Posts

Posted on

total omission

On the front page of my Sunday paper ran the following headline:

 

“Climate Change Already Changing How Americans Live”

 

In an editorial from USA Today, the author wrote a solid, lengthy piece on the global, economic impact already visible via global warming.  In addition to heat waves, downpours, droughts, and wildfires, the author attributed each of the following to the climate cause:  asthma, allergies, heat stroke, rising food and utility prices, rising sea levels, unemployment due to drought-related factory closings, cataclysmic storms, wiped out neighborhoods, sinking towns, longer seasons, and flooded bridges, subways, and airport runways.  Note that none of these conclusions were presented subjectively.  Each was asserted as fact.

 

As long has been stated by the Intramuralist, I come nowhere close to comprehending all in regard to global warming, climate change, or insert-your-currently-politically-more-convenient-term-here.  I don’t comprehend it all.  I can’t.

 

What I do know for certain, however, is that this is not — I repeat, “not” — a political issue.  One of our seemingly greatest challenges is that we routinely accept or reject potential truth based on who is the stater of the subject.  Fact is fact regardless of who states it; opinion is opinion via the same conditions.  Transitively true then is that opinion cannot be equated with fact simply due to the stater of the opinion.  As a culture, we are not collectively good with the discernment necessary in said process.  We are thus not always good at distinguishing truth.

 

While the USA Today article very briefly acknowledged that there exist skeptics, it concerns this current events observer that the reason for the skepticism was quickly dismissed with a singular sentence in a 1200 word essay.  Therefore, the reader is confronted with an opinion piece that is presented as fact.

 

Honestly, even though such practice is a primary reason why mainstream media continues to lose credibility — as they continue to subtly (and not so subtly) insert opinion and bias — such is not what concerns me most.  Each of us is entitled to our own opinion, while also true, is that we are not entitled to our own facts.

 

What concerns me most regarding the concept of climate change is the complete — and in my opinion, arrogant — total omission of God.

 

Now before the blood boils, allow me to assert that I believe many of us can be arrogant people.  I sometimes label myself with that same description (… typically, especially, on the first day of March Madness, where boasting about my bracket is the common, annual practice… that is, well, at least until day 2 of the madness).

 

But I find us to be an arrogant people in how we believe and assert how powerful we are — that so much is under our control — that we, the people, make such a huge, dynamic difference.

 

While it would be wise to study how our grocery store bags and excessive use of plastic contribute to eroding the Earth’s atmosphere — wise, too, to acknowledge the carbon dioxide in the air (as pointed out by the USA editorial) — it would be equally wise to comprehensively study why such a situation may exist.  After all, multiple historical scriptures speak of the future destruction of this planet.  Note that the point of this post is not the validation nor refuting of said scriptures; however, if I were a scientist, and I knew that somewhere, anywhere, there existed multiple foretellings of the Earth’s end, I would be studying the authenticity of those scriptures with zeal.  My sense is that plastic bags would then be omitted from the discussion.

 

As previously stated, I don’t comprehend it all when it comes to global warming or climate change.  I don’t claim to.  But the reality is that opinion-driven journalists, those of us who’ve accepted opinion as truth, and even the scientists don’t comprehend it all either.  They don’t comprehend it all.  They can’t…

 

… especially when they omit significant aspects from their study.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

blame

Pres. Obama blames congressional Republicans.

Congressional Republicans blame Pres. Obama.

Senate Democrats — well, I’m not sure who they’ve found yet to blame.

Gun control advocates blame semi-automatic assault weapons.

The NRA blames criminals.

Samsung blames Apple.

Apple blames Samsung.

Oscar Pistorius blames an imaginary intruder.

The liberal media blames Bob Woodward.

Rush Limbaugh blames the liberal media.

Lots of people blame Pres. Bush.

Still more always blame the referee.

Jim Harbaugh blamed a non-pass interference call.

Green Bay Packer fans (sorry, Dad) blamed the replacement referees.

Al Gore blames global warming.

The entire Middle East blames Israel.

Hugo Chavez blames the United States.

