AR – Page 127 – intramuralist ™

03/09/201403/09/2014

trust erosion

Who’s got the courage to stop it? Who’s got the integrity to stop it? Who will end the rhetorical spin and thus end the eroding trust we have in government?

As said well by CBS host Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” in February: “When government officials insult us with spin they’re doing it on our dime, which is supposed to be used to operate the government, not to hold news conferences to tell us what a fine job people on the public payroll are doing. As we learned during Katrina, self-serving spin at the first sign of crisis does not help the situation. It makes it worse. Because it makes it harder to believe anything the government says. Real security is built on trust in the government. That requires truth, which should be the beginning of government presentations, not the fallback position.”

From Katrina to current day, from Republicans to Democrats, our federal government is making it hard to believe anything they say. They continue to “spin” instead of offer truth and be transparent. What happened to the realization that truth and transparency are necessary components of integrity? Do our elected officials have such tunnel vision, that integrity is a willing sacrifice? Why do so exceedingly many believe in not telling the truth? Note that this deception takes various forms: lying, exaggeration, and omission. Each is an intentional tactic in which the truth remains untold. Our leaders may not lie, but perhaps they have a penchant for hyperbole. Maybe they make up their own statistics and facts. Maybe they are eerily silent. Maybe they commission their PR people to craft better sounding answers to the most revealing, condemning questions. Each equates to not telling the truth. Each is a lack of integrity.

Like many of you, I’ve watched closely what’s happening in the IRS. This is significant; if the IRS lacks integrity, we all could become victims of injustice — not just the conservative groups the IRS was previously, knowingly targeting. But no one will tell us the truth. No one will answer the questions. People who are paid and elected by the public are not acting with integrity nor forthcoming with answers. They are only, sadly generous with rhetorical spin. From the IRS official Lois Lerner who again pleaded the 5th last week to Pres. Obama’s offering that there wasn’t even a “smidgen of corruption” in the process, no one is being transparent with the truth. Note the following communications by Lerner, who still refuses to testify…

In September 2010, Lerner wrote: “Ok guys. We need to have a plan. We need to be cautious so it isn’t a per se political project. More a c4 project that will look at levels of lobbying and pol. activity along with exempt activity.”

A month later, in a speech at Duke University, referring to the Citizens United decision, Lerner said the Supreme Court “dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns... The FEC can’t do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem… Everybody is screaming at us right now: ‘Fix it now before the election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?’ “

Then 4 months later, Lerner wrote: “Tea Party Matter very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizens United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules.”

Is Lerner guilty of something? I don’t claim to know that.

Is the Obama administration guilty of something? I don’t claim to know that either.

The Intramuralist has not nor cannot conclude that anyone is guilty of something specific. I do, however, humbly submit that their lack of truth telling and use of rhetorical spin are dishonest. Such a lack of integrity causes trust in our government to continue to erode.

Respectfully,

03/06/2014

the n-word

There’s a significant debate raging across the country. Granted, the Intramuralist is only a bystander — not a partaker — as one of the lessons learned these past 5+ insightful years of blogging, is that we don’t have to insert ourselves within the debate trenches of all issues. Some may have wiser perspectives not so much due to passion, but more so based on the stance they share, a stance perhaps closer in actual proximity.

Prompted by the National Football League, within African-American circles, the debate surrounds the use of the word, “nigger” (from here on referred to as the “N-word”). The NFL is is expected to enact a rule at their March owners meeting that would penalize players 15 yards if they use the N-word on the field.

Is use of the N-word — and each of its colloquial derivatives — ever appropriate?

Allow me to quote some with a stance closer in actual proximity…

“We want this word to be policed from the parking lot to the equipment room to the locker room. Secretaries, PR people, whoever, we want it eliminated completely and want it policed everywhere,” says John Wooten, the head of the Fritz Pollard Alliance, which monitors diversity in the NFL.

Richard Sherman, star of the Super Bowl winning Seattle Seahawks feels differently. “It’s an atrocious idea. It’s almost racist to me. It’s weird they’re targeting one specific word. Why wouldn’t all curse words be banned then?”

A similar stance is echoed by Sherman’s teammate, Doug Baldwin: “I think it’s absurd… they’re trying to do this with good intentions. Maybe. But, if you look at it, the only people who say the N-word on the football field are African-Americans. Whether whoever wants to agree with it or not, we have turned it kind of into a term of endearment.”

Let me add a final word from Hall of Famer Art Shell: “That is the most vile word. It was created to make a certain group of people feel like they were less than human. How does that word become a term of endearment?’’

