AR – Page 142 – intramuralist ™

03/28/2013

gay marriage

Can we talk?

Seriously, can we talk?

As I watched the red equals sign go viral on Tuesday — knowing the Supreme Court was hearing arguments in regard to California’s Proposition 8, a voter-approved backing of the Defense of Marriage Act — I was struck by the lack of dialogue of the day.

In all seriousness, friends, in regard to this issue — in regard to gay marriage and its approval, constitutionality, and societal acceptance — allow me to say this: there are some of you on both sides of this issue that I have significant difficulty talking to. Why? Because you don’t listen. You don’t listen to me. In fact, you don’t listen to anyone… well, at least anyone you don’t know ahead of time will automatically agree with your perspective.

It’s not that I don’t respect you. It’s not that I don’t respect your opinion. It’s rather because you feel so emboldened that you are right that you have no respect for the opinion of any other. Listening, my friends, is a sign of respect.

Let’s face it; this is an emotionally driven argument. Many of you who support gay marriage have had an experience that has propelled you in that direction. Perhaps either you or a beloved friend or family member is gay and thus you have passionately painted this as an issue of equality. Perhaps you see it as civil right… an equal pursuit of happiness, and each of us deserves to be happy! Thus, anyone who feels differently than you is a bigot… or a homophobe… or perhaps, egad, something far worse.

Similarly, many of you who oppose gay marriage have read all the scriptures that have caused you to condemn it — and condemn it with a spewing passion. You have read the old… and read the new. You have then weighted this sin above all others… overlooking “specks” elsewhere in order to zero in on this huge “log.” Thus, anyone who feels differently than you is a blatant sinner… or a gay sympathizer… or yes, perhaps, egad, something far worse.

The reality is that I find it challenging to talk with both of you. I don’t always enjoy it. Why? Because with all due respect, my friends — really — you guys stink at dialogue.

I don’t say that with any articulation of hatred or meanness or even disrespect. There was a time in my life when if anyone in my physical presence actually opposed the obvious, enduring greatness of baseball’s Cincinnati Reds, I couldn’t talk with them either. I had no desire to listen. I was right. They were wrong. End of story.

Here, however, is where a huge problem lies…

This is a tough issue. Gay marriage is hard. This is an issue where not everyone who supports it nor everyone who opposes it is some arrogant, blind, or idiotic zealot. Not everyone who supports it is a weakminded sympathizer nor everyone who opposes it is a prideful homophobe. But yet, far too many of us act that way; far too many of us judge those who possess a differing perspective. And far too many of us find solace in the facade that if we keep shouting a little louder the other side will recognize the obvious error in their ways… forgetting that hardly ever — ever — does shouting prompt positive, lasting change.

We have forgotten that it isn’t just law either side wants changed. Law is only the law. Hearts are far greater… far, far more powerful… far, far more influential. Whether you believe either side is sinful or wrong, a change of heart is more meaningful than any change in legality. And heart change, friends, will never happen as a result of one side shouting louder.

Hence, I return to my original question…

Can we talk?

Can we — will we — are we brave enough — bold enough — humble enough — to ask why each feels the way they do? Is there a way to work together? … that is, as an actual, united state of America?

Or is it sadly acceptable to simply stink at dialogue?

Respectfully,

03/26/201303/26/2013

go eagles

Stop the presses. Postpone the previously planned post. Forget (albeit momentarily) about the seizing of individual savings in Cyprus and the Defense of Marriage Act currently contemplated before the Supreme Court.

Forget, too, the 3 year anniversary of Obamacare — and the increasing wearying of the public, growing incrementally more knowledgeable about the actual, massive, embedded costs.

Ah, even forget for this day the promise of spring — especially as God’s sense of humor is once again evident, poking through the flakes of yet another Midwestern snow.

Yes, forget all of the above in today’s tribute to one event, one little school… a school of only 12,000, with pretty much zero famous alumni, residing just south of Fort Myers, Florida… a university which only offered its first class in August of ’97, which has now arguably, easily evolved into the sweetest story of the NCAA’s Sweet 16.