Lance blamed a lot of other people.

Some people blame junk food.

Others blame their kids.

Kids blame their parents.

Democrats blame Fox News.

Fox News blames the mainstream media.

(… there’s that media again…)

The rich blame the poor.

The poor blame the rich.

The black man blames the white man.

The white man blames the black man.

OJ hasn’t figured out yet who new to blame.

Islamic terrorists blame Western Christians.

Tom Cruise blamed Oprah.

Many blamed Scientology.

Deepak Chopra blamed America.

Kobe blames the Lakers’ age.

Tiger blames fatigue.

Ashley Judd blames hip hop.

Lindsay Lohan’s lawyer blames her family.

Colin Kaepernick blames himself.

 

(Finally…)

 

As a culture we spend significant time blaming other people.  Whether it be the doctor for an inaccurate diagnosis, the friend who treated us wrongly, or the server who messed up our order — we are quick to identify who’s culpable.  We also are not good at acknowledging our own culpability — no matter the message, no matter the magnitude.  Let’s admit that most often more than one person is culpable…  the player and the ref, two ex-spouses, and yes, those testy politicians.  However, regardless of our role, we prefer shifting the negative focus — and blame — elsewhere.

 

Thank God for the Colin Kaepernick’s of the world, the rookie 49ers’ QB.  When all eyes were upon him after the Super Bowl (save those reflectively still reveling in Beyoncé’s halftime show), he didn’t utilize his moment before the mic to cast blame on someone else.  He humbly acknowledged he had made multiple mistakes contributing to the negative outcome.

 

Way to go, Colin.  Maybe we should send you to Washington.

 

Respectfully (albeit a bit tongue-in-cheek)…

AR

Posted on

fire & brimstone

Years ago when I was still trying to figure this faith thing out, I remember observing a plethora of preachers and teachers.  Never will I forget the man effusing fire and brimstone.  You know the kind.  Such are the ones who seemingly attempt to motivate you to follow God because if not, you will rot to death.  You will burn in the blazing fires of hell; and thus, you will be eternally doomed.  “Doomed, I say!”  The stereotypical fire/brimstone address is therefore oft accompanied by unparalleled levels of enthusiasm… albeit also accompanied by rampant rage and rather angry, scary facial expressions (… did I happen to mention the doom?).

 

Now it would be both fascinating and enlightening to have a conversation about the purported realities of hell.  But the primary motivation for following God — investing in an actual personal relationship with him — is a love response for all he has done and continues to do.  The heart of the Christian, in other words, is not one motivated by fear.

 

So why do they do it?  Why do some persons still employ the ugly, angry tactics?  Why?  Because sometimes it works.  It makes people move.  Granted, it’s an emotional response; but it’s a response, nonetheless.

 

As I observe current events, I can’t help but wonder if some ‘preachers and teachers’ are also employing the tactic in non-religious sanctuaries.  Watch what’s happening with the so-called sequestration, scheduled to go into effect on Friday.  Let us first objectively identify what the sequestration actually is.  It is not actual cuts.  The amount the federal government spends will still increase with sequestration in place; the sequester process only decreases the amount of the planned increase.  Hence, there is little validity to too much disappearing.  Yet note the many before the mics…

 

On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” Education Sec. Arne Duncan said “as many as 40,000 teachers could lose their jobs.”  Such assumes the entire $2.8 billion in impending department cuts would come from teacher salaries, even though Duncan previously testified there would be cuts elsewhere.  Also, according to FactCheck.org, “the bulk of teacher layoffs, if they occur, will be decided by the school districts (not the federal government) and happen in the 2013-14 school year (not the current one).”  [emphasis mine]

 

Last week Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood warned that we “should expect delays of up to 90 minutes at peak airports during sequester.”  When then asked Friday why the airline lobby predicted no major impact on air travel from the sequester, he suggested the industry didn’t have up-to-date information.

