intramuralist ™ – Page 136 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

07/10/201407/10/2014

teenagers

AR: “So what is your opinion of my blog?”

JT: “It’s current.”

AR: “What do you think I do?”

JT: “Report on current events.”

AR: “Why do you think I do it?”

JT: “To share your opinion about current events in a respectful way and inform people at the same time.”

AR: “Are there any current events you especially care about?”

JT: “Mrs. Obama influencing my school lunch choices… Justin Bieber getting caught again (snicker, snicker)… and Germany kicking the crap out of Brazil in the World Cup.”

AR: “What about politics? What do you think about politics?

JT: “They’re overhyped. So many people are stupid in politics, but we elect stupid people.”

AR: “‘Stupid’ isn’t a very respectful word.”

JT: “Yeah, but people aren’t very respectful in politics.”

AR: “Tell me how do you see that.”

JT: “They’re so one-sided, and they can’t handle anything but having their own way on an issue. No one’s willing to compromise.”

AR: “How could we fix this?”

JT: “Quit electing stupid people.”

AR: “Why do you think we keep electing these kind of people?”

JT: “Because they’re good communicators and they make you think they’ll do something when they really won’t. Some of them are lying; others just aren’t really focused or they’re unable to work with other people.”

AR: “Why do you think they’re unable to work with others?”

JT: “Because some of them come from a background where they never have to work with other people. Like those who are lawyers — they’re used to fighting everyone to get a certain result — to convince everyone in the room and get them to agree with their opinion. Lawyers don’t practice how to compromise or work with anyone else. They are better at defending opinions than running a country.”

AR: “Could you run the country?”

JT: “No. Too much work.”

AR: “So who’s the ideal candidate to run a country?”

JT: “Someone who comes from a background that knows how to manage people and handle a budget. Someone who knows how to run a big company. Someone who’s not whiny.”

AR: “Why not whiny?”

JT: “If the President is whiny, he’ll be like the whiny people in the world. We don’t need more whiny people.”

AR: “What about how relatable the President is? How important is it that to you?”

JT: “Like social media? In some ways he needs to relate to us, but that’s not the most important thing. Just because people think they can relate to you doesn’t mean you’re doing a good job. Every leader has supporters. They need to lead well regardless of how well they relate — regardless of whether people like or dislike you.”

AR: “Is there anything else you’d like to say to today’s readers?”

JT: [grin] “I’m available for babysitting.”

AR: “Is babysitting ‘too much work’?”

JT: “No. Kids are fun. It’s adults who are sometimes whiny.”

(As told by one blossoming, growing-in-wisdom, 15 year old boy…)

Respectfully…

07/08/201407/08/2014

the example of carlos

So once again in recent weeks, we’ve witnessed the many bold, (for lack of better words) in-your-face comments on cyberspace — some by us, some by professional politicians and editorialists. I am always a bit taken back by the many who justify such passionate vitriol, typically in the name of justice for some but rarely justice for all. We seem to elevate who is in need of justice… who is a victim… and who actually deserves respect; then in turn, we justify injustice or disrespect to another. I don’t always get that. We simply don’t know how to treat all people well.

I continued to ponder that quandary while watching yet another World Cup match, and then I saw the story told by both ESPN and USA Today about young Carlos Alberto Junior, a 27 year old soccer fan living in Sao Paulo, Brazil — in a story which instantly put life in a far better perspective…

Carlos has been deaf since birth. He loves soccer — and especially the World Cup. One of his favorite memories, in fact, is of the 2002 World Cup, in which he watched Ronaldo’s Brazil triumphantly score. “I remember the 2002 World Cup. That was an excellent game! Ronaldo scored the goal. With his stylish hair he did the goal dance, and all the players ran to hug Ronaldo. I remember this move, the dance, and Ronaldo’s hair. That was great! I got really emotional with this move.”

Carlos, however, also has Usher’s syndrome, a genetic condition that causes one’s sight to dim over time. Since that 2002 Cup, Carlos has gone blind, only able to discern dim shapes and shadows. Brazil’s 2002 competition is not only one of his favorite memories, but also one of his last visible memories.