Note that Wooten, Sherman, Baldwin, and Shell are each black, and yet, they disagree. The African-American community disagrees on whether or not use of the N-word — and each of its colloquial derivatives — is ever appropriate.

Their challenge is obvious; it matters who says the word. While once a term intended as an ethnic slur, the N-word’s meaning has evolved via the numbing achieved through rap, hip hop, and popular comedic routines such as Chris Rock’s infamous “Niggas vs. Black People.” In other words, the N-word doesn’t possess the same sting… that is, as long as it’s said from one African-American to another.

There seems some generational aspect, affecting differently those who were once insulted as opposed to those who have never been the recipient of the insult. There seems also some traditional vs. progressive component. There exists passionate, definite disagreement from many with a close-in-proximity stance.

The underlying predicament is that the problem is not the use of the word, but rather, the intent of the use. And once we begin the subjective assessment of intent, we will frequently err in the evaluation. Like it or not, passionate or not, well-intentioned or not, subjective intent cannot be accurately, always measured.

Hence, in one more realm of society we must ask ourselves… if we cannot fully alleviate a problem, must we eliminate all that potentially contributes to the problem?

Great question. An even better debate.

Respectfully,

03/04/2014

this side of war

I must confess: I only know what it feels like on this side of war. I’ve never been in the middle of a military conflict, where the sights and sounds cause me to shudder on a daily, hourly basis… where my external and internal peace is threatened by a fight seemingly so bigger than me. “Why can’t we all get along?” many must mutter in their disgust.

But people don’t all get along. They don’t. And unfortunately, we, at times have encouraged the not getting along. How many times have we been disrespectful in our words, diminishing the opinion of another? How many times have we been judgmental — not judging in the sense of wise discernment, but rather, passing judgment on opinions, as to which one is to be preferred as the more correct? We do that all the time. Our leaders do that all the time. They look down on others every time they denigrate or refuse to debate.

That’s been happening in recent weeks, for example, regarding climate change. Many are refusing to discuss. Stop it. I get that many scientists believe man’s actions are directly responsible for the planet’s perceived warming. But why must the debate be extinguished? Note what happened with Charles Krauthammer, a well respected conservative journalist. He prepared a piece for the Washington Post in which he challenged the premise that the science on climate change is settled. Environmental activists petitioned the Post not to publish Krauthammer’s column.

Let the debate proceed. Let the people talk. If a person’s perspective is good and true and right, it will persevere. If the only way a perspective can persist is by eliminating diverse opinion, then the perspective is not rooted in wisdom. Allow the people to talk. Hear them. When we don’t allow people to talk, when we don’t listen to them, when we shut them (and their opinions) down, we move eerily closer to the other side of war.

The world is a volatile place. Look around us. Conflict spans the globe. From Afghanistan to Syria to Venezuela, to the Middle East and now the Ukraine. This is scary, friends.

Ukraine is a country of approximately 45 million citizens, situated between Europe and Russia. The citizens are divided as to which of the two they identify with more. Ukraine was actually part of the Soviet Union until 1991, when they declared their independence, with 90% of Ukrainians voting affirmatively. As with any new nation, economic, social, and political struggles ensued.

In the past decade, some of their leadership embraced more West-leaning, European policies. Russia — and specifically, Pres. Vladimir Putin — seemed wanting to punish Ukraine for their newfound Western affinity. Putin cut the flow of gas to the country in 2006 and 2009. In November of last year, the Ukrainian Prime Minister embraced more Russian policy. Large numbers of people felt the government was no longer listening to them. Hence began an initially peaceful, public protest. But the protest turned violent when clashing with law enforcement. The Ukrainian government then passed a series of laws that essentially banned all public protest. And with the cameras rolling from the recent adjacent, Olympic Russian slopes, the protest has significantly escalated. The Russian military has moved into Ukraine, attempting to regain control.

The world is in a tough place. There seems little we can do, this side of war. It’s not an enviable position for Pres. Obama or for any president for that matter. What president desires war? (… geepers…) While there is certainly a time for peace and a time for war and a time for every season under the sun, no wise president earnestly desires engaging in military combat (… the only persons I know who earnestly engage are teenage boys playing the latest “Call of Duty” game).

Hence, keep watching. Keep praying. And be thankful to be on this side of war, where our peace is not threatened… and we are still, hopefully heard.

Respectfully,

03/02/201403/02/2014

overreaction

We are a nation of reactors. No, I take that back. We are a nation of over-reactors.

