Month: January 2013

Posted on

violent crime

In my quest to discern what is wisest and best, I stumbled upon a bit of a case study surrounding the “Windy City.”  Love that town!  As a young adult, many a day did we stroll the streets along Lake Michigan, somehow even embracing the cold, enjoying the sights, and taking advantage of Chicago’s innumerable offerings.  Chicago, so-to-speak, has always been ‘my kind of town.’

 

With the recent response to the shocking Sandy Hook shootings — and how that tragedy, for some, has created cause to ratchet up the gun control debate — I have perceived that far too many of us are unaware about the situation in Chicago.  Now allow me to first share that I have no engrained partisan stance in the gun control conversation.  I have no sword in this fight.  I am neither an NRA card carrying member nor an anti-gun advocate.  My what-I-believe-to-be common sense approach is that the Constitution allows for guns, and they should be responsibly utilized.  Hence, I seek to discern what is wisest and best.  That search leads me to Chicago, as society discusses prudent approaches to gun control.

 

Violent crime in Chicago — how should I say this respectfully — is awful.  Let’s be clear; that’s the Intramuralist’s opinion.  Allow me to now share the facts.

 

According to the New York Times, the total number of illegal incidents in Chicago decreased by 9% in 2012.  However, the murder rate rose 15%.  After 513 homicides in 2012, New Years Day 2013 was rung in with 3 more.*  Among “alpha” cities (municipalities considered significant in the global economic system), Chicago has the highest murder rate — more than double that of New York City and Los Angeles — also higher than Mexico City and Sao Paolo.

 

A potential knee jerk response could be a cry for increased gun control.  The irony is that Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

 

Friends, I would encourage you not to overreact on either side of this debate.  I would encourage you to refrain from adopting any engrained partisan stance; this is not a partisan issue.  The presentation of the facts above does not clearly communicate that gun control is unnecessary; but it also shows that increased gun control is not necessarily effective.  What the facts say to me — and again, in our pursuit of what is wisest and best — is that something else must be in play here; some other factor(s) is influencing crime in our country.  Do we honestly believe that if we remove all guns, then we would remove all violent crime?  That there would be no other way for the sick, perverse, or even evil mind to hurt innocent others?  That sticks and stones would somehow no longer be able to break our bones?

 

And so I ask, similar to my initial response in the days immediately following the seemingly unthinkable in Connecticut, what else is in play?  What else is a factor in why violent crime is far too prevalent in this country?  Could it be…

 

… the lack of complete care for the mentally ill?

… the muted attention and compassion for the mentally ill?

… the reasons for mental illness?

… the breakdown of the American family?

… the digression of societal values where sometimes “anything goes”?

… the ambiguity of absolutes in regard to what is right and wrong?

… the dilution of giving credit to the divine?

… the temptation to rely more on self and do away with the divine?

 

What else?  What else is in play?

 

Are we courageous enough as a country to acknowledge that this might be something more?  … that this might be something that increased legislation may be incapable of fixing? … that simply more or less gun control might not make a difference? … that we are actually talking about the wrong thing?

 

As seen, perhaps, in Chicago?

 

Maybe even in our kind of town.

 

Respectfully,

AR

 

 

* Note that the Chicago P.D. reported only 506 homicides in 2012; however, they base their statistics on the day the victim died, as opposed to the day the incident occurred.

Posted on

what it’s not

Much of what we say actually means something else.  Hear me out on this, friends.

 

We utilize multiple words and phrases that are either inaccurate or utterly fallacious.  It’s seemingly most often unintentional; however, today I’m wondering about the colloquial error of our ways.  I speak not about the grammatical misuse of “lie” vs. “lay” or “who,” “which,” and “that.”  I’m thinking more about the phrasing that has subtly sneaked into our dialogue that simply is untrue.  For example…

 

“It is what is is.”

 

Egad.  Perhaps one of my pet peeves.  “It is what it is.”  What exactly does that mean?  Does it all go back to Pres. Clinton’s legal questioning surrounding the definition of “is”?  Surely not.

 

We hear that phrasing frequently…

 

From business mogul, Ted Turner:  “I regret that I wasn’t more successful with my marriages, but it is what it is.”

 

Or from my fave NFL QB, Drew Brees:  “The Madden Curse has really taken on a life of its own.  People just love talking about it, and it is what it is, but I look at it as a challenge.”