On Sunday, Florida Gulf Coast University became the first 15th seeded basketball team to ever advance to the 3rd round of the NCAA’s notoriously maddening, men’s basketball tournament. With all due respect to their (now obviously disappointed) opponents, the 2nd seeded Hoyas of Georgetown and 7th seeded San Diego State, the Eagles from Florida GC are the sweet story that has stopped the presses. Note captions from an increasingly captive audience:

“Cinderella Story Florida Gulf Coast”

“Florida Gulf Coast University: They’re for Real and They’re Spectacular”

“Florida Gulf Coast Makes NCAA History”

Perhaps best expanded upon by Eric Adelson of Yahoo Sports: “They came from a made-up place called Dunk City, a rollicking, refreshing GIF-machine consisting of nobodies who became somebodies with dunks and oops and just enough sass to raise an eyebrow. And now the Eagles of Florida Gulf Coast University have made history: They are the first 15-seed ever to be one of the top 16 college basketball teams in America. But it’s not just that. No, not at all. It’s the way FGCU has leapt and heel-clicked and chicken danced into America’s hearts. It’s the memories they’ve made during games with their above-the-rim aerials and their below-the-backboard antics. In a college sporting world of corporate fakery and soiled amateurism, FGCU stands for pure joy.”

In the most recent prior post of the Intramuralist, you will note that we acknowledged the reason this tournament is so fun to watch is because a group of young men come together — undaunted by the impure influence of arrogance, money, and power — and humbly recognize that this game is “not about me.” There is a joy in that pursuit that an intelligent, watching world so often misses… perhaps because, too often, we omit that humility, and too often, it is the “me” we are about. Very bright, intelligent people still pursue the “me” first. And thus, very bright, intelligent people so often make foolish mistakes.

On the day before the tournament began, in the Intramuralist’s household, each of my sons completed their annual basketball bracket. My youngest son, Josh, an insightful 11 year old who also has Down syndrome, completed his as well. (Just for the record, he picked Duke to win; it’s the most fun school name to say.)

As we worked our way through the brackets — with me reading to Josh the name of each team, attempting, no less, not to over emphasize any opponent — he would articulate his forecasted winner. As we came to the Georgetown/Florida GC match up, without delay, Josh confidently proclaimed, “Florida Gulf Coast.” Wanting to steer my son wisely but not wanting to pollute the purity of our household’s competitive process, I hesitated, stared at my young son, and slowly said, “Really, Josh? Are you sure? Florida Gulf Coast?” To which, Josh paused, smiled, and while attempting to heed his parent’s caution, he then nodded slowly but affirmatively, saying, “Yes… Florida Gulf Coast!”

I, too, had obviously made a most foolish mistake.

(Go Eagles… go.)

Respectfully,

03/24/201303/24/2013

billikens?

What’s the beauty of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament?

Why do so many of us get so excited this time of year?

Why is it that even the non-sports fans find themselves tuning in?

Perhaps it’s because of the madness. “March Madness!” We are a curious people. When something maddening occurs, the cameras tend to roll and the audience begins to swell, witnessing something that totally stirs our senses.

Perhaps it’s because of the diversity. Only in the 2013 tournament will you find Spartans and Shockers and far more than waddling Ducks; there also exist multiple masses of Rams, Tigers, Wildcats, and yes, even Aggies!

We sure are a bird-and-bear loving society. We have Cardinals and Jayhawks, even Bluejays, Owls, and Eagles, which are sometimes, actually Golden. Also included are multiple Bruins and Grizzlies. Neither acknowledges our adoration for the dog-family, as we love on those lovable Lobos, Panthers, and wolves — whether belonging to the Wolverines or a Wolfpack.

And can someone please tell me: what is a “Billiken”?

Perhaps it’s because political correctness has flown out the nearest window. Forget those ole’ Mississippi Rebels or the Rebels that run from Las Vegas; look at those agitated athletes (a little violent if you ask me) heralding from Illinois and Notre Dame. We’re actually ok acknowledging that sometimes Fighting is appropriate and necessary.

Perhaps it’s because no one is attempting to convince us that the inexact science of global warming is fact and that the divine has nothing to do with it. We can simply celebrate the domination of Cyclones and Hurricanes, absent the rhetorical, persuasive analysis.