 

And yesterday, Stephanie Cutter, the spokesman for Pres. Obama’s new political action committee, sent me the following:  “Prepare yourself for job layoffs, reduced access to early education, slower emergency response, slashed health care, and more people living on the street…  If Congress fails to act, we’d see budget cuts pretty much across the board to critical services that teachers, first responders, seniors, children, and our men and women in uniform rely on every day.  It sounds bad because it is.  And with all these cuts on the line, why are congressional Republicans refusing to budge?  Because to do so, they’d have to close tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, oil companies, vacation homes, and private jet owners. I’m not kidding.”

 

While the objectivity within that statement is certainly questionable, Ms. Cutter has a job to do; she is attempting to elicit a response.  Granted, it may be an emotional response; but it’s a response, nonetheless.

 

Note that by most accounts of objective observers — meaning those who stand to gain nothing from the enactment or withholding of the “cuts” — the specifics and severity of the results are at best ambiguous.  We don’t know what will happen.  They don’t know what will happen.  No one knows exactly what will happen.  Pres. Obama does possess some leeway in how the “cuts” are actually administered.  But since the “cuts” are only gradual decreases to planned increases — as opposed to the actual cutting of spending — the predictions of eternal doom seem misleading.

 

So why do some persons still employ these tactics?  On all sides of the aisle?

 

Because sometimes it works.  Wise or not, it makes people move.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

call me crazy

Last week I had a conversation with my oldest son that was — well, allow me to simply yet transparently say — entirely unproductive.  It wasn’t a serious nor significantly sobering topic; we were discussing what time his friends should be leaving on a school night.

 

Jake has some terrific friends.  Yet regardless of the high character caliber of his closest friends, we disagreed by one seemingly, incredibly huge, exaggerated hour what time their exit should occur that evening.

 

When it was obvious that polar opposite opinions existed on this issue — and that his parents weren’t immediately nor automatically going to adopt his perspective — my talented, typically loving son resorted to a tactic employed by a multitude of 15-16 year olds:  he criticized us.  Loudly.  Fairly harshly.  My spouse and I became persons undoubtedly out-of-touch.  And dare I also transparently repeat, “crazy.”

 

Pause.  Take a deep breath.  I have, and I did.  I do.

 

I’ve concluded, no less, that one of the most important parenting skills we each need to develop is the ability to refrain from matching our children’s reaction.  Whether it’s matching the fluent tears of a toddler’s fear of first stitches or matching a teen who articulates abundant insult, the parent must always choose instead to model the appropriate emotion…  bravery to that toddler… and yes, respect to a disrespectful teen.  We can’t expect our toddler to be brave nor our teen to be respectful when our response compares so similarly to their initial, often immature action.

 

As I later processed my son’s response, I was once again hit over the head with one of those obvious, potentially-divine two-by-fours.  My son called me “crazy.”  It was an emotional response.  But he did it because he disagreed with me.

 

The “a-ha”?

 

How many times have young people seen otherwise intelligent adults articulate insult of another simply because they disagree?

 

Watch adults.

Watch Washington.

Watch Congress.

Watch the President.

Watch people on and off TV…

Celebrities.  Parents.  Athletes.  You and me.

 

What do we do when we disagree?  What do even intelligent adults do?

 

Instead of working tenaciously to understand — and offering the grace and respect that opposing opinion deserves — intelligent people criticize… fairly harshly… loudly; they call the possessors of the opposing opinion out-of-touch.  Sometimes they even call them crazy.

 

Not everyone who thinks differently than you and me is bad or mean or evil — or even — necessarily — wrong.  Not everyone who thinks differently than the President nor Congress nor your local legislator is bad/mean/evil/wrong either.  But yet, each of the above — each of us — no matter our individual intelligence — at times resorts to criticism in place of the tenacious seeking of comprehension.  Once again, wisdom and intelligence are two totally, different things.

 

The reason our 15-16 year olds (and feel free to add any age here) sometimes criticize others when agreement is lacking is because they’ve seen the adults who’ve gone before them do the exact same thing.