One person misuses something, so the something must be put out of use. Another person says something awful, so we all must omit the word. Still one more misuses some sort of liberty, so the government then feels the need to legislate the entire liberty. Why must so many liberties be legislated? Why does the government feel a need to restrict and control? Are we not capable of deciding for ourselves? Do we each not have the opportunity to be convicted by the same spirit of truth? We continue to overreact…

In the ’20’s people drank too much, so we outlawed alcohol.

In the ’40’s Japan attacked us, so we interned the Japanese.

Still today…

A person utilizes patriotic symbols for slander, so a court bars wearing the American flag to school.

Another says he’s offended by his peer’s mention of Jesus, so all public prayer is banned.

At an Idaho high school, the cheers for some kids were more than others and some of the cheers were rude, so the high school prohibited cheering. (I’m not kidding.)

A person is offended, so we must erase any source of the offense.

A person is rude, so we must eradicate the source of the rudeness.

A person responds to a situation foolishly, so we must diminish any possibility of the situation occurring again.

Yes, we are a nation of over-reactors.

Like many of you, I watched closely as the events in Arizona unfolded last week. We watched them wrestle with Arizona S.B. 1062.

This was hard. Cycling through emotional, rhetorical circles, on all sides of the issue, people became understandably passionate. And instead of debating any actual wisdom or waste in the legislation, the discussion evolved into a debate of “religious freedom” vs. “gay rights.” Freedom vs. Discrimination…. a “lose/lose situation,” if you ask me. Aspects of each of those perspectives seemed true; other aspects were not. The hype on both sides became bigger than the bill itself, skewing public perspective.

Arizona S.B. 1062 amended an existing state law, giving individuals and/or legal entities an exemption from any state law if it substantially burdened their exercise of religion. I’m not quite sure why some felt such a law was necessary. The First Amendment gives each of us the right to the free exercise of religion.

My sense is such was an over-reaction to situations that manifested themselves in Colorado and Oregon last year, where a judge in each state ordered a respective bakery to provide their services for a gay wedding, even though each baker was uncomfortable being a part of a ceremony which they believed was inappropriate due to their faith. In a capitalist democracy, business entities have the right to choose with whom they will work. Such happens daily, routinely, and without offense. With multiple other bakeries available — bakers who would welcome and appreciate participating in any special ceremony — I also believe the judge and plaintiff over-reacted. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, friends. I simply believe we need to respect and honor all people — from those who wish to marry and those who wish not to partake. We each have the opportunity to be convicted by the same spirit of truth.

Amid then the backdrop of massive, polarized publicity, late last week Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the controversial law. From the Intramuralist’s perspective, her decision was appropriate.

I wonder who will say what next, though. Someone. Somewhere… as we are a nation of over-reactors.

Respectfully,

02/27/201402/27/2014

accountability

Somewhere over the course of my life, I was blessed with the realization that accountability is good for me. I articulate the “a-ha” in such a manner, as I’ve learned that not all adults have come to a similar awareness. Let me first add a couple of caveats:

1. I’m not suggesting I’ve always been good at it.

And 2. I don’t share my awareness with any sense of superiority.

My point is simple: accountability is good.

Accountability is the willingness to accept responsibility for one’s own actions. By being accountable to someone other than myself — to persons who gently but generously apply liberal doses of grace and truth — I am encouraged to answer for my actions… the good, bad, and ugly. There is no deception, no manipulation of the facts, nor any rhetorical spin.

Let me go a step further… accountability isn’t always fun. Frequently I must acknowledge a poor choice, a lack of discernment, or an error in judgment. Sometimes I must admit a painful mistake. Sometimes, too, I wish no one would know.

But the “knowing” by others spurs me on. The “knowing” is what makes me better at what I do. I want to live my life/do my job ethically and well, and accountability helps me do that.

One of the veiled, intentional hindrances to today’s government efficiency, however, is the acute absence of accountability. Neither the Judicial or Legislative nor Executive Branch of the federal government seeks or desires accountability…

The Judicial Branch… an appointment to the Supreme Court lasts a lifetime. Their tenure is for life unless they resign, retire, take senior status, or are removed after impeachment (… granted, no justice has ever been removed). A lifetime appointment equates to little to no accountability, which is especially concerning if/when a judge is ideologically driven.