 

Are you kidding?  It is what it “is”?!  No.  “It is what it is” is what we say when we don’t know what to say anymore.  It’s the clear ender of conversation, meaning there’s little else to say or I really don’t want to speak of it anymore (see Turner, Ted).

 

We also hear…

 

“You’ve got the patience of Job.”

 

Sometimes, as the parent of a special needs child, I receive that frequent retort.  Newsflash, friends:  it’s not true.  I don’t have the patience of Job.  But the reality is, in my semi-humble opinion, that Job wasn’t patient!  Shocking.  (Another “hear me out” here…)

 

In my continuous pursuit of wisdom, I routinely invest in writings that are historically noted for their accuracy and truth.  Once again, I just completed reading through the book of Job.

 

Here was a man who was blameless — a man of complete integrity.  He was wealthy and wise yet seemingly humble and giving.  And over the course of a few stunning days, the man lost his family, possessions, and good health.  Such is a set of circumstances that undoubtedly would cause each of us to cry out, arguably inserting a bit of “why me.”

 

But Job went further.  While at first seemingly attempting to persevere and maintain his humility — a component contemporary society often negates from its integrity definition — Job’s countenance and composure changed.  Granted, he had a few friends around him who were certainly not helpful, yet Job became demanding.  He cursed the day of his birth.  He questioned the wisdom of God.  He questioned not only God’s wisdom but his power and all of creation.  He condemned God to justify himself.  (Fascinating concept… condemning God to justify self… my thinking… my behavior…)

 

Who knows how any of us would act under such a tragic, unthinkable set of circumstances?  Truthfully, most of us would probably act much like Job.  The reality is that such is not considered patient.

 

More false phrases exist…

 

… “head over heels”… aren’t heads already over heels?

… “could care less” … then why are we speaking to begin with?  Isn’t it “couldn’t”??

 

Or one of my funny favorites…

 

… “the whole 9 yards”… wait… all NFL enthusiasts know that 9 yards are not “whole”; a team has to go 10 yards to actually continue down the field.

 

Sorry, friends.  I’m not very patient today.  Have I shared that I do not have the patience of Job?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

dysfunctional families

I know a family which facetiously claims to put the “fun” in “dysfunction.”  They’re a large family… with individual, unique skill sets, passions, and opinion.  Sometimes they share their opinions with one another respectfully, and well, sometimes they don’t.  But they’re “family,” so they are committed to working even the tough things through, challenging and emotional as they may be.

 

They’ve had a tough road in recent years.  There are days it at least appears that there is more that divides them than actually holds them together; it’s on those days that remembering they are family is especially important.

 

Like most families, while there exist multiple causes of conflict, the number one argument stems from managing their finances.  Yes, families fight — we fight — about money.  The dysfunctional family in question fights about money — seemingly, arguably, all the time.

 

Now prior to sharing more insight and analysis regarding this dysfunctional family, I must offer a semi-humble caveat.  Remember:  it was in the early years of the Intramuralist where one commenter strongly suggested I wasn’t “smart enough” to run a lemonade stand.  (Granted, it should also be noted that I took a bit of sarcastic satisfaction in the fact that the not-so-gentle gentleman misspelled the word “lemonade.”)  I share that to acknowledge that there exist different opinions on how to navigate via a family’s finances.

 

This dysfunctional family is in debt.  Massive debt.  What denotes “massive” is that (1) they have spent more than they have taken in for years, and (2) they have zero specific plan to pay it back.  After putting food on their table and paying the electricity bill, when they don’t have enough money to pay for their cell phones, kids’ gymnastic lessons, and/or cable TV, they simply borrow more money.  In other words, no one wants to go without something they already have; so instead of sitting around the family table, having an undoubtedly painful but necessary conversation about where they can and must save, the dysfunctional family only asks how to get their hands on more money.  My sense says there is no “fun” in that level of dysfunction.

 

Let’s be sure we give great grace to one another here, friends.  I mean, the reality is that this is hard.  We all would prefer to spend instead of save.  None of us like asking the question of “what can we do without” or “where can we cut?”  We are far more comfortable asking others to give than addressing our own sense of entitlement.  That’s true for far too many.

 

That sense of entitlement is an authentic challenge…  I need my cell phone… we need cable TV; have you seen how few channels come without it??… and exactly, my especially talented kid needs those added lessons!  The challenge is that we allow our wants to pose as needs, thereby hoping that no one would actually consider cutting something that has now evolved into perceived necessity.

