AR – Page 113 – intramuralist ™

02/08/2015

our response to isis

When I saw shots of the captured Jordanian pilot burned alive in a cage last week, I had to look away. This was no fiction, fantasy, nor ad for the seventeenth sequel in pop culture’s latest horror series; this was real life. My response was clear… I was shocked, then grieved, and then outraged. How dare these men — obviously motivated by evil — brutally kill the innocent. How dare these terrorists get away with murder!

Most likely more outraged than any of us was Jordan’s leader, King Abdullah II, a former commander of Jordan’s special forces. King Abdullah met with members of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee not long after the news broke. Members said he was furious. The king was quoted as saying, “The only problem we’re going to have is running out of fuel and bullets.” The terrorists were the clear focus of his fury.

Contrast that with Pres. Obama’s response. Wait… Let’s each first do one thing; let’s remove any partisan hats. That means all the Obama-lovers and haters — those friends among us who have a tendency to lose all objectivity at the mere sound of his voice — need to be a little more intentional in removing the hat, so-to-speak. Yes, those enamored seem blind to Obama’s weaknesses; those loathing seem blind to his strengths. I’d like an honest conversation regarding Obama’s leadership in response to terrorism.

While the White House made some at least rhetorical miscalculations in its initial description of ISIS, Obama has been clear that we need to fight this extremist group. I believe their heinous deeds are clearly unacceptable to him. What is not clear, however, is who he thinks they are.

The terrorists claim to be motivated by Islam. Obama continues to claim they are not. Hence, the White House will not refer to Islam when describing this group. On first learning of the Jordanian pilot’s savage death, Obama calmly referred to the terrorists as adhering to “whatever ideology they are operating of.” There was no outrage nearing that of King Abdullah’s — and there was no specificity in regard to the terrorists.

Obama did express specificity a single day later, when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual Christ-centered gathering of 3,500 plus people. He said he wanted to touch on “the degree to which we’ve seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. “ Excellent. Let’s talk specifically about the evil. But again, there was a complete omission of Islam. Instead he was specific only in mentioning the centuries-old sins of those who “committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” He did not mention killing in the name of Allah — even though that is the current crisis. Of course, some (still probably with hats on) quickly amen-ed the President’s boldness… it’s about time Christians wrestled with those historical atrocities!… The only challenge with that argument is the lack of boldness Obama utilizes in response to Islam — and the lack of current application.

Unlike the Intramuralist, the President seems to dance around the topic. He will call out Christianity but not Islam. I get that he does not believe they are Muslims — even though they say they are. I also get that there exist religious adherents who distort the tenets of every religion and re-craft religion based upon how they feel; we all sometimes do that. But what I don’t get is why the President avoids the topic…

Nidal Hassan murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood while praising Allah, and the administration called it “workplace violence.” When the Charlie Hebdo attacks occurred in Paris, the White House Press Sec. would not initially say “Islamic” or “terrorism.” And last week the Deputy Press Sec. insisted the Taliban was “an armed insurgency” — not a terrorist group. Even left-leaning “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart now questions the White House “tip-toeing” around the terminology. What’s the motive?

Why will the White House not call this what it is? Why are they willing to be harsh on Christianity — sins that are 800 years old — but meek on any mention of Islam? What’s the motivation? I believe there exists something we don’t know.

By specifically calling out old Christian abuses while simultaneously being vague about current Islamic violence, significant questions about Obama’s leadership in response to terrorism are increasing. What’s motivating him that we don’t know? And why can’t he express the outrage and clarity like King Abdullah?

Respectfully…

02/05/201502/05/2015

vaccinations

To vaccinate or not vaccinate… that is the question. This issue is currently heightened because of two reasons: one, there are over 100 cases of measles confirmed in the United States right now; and two, there are seemingly over 100 people running for President. 🙂 Note that any time campaigns are current, so is the motive to pounce upon an issue, politicizing something that should by no means be political. The politicizing pollutes the objectivity necessary to wrestle with an issue wisely.