The Legislative Branch… the leaders of both bodies of Congress — currently 1 Democrat (Sen. Harry Reid) and 1 Republican (Rep. John Boehner) — control what measures make it to the congressional floor. In other words, when the minority party wishes to bring a bill to a vote, Reid and Boehner respectively block it. To make matters worse (from the Intramuralist’s eyes, from an integrity standpoint), both parties quickly cry “foul” when the other party is doing the blocking. There exists little recourse. Hence, the Democrats and Republicans face minimal accountability.

The Executive Branch… every president seems to push the extent of Executive Orders — and every opposing party seems to vociferously, publicly protest. Executive Orders bypass the accountability inherent in a 3 branch system. Currently, the most questionable bypassing of accountability is in the execution of Obamacare. The White House has made 18 significant changes to the law via executive action. Their obvious quandary is that because the law is increasingly unpopular, if they allow Congress to have input, Democrats and Republicans will likely join together to make bipartisan changes. Hence, Pres. Obama is avoiding accountability, especially on Obamacare.

Democrats and Republicans… Republicans and Democrats… all 3 branches of government… they do not seek or desire accountability. They are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions… the good, bad, and ugly. They will not admit a poor choice, a lack of discernment, or any error in judgment. We all make mistakes! But our government’s (supposedly) public servants — knowing they must run on their perceived public record — instead sadly and dishonestly resort to deception, manipulation of the facts, and lavish rhetorical spin. They have not realized that accountability is good for them, too.

Respectfully,

02/25/2014

diversity

Every now and then there seems a cultural concept that we’re subtly, societally, seemingly expected to embrace. It’s like one of those unwritten values that we’re each supposed to espouse, and if we don’t, something is arguably wrong, lesser, or disturbingly “off” with us. It’s almost as if when the concept is not unilaterally embraced, superiority of thought and/or looking down on another is actually condoned — if they don’t immediately latch onto that same value.

For example, we now believe in diversity. Diversity is good.

We believe in diversity…

… in the workplace…

… in the classroom…

… in all of academia…

… in college entrance exams…

… in age…

… in gender…

… in race…

… in religion…

… in the Olympics…

… in sports teams…

… in sexual orientation…

… in attraction…

… in life balance…

… in leisure…

… in politics…

… in culture…

… in medicine…

… in music…

… in art…

… in disability…

… in management styles…

… in opinion.

Oh, wait. We have trouble with that last one. But we believe in diversity, yes?

We believe in respecting and valuing the differences of all people…

… and we believe that those differences contribute to our overall good.

But do we believe in the diversity of opinion? … meaning, do we accept the opinion of someone who thinks differently than you and me? … do we then accept the opinion of the person who does not believe in diversity?

If not, then we don’t truly believe in diversity either.

Respectfully,

02/23/201402/23/2014

revolution

With my jaw dropped and eyes glued, this past week I’ve watched as the people have taken to the streets in the Ukraine and Venezuela. Especially escalating in Kiev, there is an obvious passion within the people; their angst is directed at their government. I wonder what could stir the citizens so much to be that frustrated, that defiant, and that willing to boldly confront the established civic order. What’s stirring within the people? What’s stirring that they’re so angry with their government — angry at those who are supposed to have the citizens’ best interests in mind?

It’s more than a singular issue or particular passion. It’s more than one desire or demand. Synonymous with such large scale revolts is the belief that government no longer has the citizens’ collective best interests in mind.

I wonder… could that happen here?

Even with the enactment of the most controversial, American policies — ie. Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, or whatever is one’s current, most convenient terminology — like it or not, my sense is that the law was crafted by those who believe it has the citizens’ best interests in mind. Whether the law actually does care well for our citizens is another question; however, because of the perceived purpose, a revolution due to the law’s enactment seems a less legitimate reason to rise up against those who enacted the law.

Interestingly, no less, last week there was a circumstance that caused this current events observer to deliberately pause, questioning whose interest our government had in mind… questioning whether their focus was best for you and me…

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — the agency of the federal government which regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, etc. — was moving ahead with its taxpayer funded “Critical Information Needs” study (CIN). First revealed last October, according to the FCC, its purpose was to uncover information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.” The study would have sent FCC regulators into newsrooms across the country, asking questions such as the following:

(To media owners) “What is the news philosophy of the station?”

(To editors, producers and managers) “Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic ‘beats’? If so how many and what are the beats? Who decides which stories are covered?”

(To reporters) “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?” (Follow-up questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was cut.)