Perhaps it’s because no one works tirelessly to make sure there’s a total separation between church and state; it’s actually ok to acknowledge that good and evil both exist. Why else would we pay homage to both Blue Devils and Demons in addition to the Crusaders? (Granted, society does tend to pay a little more attention to the evil…)

Perhaps it’s because there exists no racial nor ethnic discrimination. Aztecs and Gaels — multiple Gaelic groups, in fact — receive ample attention. So do the Crimson and Orange. Thank God, there is no criticism based on the color of their skin nor the distinctiveness of their heritage. There is also no praise solely for that reason either. The true colorblindness of this tournament is attractive.

Perhaps it’s because it fulfills our societal fascination with the royals. Princess Kate and Prince William can effectively reside outside the paparazzi’s limelight, while we focus on James Madison’s Dukes instead.

Perhaps it’s because there’s no loud, articulated fears of extinction. Bison and Buffaloes are equally hunted, although they do face the possibility of elimination, just not this year via the hands of the Explorers. (Note that there’s no passionate pursuit of increased gun control to tame the Cowboys either.)

Perhaps it’s simply that it’s fun. How often do we cheer on athletic Hoyas, Hilltoppers, and speedy young Jackrabbits? And the Zips? Oh, how I love to say their name!

Or perhaps… perhaps… it’s because in this 64 team tournament, what wins is the humility it takes to play together, to develop effective teamwork and admirable chemistry. The person who plays for his own power and praise does not typically succeed. It is a team sport. It is not about “me.” And at the end of the game — win or lose — there is a shaking of hands; there is a respect for not only the game but for the people who play it. Perhaps as much as possible, this is one activity where arrogance, money, and power have not polluted the outcome. Thank God.

P.S. Go Big Ten. Go Ducks… waddling or not.

Respectfully,

03/21/2013

protecting

On Tuesday, newly elected Pope Francis delivered the message at his installation service. Now as previously stated amidst these postings, this semi-humble, creative blogger is not a parishioner of the Roman Catholic Church; however, I have tremendous respect for the church, and there is zero doubt that powerful potential for influence rests upon the Pope’s leadership. Few men have such potential. Fewer still use their potential for good.

While the Intramuralist rarely cedes its pen fully to another, I was struck by these words to us all on Tuesday. Francis begins with the example of Joseph — Jesus’s dad here on Earth — sharing how God called Joseph to be a protector…

“How does Joseph exercise his role as protector? Discreetly, humbly and silently, but with an unfailing presence and utter fidelity, even when he finds it hard to understand…

How does Joseph respond to his calling to be the protector of Mary, Jesus and the Church? By being constantly attentive to God, open to the signs of God’s presence and receptive to God’s plans, and not simply to his own. This is what God asked of David, as we heard in the first reading. God does not want a house built by men, but faithfulness to his word, to his plan. It is God himself who builds the house, but from living stones sealed by his Spirit. Joseph is a “protector” because he is able to hear God’s voice and be guided by his will; and for this reason he is all the more sensitive to the persons entrusted to his safekeeping. He can look at things realistically, he is in touch with his surroundings, he can make truly wise decisions. In him, dear friends, we learn how to respond to God’s call, readily and willingly, but we also see the core of the Christian vocation, which is Christ! Let us protect Christ in our lives, so that we can protect others, so that we can protect creation!

The vocation of being a “protector,” however, is not just something involving us Christians alone; it also has a prior dimension which is simply human, involving everyone. It means protecting all creation, the beauty of the created world, as the Book of Genesis tells us and as Saint Francis of Assisi showed us. It means respecting each of God’s creatures and respecting the environment in which we live. It means protecting people, showing loving concern for each and every person, especially children, the elderly, those in need, who are often the last we think about. It means caring for one another in our families: husbands and wives first protect one another, and then, as parents, they care for their children, and children themselves, in time, protect their parents. It means building sincere friendships in which we protect one another in trust, respect, and goodness. In the end, everything has been entrusted to our protection, and all of us are responsible for it. Be protectors of God’s gifts!

Whenever human beings fail to live up to this responsibility, whenever we fail to care for creation and for our brothers and sisters, the way is opened to destruction and hearts are hardened. Tragically, in every period of history there are “Herods” who plot death, wreak havoc, and mar the countenance of men and women.