 

Crazy.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

my favorite punctuation mark

Years ago I was asked, “What’s your favorite punctuation mark?”  At the time, truth be told, I found it a fairly funny item to be asked.  I pondered for some time.  And some more.  Then we come to days like today where I realize the answer to that question is easy for me indeed.  It always has been…

 

Random questions… Why?  Because asking is always easier than answering…  and it still leads to growth…

 

Why is the Chinese government increasing their arrests of Christians involved in “house churches”?

 

Why does any church have to be underground?

 

Why (referencing our most recent blog, “The Holy and the Common”) is mocking Jesus Christ considered entertainment but mocking Muhammed prompts an apology by the American government?

 

Why do congressional men and women — who haven’t balanced a budget since the days of Bill Clinton — continue to be paid and employed?

 

Why does our government think massive deficit spending is an appropriate economic approach?

 

Why are we calling sequestration “cuts” when actually we’re cutting nothing?  Sequestration only means we don’t spend as much as previously planned.

 

What is Pres. Obama’s motive?  For a man who is unquestionably, highly intelligent, how can he continue to advocate spending and borrowing money at an unsustainable rate — overseeing a massive expansion of those dependent on government assistance, while focusing on tax increases that are not expected nor proven to make a significant difference — if any?

 

How do massive tax increases actually help the economy?

 

Does the audience realize that many of the Academy Award recipients are actually inebriated when engaged in their passionate, acceptance speech rants?

 

Does Hollywood really represent America well?

 

How come wine has calories?

 

Why are professional athletes paid more than teachers and preachers?

 

Why is the Pope resigning?

 

Is the winner of “American Idol” actually an American idol?

 

Are idols healthy and good?

 

Is the NFL America’s favorite sport?

 

Why are we so mad in March?

 

And…  and…

… what is the Intramuralist’s favorite punctuation mark?

 

It can only be the question mark… for nothing else has the distinct potential to prompt increased reflection, contemplation, and respectful — hopefully — conversation.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

the holy and the common

This idea of a new pope has really got me thinking…

 

Now while not a member of the Roman Catholic Church (even though some seem to think my membership would be fairly solid), the Intramuralist promotes great respect for all faiths. I appreciate Catholic tradition, and like-faith or not, there is zero doubt the pope has significant, global influence.  Hence, I will be watching which color of smoke blows over the Vatican as the next wise leader is selected.

 

Thinking about this process, my mind has focused on the role of a priest — not necessarily a Catholic priest — but a leader within the Christian faith.  What is a priest called to do?

 

Different denominations may assign different duties.  Varied religious rituals may be a part of the process.  Yet time and time again, as I study ancient historical documents, one role stands out that seems to stand for all time.  It is the responsibility of the priest to differentiate between the holy and the common.

 

The holy and the common…

The sacred and the secular…

 

As a culture, I don’t think we get that.

 

Friends, please take that as no judgment.  I include myself among the “we” who doesn’t get it.  We live in an age where all things go, where all is accepted, where tolerance trumps intolerance — well, except, arguably, if you’re tolerant of the reality that some things are actually holy.

 

Last weekend, “Saturday Night Live” ran a new skit, entitled “Djesus Uncrossed” — a sarcastic spin of the Oscar-nominated “Django Unchained.”  In the SNL skit, Jesus is resurrected, but — and that’s an incredibly huge “but” — instead of returning to save the souls of sinful men, Jesus Christ takes vengeance upon his one-time accusers.  The skit then features approximately 2 minutes of bloody gore, similar to “Django Unchained.”  In pops the narration:  “He’s risen from the dead … and he’s preaching anything but forgiveness.”

 

The public dialogue since has been fascinating…

 

There have been claims of outrageous blasphemy.

There have also been numerous retorts to “lighten up”…

 

Can’t a guy take a joke any more?

 

I wonder…

I wonder if the joke was on Muhammed, the historic leader of Islam, if that kind of joke would be asked to be tolerated? Can’t you take a joke any more? … especially in light of the fatal September Benghazi attacks, when the American government actually paid to put commercials on Pakistani TV, apologizing for any offense to Muslims for an unrelated, anti-Islamic 13 minute movie trailer by 1 American citizen…

 

I wonder if mocking Muslims would — could — be considered a joke…  I wonder if they would have been told to lighten up.