Knowing how much Carlos loves soccer and his beloved Brazil, Carlos’s friend, Hélio Fonseca de Araujo, a sign language instructor, wanted to help Carlos experience the excitement surrounding this year’s competition. He created a mini, maneuverable soccer field to scale, using cardboard, felt, paint, and plastic goals. During the games, watching the television, Fonseca de Araujo then guides Carlos’s hands on the mini field, to indicate where the ball is. At the same time, Fonseca de Araujo’s wife, Regiane Pereira, also an interpreter, sits behind Carlos and uses hand movements upon his back to relate play-by-play of the match. Observing their means of communication is fascinating to say the least. As ESPN meaningfully articulates, “From the national anthem to the player introductions to the ebbs and flows of the match, this is how Carlos experiences the World Cup.” To see how he experiences a goal by Brazil is even more beautiful. His cheers are no less joyful… no less resilient… no less.

Says Fonseca de Araujo, “It was the same emotion of any other person who could actually see the goal. He celebrated. He jumped up and down. He yelled and screamed. It was something unique.”

As Carlos says in regard to his way of watching the World Cup, “I remember I had a sad life. I was always lonely. I met Hélio and his wife, Regiane, and they started to help me. It is a true friendship that will last. They are great friends. They helped me and made me grow. God bless their life!”

There is no focus on being a victim or on limited injustice.

There is a focus on the positive.

There is a focus on growth.

And there is a focus on how to treat all people well.

Thank God for the example of Carlos.

Respectfully…

07/06/201407/06/2014

slippery slope

Many of us heard the clamoring calls in response to the court’s decisions last week:

From the Daily Kos: “Here’s that Hobby Lobby slippery slope in action…”

From The Week: “Hobby Lobby will not lead us down a slippery slope of religious exemptions.”

And from Hillary Clinton: “This is a really bad slippery slope.”

Allow the Intramuralist an instant reaction. I agree; we’re on a “slippery slope” — a downward, digressing slide. Allow my second thought…

When any of us are on a slope or a slide, all we can discern is one thing for certain: we are sliding. That’s it. We can’t immediately comprehend when the slide begins nor how fast we are going; we’re also not always sure of the end until we actually fall into the mucky pit. On any slide, all we know for certain is that we’re sliding.

Far too often, however, we are misled by our own knowledge, experience, and resulting emotion. That combination then leads us to declarations which may or may not be true. For example…

Consistent with many American households brimming with ample testosterone, video games are plentiful in my semi-humble abode. Initially, I was comfortable with all of the games in our home. There’s just something about Mario, Luigi, and that cute, little, green Yoshi character that make even the adult smile (… and sometimes quietly partake, when no one else is looking, of course…).

As the years passed, no less, my boys moved from the Mario Bros. to Madden’s NFL, enjoying increased adult, athletic competition. After a few years more, they then entered a new genre, playing popular games such as “Call of Duty” and “Assassin’s Creed”… those beat ‘em up, shoot ‘em up, oh-so-ethical games. (Ugh.)

I’ll be very honest. I don’t like them. I don’t like those games. I also don’t like that my boys like them. And while the older boys entered this genre via the seemingly more innocent Star Wars “Battlefront” series, when they began playing a game that actually had the word, “assassin,” in it, I loudly declared that my family is now on a “slippery slope.” Loudly. Boldly. And dare I also add… arrogantly.

Yes, we were — are — on a slippery slope via virtual video scenarios. But when did the slope begin? … with only the entrance to the violent genre? … before that? … with the adult athletic competitions? … or with the initial introduction of video games in our household — albeit disguised nicely due to the cuteness of that Yoshi?

My point, friends, is that we declare the slippery slope when we’re already sliding; we are not good at recognizing its commencement. We claim the onset in so many areas — from birth control to “Call of Duty”… from the sanctity of marriage to the sanctity of life… Yet where were the clamorous critics when the callousness evolved in the decades prior? I do not mean to be insensitive in any way to those among us who have unfortunately experienced such a painful scenario; my point is simply that we conveniently decide the onset of the slide, often negating or ignoring previous events that obviously contributed to the digression.

Note that in our household this month, soccer continues to dominate our time and television. Hence, my older boys have been immersed in their video game, EA Sports FIFA World Cup for their XBOX 360, reverting to athletics instead of assassins.

To this parent, that reverting is refreshing.

