance they’ll be OK. If you come from that now, it’s like being born on third base and being able to hit a triple. You’ll be able to pursue the dream.

But I see kids who don’t have that person, who are from families or arrangements that didn’t cohere, who have no one to stand in line for them or get them up in the morning. What I see more and more in America is damaged or absent parents. We all know what’s said in this part—drugs, family breakup. Poor parenting is not a new story in human history, and has never been new in America. But insufficient parents used to be able to tell their kids to go out, go play in America, go play in its culture. And the old aspirational culture, the one of the American dream, could counter a lot. Now we have stressed kids operating within a nihilistic popular culture that can harm them. So these kids have nothing—not the example of a functioning family and not the comfort of a culture into which they can safely escape.

This is not a failure of policy but a failure of love. And it’s hard to change national policy on a problem like that.”

[Insightful commentary… thought-provoking once again…]

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

nothing like the originalism

[Today’s post is from a guest contributor. Meet articulate brother #1…]

 

Last week, the United States Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch as the newest member of the Supreme Court. I am a fan of Gorsuch because he adheres to the judicial philosophy of originalism. What exactly does originalism mean?

Some people view judges as having the ultimate say in what our laws should be. That is not what the founders of our country intended. The judicial branch is just one of three coequal branches of government. As we all remember from elementary school, the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch administers the law, and the judicial branch interprets the law. Plain and simple, it is not the courts’ responsibility to make law, nor should they make law.

Originalists like Gorsuch (and me) believe that the proper way to interpret law is to ascertain its original meaning, or in other words, what those who wrote the law were thinking when it was passed. If the text of a law is silent on an issue, it is not up a judge to determine what it should say. That is up to the legislature.

Unfortunately, not all judges are originalists. Many are judicial activists who allow their personal opinions to influence their decisions. Instead of following the text of the law and allowing it to lead them to a conclusion, they choose the outcome they want and then twist words into their own desired meaning to get to that outcome.

In a democracy, it is vital that courts, especially the Supreme Court, refrain from making law. Because justices aren’t elected and have lifetime tenure, we can’t hold them accountable if they make laws we don’t like. If we don’t like laws that legislators make (or if they won’t pass laws that we want), we can get new legislators.

An egregious example of judicial activism was a 1965 case called Griswold vs. Connecticut. The state of Connecticut had a law on the books at the time that prohibited the use of contraceptives. Now I think most of us would agree that is a stupid law, but here’s the thing: if Ms. Griswold thought it was a stupid law, she should have lobbied her legislature to repeal it. That’s the way our system is supposed to work.

Instead, the Supreme Court found that although the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution didn’t explicitly declare a right of marital privacy, there is a “penumbra” of undeclared rights as such and therefore overturned Connecticut’s law as unconstitutional.

Let me be clear… I am not taking issue with the result in this case as unjust. I think the people of Connecticut should be free to use contraceptives as they see fit. The problem is how the courts came to that result. By their very nature, the edges of penumbras are blurry and not well defined. If indeed the Constitution has an enforceable penumbra, what other rights are included? The right to smoke marijuana? The right to own an automatic weapon? The right to assist in a suicide? The right to free health care?

We would all disagree on what’s within the penumbra and what’s outside. If unelected judges determine what’s in or out, that’s not democracy; that’s despotism. Therefore the whole concept of a Constitutional penumbra should be rejected and only the text of existing law should guide judges.

Note that judicial activists can be either liberal or conservative, although there are many more instances of liberal judicial activism in the fifty years since Griswold, for example on abortion and gay marriage. It is inappropriate for judges to allow their personal feelings to influence the outcome of a case, regardless of their political leanings.

It used to be that judicial activists were less conspicuous with their law making. Now that the practice is commonplace and difficult to hide, judges have become overt about their intentions. Just last week, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal (which is comprised of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana) in Hively vs. Ivy Tech Community College, ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bars employment discrimination on the basis of sex bars employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well.

No one believes that the original intent of the 1964 Congress was to include sexual orientation as a protected class in civil rights law. It is striking that Judge Richard Posner acknowledges that fact but brazenly admits that he and his colleagues are making law. For an excellent write-up on Judge Posner’s opinion, see Josh Blackman’s blog at http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/04/05/judge-posners-judicial-interpretive-updating.

Allow me to reiterate: I don’t think employers should fire someone just because they are gay. Yet, if we the people want a law to prohibit such discrimination, the proper channel to bring about that change is through the legislative branch, not the judicial. Otherwise, we will cease to live under the rule of law and will have embraced the rule of men.

Respectfully…
Pete

Posted on

just war?

Save for the testosterone-infused, teenage boy lost in the latest video game craze, I’m not convinced there are any rational-thinking, goodhearted people who actually like war. The question, therefore, is not: who likes it? … who wants it? The better question is: when it warranted?

On Thursday evening, as Syrians slept (and others across the globe had their eyes closed in regard to current events), America launched missiles to destroy airplane and fuel facilities allegedly used by Pres. Bashar al-Assad’s regime to mount chemical weapons attacks. Two/three days prior, Assad’s military had dropped chemical weapons on persons deemed oppositional to the Syrian government; they dropped them on their own people.

While the Intramuralist is one whose head and heart are typically both fully engaged in decision-making and the building of perspective, my heart hurt seeing the horrific pictures associated with this chemical attack. Chemical weapons are some of the most dangerous to ever exist; they attack the body’s central nervous system, which includes control of functions such as our heart rate, breathing, digestion, waste, etc. My heart grieved at initial glance.

To be clear, I am one not comfortable with any cheers where violence is involved. Such is true whether it’s military conflict, political protests in the streets, or crime directed at one. Violence is not something to be celebrated. Celebrating and believing that there is a “time for everything,” however, are separate, capable-of-coexisting perspectives. There is a time to be born and a time to die… there is a time to mourn and a time to dance… and there is a time for peace and a time for war. The question thus becomes: when is that time?

The best, time-tested guidelines go back centuries, initially put forth by St. Augustine of Hippo and added to by succeeding, societal leaders. They developed the concept of a “Just War.” The purpose of this timeless doctrine is to ensure military force is morally justifiable but is also conducted in an ethical way. It seeks to reconcile (1) the wrong in taking a human life, (2) the duty of states to defend their citizens, and (3) the protection of innocent human life and of important moral values.

Hence, the first premise of the Just War concept is the admonition to all citizens and governments to work for the avoidance of war. Assuming all non-violent options have been exhausted, the principles of a Just War are as follows:

• A Just War can only be waged as a last resort.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority.
• A Just War can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.
• The ultimate goal of a Just War is to re-establish peace.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.
• And the weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants; civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.

As this doctrine has developed over the centuries — and as modern warfare methods (nuclear, biological and chemical) have become so extreme — crimes against humanity are also viewed as something to be especially guarded against.

Friends, I have serious concerns about escalation in Syria and elsewhere. I also will never celebrate violence against any. I do, though, believe a just response is sometimes necessary. I will also add that I am no expert. I am thus thankful for the veterans and career military men and women who have far more expertise than I — and whose perspective is shaped by more than their heart or by their politics.

And while I sincerely doubt peace will ever fully come until heaven is a reality, my strong sense is that we should never tire to work for it… peace on the planet… peace with the people around us… recognizing peace is not always possible.

Let’s be bold enough to ask the question of when war is just. But let’s do so in reverence, sobriety, and with zero celebration.

Respectfully…
AR

 

[Editorial note: significant external sources were utilized extensively for the contents of this post, including but not limited to the BBC Ethics Guide, the “Big Think”, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Mount Holy Yoke College, and Wikipedia.]