Having thus invested much in this issue, I am struck by many aspects…

I am struck by the number who feel so strongly — by the parents… the educators… my respected friends in the medical community.
I am struck by the passion — the passion that prompts such strong, emotional expression — even, often, not always respectfully stated… I get it… I don’t always like it, but I get it… the harsh words many of us employ are not based in hate; they are based on the emotion this issue uniquely seems to elicit.
I am struck by how we individually weight (either overtly emphasizing or discounting) the opinions of others — from the medical experts to the holistic bloggers to the likeminded thinkers to also the non-parent — acting, for example, as if a person with no biological children has no valid vantage point.
I am also struck by how this issue knows no ethnic, gender, educational, partisan, religious, stereotypical, you-name-it bounds. Again, it’s not a political issue. (Caution: as one of you duly noted, beware of the political opportunist who attempts to now turn this into a targeted voter pool). Of the huge number of you who gave me feedback (thank you!), I heard you. Let me also add that you and your opinions do not fit into any nice, neat, descriptive, demographic group.

Here is the issue… We live in a society where freedom is cherished. We like freedom. We like choice; some of us embrace it more than others. But we are selective in when and where we embrace it. The key is how an individual choice affects other people. That’s what makes so many arguments so hard. As a culture, we tend to gravitate toward advocacy of government mandates when we believe individual choice infringes on another. Pick your issue; pick your controversy; the perceived harm on the life, health, or values of another is at the heart of our most challenging, cultural issues.

Like I said, I heard you… I am tremendously moved by the image of the African mother who walks miles just to ensure her child is vaccinated. I hear the deep, deep gratitude in those of you who lived through or parents lived through the painful, polio outbreak. And my heart breaks for the family whose sister contacted measles one year before the vaccine was approved, drastically altering each of their lives. Actually, I cried.

I also respect the parent who prayerfully pours into research and intentionally chooses not to vaccinate. I grieve for the mother who shared with me how her four month old daughter stopped breathing two weeks after her shots — or the infant male, who could no longer hold his head up, also two weeks later. While non-vaccination has not been the choice of this semi-humble parent, I will always respect the freedom of another to choose what they believe to be wisest and best.

Every choice, no less, has consequences. And when we make a decision that has the potential to negatively impact another, we must also be humble enough to accept the accompanying consequences… consequences such as the pediatrician’s office, which limits their practice to those who vaccinate their children — or the public school, which requires vaccinations to attend. Such are not unreasonable stipulations when we consider the so-called “greater good” — the life and health of others.

Note additional random feedback received in preparation for this post: I’m uncomfortable with increased government mandates; where do they eventually draw the line?… What role does big money play in the promotion? Pharmaceutical companies stand much to gain from a country that mandates medicine… How has the immigration influx changed the need for vaccinations? Their exposure to disease is different… Professionally, my job requires it… Mandatory flu shots — why does the union oppose?… People seem to pick and choose… So many vaccines taken at one time — that can’t be healthy… What about vaccines designed more to combat disease contacted via behavior as opposed to happenstance? My choice may differ there… There are many valid questions. We should all be asking questions.

As said from the start, this is a tough issue, and it’s tough to talk it well. As you know, I am no medical expert. But I believe in individual freedom. I also believe in “loving my neighbor well” and considering others in my choice. I respect the medical community. I respect the educational community. And I respect the parent — both in making a choice and graciously accepting the consequences.

Let me briefly share as I conclude, that one of my children once caught a life-threatening disease from another child. Because my own son’s immune system was compromised, it evolved into a gut-wrenching, critical situation; we spent 21 days in cardiac ICU — 2 of those weeks on a respirator. But one of the nuggets of wisdom I adhere to in life is that I refuse to allow my individual circumstance to dictate the totality of the truth. Do I wish that other child had already received that vaccination? You bet I do. But should that experience cause me to deny the individual freedom of another? Great question. Hard one, too.