Respectfully…

07/03/201407/03/2014

hobby lobby

This week we’ve been exposed to plentiful perspectives regarding the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. First, a factual synopsis prior to the point of today’s post, as reported by the Independent Journal Review:

“In the 5-4 ruling, the court sided with Hobby Lobby in its effort to prevent the Affordable Care Act from mandating that the company cover emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, to female employees; it will still provide most other forms of birth control to its employees… Hobby Lobby argued that the requirement was in direct violation to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion. This is the first time the Court has ruled in favor of a for-profit company presenting a case to defend religious freedom.”

In the wake of schismatic societal response, I am a bit stunned; the rants fill the rhetorical realm. From those who declare “an incredible victory for people of faith” to yet another “war on women” (… didn’t we learn anything from the Gabby Giffords shooting?) to a House Rep’s intentional unwillingness to call the court’s majority opinion writer a “justice” — I have two, actually uniting, current conclusions. One, we are often an arrogant people; and two, our opinions are laced with contradiction.

The arrogant aspect is easy. Allow me to first acknowledge wrestling with my own arrogance on a regular basis. It’s not attractive; and it creeps in so easily, subtly, and seemingly justifiably. Arrogance is not just the “I’m right and he’s wrong” attitude; it’s the “I’m right and there’s no possible way I’m wrong” idea. There is a notable lack of humility in the rhetorical response that is most disappointing to this observer. Persons on all sides who preach respect and tolerance show that their tolerance is often only advocated within agreement. Therein lies one of the initial contradictions.

Another contradiction that seems glaring from a more removed perspective is the way in which all sides of an issue utilize the colloquial classic of wanting the “government out of our bedrooms and boardrooms.” In other words, we don’t need legislation dictating our individual, private activity. But yet, we call on the government when it’s convenient. On both sides of issues, we chomp and cheer when government rules what we can and cannot do — what’s appropriate and not. Allow me to humbly submit the following as perhaps a truly inconvenient truth: what would be wrong with the government completely staying out of it? That means the government refraining from personal regulation… refraining, for example, from restricting or supplying birth control… refraining from any definition of marriage. It means recognizing that the government is not our nation’s highest moral authority — and that it is incapable of being that authority, as no law or legislation is capable of convicting the individual heart. Last I looked, the convictor of truth concerning righteousness and wrongdoing had zero to do with the federal government.

One final aspect of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision, no less, is one that too many have too quickly dismissed. The fact is that many activist groups have self-serving purposes which are prompting them to inflame minute aspects of the court’s opinion. Their intentional, manipulative goal is to rile us up in order to advance their own cause. Allow me a simple question: since when have women’s rights and religious freedom diabolically opposed one another? Can they not co-exist? To assume they cannot is an illogical conclusion.

No one will like what I’m about to say, but I also have no desire to be disrespectful. The Hobby Lobby decision is neither a major “defeat” for women nor a major “victory” for the faithful. Women and faith are not in opposition to one another. But we continually justify pitting one thing against another in the “must-always-have-a-winner-or-loser” society in which we live. That pitting divides us. And my sorrowful sense is that the activist groups, politicians, and loyal followers actually intend for that division — because it prompts us to act; it makes us want to go out and do something. As witnessed by the week’s ongoing vitriol, the approach is unfortunately effective. Friends, know that the narrow Hobby Lobby ruling acknowledged that birth control can still be available to all, but that a small, “closely held” company should not have to pay for the all. A viable, resulting question is the implied personhood of the company. Another viable question is how many other ambiguities exist within Obamacare — and why can’t we fix them via something other than the administration’s very controlled, calculated Executive Orders.

I have a few more brief questions resulting from this decision. First, can the morals of a company be placed upon its employees? Second, can the morals of an administration be placed upon its citizens? And one more: do we support one of those moral impositions but not the other? Hence, I ask: are there other ways in which we are laced with contradiction?

Respectfully… always…

07/01/201407/01/2014

supreme decisions

As told by the Supreme Court Historical Society…

“I thought they would, well, talk Latin or something.” The visitor had heard argument at the Supreme Court for the first time. On another occasion, a high-school student reported “shock” that a black-robed Justice would rock in his high-backed chair and actually laugh out loud…

To its majestic setting and moments of sheer ritual, the Supreme Court brings its distinctive manner of working in public—by listening to one lawyer at a time and asking tough questions. Its atmosphere mingles informality with dramatic tension. In a city of bureaucracy, it keeps the directness of a group of nine. It cherishes its courtesies. But formality, courtesy, and dignity are not empty custom; they are vital to colleagues who are compelled to disagree publicly in print, expressing their deepest convictions, but always respecting the equally deep convictions of their fellow Justices.