Please, I would like to ask all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political and social life, and all men and women of goodwill: let us be “protectors” of creation, protectors of God’s plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of the environment. Let us not allow omens of destruction and death to accompany the advance of this world! But to be “protectors”, we also have to keep watch over ourselves! Let us not forget that hatred, envy and pride defile our lives! Being protectors, then, also means keeping watch over our emotions, over our hearts, because they are the seat of good and evil intentions: intentions that build up and tear down! We must not be afraid of goodness or even tenderness!

Here I would add one more thing: caring, protecting, demands goodness, it calls for a certain tenderness. In the Gospels, Saint Joseph appears as a strong and courageous man, a working man, yet in his heart we see great tenderness, which is not the virtue of the weak but rather a sign of strength of spirit and a capacity for concern, for compassion, for genuine openness to others, for love. We must not be afraid of goodness, of tenderness!”

Recognizing that tenderness is a sign of strength… knowing that pride and envy are just as defiling as hatred… respecting God’s creatures and creation… and building one another up, as we protect one another via trust, respect, and goodness…

A message to us all… no matter our faith. Using potential for good.

Respectfully,

03/19/2013

Cyprus

Right now, in a galaxy not so far away…

(As reported by Forbes…)

“Why is a dot-sized European country causing outsized effects? Because what starts in Cyprus, a tiny isle of 1.1 million people, could soon spread to London or New York or Hong Kong, making misery for many millions more.

Cyprus experienced severe turmoil this weekend after its prime minster agreed to force a tax on all bank deposits in order to receive a bailout. The prospect of a tax set off a run on ATMs and made observers worry that financial contagion could spread throughout the continent and then beyond…

How unpopular is this in Cyprus?

Forgive the understatement. It’s deeply, deeply unpopular. Cypriots made a run on all available ATMs this weekend, depleting cash reserves across the country. Cyprus, in response, also suspended electronic transfers.

Why are we even talking about this?

To receive a 10 billion euro ($13 billion) bailout, [Cypriot President Nicos] Anastasiades agreed to the taxes. Cyprus badly needs foreign aid, and a deal has been in official discussions since June. The complexity of any package delayed it, as did the opposition from Anastasiades’ predecessor. The money, in part, comes from the Troika: the International Monetary Fund, European Commission and European Central Bank. But the tax on depositors ensures a major portion comes from Cyprus, too. And here’s the larger picture. Cyprus is badly indebted. Its debt-to-GDP ratio pushed to 127% in the third quarter of 2012…”

[One more tangent comment from Forbes…]

Did the president really get elected while supporting this tax?

Anastasiades rejected the idea during the campaign.”

So here are the facts:

One federal government. So deep in debt. Owes billions to foreign countries. Has a history of overspending. Has never prioritized a specific plan to pay back the debt. And has a debt-to-GDP ratio over 100%.

(Note: A general debt-to-GDP guideline is that a ratio below 50% is considered healthy, while a ratio above 90% is regarded as potentially, economically dangerous. If economic growth is strong, a country can support higher debt.)

How have the leaders of Cyprus determined to stop the economic bleeding?

Government agreed to seize the citizens’ income. Those in power decided it is legal, moral, and appropriate to confiscate what belongs to the people. Call it “seizure.” Call it “confiscation.” One could inarguably also make a case for “theft.”

Quoting Forbes once again, “why are we even talking about this?”

Because one American government… so deep in debt… owes billions (now over $1 trillion) to China… has a history of overspending… has not prioritized a plan to pay it back… and has a debt-to-GDP ratio that crossed the 100% mark in early 2012, with current projections hitting 113% in 2013. How will our leaders stop the economic bleeding? What will they determine to be legal, moral, and appropriate?

In response to the mandated confiscation in Cyprus, there was a rush to withdrawal money from the country’s banks. In response to the citizens’ withdrawal, the banks have now closed. Hence, more are making a valid case for “theft.”

Respectfully,

03/17/201303/17/2013

geepers

Perhaps this is news to you.

I can’t always tell my son what to do. I can’t.

Sure, sometimes I tell him, and perhaps, yeah, maybe, he means well. He might even say “yes, madre,” but then he doesn’t follow through. He has a mind of his own. He has choices to make. And perhaps this is even more news to the waiting, watching world: sometimes he makes bad choices.