May we be respectful of others in our answer. May we each accept the consequences of our decisions. And may we always love one another well.

Respectfully… with great grace…

02/03/2015

super recap

A running recap, watching the Super Bowl with the family… a few (well, sort of) observations, as well…

Lots of hype… lots of fanfare.
Loved the National Anthem — made me miss Whitney Houston.
Tom Brady… he’ll be in the Hall of Fame one day.
Russell Wilson in the HOF? The jury’s still out.
Wish I fully trusted the Patriots.
Budweiser commercials always tug on my heartstrings.
(Is it time for Katy Perry yet?)
Wow… fascinating Coke commercial; can’t tell if I like it or not.
Lovin’ the avocado “First Draft Ever” commercial.
Cris Colinsworth — wasn’t he fired by NBC? Oh, wait… that’s next season.
Brady is amazing. Did I say that already?
It will be interesting to see how Deflate-Gate plays itself out; does the owner really think he deserves an apology?
I’m liking that fluorescent green accent on Seattle’s uniforms.
Why do grown men keep pulling those mouth guards out of their mouth?
The Patriots are dominating thus far with their pass defense. Oops… maybe not.
Doritos always has the best commercials, although the car companies are giving them a run for their money this year.
The Nissan “Cats in the Cradle” commercial just made me cry.
The Nationwide commercial? Fascinating. Probing. I think I liked it, but the timing seems off… especially in between the beer and chips.
Paul McCartney, Will Ferrell, etc. at the game; my son just asked how much it cost celebrities to be there.
Marshawn Lynch is tough.
Why does Belichick have a pencil behind his ear? Is he taking notes?
The “Breaking Bad” guy made me laugh — as did the dual advertisement for Fiat and Viagra.
Halftime. Tied.
Son just pondered the wisdom of utilizing Super Bowl advertising on social issues. Great question. Love his pondering.
Ok, the neutered cat commercial just made the entire room laugh out loud.
Katy Perry… the sound isn’t great but the dancing is good — except for the dancing beach balls and palm trees. “Firework” was excellent!
Love P&G’s “Run Like a Girl” commercial.
Seattle ahead.
Oooh… the INflated football just doesn’t travel as far.
Way to use the ref as a pick.
All the “Saturday Night Live” hosts… love it!
Did I mention this is a good game?
“Patriot nation” means different things to different people.
Crunch time coming.
Game getting closer; did I mention this was only a game?
Chicken wings; hmmm…. do people really eat all those chicken wings?
Josh McDaniels is on the sidelines encouraging Brady; isn’t he the former coach who drafted Tim Tebow?
Patriots back up. Well done.
Seattle battles. Driving. Done. Those end zone INT’s are killer.
New England wins. Wow.
New England wins.
Hope they are good guys. I like to see the good guys win.

Ok, ok… so maybe a little more than a few observations. Here’s to next season. P.S. It was just a game, right?

Respectfully…

02/01/2015

who should lead?

Over the course of recent weeks, current events observers have had the pleasure of watching the elect jockey for presidential positions. “He’s in… he’s out… she’s in… she’s out… he formed a PAC… she gave a great speech… he had dinner with donors… she’s watching what he will do…” Persons are actively maneuvering — however (only) currently quietly — to be the next President of the United States of America. They are raising money and refining image, in order to have the best chance — and look the best at it.

Late this week, after publicly testing his toe in political waters, the most recent Republican Party nominee, Mitt Romney, announced he would not seek the White House in 2016. This semi-humble observer was thankful. It’s the same reason the Intramuralist remains un-thrilled with the prospect of a candidacy of someone named Clinton or Bush. I realize neither Hillary or Jeb have held the position before, but we already know who they are, and each has previously influenced policy to an ambiguous degree via their spouses and/or families. I, for one, desire someone new… someone fresher… someone who isn’t spending this time currently re-crafting a more popular public image. That doesn’t feel pure to me, and yet it’s an existent component of image deception that too many of all parties accept and embrace.

