intramuralist ™ – Page 134 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

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…

01/15/201501/15/2015

clear, bold, and honest

Let’s be clear…

The Intramuralist is no political expert. In fact, far too many who consider themselves experts are — shall I say –“grace opportunities” for the rest of us. Far too also many seem to have embraced selective compassion in their accompanying expertise. My sense is such selectivity is too high a price to pay.

As an observer, no less — and a semi-humble one at that — it seems to me that we are facing quite the quandary. Across the globe, Muslim militants are killing innocent people. Manifest in multiple countries, people are being killed in the name of an Islamic god.

Long before 9/11, the huge list began accumulating (see an objective site). Since 1983, tens of thousands have been killed in the name of Islam… not in the name of another religion.

Let’s be bold…

It’s true that the majority of Muslims do not kill in the name of their faith. But the persons who are killing — be it on 9/11 some 14 years ago or in Paris, France last week — are each Muslim. That’s what they have in common.

I understand the impassioned plea of NBA great, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who asked us in a Time Magazine editorial last week to “stop bringing Islam into these discussions.” I get that he wishes for us to not associate the terror with his peaceful interpretation. The challenge is that the terror is associated with his religion.

Let’s be honest…

First, let’s acknowledge that the majority of Muslims do not kill the “infidel.” Second, let’s acknowledge that it is Muslims who are killing the “infidel.” Honesty means we begin by acknowledging truth. Many seem to struggle with such transparency.

On the eve of last September’s 9/11 anniversary, in a prime-time public address, Pres. Obama vowed to destroy ISIS; at the same time he proclaimed that the terrorists “are not Islamic.”

In the wake of last weekend’s PR misstep in France, Atty. Gen. Holder announced a coming “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” Is it violence? Certainly. Is it extremism? Without a doubt. But it also is terror conducted by Islamic radicals… not by Buddhists or Christians or Scientologists or anyone else.

State Dept. spokeman Marie Harf appeared on national news earlier this week. She was asked about the summit and was pressed to specifically state, in addition to the Islamic radicals, “What other forms of extremism are particularly troubling and compelling to you right now?” Harf named none… no one. She could not answer the question with any specifics.

It is thus obvious that at some point, our leaders huddled to determine how they would characterize the conflict. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist — nor that political expert — to discern that the administration has decided to avoid the word “Islamic,” including the phrases, “Islamic terrorism” and/or “Islamic radicals.” Press Sec. Josh Earnest wants us to believe that the administration is trying to be “as specific and accurate as possible” by using the term “violent extremism.” The non-political expert in me sees more avoidance than specificity.

Someone in the administration has directed leadership to avoid the clear and bold terminology, which would concede that a radical Islamic ideology is the common thread within the terror. We cannot assemble and solve, however, if we refuse to acknowledge and examine the common thread.

So the better question now is: why the avoidance? …what’s the motive?

Fear? Sympathy? Impression management? Something else?

I wish we knew. The intentional avoidance is extinguishing the administration’s influence and credibility; it’s also diminishing the probability of solution. Hence, I’ll say it again… let’s be honest.

Respectfully…

01/13/201501/13/2015

slugs & jabs

Sunday afternoon I had the pleasure of watching one of my son’s games. Like all proud parents, I enjoy watching my sons in their respective activities. Thankfully, my pleasure is no longer dependent upon the number of points they score, complete games they pitch, or whether or not they have a lead role. I’ve matured to a point (thanks, God) that I can celebrate each child for who he is and how he is uniquely gifted — as opposed to basing my pride on performance and accomplishment.

My youngest son, Josh, has helped much with that. It’s hard to adhere to pride based on performance when you have a special needs child. Life becomes a little more clear then — what’s most important, that is (another “thanks, God”).

There was one moment in Sunday’s basketball game which I found to be particularly insightful. There was a perhaps 11/12 year old boy on my son’s team, who was no more than four feet tall; he was actually quite physically skilled. He could dribble, shoot, and was unquestionably assertive on the court. Most of his peers were significantly taller; however, since the individual physical and cognitive disabilities differed, size did not dictate athletic dominance.