I’m sorry, but that’s the reality. Sometimes my son — sometimes you and me — sometimes we make bad choices. But thank God we’re allowed to make bad choices! It’s my past bad choices that instrumentally influence my decisions now. In wisdom we weigh outcomes, discerning cost, benefit, prudence, etc. Bad choices are God’s way of allowing us to figure life out. Thank God for bad choices.

But there are times we are undoubtedly uncomfortable with the bad choices of another…

Can we then force people to do what we want them to do?

Is it even appropriate to force people to do so?

There’s a lot of things I’d like to force…

… people to act maturely…

… partisans to get along…

… the Senate to finally pass a budget… (geepers… why in the world does our federal government not pass a budget these past 4 years? … why is there this obvious, discouraging evasion of accountability?)

But yet, we continually attempt to mandate behavior…

… mandating drivers and passengers to each don their seat belt…

… mandating our teenage boys commit to what’s nothing less than basic, moral hygiene…

… but also mandating Americans buy medical insurance…

… and mandating New Yorkers don’t buy too big a soft drink…

Geepers. What is ok to force people to do?

It seems to this semi-humble, casual observer that forced behavior must initially pass through the following conditions:

Does the person in question possess the ability to make a rational decision? And,
Does the person’s decision negatively impact anyone else?

Hence, the Intramuralist is comfortable with the example of mandated car seats for infants, as the infant does not possess the ability to make a rational decision. Equally true, the Intramuralist advocates the additional example of prosecuting drunk drivers; drunk driving puts other people on the road at risk.

But if the mandated behavior fits neither condition above, what is the logic behind the restriction?

… that we are incapable of making rational choices?

… that we wish to be a more socialist society? (egad)

… or that government is both arrogant and naive — thinking they know best, that people are incapable, and forgetting the great teacher of negative consequences?

As said multiple times previously, “geepers.” Let me add an affirmative “egad.”

Respectfully,

03/14/201303/14/2013

16 ounces

Perhaps you’ve noticed the latest, looming crisis…

Via the Board of Health, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned the sale of sugary drinks over the size of 16 oz. No pitchers. No Ventis. No accompanying 2 liter bottles. But alas, on Monday — one day prior to the law going into effect — a state Supreme Court justice overturned the ban, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” As Huffington Post host, Mike Sacks, inferred the ruling, such is “law-speak for too stupid to be legal.”

(Talk about a new sugar high.)

First are the facts:

In September of 2012, NYC’s Board of Health voted unanimously in favor of the proposed regulations.
The restrictions were passionately supported by Mayor Bloomberg.
A 16-ounce limit was placed on sweetened bottled drinks and fountain beverages sold at NYC restaurants, bars, movie theaters, sports venues, and street carts.
The limit applied to beverages with more than 25 calories per 8 ounces.
Included in the regulations were sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, juice drinks, slushies and smoothies, among other beverages.
Excluded were alcohol and milk-based drinks.
The judge declared that the NYC’s Board of Health was only meant to intervene “when the City is facing eminent danger due to disease.”

Reacting to the ruling, Mayor Bloomberg said he disagreed with the court decision and cited his intent to appeal. With a rising number of overweight and obese people, he said, “It is reasonable and responsible to draw a line.”

Ok, sorry, but the Intramuralist must pause and take a deep breath (… those deep breaths, uh, assist in articulating a respectful response…).

When I look at this sequence — and I do believe that the Mayor was attempting to do what he sincerely believes is honorable and right — I see one huge, glaring bottom line that makes this semi-humble current events observer cringe. Follow me here; perhaps the discomfort will dissipate (… although I highly doubt it).

Bloomberg wants to ban large sugary drinks. Understandable. Excess sugar puts excess weight on excess people. Excess isn’t all good. Granted, pizza, chips, candy bars, milkshakes, etc. also contribute to “excess,” but none of the above were covered under New York’s regulations (hence, the “arbitrary” distinction).

But besides the arbitrary and thus inconsistent application of the regulations, there is a more significant cause for my discomfort.

Bloomberg wants to help the obese among us, yet in order to assist the obese, the assumption must also be made that people are incapable of controlling their consumption. People are incapable of wise decision-making.