My mother insightfully shared with me years ago that once a person gets it in their blood to run for the Presidency, it never disappears. “They look in the mirror and see the President of the United States. Once they think that, they will always think that.” There is too much emphasis on self… on “me” being President… on “me” leading.

One of my honest, sincere disappointments in Pres. Obama — truly with all due respect — is that I hear “too much me” in him. There have been too many times during his tenure that his selection of personal pronouns has made me uncomfortable. I’m not attempting to be critical; I’m attempting to be transparent. It’s the same discomfort I would feel in my professor or pastor. This isn’t about them. It’s about leading well… You don’t have to be my President. You don’t have to be my professor. You don’t have to be my pastor. You have to be called. You have to be humble. And only in humility will you lead well. Only in humility will you realize that what’s in the mirror is less important than whom you shepherd and serve.

Great leaders are a rarity. Great leaders are not defined by oratorical skills nor re-crafted public images. Great leaders have a heart attitude that is above reproach. To be above reproach means self-emphasis and importance is never in question. A great leader never looks in the mirror and thinks about how good or wise he is. A great leader is a servant leader. As well articulated years ago by longtime leadership guru, Ken Blanchard:

“The servant leader is constantly trying to find out what his or her people need to be successful. Rather than wanting them to please him or her, they are interested in making a difference in the lives of their people and, in the process, impacting the organization… What do managers need to become servant leaders? The biggest thing they need is to get their ego out of the way… Servant leadership is something that people need. We need to support and help individuals in the organization to win. The days of the manager being judge, jury and critic rather than cheerleader, facilitator and listener are over.”

Exactly. The days of leaders who think they need to be judge and jury are over. We need cheerleaders, facilitators, and humble listeners… not people who look in the mirror and think, “That’s me.”

Respectfully…

01/29/201501/29/2015

“blizzard” of ’15

I had to chuckle this week witnessing the weather watchers worry as snow “threatened” the East Coast. Said NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio prior to the snowstorm, “This could be a storm the likes of which we’ve never seen before.” To his credit, de Blasio was only following the lead of the National Weather Service, which labeled the coming snow as “life-threatening” and “historic.” In preparation, travel was banned and the subways were shut down. However, upon completion of the precipitation, “life-threatening” and “historic” equated to less than a foot of snow for New York City. The forecasts (and rhetoric) failed to match the actual results.

Hence, the headlines from the day after…

“Did New York Overreact to the 2015 Blizzard?” — The New York Times
“The Blizzard That Wasn’t” — Canada Free Press
“Overreaction or Justified Caution?” — The Guardian
“Mayor Defends New York Snow Warning” — BBC
“Politicians Can Never Win With Weather” — The Atlantic

Let’s acknowledge that Mayor de Blasio — unless he has meteorology credentials unknown to the Intramuralist — was undoubtedly basing his decision to shut down the city on the weather expertise of others. As NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in response to some of the immediate questions and criticism, “This is an imprecise science.” Smart as we are, controlling and predicting the weather with absolute certainty on all occasions is not only an imprecise science; it is also not within man’s capability.

So why? … what causes the unquestionably obvious overreaction by leadership? Note: the NYC subway has never been closed for snow before; this was less than a foot. The precautions taken were unnecessary. So the question is: what motivates the precaution?

Again, de Blasio, etal. had to rely on someone else for their meteorological expertise. However, it seems to this semi-humble current events observer that another factor was huge in the consideration of how to best prepare. I speak not of anything weather related… nothing about snow… nothing about any tangible, physical storm.

I speak instead of the litigious storm that too often swells when someone faces negative circumstances. We live in a culture where when bad things happen to good people, good people find someone else to blame. Someone has to be held responsible.

It’s as if in all of our maturity and growth, an area where we are culturally ignorant is that we are incapable of accepting negative circumstances. And so if we are incapacitated, impaired, or even inconvenienced, we look first to blame someone else, as opposed to accept a less than desirable circumstance. We blame others for negative circumstances.