 

Great questions, friends.  Truthfully, I don’t know all the answers.  But what I do know is this…

2 things:

 

  1. The creators of NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” are not “priests.”

And (2) They have no idea of the difference between the holy and the common.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

she

She did it.  She finally did it!

 

Next Sunday, the 55th running of NASCAR’s signature event takes place.  It’s the Daytona 500 — the first race of the year — and it’s also considered NASCAR’s most prestigious event.  It’s where Richard Petty became a household name, where everyone from Pres. George H.W. Bush to Whoopi Goldberg has been an honorary starter, and where Dale Earnhardt tragically saw his life come to an end.

 

And so next Sunday when the green flag once again waves at “The Great American Race,” it commences with a historic, new aspect.  Starting in the pole position — for the first time ever — will be a woman driver.  This past weekend, Danica Patrick became the race’s fastest qualifier.  She did it.

 

While Daytona typically garners more attention than any other racing event, there will be even more attention now on Patrick because of her historic accomplishment.  As ESPN wrote in the initial hours after her qualification, “The spotlight is nothing new.  But never has it been this bright before.”   The attention is big; the spotlight is brighter.  My question today is what that spotlight should be on…

 

We are a funny people…

 

On one hand, we say the world should be colorblind.  In other words, when we look at others, we shouldn’t define any of them by the color of their skin, their ethnic background, gender, nor any demographic description.

 

But on the other hand, we also enjoy celebrating the unique success of the individual…

 

… the first African-American president…

… the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice…

… the first female astronaut…

… the first (potential) American pope…

 

Let me unambiguously opine:  those accomplishments deserve to be celebrated.

 

The inherent contradiction, however, is that in our celebration, we often employ the exact practice we say we wish to prevent; we often identify color; we often promote ethnic background; we often focus more on the demographic than on the greatness of the actual accomplishment.

 

Danica Patrick is well aware of the historic significance of her success.  But something else is more important to her, as visible via her post-qualifying interview:  “I was brought up to be the fastest driver, not the fastest girl.  That was instilled in me from very young, from the beginning.”

 

She then received the ultimate compliments from her fiercest competitors, as racers Jeff Gordon and Tony Stewart, for example, talked about what an excellent racer Patrick is and how she accomplished this in only her 2nd year at the 500.  Interestingly, the focus on her femininity only seemed obvious when prodded by the media.  (… makes one wonder how altruistic and helpful the role of media is in society… hmmm…)

 

So on Sunday, February 24th, beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Danica Patrick will start on the pole.  The Daytona 500.  As their 2013 motto reflects, “The Race of a Lifetime.  Every Time.”

 

She did it, friends.  She finally did it!

 

The world will be a wiser place when the focus is no longer on the “she”… when there truly exists no focus on the race, gender, or demographic category…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

no hero among us

he·ro [heer-oh]

noun, plural he·roes; for 5 also he·ros.

1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.

3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.

4. Classical Mythology.

     a. a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity.

     b. (in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability.

     c. (in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod.

5. hero sandwich.

 

(#5 is easiest to unambiguously define.)

 

For some reason, we seem always in search of a “hero”…  finding that person who is truly heroic, who can do no wrong, whose character is impeccable.

 

In South Africa this past Valentines Day, a beautiful model, Reeva Steenkamp, was shot multiple times and thus killed.  She was allegedly shot by her boyfriend, Oscar Pistorius, the double amputee runner who caused the world to take notice as he took competitors by surprise in the London Olympics of 2012.  Pistorius is an Olympic and South African “hero.”

 

The Intramuralist has no idea whether Pistorius is guilty or innocent; what I do know, however, is that the nicknamed “Blade Runner” has reason to lie.  Allow me to put this mildly:  his “hero status” is in jeopardy.  That’s a tough thing to lose — an intangible seemingly incapable of retrieving once lost.

 

Remember that when our “hero” speaks, we listen.  When our “hero” opines, we believe; and when our “hero” encourages, we oblige.  Our “hero’s” character is impeccable; we have made it so.