In other words, according to Bloomberg: people cannot control their own choices. Therefore, our ever-more-caring government will control their choices for them… We’ll take the big drinks away. Under this line of thinking, if citizens are left to their own decision-making, they may make poor choices; thus, it’s government’s duty to protect citizens from themselves. Government must keep the negative, “excess” consequences from ever occuring. Government, my friends — according to Bloomberg — knows best. Government knows better than the people. Excuse me, but has government not realized that negative consequences are often the most effective actual deterrent to negative decision-making?

True, this regulation only regarded plus size soft drinks… but what will be next? That’s the concern: what will be next? There is no way soft drinks are the end of the extent of government interference. There is no way soft drinks are the end of the extent of government arrogance, believing they somehow know best.

What’s next? Something bigger. Something more. Something more intrusive. Something far more than 16 ounces.

Respectfully,

03/11/201303/11/2013

the origin of the claim

Steven Colbert of the “The Colbert Report” is a comedic genius. Most comedic geniuses, in my semi-humble opinion, are strikingly funny because there is an element of perceived truth in what they actually say. The following Colbert quote (possessing possible, perceived truth) was in an attempt not to be so funny:

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”

Originally shared in December of 2010, the concept claimed by Colbert continues to gain traction. It’s actually a fascinating concept.

Here’s the challenge…

There currently exists significant social policy in which the stated motivation is to help the poor. The motive — at least that which is publicly stated — and which has been affirmed amidst these postings — is to abundantly assist the so-called “least of these.”

It’s a valid, compassionate motive. How can we care — how should we care — for the lesser among us? And perhaps the absolute best question that arises — in regard to the formation of actual policy — is how are we called to such care? Is it an individual or a corporate, government calling? Is it a natural outflow of our heart or an essential government mandate?

(… great question…)

What I find most interesting about Colbert’s claim, no less — dismissing the completely unsubstantiated facade that Jesus was selfish — is that he ties the call to help the poor to the person of Jesus Christ.

Let me get this straight…

Many of those who advocate social policy in which monies are usurped from the wealthy to go directly to the poor believe the act is exactly what Jesus has called us to do. That, too, is an excellent question with which each of us should wrestle.

I wonder then what Jesus meant when he said, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Obviously, if we were to follow the call and command of the Savior of the world — again not distinguishing between the individual, corporate, and/or national calling — we would not hesitate to generously feed the hungry and care for the poor.

Yet herein lies the challenge. Many of the same people who passionately advocate for a feeding of the hungry and caring for the poor omit the origin of the calling. Many will call for compassionate action, yet they will simultaneously omit the name of Jesus Christ.

Which is it?

Are we to feed the hungry?

… care for the poor?

And thus, too, are we to acknowledge where the calling came from?

Or are we to believe it’s wise to follow such a claim, without ever acknowledging the calling’s origin?

Fascinating… yes, fascinating indeed.

Respectfully… always…

03/10/2013

stop, drop, & roll

There are some days where the digressing moral pattern in this country causes me to stop, drop, and take notice. Whether is be an acceptance of a previous, absolute immorality or simply the disrespectful tone in which we sometimes speak to one another, it oft seems clear to this casual observer that we continue to slide down a slippery moral slope. Hence, knowing the question mark is my favorite punctuation employment, the Intramuralist asks why. What causes us to continuously slip and slide? Then I come across something written in the ancient manuscripts of long ago, something that causes me to stop, drop, and roll even a little more…

“Look, I now teach you these decrees and regulations just as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may obey them in the land you are about to enter and occupy. Obey them completely, and you will display your wisdom and intelligence among the surrounding nations. When they hear all these decrees, they will exclaim, ‘How wise and prudent are the people of this great nation!’ For what great nation has a god as near to them as the Lord our God is near to us whenever we call on him? And what great nation has decrees and regulations as righteous and fair as this body of instructions that I am giving you today?

But watch out! Be careful never to forget what you yourself have seen. Do not let these memories escape from your mind as long as you live! And be sure to pass them on to your children and grandchildren…

Do not corrupt yourselves by making an idol in any form — whether of a man or a woman, an animal on the ground, a bird in the sky, a small animal that scurries along the ground, or a fish in the deepest sea. And when you look up into the sky and see the sun, moon, and stars — all the forces of heaven — don’t be seduced into worshiping them. The Lord your God gave them to all the peoples of the earth…

So be careful not to break the covenant the Lord your God has made with you. Do not make idols of any shape or form, for the Lord your God has forbidden this. The Lord your God is a devouring fire; he is a jealous God. In the future, when you have children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time, do not corrupt yourselves by making idols of any kind. This is evil in the sight of the Lord your God and will arouse his anger.