Dare I thus humbly submit — based on that last statement — that the Supreme Court and the slightly-less-popular-often-more-sarcastic Intramuralist have a common goal: respecting the deep convictions of another.

In a government system of three equal branches (note to the current Congress and President: much to your obvious dismay, neither of you trump the other), the Supreme Court was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, as called for by the Constitution. Consistent with their long history, yesterday, on the final session of their 2013-14 term, the high court released the following decisions with significant implications…

In BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s argument that the owners of companies forfeit all protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ruling that Obamacare’s mandated provision of perceived abortifacient methods conflicts with the faith of the proprietors. As written in the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, “Because RFRA applies in these cases, we must next ask whether the HHS contraceptive mandate ‘substantially burden[s]’ the exercise of religion… We have little trouble concluding that it does.”

In HARRIS ET AL. v. QUINN, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, ET AL., the Supreme Court determined it is a violation of the First Amendment to force non-union members — in this case belonging to an Illinois rehab service — to pay union dues, thereby subsidizing the speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support. As also written in the majority opinion by Justice Alito, “The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from personal assistants in the Rehabilitation Program who do not want to join or support the union,” reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Resist being lured into thinking a decision is foolish or wise because of who or how your emotional strings are tugged. We have to learn to discuss and solve absent the bias and disrespect. A prudent first step for each of us would be to read the court’s written opinions as opposed to reacting instantly, emotionally — typically not fully understanding the totality of the arguments.

The bottom line in these two cases contains a common thread; what violates our First Amendment?

In other words… how far does religious freedom extend? … for persons? … for proprietors? What’s the relationship between one’s religious beliefs and being incorporated? Also, how far does freedom of speech extend? … can unions force the payment of dues if that payment then subsidizes issues with which we disagree — issues we would never choose to subsidize? When does forced compliance violate our constitutional rights?

And one more question: are there places — most likely due to passion or unchecked emotion — where we’re a little blind? … where hypocrisy within our opposition or support may also be a common thread?

Just asking…

Respectfully, of course…

06/28/201406/29/2014

flopping

The extroverts scream; the introverts scowl. “There he goes again! Can’t everyone see it?? It’s so obvious… so manipulative!” It’s also — sadly — part of the game.

For years, grown, seemingly mature adults have “flopped.” They fake injury by another in order to draw a sympathetic, perceived foul.

Watch the current, uniquely exciting FIFA World Cup, for example. While never accused of any soccer fanaticism, the Intramuralist is repeatedly baffled by the feigned fraudulence on the professional futbol field. The number of times the players attempt to seduce the officials into flagging the opposition for wrongdoing is astoundingly frequent! I will, in fact, admit to a hearty chuckle last week, when Uruguay’s star striker, Luis Suárez, actually bit another player (the 3rd such incident of his career), and then immediately fell to the ground, as if he was the one most hurt… feigned foul… at least exaggerated emotion… all in a desire to seduce a sympathetic response.

Hardly indigenous to soccer, with the foul forgery increasing with ample frequency, the NBA has instituted fines for flopping. Talented stars such as Manu Ginobili, LeBron James, and Dwyane Wade, who are known for their professional prowess, are also each known for their penchant for faking the foul. Note that the motive is to create an offensive advantage by having observant others wrongly conclude you were mercilessly attacked. You draw the foul; the opposition is penalized; and the entire process is intentionally inauthentic. It’s manipulation by mature and even intelligent adults.

The NBA identifies “flopping” as the following: “any physical act that appears to have been intended to cause the referees to call a foul on another player.” They add that “the primary factor in determining whether a player committed a flop is whether his physical reaction to contact with another player is inconsistent with what would reasonably be expected given the force or direction of the contact.”

The Intramuralist poses that flopping is not primarily a “physical act.” Perhaps such is true in athletic arenas; however, my sense is that the most frequent societal flopping is rhetorical. Politicians and pundits and ordinary people — again, often grown, seemingly mature adults — embellish injury by another in order to draw a sympathetic, perceived foul. One politician claims another hurt them, is bad, foolish, obstructive, mean, or even — egad — evil. Notice how all focus is on the other and the other’s wrongdoing. The attempt is to seduce a sympathetic response — staring at the embellished “log” in the eye of another — in order to gain a self-serving political advantage. The goal is to get observant others to cry foul in the existence of minimal foul at best; the goal is intentional; and the goal is to manipulate observers. It is an impure, deceitful approach. It’s also — sadly — part of the “game.”