 

Their character is impeccable because we have forgotten that our “heroes” are first human; and short of the Messiah, no human’s character is flawless.  We forget that.  And so, when a “hero” perceives they may suddenly lose their privileged status — falling far, far from grace, so-to-speak — they have significant reason to lie.

 

Who’s your “hero”?

 

Oscar Pistorius?  Steve Jobs?  Barack Obama?

Martin Luther King?  Pete Rose?  Margaret Thatcher?

 

Living or dead — “good people” or not — our “heroes” are first and foremost human.  Human means not a savior, no where close to a messiah, and always capable of error.  Hence, because a “hero” often arises to such status due to the inflating by the people around him/her, when that status is jeopardized, they are tempted to do what it takes to keep it afloat.  They have learned how to juggle and maintain the inflated status for so long, they are then motivated to do what it takes to survive the for-once-penetrable claim.  Lying is an option.  Perhaps lying (egad) was even learned long ago… learned as a means of actually juggling the status…

 

When confronted with the charges against him, the family of Oscar Pistorius released an immediate statement:  “The alleged murder is disputed in the strongest terms.”

 

Of course the murder is disputed…  No hero would do such a thing…  This is impossible!  We should note that the reality is that even though no other person is known to be their house that morning — and that Pistorius has been involved in previous domestic violence incidents — that Pistorius may be innocent.

 

Innocent or not, our “heroes” sometimes lie.  They unfortunately have reason to do so.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

fleeting beauty

Did you notice the reaction to Sunday night’s Grammy Awards?  (… no worries if not a music fan…)

 

“See Katy Perry’s 2013 Grammys Dress!”

“Kat Dennings Grammys 2013: Actress Stuns In Strapless Dress”

“Rihanna Flashes Toned Tummy For Grammys After-Party”

 

It doesn’t have to be from the Grammys (… still, no worries…).  From the Super Bowl, for example, much of the post-game reaction was in regard to Beyoncé’s halftime show and whether she was provocative or powerful….

 

“Beyoncé Is a Sex Kitten at the Superbowl”

“A Defiant Dance of Power, Not Sex”

“Beyoncé’s Sexy 2013 Super Bowl Outfit Slammed by PETA—Too Much Skin!”

 

Pick your event, awards night, athletic competition, etc.  We have this all too frequent tendency of focusing on the external…  on what we can see, the outward adornment, or appearance.  We make all sorts of judgments and distinctions based on the external appearance of man.  We like to say ‘we’re not a judgmental people,’ yet we draw countless conclusions based solely upon what we can see.

 

In fact, in a little less than 2 weeks, the Oscars will be upon us.  What’s the initial focus of the Academy Awards?  The beloved red carpet.  Outside Hollywood’s Dolby Theatre, for hours fans will flock to the edges in order to gain a glimpse of their favorite star.  And reporters and pundits and commentators and critics will copiously opine how the celebrities seem to be faring these days — all based on how they look.

 

I’ve frequently wrestled with this increased fascination.  What is it that attracts current culture so quickly to the external?  Why do we feel so emboldened to comment on others based solely on what we can see?

 

What causes us to judge — when it is a person’s inner disposition that makes them beautiful?

 

My sense is that as society has digressed, we’re torn with what’s inside.  We don’t always know how to deal with the individuality of a person’s character and heart, and so we accept it, as opposed to being willing to acknowledge certain aspects are unhealthy.

 

Too often, for example, we simply accept adultery.  Whether it be Julia Roberts, Jerry Seinfeld, or someone nearer and dearer to our hearts, we often ignore whatever lack of moral grounding internally existed that caused them to act upon their unhealthy impulses.  If we actually focused on what was inside the adulterer’s heart, it would be incredibly challenging to deal with respectfully.  We would have to admit that there exists right and wrong in this world, and that persons we appreciate had made a wrongful choice.