At one point, the small young boy dribbled smack dab into the middle of the lane, and a taller — albeit seemingly more physically challenged teen — stood directly in his way. The taller boy had flimsily stabbed at the ball a few times; it was a rather meek effort, but a stabbing just the same. His goal was to stop our enthusiastic, assertive four footer.

My four foot friend was obviously annoyed, though, as he encountered the defense; someone was opposing what he wanted to do. Hence, the four footer dribbled and penetrated, dribbled and penetrated, and then stopped dead in the lane, picking up his dribble. Then in his next, seemingly instantaneous move, the boy moved the ball to under one arm and used his other arm to slug his defender. He popped him right in the shoulder. The four footer then resumed his dribble, having subdued his opponent, and proceeded to follow through with his shot. (Thankfully, the defender was not hurt — granted, it was not from a lack of trying).

Now one of the many things I admire about my son and his peers is that they invest very little time in impression management; they don’t typically fake things, say things, or do things in order to control the image others have of them. They tend to live more freely — not allowing emotion to get in the way; they thus, also, typically do not hide how they feel. So on Sunday, when the young man was frustrated with the opposition, he slugged him; he threw a punch. He found the opposing of his ambition annoying, and so he simply let loose, so-to-speak.

It made me wonder: how often do we just “let loose” when someone gets in our way? … when someone opposes us? … when we find the opposition of another annoying?

Most of us are surely wise enough to refrain from physical slugging, but what keeps us from administering a verbal blow? …

Feel like someone is keeping your idea from being heard? … feel like their idea might be accepted by others? Shout at them; talk louder.

Don’t like something someone says that refutes your feeling or logic? Just insult them; maybe it will stick; maybe others will believe it.

The old adage that “sticks and stones will break our bones, but words will never harm me” is not one we believe in — otherwise we wouldn’t spend so much effort justifying the verbal jabs when there’s opposition in our lane. We should listen more, speak less, refrain from insult, and ask more questions in order to comprehend. And if we ever pick up our dribble, we should never feel justified slugging away… even with verbal jabs.

Respectfully…

01/11/201501/11/2015

the rhetorical dance

As we witness the world’s reaction to the pursuit of the Islamic terrorists, there exists an evolving irony I just can’t seem to shake. I can’t quite put my finger on it, and yet it’s an inconsistency potentially saturated in some degree of ignorance and/or hypocrisy. Here are these terrorists… men and women motivated to kill based on religious reasons. So many leaders, however, tiptoe around the stated motive.

As previously referenced here, even though the terrorists shouted Muhammad’s name in France last week, our leaders were silent about the stated motive. In the initial public response by the White House last Wednesday morning, spokesman Josh Earnest even refused to call it “terrorism.”

But it’s not simply the omission of the motive that’s glaring; it’s the accompanying, rhetorical dance. In their first public comments, both Earnest, French Pres. Francois Hollande, and others declared multiple times that Islam is a “peaceful religion.” It’s as if the leaders of both France and America bend over backwards both to praise Islam and omit it as the killers’ motive at the same time. Their rhetorical two-step is a seemingly intentional attempt to both appease and ignore.

The dripping irony I thus see is the contrast with how America’s most popular religion is publicly articulated. According to Pew Research, over 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Christians are persons who have faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ. And yet, as previously discussed by the Intramuralist, there seems an intentional movement to remove any accreditation to God and Jesus in our country; there is very little public praise. No, I am not referring to the so-called “war on Christmas” or “war on teachers” or any other rhetorical misuse of military terminology. I do passionately believe, however, that although the pursuit is somewhat subjective, in recent years we have witnessed calculated, adrenalized attempts to remove the name of God and Jesus from our society.

Let me be more clear… I am not speaking about the separation of church and state; respected persons have valid perspectives on all sides of said argument. I am instead addressing the removal of church from state — the total removal of God’s name from far more than our state. Separation is the intent expressed by some, for example, for the expulsion of seasonal nativity scenes on the public square. Separation (albeit a comical stretch) is the school systems which no longer allow for the mention of Santa (… uh… even though Santa is already separate from the church and state). Many persons work to omit any reference to God or Jesus, with many also seemingly wanting to eliminate Christianity from the public narrative.