Today I call on heaven and earth as witnesses against you. If you break my covenant, you will quickly disappear from the land you are crossing… You will live there only a short time; then you will be utterly destroyed. For the Lord will scatter you among the nations, where only a few of you will survive. There, in a foreign land, you will worship idols made from wood and stone — gods that neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. But from there you will search again for the Lord your God. And if you search for him with all your heart and soul, you will find him.

In the distant future, when you are suffering all these things, you will finally return to the Lord your God and listen to what he tells you. For the Lord your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon you or destroy you or forget the solemn covenant he made with your ancestors.

Now search all of history, from the time God created people on the earth until now, and search from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything as great as this ever been seen or heard before? Has any nation ever heard the voice of God speaking from fire — as you did — and survived? Has any other god dared to take a nation for himself out of another nation by means of trials, miraculous signs, wonders, war, a strong hand, a powerful arm, and terrifying acts? Yet that is what the Lord your God did for you in Egypt, right before your eyes.

He showed you these things so you would know that the Lord is God and there is no other. He let you hear his voice from heaven so he could instruct you. He let you see his great fire here on earth so he could speak to you from it. Because he loved your ancestors, he chose to bless their descendants, and he personally brought you out of Egypt with a great display of power. He drove out nations far greater than you, so he could bring you in and give you their land as your special possession, as it is today.

So remember this and keep it firmly in mind: The Lord is God both in heaven and on earth, and there is no other. If you obey all the decrees and commands I am giving you today, all will be well with you and your children. I am giving you these instructions so you will enjoy a long life in the land the Lord your God is giving you for all time.”

“All will be well with you”… “for all time.”

Stop. Drop. And roll… rolling a little more… wondering what this means… wondering if there’s something relevant… wondering if there’s something we have forgotten.

Respectfully,

03/07/2013

cutting

Years ago I read a book written by bestselling author, William J. Bennett, entitled The Death of Outrage. While Bennett spoke of the relevance of then Pres. Clinton’s sexual misconduct and how that potentially affected his governance, the focus of the book is the lack of indignation surrounding unscrupulous activity. Too often, as a people, we selectively (and sometimes conveniently) turn the other way.

For example, many who are quick to criticize Pres. Obama for any potential inaccuracy, gave Pres. Bush 43 a seemingly free pass when no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. Similarly, many who were quick to criticize Bush 43 for his stated inaccuracies, now give Obama complete freedom to “evolve” on multiple issues. Friends, our “yes” must mean “yes” and our “no” mean “no.” We would be wise to be consistent. Hence, where is the outrage?

Yesterday I came across an eye-opening report from The Washington Times…

The Times was investigating the actual impact from last week’s sequestration enactment, especially since some pundits and politicians predicted significant doom and gloom even though the “cuts” are only decreases to planned increased spending; they are not actual cuts. At question has been whether or not any involved are now attempting to score political points as opposed to leading wisely and doing what’s best for our country. In other words, there is some question as to whether or not specific cuts will be made that are wisest — OR (and this is a big “OR”) — will the cuts be made in areas where we feel it most, where it hurts, thus prompting us to be outraged that the sequestration ever occurred.

Ah, but such is not where the death of outrage is in question. What I question is the rest of the report, and where is our collective outrage — and the media’s outrage — about the following? I quote The Washington Times:

The White House announced Tuesday that it is canceling tours of the president’s home for the foreseeable future as the sequester spending cuts begin to bite and the administration makes good on its warnings of painful decisions.

Announcement of the decision — made in an email from the White House Visitors Office — came hours after The Washington Times reported on another administration email that seemed to show at least one agency has been instructed to make sure the cuts are as painful as President Obama promised they would be.

In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.

“We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be,” Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him.

In other words, when a federal worker asked how to apply the cuts, instead of being directed to be prudent or efficient or consider what might do the least harm — instead of being encouraged to act wisely — the worker was told not to contradict anything that had been publicly stated. There is no way that such is a wise nor effective means of running the federal government.

Hence, the Intramuralist asks: where is the outrage?

Respectfully,