Unfortunately, fans of both the professional politician and athlete tend to ignore the faking, giving the object of our admiration a very generous benefit of the doubt. The opposition — along with that extrovert, perhaps — then screams at the television… “Can’t everyone see it??” The question isn’t whether or not we can see; the question is why we choose to ignore. I have a hard time concluding such is wise.

To believe that athletes are the only engagers in this frequently repeated exercise — and to believe that flopping is only physical — is seemingly, unfortunately only a convenient exercise in naïveté. To believe that only one party rhetorically flops seems equally naive. And to believe that only one branch of government engages in this manipulative process of feigning a foul seems also, obviously errant.

Poll after poll depicts the public’s eroding trust in government. The subjective reasoning in how to rebuild that trust is substantial. Allow the Intramuralist to propose that we start by taking a page from the NBA; let’s start by fining for flopping.

(P.S. Such might actually be enough to balance our debt…)

Respectfully…

06/26/201406/26/2014

‘our gods’

“We will never again say ‘our gods‘ to what our own hands have made…”

I read that line this week in one of my daily, devotional readings, readings that hopefully help me glean a wiser perspective on what’s happening in the world. I couldn’t shake it…

Our gods.

Own hands.

To what we have made.

What have I invented that I treat like a god? What have I created that I worship and adore? … to which I’m wholly devoted? … to which I am more devoted than to any divine being?

What do I pursue most? What do I revere? What’s most precious? What am I most passionate about? … which may actually, possibly take the place of any god?

Could it then — ever actually, possibly get in the way?

I hear the immediate, deflecting declarations that “I didn’t design this”… the claims that “I didn’t create it”… or even the “but what I’m devoted to is really good.” I sometimes wonder, however, if we’re prone to deflect first as it numbs the wrestling with individual responsibility. We’re way too good at deflecting responsibility.

What have I called “god” that my own hands have made?

A passion. A pursuit.

A calling. A career.

An advocacy. An ambition.

The Intramuralist always pauses when time and time again, we see people passionately pursue some good-sounding, virtuous, empathetic advocacy — but then fail to have any compassion for someone who shares not an equivalent degree of passion; they lose any care and concern for the one who thinks differently. Something wise is missing in that… something more than respect.

I wonder sometimes. Have we allowed our advocacies and ambitions to become something more? … something that has interfered with the wisdom that seemingly should accompany our age? … something that has interfered with our worship?

Have we worshipped a passion — i.e. something other than God — so much so that the passion and pursuit actually become our god — the object of our adoration?

Has then our reliance on self become unknowingly inflated?

“We will never again say ‘our gods‘ to what our own hands have made…”

I’m wondering if we do that…

No… I’m wondering when…

Respectfully… still thinking…

06/24/201406/24/2014

IRS timeline

I am not here to incite or indict. Today I am here to inform. Below are are the facts in the IRS case. (Please note: I have attempted to be as brief but comprehensive as possible, sorting through hundreds of facts and weeding out opinion. Also note: that isn’t easy.) Below is what I believe we should know…

Feb. 2009: A FEC Enforcement Division attorney asks the IRS for information about the tax-exempt status of 2 conservative groups (including the American Future Fund). Then IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Division, Lois Lerner, asks via email, “What can we do to help the FEC here?”

Jan. 2010: In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court rules that government cannot restrict campaign spending by corporations or labor unions. Pres. Obama denounces the decision.

March 2010: The IRS Determinations Unit starts “searching for other requests for tax exemption involving the Tea Party, Patriots, 9/12, and…501(c)(4) applications involving political sounding names, e.g., ‘We the People’ or ‘Take Back the Country.’”

July 2010 – Sept. 2013: The conservative “True the Vote” applies for tax-exempt status, after which the group’s founder faces multiple IRS audits, investigations by OSHA, the ATF, and FBI for domestic terrorism.

Aug. – Oct. 2010: Obama and staffers, David Axelrod and Austan Goolsbee, speak repeatedly, publicly about “groups with harmless sounding names” possibly funded by “foreign-controlled companies” that are a “threat to our democracy.” Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group, was specifically mentioned multiple times.