In New York City, for example, if it actually had ended up snowing 17 feet, maybe I blame the city if my street isn’t plowed fast enough… if my power goes out… or if I get stuck in some dark and semi-dingy subway. Instead of accepting a frustrating circumstance, I simply blame the city.

Hence, the Mayor and the Governor decided to be proactive… not just in case of the potential snow, but also in case of the potential, accompanying liability. Did they overreact? Yes. “Better safe than sorry,” was the rhetorical refrain.

Do we ever overreact to negative circumstances? We most certainly do.

Respectfully…

01/27/201501/27/2015

feminism

I had opportunity this past weekend to sit down with a small group of high school girls — primarily seniors. Any time such a favorable moment arises, I feel adults should embrace it… not simply because of what we can teach them — but also because of what they can teach us. The younger generation has so much to offer.

This weekend these budding young women wanted to talk about feminism… great topic! They knew much; they were well versed. They were passionate and feisty and knowledgeable and humble and discerning all at the same time. Here was a group of young women — most of whom are about to embark on a brand new adventure come fall — and they are so desiring to figure life out (… I love it… granted, I omitted that the rest of us are still working on that figuring-life-out thing…).

They started by defining what they thought feminism is…

“Equal rights… equal rights for men and women… Equal value… no one is lesser or more… Everyone doesn’t have the same talents, but no woman’s talent is any lesser than a man’s… No one is lesser; no one is over anybody else.”

Most chimed in quickly; few conversational prompts were necessary. It was an energetic, lively discussion. When a slight pause ensued, another passionate gal — this one slightly meeker, however — boldly piped in: “I think that’s what feminism should be, but it’s not.”

I love it… I love how the teenage brain thinks. Ok, so just to be clear… I’m not affirming the days dirty clothes have strung across seemingly every inch of my oldest son’s bedroom — nor am I advocating any of the hygiene habits that at times borderline a bit on the obsessive-compulsive; but I love how the teenage mind thinks. There is so much to figure out — so much they don’t know; and they feel the freedom to think and wonder and wrestle, recognizing they have their whole life ahead of them. They don’t know it all… even when they act like they do.

So if that’s not what feminism is, what exactly is it?

Over the course of our evening together, we spoke of how so many only elevate themselves by stepping on someone else… how wise. For example… how the key to women’s success is that men must understand… the key to the racial divide is for white people to know — for black people to know… the key to any ethnic, gender, or cultural difference is for someone else to step aside. Notice how the supposed “key” is always focused on someone else?

What I loved about my time with these precious young women is that their focus wasn’t deferred to anyone else…

What do I think?
What can I do?
How can I value all people?
How can I respond in a wise fashion?

And our bottom line question: how can I support equality of any kind, if equality and value involve the lessening of someone else in the process?

Great question. Did I mention I love how teenagers think?

Respectfully…

01/25/201501/25/2015

god loves a winner?

One week from today, more of us will be gleefully gathered ‘round our televisions perhaps more than at any other time of the year. One week ago, the two teams facing each other in Super Bowl XLIX bested their opponents to qualify for the Big Game (… although for one, the typically accompanying, jubilant bubble of victory has been burst — or at least slightly deflated).

After last week’s conference victory — an outcome that certainly seemed highly improbable until the game’s final minutes — Seattle Seahawk quarterback, Russell Wilson was visibly moved. Note that the team had been dominated for all but the final two minutes of 60 minutes of play. Wilson had played poorly. With tears freely flowing, the young leader was interviewed on the sidelines by FOX’s Erin Andrews regarding the key to the team’s inconceivable comeback. Wilson said: “God is so good, all the time, man. Every time… Just making the plays at the end. Keep believing. There was no doubt, I just had no doubt. We had no doubt as a team… I just believe that God prepared me for these situations. God’s prepared our team, too, as well. Like I said, I’m honored to be on this team. I’m going to the Super Bowl again.”