Just last week NBC aired a commercial in which the Pledge of Allegiance was articulated. The chorus echoed it as follows: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” They omitted God’s name; no one nation “under God” was acknowledged. In a later, apologetic statement — only after a social media uproar — NBC acknowledged the elimination was intentional.

So back to the evolving irony…

Our leaders are going out of their way to intentionally characterize the religion of Islam as one that is peaceful and rational. Less than 1% of America’s overall adult population identifies themselves as Muslim. Obviously, therefore, our leaders either believe or want us to believe that the terrorists are distorting the religion. My presumption is that in order to counteract the negative impression that is building by the multiple terrorist attacks continuing across the globe, our leaders are speaking out on Islam in order to paint a more respected impression. At the same time they publicly praise Islam, though, many are accepting of being quiet about the saving power of Jesus Christ.

Something is not ok about that. Something is inconsistent.

Respectfully…

01/08/201501/08/2015

it is what it is

Longtime friends of the Intramuralist will be familiar with my lack of fondness for the term, “it is what it is.” My opinion is based on the inherent reality that “it” is always something more. “It is what it is” is what we say when we don’t know what else to say… like when Ted Turner didn’t want to elaborate on his multiple divorces, saying, “I regret that I wasn’t more successful with my marriages, but it is what it is”… or after the NBA’s Pacers and Pistons brawled in the stands, and guard Reggie Miller said, “Obviously, you never want to see something like that happen, but it is what it is.”

We claim “it” to be “what it is” when there’s more to the situation than we either can — or want — to divulge. Today the Intramuralist advocates for the respectful calling of what “it” actually is…

Yesterday, most of us saw that Islamic terrorists shot and killed 12 persons at the Paris office of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Four of the magazine’s well-known cartoonists, including its editor, were among those killed. The weekly newspaper is known to be irreverent, anti-religious, and left-wing. While they have been threatened, hacked, and even fire-bombed by those taking issue with their satire of Islam, the publication’s shtick is to poke fun at all religion.

Note that I called the gunmen “Islamic terrorists.” I call them “terrorists” because the men created terror by gunning down innocent victims. I call them “Islamic” because witnesses said that they heard the gunmen shouting “we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad” and “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Great” in Arabic) during the the attack.

In response, Pres. Obama initially called the attacks “violence,” but then invited the press into the Oval Office and condemned the “horrific shooting.” An official White House press release then called it a “terrorist attack” and noted how France “has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against terrorists who threaten our shared security and the world.” Sec. of State John Kerry called it a “vicious act of violence.” Homeland Security Sec. Jeh Johnson said that the “terror threat is complex.”

They each agreed with the identification of terrorism. They each also omitted one specific adjective. Simultaneously (based on this observer’s very informal perusal), ABC News, CNN, FOXNews, and Reuters were identifying the attack as both “Islamic” and “terror.”

Friends, I understand the need to be cautious and not to incite. Such is part of the reason I’ve been respectfully critical lately of some specific, civil activists. But why the omission of the specific, motivation here, actually articulated by the terrorists?

For the past 13 years, our one nation under God has been more intentional in rooting out the terror that passionately desires to destroy us. We can’t, however, be victorious in that pursuit if we are unwilling to call “it” what it is. “It” is Islamic terrorism. As even the oft disrespectful TV host Bill Maher articulated last fall, “Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it.” Maher added that to claim that Islam is like other religions is “just naive and plain wrong.” He’s calling “it” what it is.

Please know I would never knowingly advocate for disrespect. I do believe, though, that in order to root out this obvious evil, we must first be willing to call “it” what it is.

Respectfully…

01/06/201501/06/2015

great scott

I suppose it’s true that most of us will go out not with a bang but a whimper. Longtime ESPN anchor Stuart Scott was right when he remarked the following to the watching world last July: “When you die, it does not mean that you lose to cancer. You beat cancer by how you live, why you live, and in the manner in which you live.”