Feb. 2011: Lerner emails her senior staff: “Tea Party Matter [is] very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizen’s United (sic) overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules.”

June 2011: House Ways & Means Comm. Chairman Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) sends a letter to then IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman questioning the IRS’s investigations into conservative groups and donors, demanding answers and information.

March 2012: In congressional testimony, Commissioner Shulman says IRS did not increase difficulty for politically active groups to get tax-exempt status. The New York Times also reports the IRS was scrutinizing “dozens” of Tea Party organizations.

July 2012: Then deputy commissioner Steven Miller testifies without mentioning the added scrutiny. When asked about harassment complaints, Miller said the IRS “group[ed] those organizations” for “consistency” and “quality.” He never mentions the Tea Party or conservatives.

April 2013: The White House counsel’s office received Inspector General’s reports acknowledging IRS targeting applications with “tea party,” “patriot,” and “9/12 project.” Press Sec. Jay Carney said later the Chief of Staff was informed but not Obama.

May 2013: Lerner admits to scrutiny of conservative groups’ tax-exempt applications, though she said high level employees didn’t know. The Inspector General refuted this information. Lerner later appears before Congress but refuses to answer any questions. There is also an email exchange between Lerner and the Dept. of Justice in regard to whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.

July 2013: National Review Online reports that the House Ways and Means Comm. has correspondence between Lerner and the FEC possibly detailing illegal sharing of tax information regarding the American Future Fund, the conservative group.

Jan. 2014: The Dept. of Justice appoints Barbara Kay Bosserman to lead the investigation of the IRS. Bosserman donated near $7,000 to Obama’s presidential campaigns.

Feb. 2014: In his annual Super Bowl interview, Obama stated “not even a smidgeon of corruption” was involved in the IRS scandal.

March 2014: Lerner again refuses to testify before Congress. Her attorney, however, reveals that Lerner has “given a lengthy interview” to the DOJ within the last six months.

April 2014: The assertion that the IRS also targeted liberal groups is reportedly debunked by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to Politifact, “Some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities. But it wasn’t to the same degree as Tea Party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions.”

May 2014: The IRS finally says they will turn over all of Lerner’s emails to Congress.

Then this month… After agreeing to turn over the emails a year after asked, the IRS informs Congress that they’ve lost Lois Lerner’s emails from January of 2009 through April of 2011 due to a computer crashing. Four days later, the IRS says they’ve lost emails from 6 other investigated IRS employees, as well. They then added that Lerner’s hard drive was also destroyed.

Then yesterday… When asked how he found out about the lost emails as he appeared before Congress, current commissioner John Koskinen said, “I don’t remember.” Note that according to FEC records, Koskinen donated over $7000 to Obama’s presidential campaigns.

Conspiracy? Cover up? Valid questions. Concerned? Based on the facts, absolutely.

Respectfully…

[Note: Information for this timeline was extracted from CBS, the Center for Competitive Politics, Media Matters, New York Times, Politico, PolitiFact, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and the Office of the White House Press Secretary.]

06/22/201406/22/2014

“team”?

An amazing thing happened last week… and it happened on the NBA hardwood. Truth be told, the Intramuralist isn’t really a big fan of the National Basketball Association. With all references to Donald Sterling aside — and save for my beloved, once hometown Pacers — I am by all accounts and purposes, pretty much a fair-weather fan. It’s not that I don’t appreciate good basketball. It’s more that when I compare the professional league to the college game, there seems something lacking… a tenacity… a zeal… a focus on the fundamentals. Whether it’s the fact that there’s far less effort on defense or the rarity of a traveling call, it seems the purity of the game has been sacrificed for the profession.

Except for last week.

I’ll quote one of the announcer’s comments in the climactic moment: “We’ll never see this again.”

Last week the San Antonio Spurs beat the Miami Heat, 4 games to 1, to win the NBA Finals. As previously prefaced here, the Spurs are the epitome of the word “team.” The Heat, on the other hand, are most commonly identified as the “Big Three,” as three players command most of the playing time, attention, and yes, money. That’s what makes the Spurs victory so amazing, as once again the learning extends far beyond any sporting arena. (Hence, non-sports fans, please keep reading…)

The Spurs had 15 players on their 2013-14 roster. Let me briefly share with you the annual salaries of their four highest paid players:

Tony Parker: $12.5 million

Tim Duncan: $10 million

Tiago Splitter: $9.25 million

Manu Ginobili: $7 million

While each seems like a significant salary (and it is!), those numbers are revealing. Each player could have chosen to play elsewhere. Had they signed with another franchise — becoming a “big something” — they would have commanded a far greater salary. For example, future Hall of Famer Duncan could earn well over $20 million per year. 20 million. More than twice what he was actually paid last year.