Upon confrontation of the growing controversy — and asked why tabulating speculative, perceived bias was necessary for our federal government for regulatory purposes — FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler agreed that survey questions “overstepped the bounds of what is required.” The extent of the questions raised serious First Amendment concerns. Why was the government looking into this? Why were they spending taxpayer dollars? And what would they do with the information? Better yet: whose best interests did they have in mind?

After a current FCC commissioner shared a concerned op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last week — an editorial in which he labeled the CIN study as a first step down a “dangerous path” — the FCC suspended the onset of the study, scheduled for spring.

Good thing. I was beginning to wonder about revolt.

Respectfully,

02/20/201402/20/2014

winner doesn’t take it all

There’s something about the Olympics that just sucks us in. Ok, summer more than winter — and maybe not all of us — but there’s something about the competition, fanfare, backstories, and patriotism that totally captures our attention. Granted, I could use a little more sleep this week and last, but for the most part, this semi-competitive current events observer is loving these games. I did, however, recently find myself reverting back to a less mature pattern. Allow me to humbly explain…

Years ago, I was challenged by Dr. Tim Kimmel’s book, Raising Kids for True Greatness. I found it revolutionary. I recommend it genuinely and generously.

The book challenges us to cede our individual pursuits of success. We each want the best for ourselves and our children; there’s nothing wrong with that. But what if there was something more? What if there was something better? Could our definition of success be omitting the most important part?

Kimmel asks about greatness. Where does it fit in? “If you aim your children at anything less than greatness,” says the author, ”you’ll set them up to miss the whole point of their lives.”

Greatness isn’t defined in terms of wealth, prosperity, or even an SAT score. Greatness is a measure of character — a purposeful maximizing of our potential — where the commitment to virtue is never in question. I think first of the quiet uniqueness of Mother Teresa, who undoubtedly discerned the value of true greatness. When greatness is prioritized, we recognize that our worth comes from something far more than materialistic success. The opportunities are thus endless.

When this pursuit of greatness then replaces our societally-encouraged success barometers, we are freed to root for those other than our own. We no longer envision the success of another as something less for “me.” There is no “you vs. me” or “us against them,” as there exists none of this pitting against other people. We each are blessed and gifted in different ways.

So during the Olympic hockey game, when the Americans faced the Russians 24 years after the original “Miracle on Ice,” I cheered with my young son nearby. We grinned and grimaced through each shot of the shootout. And when the United States finally won the non-medal-meriting, intense arctic match, I almost jumped off my couch… yes!

But I realized that I was again seduced into cheering solely for my team — and thinking lesser of the other team. Yes, of course we have favorites, but I think we also root against certain others and demonize them to some degree primarily because they are our opponent; they stand in our way. We see this in sports, politics, life in general. And so we often make the other out to be bad or something lesser somehow, when in reality, they, too, are attempting to maximize their potential and embrace their gifts.

As the pomp and circumstance concluded the weekend hockey competition, I decided to take the opportunity to teach my youngest a few added nuggets of wisdom, so I thought. Thinking of the days of both “Rocky” and Reagan, I said, “You know, Josh, years ago, Russia was considered a ‘bad guy.‘ Lots of people thought they wanted to blow us up.”

Josh in his greater wisdom, deliberately paused and then meekly shared, “Mom, I don’t need to know all things. Seriously.”

He’s right. While we can be proud of our team and celebrate their on field/ice success, we have to remember that there exists something greater. There’s no need to demonize our opponents. They, too, are working to purposefully maximize their potential. And they have been blessed differently than you and me.

Respectfully,

02/18/2014

no more debate?

Why do people keep telling us the debate is over?

Why can they not talk about it?

Why don’t they want us talking about it?

As has been expressed here on multiple occasions, I am not a rocket scientist (… shocking, I know). I am no scientist whatsoever. I don’t know exactly how the inconvenient or convenient truths specifically apply to the legitimacy of global warming/climate change. What I do know, however, is that for some reason there are a growing number of other non-scientists who seem to be telling us to quit talking about it… quit questioning. They know what’s right… they in their infinite wisdom know best…

From Pres. Obama’s January State of the Union:

“The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”

From Sec. of State John Kerry, over the weekend:

“We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts, nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand.”

Why is it we chastise those who question? Why, too, must we insult? But better yet, why are some now saying we can’t even question it?

Again, I don’t know whether the Earth is warming due to man’s behavior. I am not a scientist. Most of the people attempting to silence the skeptics are also not scientists. But I do know that the climate has always changed. As respected author George Will said, too, over the weekend, “Of course the climate is changing. It’s always changing. That’s what gave us the medieval warm period. That’s what gave us subsequent to that for centuries, the brutal Ice Age. Of course it’s changing. But when a politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economic science, social science says the debate is over, you may be sure of two things. The debate is raging and he’s losing it.”