Sports Illustrated’s Peter King caught up with Wilson later, asking how it felt to go from his worst game to arguably his best moment. Wilson elaborated further: “That’s God setting it up, to make it so dramatic, so rewarding, so special. I’ve been through a lot in life, and had some ups and downs. It’s what’s led me to this day.”

As is typical in a culture that gives increasingly less credit to the holy and divine, Wilson’s acknowledgement prompted a significant reaction. From the immediate scoffs to the “must-we-talk-about-God again” to those who chose to instead criticize the interviewer, Wilson was mocked for his humble response. (Note: the critical expressions were heard just under the whiz echoed by the Patriots’ deflation.)

I understand the argument… “C’mon… God’s got bigger things to care about…” “Do you really think God loves the Seahawks more than the Packers?”… or as Wilson’s Packer counterpart, Aaron Rodgers, responded, “I don’t think God cares a whole lot about the outcome. He cares about the people involved, but I don’t think he’s a big football fan.”

Truthfully, I think each of those responses are valid… God does have bigger things to care about. I would only add that we can’t fully define God via our human, limited understanding. While God certainly understands issues of life and death and those big things that pain us and make us realize all that pales in comparison, his awareness and role is not compromised by the perceived level of Earthly significance. He is capable of caring about both the troubling and the trivial, the major and the minor, the significant and the silly, and everything in between.

Does he care about one team or one person more than another? That makes me chuckle; he loves us all. While he certainly recognizes our individual gifts (uh, he made us), those individual strengths in addition to our weaknesses, abilities, and even lack of ability are no reflection of how much God loves us… not even of last year’s last place Buccaneers.

I think the reality is — and maybe I’m out on editorial limb here — but I don’t believe God puts as much value on winning as we do. With all due respect, I disagree with the Packers’ Rodgers. God is a football fan… but God is also a hockey fan, scrap-booking fan, baseball card collecting fan, reading and writing fan… he’s a fan of whatever his people are involved in. And as wise as only the God of the universe can be, he teaches and leads in both the winning and the losing. My sense is he knows there is a blessing in both. The question is if we’ll see it, too.

Respectfully…

01/22/201501/22/2015

sotu 2015

While it’s true that the Food Network’s “Chopped” and “Friends” reruns vied for my attention Tuesday night, once again I watched the State of the Union address. With all due respect, allow me to share my initial emotion regardless of who is speaking for this long, with this lengthy of a list, with this much use of the pronoun “I” after a full day: yawn.

I mean no disrespect. I’m interested in what our leaders have to say; I just don’t always find partisan initiatives combined with political theater particularly interesting. Hence, I decided to share a few other thoughts… some mine… some yours…. each who felt called to share their creative, editorial insights…