Stuart Scott passed away Sunday morning after a seven year, ongoing battle with cancer. He was 49.

I’ve thought about how to best honor Scott here. I did not know him. Granted, I have heard his trademark “BOO-YAH” for years — and chuckled almost always right on cue. Scott joined ESPN in 1993 when they established ESPN2. His colloquial style and honest approach caught the eye even of the less traditional sports fan. He had an authentic warmth that seemed to exude through any screen.

My heart is perhaps most touched thinking of an exchange Scott offered some five years ago. At the time, Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow was attempting to transition from the college to professional grid iron. Tebow, ever a gentle gentleman, often found himself the center of controversy by his choice of eye black — the small black patches many football players don beneath their eyes in order to reduce the glare. Like many, Tebow was intentional in placing a message on his eye black. His contemporaries — players such as Rey Maualuga, DeSean Jackson, C.J. Spiller, and multiple others — also customized the patches — highlighting everything from their parents, high school nicknames, and even Spiller’s hometown church.

But Tebow consistently wrote scripture references on the glare-reducing tool. In fact, in the 2009 BCS Championship game, Tebow wrote “John 3:16” on his eye black. In the succeeding 24 hours, the scripture reference was the most searched phrase on Google, generating over 90 million searches. That much attention generates even more controversy.

A man named “Dave” from Maryland questioned the practice in an online ESPN chat room. He wrote: “What’s with the Bible citations on Tim Tebow’s eyeblack, Stu? If I were a player and had ‘There is’ written on one side of my face and ‘no God’ on the other, would that be okay?”

Stuart Scott minced no time nor words in his gracious response…

“Dave, if that what you want to do, I don’t care. But Tim and I and billions of other believers in the world know you’d be wrong. I’ve seen the workings of God many times in my life, like when my two daughters were born. If you don’t believe in God, watch a child be born. Then if you still say you don’t believe in God, that’s okay. The thing is, I think He’ll watch over you anyway!”

Boo-yah, Stuart Scott… boo-yah.

T.S. Eliot may have been right when he ended his infamous “The Hollow Men” poem years ago:

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Stuart Scott was also right; the bang or the whimper doesn’t matter. What matters is how we live.

Respectfully…

01/04/201501/04/2015

the company we keep

(Soon this new year I may share my own resolutions. Until then… 🙂 )

My resolution for our leaders is to consistently act with wisdom and integrity. Integrity means their leadership is beyond reproach. It doesn’t mean we always agree with our leaders’ choices, but integrity does mean we don’t question their values, their decision-making process, and the core of their character.

So my mind is wandering somewhat today… looking deeper. As I examine questions of integrity, how does a person like Al Sharpton have such generous access to the sitting President of the United States? According to the White House visiter log — which was last released in August — Sharpton has already visited 61 times since Obama became President (and this prior to the tragic, racially-charged incident in Ferguson, Missouri). Granted, Sharpton’s been included in certain ceremonies and bill signings. He’s also visited to discuss specific policy initiatives — on civil rights, yes — but also regarding job creation, health care, education, and immigration. He has even been invited to Obama’s birthday party. Sharpton thus seems in close contact with Obama. Such an extensive relationship causes me to question this aspect of Pres. Obama’s leadership, as the company we keep, friends, makes a difference.

According to Politico’s senior staff writer Glenn Thrush, what melded the relationship between Obama and Sharpton was their “shared commitment to racial justice and a hardheaded pragmatism that has fueled their success.” Thrush further elaborates that Sharpton not only visits the White House regularly, but also frequently texts and emails with top aide Valerie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder. As said of Sharpton by his colleague, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, “He’s the man who’s the liaison to the White House; he’s the one who’s talking to the Justice Department.” The relationship between Sharpton and Obama is ongoing and real.