I don’t claim to know that the debate is raging nor that anyone’s losing it. The Intramuralist’s long-stated stance has been that no accurate discussion of the Earth’s trends can be logically had without including a study of the Earth’s Creator.

What the Intramuralist also believes is that many, many people stand to profit politically and monetarily by convincing us that man is responsible for a disastrous warming of the Earth. My question today is whether or not that potential profit is what’s ratcheting up the rhetoric in regard to this debate — or desired lack of it.

Note the claims of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) who proposed a congressional resolution last month, encouraging Congress and the White House to combat climate change due to its adverse affects on women. She wrote: “Insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health. More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt ‘marginalized’ women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV.” Lee tied climate change to prostitution, omitting any discussion of poverty, choice, or other factors.

Friends, there is no need to stop a debate unless a debate cannot continue logically and respectfully. I am thus assuming other motives are in play. Granted, it we actually did stop the debate, some of the unique, emotionally-charged, ratcheted-up rhetoric would cease, as well.

Respectfully,

02/15/201402/16/2014

fruit in jello

As is well known, the Intramuralist values respect. It’s the primary approach to this blog. Whatever the issue, whatever the opinion, whatever the circumstance or scenario, we can talk about it as long as we each embrace respect. It’s also why I feel increasing frustration in so many issues in today’s increasingly polarized culture. Pick your issue. Pick your point. No matter how we feel about war, women, or the latest, greatest pursuit of rhetorical equality, we will solve no issue unless we learn to respect those who feel differently than we do. Note that I didn’t say we need to embrace compromise. Note that I also didn’t say adopting another’s opinion as equality good and true is wise. My priority is recognizing that while each of us has value, we were also each created differently. We have different viewpoints and select passions. And we must learn to honor one another whose viewpoints and passions are different than our own.

That said, there is one character aspect that completely, colloquially “gets my goat.” I find it perhaps the most troubling obstacle in my personal efforts to respect another. I find it challenging to respect another when hypocrisy is either obvious or rampant.

Let’s face it. There are times, I surmise, that each of us have engaged in some form of hypocrisy. For example, the Intramuralist has a few “texture issues” when eating. I really don’t care to eat something that is a combination of “liquids and solids,” so-to-speak. Like tapioca pudding, any fruit in any Jello — the childhood staple at all after church fellowships — those foods drive me crazy. I thought my texture issues were clear… until I married… and my spouse gently pointed out that my affinity for chunky peanut butter and vegetable soup totally contradicts my previously stated issue. My very mature “texture issue” passion — which I had oft, loudly, proudly articulated — totally, hypocritically fell apart.

As we witness current day events, I see seemingly larger issues fall apart. I see our politicians embrace arguably more significant hypocrisy. Each party. Each president. Each opposing party likes to claim hypocrisy is indigenous only to the other. Let me make a bold, respectful point: that is not true. Hypocritical games are played by both. Just watch each party approach extending the debt ceiling. They want to spend more when the president shares their party affiliation; they want to spend less when the president is of the other party. The approach of these grown men and women is with all due respect, hypocritically ridiculous.

The most recent rant where hypocrisy is glaring is in Pres. Obama’s approach to Executive Orders. Granted, Obama seems stifled by having 3 equal branches of government, in which a politically divided Congress is able to thwart his desired policy initiatives. Such is why Obama has been emphasizing that he can and will “go-it-alone.” Those are not my words. Those are his…

“I’ve got a pen, and I can use that pen to sign Executive Orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”

Note that Executive Orders bypass Congress.

Every president has used Executive Orders. Some have used them incredibly controversially… such as Pres. Clinton utilizing one to fight the 1999 Kosovo War and Pres. Bush (43) in 2001, utilizing one to restrict public access to the papers of former presidents. The WWII Japanese internment camps also were a result of Executive Order.

Here, however, is the aspect that drives this current events observer crazy. Pres. Obama, who is now claiming his willingness and right to generously enact Executive Order, said this in 2008 when campaigning for the office:

“I taught constitutional law for 10 years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the Executive Branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Bringing more and more power into the Executive Branch. Bypassing Congress.

I really disrespect hypocrisy — no matter who it comes from — no matter the justification of the time. Dealing with any fruit in any Jello would be far easier.

Respectfully,