 

Friends, I am not advocating judgment.  In fact, my strong sense is we’ve done an incredible disservice to the younger generation when we define judgment as the acknowledgement of right or wrong.  In it’s most basic definition, judgment means feeling empowered to render the consequences for actions; it by no means equates to a lack of acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

 

Why then do we focus on the external?  Because it’s easier; it’s far easier than dealing respectfully with what’s inside the character of the person.

 

At the Grammys Sunday evening, singer Carrie Underwood won her 6th Grammy Award, this time for Best Country Solo Performance.  The Intramuralist has no relationship with Underwood, but those who know her well speak of a tender, beautiful heart.

 

Did you happen to see her dress?  It served as a fascinating, changing, light up, digital screen!  Supposedly (but not surprisingly) it stole the show.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

state of the government

Today marks our 4th annual State of the Government address.  In our initial analysis, we made the following primary 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 financially imbalanced.

The State of the Government is too far removed from the Constitution.

 

The following conclusion has also been expressed these past 4 years:  “The State of the Government has digressed over several decades, and until we responsibly address partisanship, special interests, size, spending, and straying from the Constitution, we will be challenged to admit even the Union is strong.”  My strong sense is the above is still true; the question is what can we do.

 

Government is too partisan.  Pre-speech analysis from multiple, varied sources suggest that Pres. Obama’s speech will be aggressively progressive this evening.  As Politico states, the President will “pay lip service to bipartisanship, but don’t expect anything like the call for peaceful collaboration that defined his first address to a joint session of Congress in 2009.”  Is the partisanship right?  Is it wrong?  Let me not answer the question; let me only ask another:  does this approach help?  Rightly or wrongly, during both the Obama and most recent Bush administration, the partisan divide has only gotten bigger.  If persons within either party or the media have intentionally drummed up partisan passion in order to propel one side of the divide, then they have done an ethical disservice to our country.

 

Government is too influenced by money.  Sticks and stones seem to fly on this issue, with people blaming one person or party or a singular judicial decision.  Based on objective research, it’s my conclusion that the moral digression due to money increased exponentially during the Carter administration, when lobbyist restrictions were significantly eased.  Until lobbyist monies are again restricted, the purity of our democratic process will continue to be obscured.

 

Government is too big.  Let me make this is as simple as possible.  Who watches their pennies more:  a small business on a tight budget… or a massive conglomerate with no budget?  The nonpartisan CBO projects the cost of the federal government to be $47.2 trillion over the next 10 years.  That’s an annual growth rate of approximately 6.7%, trouncing the growth of the private sector.  In a government that was created for the people and by the people, it was never intended to do all things for all people.  There is no way $47.2 trillion is being spent effectively.  And there is no way all those pennies are being counted.

 

Government is financially imbalanced.  Whether monies are spent on war or domestic programs, the government continues to spend.  They don’t balance their budget; they don’t even have a budget.  No business entity that attempts to operate with continued deficit spending for this long with zero plan to pay it back would be allowed to exist.  The elect continue to simply kick the plan for balanced spending down the road.  Is it because, as some say, in this economic state, we can’t do that right now?  Or, as I believe, do they avoid cutting spending in the sake of political expediency?  Let’s balance the budget.  Let’s make a plan.  Let’s stick to it… like every other wise, existing household in this country.

 

Government is too far removed from the Constitution.  Far too many are far too comfortable believing contemporary opinion trumps foundational truth.  “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.”  The above Preamble was written to inspire an improved government (improved from that which was established via the Articles of Confederation).  Our founders desired a country that would be just, internally peaceful, and externally protected.  They desired our citizens would be blessed and free.  Too many today justify legislation that dictates exactly how people should prosper, how tranquility is insured, and what (in their opinion) is a more perfect union.

 

As said previously amidst these posts, far be it from the Intramuralist to suggest that the State of the Government is the sole fault of the current congress and administration.  But far be it from the current congress and administration to suggest it is the sole fault of their predecessors.  The reality is still true that the State of the Government has digressed over several decades, and yes, until we responsibly address partisanship, special interests, size, spending, and straying from the Constitution, we will be challenged to admit the Union is strong.

 

Respectfully,

AR