Wanting to be respectful of all yet not in denial, let’s acknowledge that this is the same Al Sharpton that came to fame by loudly and falsely accusing and defaming a white prosecutor in the late ’80’s. He has made controversial, derogatory public comments about Jewish, Mormon, gay and lesbian people amongst others in the succeeding decades. He has faced questions of marital infidelity and also over a million dollars in unpaid taxes and penalties. He currently faces questions regarding inciting unrest directed toward the nation’s law enforcement.

The Intramuralist has long been an advocate of second and third chances, so-to-speak; each of us has something to offer, as we are capable of change. With the extended, inflammatory record of Sharpton’s, however, I find myself seconding the question posed earlier last year by New York Post editorial writer Michael Goodwin: “How is it possible… that he [Sharpton] carries so much tainted baggage from the past, yet still enjoys enormous pull with the political class?… Why isn’t he politically toxic?”

Why does Pres. Obama allow Sharpton such access and influence?

In all fairness, from our obvious, limited vantage point, we cannot discern exactly how much influence Sharpton actually has with Obama. We can’t tell how much he has altered or added perspective or policy on job creation, health care, education, immigration, etc. But that’s the problem: we can’t tell. If we can’t tell, then both the decision-making and hence, integrity are in question.

With the recent racial conflicts, Al Sharpton has been more visible, making louder public statements. He has somehow become the President’s “go to guy” on race. Sharpton has thus been very focused on the behavior of others — on the so-called large “specks in another’s eye.” Perhaps it would be first wise to wrestle with the “log” in his own.

Back to working on my own resolutions… my “specks” and “logs,” too…

Respectfully…

01/01/201501/01/2015

happy new year!

Happy New Year, friends! I was thinking of the brand new year and all it entails, and I must confess: yes, I was thinking of making resolutions. I get that resolutions are something we tend to simultaneously love and loathe. We know they’re good for us; we just don’t always enjoy the discipline healthy ambitions typically require.

Let’s also face it: often our list of annual ambitions is fairly similar to the year prior… we want to eat better, exercise more, and be a little nicer. Those are healthy aims. They’re still not always fun to resolve to do and then be held accountable.

Hence, I’ve been tooling with how to minimize the loathing for this year’s process. I wonder… how would it affect our fair-weather moods if instead of the stereotypical, annual process — instead of making challenging resolutions for ourselves — we made resolutions for other people? 🙂

For example…

For all teenagers (and adults)… I resolve to never text and drive.

For the NFL’s Roger Goodell… I resolve to be consistent in my discipline.

For NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio… I resolve to support both the people and police with both actions and words.

For all federal, state, and local governments… I resolve to not spend any more money than I take in.

For the IRS… I resolve not to be biased.

For Pres. Obama… I resolve to remember I’m only the President and not a writer of law.

For Congress… I resolve to remember I’m only a legislator and not the executor of law.

For Joe Biden… I resolve to run for President (please… your expressions would make it so much more entertaining for us all).

For Jeb Bush & Hillary Clinton, etal… I resolve to finally realize we don’t need the same families always in the White House.

For Chris Christie… I resolve to lose another 50 lbs. (I’m telling you; it’s your way to most effectively relate to half the population of the country — far more effective than any policy initiative).

For all politicians… I resolve to rely less on my teleprompter and speak more transparently than utilizing professional-speech-writer’s, rhetorically-pleasing remarks.

For Al Sharpton… I resolve to quit inciting disrespect.

For all cyberspace users… I resolve to never allow Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Tumblr, or texting to substitute for authentic conversation.

(And again) For all cyberspace users… I resolve to be respectful in each of my expressions and rants.

Ok, ok… maybe we’re distorting the process here slightly. It’s not our job — nor are we capable of establishing aims for other people. Each of us has to choose to work on what’s healthy. I do wish we’d all be respectful… I do wish we’d realize that respect doesn’t equate to allowing a person to speak but still quietly inside, hold on to how stupid we think they are… I do wish we’d learn to listen, converse, and ask questions of all. That’s challenging for most of us — and for many of the above.

It may be easier to eat better, exercise more, and be a little nicer.

Respectfully… and Happy New Year…