 

In order for any family to become less dysfunctional, when discussing family finances, there needs to be an accurate assessment of the problem.  There needs to be a comprehensive acknowledgement of all that has contributed to the dire financial straits, as opposed to only focusing on the issues that my side of the family is most passionate about… the issues that my side of the family has prioritized.

 

We can’t simply keep borrowing.  We can’t simply quit spending.  It is very possible that the family patriarch may need to find a higher paying job or other members of the family might need to go to work.  But netting a larger salary or finding a better job will only equate to an applied Band-Aid if the spending problem is not seriously and significantly dealt with.

 

We cannot keep allowing our wants to evolve into needs — and then omit that evolution from our conversation regarding responsible finances.

 

Otherwise the family will remain dysfunctional…

 

… with no “fun” included whatsoever.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

resolutions

Even after the transparent admission last week that Christmas is “my favorite time of the year,” I must also acknowledge a strong fondness for New Year’s Day.  Not the festive and frolicking New Year’s “rockin’” Eve — although toasting to friends and family both near and far is certainly sweet — but the actual initial day of another year.  Why?  Because I love resolutions!

 

Yes, yes… I realize that last line prompted many a sigh or perhaps even a “so long” for this post this day.  My apologies.  I do not desire to evoke such a lack of energy or entertainment value.  Note, however, that my relishing of resolutions evolves not from the actual, annual intentions…

 

… I want to be healthy… exercise consistently… pray more… love others better… be less judgmental… be respectful… eat better… figure this “God stuff” out… work harder… listen more… talk less… be more giving, selfless — less selfish… read a new book… ask for recommendations… ask for directions… read the Bible… be teachable… save more… spend less… go to the spa… hug my kids… teach my children well… get on the scale less… focus more on people instead of things… write a letter… spend less time on Facebook… take more walks… get more sleep… focus on the important things in life… get more organized… take a daily vitamin… work on my abs… quit smoking… get a better job… be nicer… take a vacation… volunteer… read a classic… fast… get out of debt… spend more time with my family… drink less… count my calories… make a new ‘to-do’ list… throw away my old ‘to-do’ list… do away with ‘to-do’ lists… seize the day… be less busy… read the Intramuralist more… stop and smell the roses… appreciate the beauty of the sky… apologize… forgive… forgive again… and again… commit to living wisely… be more humble… be healthy…

 

Now the reason the sighs and “so long’s” are so often prompted lies within the reality that for most of us, the above are only intentions — as opposed to permanent changes in our behavior.  Our intentions are too often temporary.  Hence, if they are temporary, what’s the benefit of making the resolutions to begin with?

 

Ah, and therein lies the fondness for the Intramuralist.

 

What would life be like if we encouraged the above, positive behavior change, but yet, we also allowed ourselves the freedom (for lack of better words) to “screw up”?

 

In other words, what if we recognized that much of the above is hard? …too hard, in fact.  Much of the above — even with earnest intent and commitment — may be or appear too difficult to do.  With that honest recognition, how would our resolutions be altered?  Would we then simply refrain from ever making them?  Would we give up on the process, noting that while the behavior would certainly be a positive change, that the degree of difficulty makes our pursuit fruitless?  … that with desired consequences unlikely, resolutions are futile and therefore unnecessary?

 

Friends, as realistic as such sounds, my greater sense is that such logic misses the beauty forded on New Year’s Day.

 

It is not the actual resolution that possesses greatest value.  True, eating healthy is a good idea; it has great value.  So does taking a daily vitamin, being humble, and appreciating the beauty of the sky.  Those are good things!  But the benefit of the resolution is the growth that comes via the process.  The more we focus on being humble — whether or not we actually, ever, totally and truly get there — the more we focus on being less judgmental and exercising more consistently, the wiser we will be.  The healthier we will be.  And while we may not actually “get there,” the pursuit moves us closer to where we want to be.  The pursuit — and thus the intent — is good.

 

The reason the Intramuralist so appreciates New Year’s Day is because it’s a clean slate.  Once again, we are given the abstract opportunity to focus on what’s most important.  Yes, we need to give ourselves great grace in the process; know now that we will most likely “screw up” somewhere.  But thanks to the freshness and attractiveness of a clean slate, we are more willing to make the resolutions that we know would be wise to embrace.

 

Happy New Year, friends!  Time for this semi-humble blogger to hit the elliptical.

 

Respectfully,

AR