What’s so amazing? Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and their athletic cohorts chose to accept less money. A lot less.

Each team has a loose salary cap; there’s only so much money a team can distribute before incurring ample penalty. Hence, the Spurs signing for less individual money allowed the whole to be far greater than the sum of their parts. Compared to a team like the Heat, which was bound by the money they committed to a grand total of three.

What’s so amazing? The characteristics that have to exist within a Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili to accept less than they so-called “earned.” They were not coerced into accepting less money. With no disrespect to those who choose to accept more, the Intramuralist admires the selflessness, humility, and valuing of “team” that is apparent in the San Antonio Spurs. That’s what’s so amazing. That’s what’s amazing outside any sporting arena.

“Will it ever happen again?”

Maybe. But only if those admirable virtues of selflessness, humility and team trump the pursuit of the individual… inside or out of the sporting arena.

Respectfully…

06/19/201406/19/2014

scandal or skin?

When initially pondering what current event to loquaciously pounce upon today, two events seemed especially notable. And then it dawned on me how the two, eventually, seemingly somehow fit together…

First, the IRS scandal, as editorialized by USA Today…

As Congress investigates the IRS chicanery, the IRS has responded to a request for emails to and from Lois Lerner, who spearheaded the Tea Party harassment, by saying, basically, that the dog ate its homework. Or, rather, the IRS claims, somewhat dubiously, that ‘a hard drive crash’ on Lerner’s computer led to the loss of emails to outside entities ‘such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.’ You know, the very people she’s accused of coordinating her harassment with.

With those emails missing, it’ll be harder to prove whether Lerner’s Tea Party harassment might have been at the behest of other wrongdoers, perhaps going as high as the Oval Office itself. But since government agencies seldom ‘lose’ evidence that makes them look good, reasonable people might suspect that there’s a cover-up going on. After all, nobody thought that the famous ‘18½ minute gap’ on Richard Nixon’s White House tapes contained anything positive about White House involvement in Watergate.

National Journal’s Ron Fournier thinks that ‘you couldn’t blame a person for suspecting a cover-up.’ No, you couldn’t. In fact, you’d have to be pretty gullible — or in-the-tank — not to suspect a cover-up.”

And second, Washington’s skin color, also as reported by the widest circulated print newspaper in the United States…

“Unprecedented pressure on the Washington NFL team to change its name reached a crescendo today when the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled six federal trademark registrations owned by the team, ruling that the term ‘Redskins’ was disparaging to ‘a substantial composite’ of American Indians when the marks were granted between 1967 and 1990.

The 2-1 decision by the board does not mean the Washington team must stop using the name but gives opponents of the name another opening to hammer home their contention that the term is a despicable racial slur…

The Washington team retains its federal trademark rights pending appeal. And even if the club loses on appeal, it can continue to use the name, as it has for more than 80 years. But without federal trademark protection, others could potentially use the team’s name and logos to sell merchandise with impunity, although owners of unregistered marks can still try to protect them through state statutes or common law. The team has two months to file the appeal.”

The Intramuralist has multiple opinions swirling this day. On the IRS… do you think if we failed to file our tax returns, we could use the same excuse? … and how good do we feel, knowing that this is the organization set up to oversee Obamacare? On the Redskins… each of us deserves respect… but aren’t we again applying economic pressure in hopes of making a moral change? … is that effective?

Yes, I, too, wasn’t sure how the IRS & NFL went together — even though both abide in the same state — and then it dawned on me… Politicians and pundits pick and choose what to prioritize, obviously opting for what nets the better publicity. In other words, they don’t talk about what they don’t want to talk about.

As if on cue, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) immediately, loquaciously pounced upon the Redskins, demanding change, charging the NFL owner with advocating “racism.” On the IRS scandal, however, according to The Hill, Reid is taking a “wait-and-see attitude,” deferring opinion to others.

Some things we like to talk about — some things we don’t. On the Intramuralist, we’ll talk about all things… even if they only seemingly, somehow fit together.

Respectfully…