Nice ties, Joe & John. Well-coordinated, I might add.
Lookin’ good, Michelle. Michelle Obama always looks good — especially when she’s smiling.
The first SOTU by George Washington only lasted 5-7 minutes. I’m thinking contemporary leaders could learn a thing or two.
The question here is relevance. How can this President remain relevant his last 2 years in office?
“Aisle hogs”… you know who they are… always have to be right on the row’s edge. See Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Any tickets for this up on Stubhub?
Will James Taylor be singing?
Obama looks grayer to me. Life must be a little stressful.
Saluting the troops is right on.
Does the Supreme Court know how to clap?
I think every President accepts too much credit and too little blame.
“Middle class economics”? Who came up with that term?
Not being able to pay for college is not a new circumstance.
What’s the message here to Hillary?
I’m realizing even the intelligent blur the line between “wants” & “needs.”
Seems like he’s trying to tug on my heartstrings.
Did he just say “sl_ts” instead of “slots”?
How’s he going to pay for all this?
Tax wealth — not income. Otherwise we’re talking socialism.
Reducing the deficit is great, but don’t ignore the increasing debt.
John Boehner, blowing your nose while the President’s talking isn’t all that attractive.
Remember that “free” doesn’t mean free; it means using our tax dollars to pay for it.
Love it when they ALL stand! Then it feels a less like a Patriots’ game.
[via Chris Rock] “With obesity at record levels, Republicans should set a good example and stand up once in a while.”
So if I get free internet, will my taxes go up or stay the same?
If you like Obama and like a lot of free stuff, you’ll like this speech.
Instead of taxing the richest 1% more, could we eliminate their Social Security checks?
No use of the word “Islamic.” No use of Al Qaeda either.
I have great fear about where we are heading.
Not sure if the laughter/sarcasm here is appropriate. Snarkiness never goes over well.
Sen. Diane Feinstein, interesting pink and purple combo.
Not sure climate change is our biggest challenge and not comfortable as the Intramuralist says about omitting God from the conversation.
We can speak to issues that still need improvement and we could point out that Obama may not have played a significant role in any of these improvements. But can’t we at least pause for a moment to acknowledge the positive?
With all the veto threats, you have to wonder if persons will perceive you as someone who can be worked with.
Strong on domestic policy. Weak on foreign policy.
Under Obama’s leadership, he mentions how some say we’re more divided than ever. I wish that wasn’t true. Each of us needs to look at how we play a role in that. That includes Obama. That includes the media. That includes me.
I hear a conciliatory tone as the President closes. Maybe that would have been wise to use the whole time.
Bill Clinton’s SOTU’s sounded very Republican; George Bush’s sounded very Democratic; both seemed to be reaching out to the other side, where Obama doesn’t seem to make any attempt to reach out and gives a very partisan/Democratic speech.
An appropriate Republican response? Balance the budget. Period.
The Republican response comes next — this year via Sen. Joni Ernst. No disrespect, Senator, but haven’t we listened long enough?
Sen. Ernst, the first female, combat veteran elected to the Senate… impressive. She’s even wearing camouflage heels.
I like the fact that Ernst worked the farm and the Hardee’s biscuit line; now that’s hard work.
Keystone pipeline/jobs bill. Republicans and Democrats support it. The State Dept. supported it. But administration says they can’t sign it yet. Not sure what the truth is there.
Simplify the tax code — please!
Too much dysfunction in Washington. Yep.
4 times as many people will be watching the Super Bowl next week than the number who watched this tonight. Shocking.

And then on Tuesday, this semi-humble observer turned on “Chopped.” Did I mention my yawn?

Respectfully…

01/20/201501/20/2015

state of the government

In keeping with tonight’s annual State of the Union address, the Intramuralist takes a stab at our 6th State of the Government address. In our initial analysis, we made the following observations:

The State of the Government is too partisan.
The State of the Government is too influenced by money.
The State of the Government is too big.
The State of the Government is too financially imbalanced.
The State of the Government is too far removed from the Constitution.

Allow me a few brief notes on each state…

Government is too partisan. This isn’t rocket science. When Pres. Obama’s tenure began, then Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was famously quoted as saying, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for Pres. Obama to be a one-term president.” One could make a case for Republican obstructionism. As Obama’s tenure continued through November of last year, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) famously refused to allow hundreds of House-passed bills to even be discussed on the Senate floor. One could make a case for Democrat obstructionism.

The facts are that congressmen intentionally stymie one another’s policy initiatives, and the President now utilizes Executive Orders to bypass congressmen. Then each complains about their opposition, acting as if they are somehow standing on a perceived moral, high ground. The point is that each blames their partisan behavior on someone else.

Government is too influenced by money. Again, people blame someone else or a single judicial decision for this issue, claiming a moral (instead of hypocritical) high ground. An excellent example centers around billionaire donor Tom Steyer, who gave approx. $75 million dollars to liberal candidates in the 2014 elections; he will undoubtedly be active and vocal in future elections.

Steyer does not want the Keystone XL pipeline built; the project has bipartisan support. The administration, though, says they need more time to examine the issue. Note that the project was introduced in late 2008. It’s thus hard to believe that Steyer’s money — and influence — is irrelevant. The Intramuralist, therefore, continues to conclude that there has been a easing of morals in governance due to an easing of lobbyist/donor restrictions, that began in the late 1970‘s.

Government is too big. Let’s make this simple… There’s no budget. There’s no firm spending limits. There’s little accountability. Government keeps expanding. How can this be wise? How can wise men and women continue to ignore?

Government is too financially imbalanced. Whether monies are spent on war, Obamacare, or wars on Obamacare, the government continues to make no attempt to balance their budget. Any entity with this much deficit spending for this long with no repayment plan will at some point cease to exist. The elect continue to kick the financial can down the road, thinking it will somehow be paved by future generations.

Government is too far removed from the Constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Our founders desired a country that would be internally peaceful and externally protected. Too many today, though, feel arrogantly justified in dictating exactly what a more perfect union should be for each of the rest of us.

So again I ask, where do we start?

Consistent with our mantra, I believe we start with respect — both from us and from our leaders. Respect means being wise enough to recognize the reality of our morally, digressing state — and being humble enough to recognize that no single one of us has it all figured out.

Respectfully…

01/18/201501/18/2015

what are we doing?

What are we doing? Where is our patience with one another? Why do we insist others cater to us and our needs and beliefs?

Yesterday my youngest son and I took the convivial trip to Costco. Costco always seems a big deal in our family. Maybe it’s because a person always comes back with “stuff”… lots of stuff. Everything at Costco seems to come in big packages. Among my singular packages were 7 frozen pizzas, 70 ounces of cereal, and 7,000 rolls of toilet paper (… ok, so I may be exaggerating on the toilet paper). Suffice it to say, when we left the nation’s second largest retailer, our cart was full.

As many are aware, my youngest son has Down syndrome. Some see that as a negative; we do not; but one of the so-called perks that comes with the perceived negativity is the opportunity to receive one of those blue and white placards that dangles from your rearview mirror, allowing you to park closer to the building, when your child is in the car. With a fairly full parking lot, yesterday we utilized our perk.

I felt a little lucky yesterday; granted, I think the words “lucky” and “blessing” are often misused and confused. But this day we were able to park in the spot closest to the warehouse. After making our rounds and returning to our car, another shopper was instantly, eagerly waiting for our coveted spot. The elderly driver and his wife were stopped in the lane, with their convenient blinker already in use.

Now as much as possible, I invite my son to join me in typical tasks. That means I sometimes sacrifice a speed or efficiency that perhaps alone I could accomplish, but the benefit and encouragement is worth far more. When loading the car, we dropped a few non-essential items, but we quickly recovered, teaching all the time. Josh then asked to return the cart to the corral by himself. He stopped after a few short steps, asking me for affirmation in his direction. At that point, I heard it. The elderly man with his blinker honked at me.

He honked at me.

I was shocked. My first thought was “no way… no way did that older couple just do that.” But after my pregnant pause and realizing the reality of the situation — and also not one to shy away from reality — I turned to look at the driver. He motioned to me with both hands. I looked at him, directly in the eye, paused, smiling slightly, putting one hand out with a “halt-like” motion, and said, “Wait. You can wait.”

Here was an older man suggesting that my son and I should hurry so that his needs could be met.

Such made me wonder. How often do we do exactly the same thing? … moments where we think another should cater to our needs and agree with our direction or beliefs — or else, if they don’t act or think as we desire, we speak or do something disrespectful in order to bring attention to them?

Maybe we don’t lay on the horn, but still, we give others little room or time if things aren’t as we desire. We don’t embrace the concept of patience as a virtue if it interferes with our individual passion. We want it our way now. We want people to meet our needs now. We want people to think like us now.

When I finally returned to my driver’s seat, I kept thinking, “He honked at me… he actually honked at me.” I then laughed out loud, shook my head a bit, wishing we all had more patience — and wisdom — when dealing with others.

Respectfully…