Posts

Posted on

banning the box

As of January 1st, Rhode Island became the 8th “united” state to adopt the “ban-the-box” law, meaning employers cannot ask prospective applicants on their initial questionnaire if they have a criminal history.  Allow me to explain…

 

For more than 40 years, an organization called the National Employment Law Project (NELP) has worked to remove the question on standard job applications about an individual’s conviction history and delay the background check inquiry until later in the hiring process.  In other words, NELP’s goal is to get government to “ban the box.”

 

Note that NELP actively pursues other policy initiatives, such as joining in the perceived, current, politically expedient push to increase the minimum wage.  While there certainly exists validity in exploring how to reasonably increase the wage for persons for whom the particular job is their lifework (in other words, not high school students), my limited perspective is that the current push has been articulated in order to find a popular political issue, hopefully taking the focus off of the negative ramifications of Obamacare.  But lest I digress… let us return to NELP’s primary initiative to ban the so-called box.

 

According to NELP, the goal of banning the box is “to restore the promise of economic opportunity for working families across America” and to assist unemployed workers with a felonious history to “regain their economic footing.”  NELP has promoted the perspective that asking an applicant if they have committed a felony when initially exploring employment, is an “unfair barrier.”

 

My first thought is to applaud the compassion behind such a law.  There unquestionably exists a societal stigma associated with a criminal record, and I’ve tenderly shared the heartache of friends who have unfortunately experienced brutal rejection in relation to their unlawful past.  The “have-you-ever-committed-a-felony-or-pleaded-nolo-contendere” question has long served as a screening process for potential applicants.

 

The challenge, though, that simultaneously tugs on me — arguably tugging more on my reason than emotion — is that once again, an organization such as NELP, is attempting to increase the size and scope of government; when government increases, it becomes more inefficient, costly, and prone to corruption.

 

In regard to banning that box, the reality that NELP fails to promote is that often a person’s past matters.  Please hear me, friends, on this sensitive topic.  A criminal record does not matter with all persons, all jobs, and in all scenarios.  But we also need to take into account that in many situations, a felony record does matter.  Not all convicted felons are reformed.  Recidivism rates remain unfortunately high.  I don’t say that heartlessly.  As longtime readers can attest, the Intramuralist believes in 2nd, 3rd — even 47th chances.  Those chances, though, are not baseless.  Those chances are based on the perceived repentant and determined heart of the individual.

 

As a Human Resource professional, the “box” should never be an instant disqualifier.  It depends on the kind of job and the individual heart.  A wise employer will work to discern both.  For example, is it necessary when hiring a cashier to know if they have a recent history of theft or embezzlement?  Of course it is.  Should an employer be mandated to spend time and money on an applicant before knowing such?  Great question.  I question the government’s mandates of time and money spent.

 

It is true, no less, that many prospective employers are not so wise; many seem to use the box as that instant disqualifier.  But mandating wisdom in places of foolishness is not the government’s job.  It is also not consistent with an inefficient, costly, more prone-to-corruption kind of government.  Government is getting too big… with too many mandates.

 

Allow me one more tangent comment…  if the ban-the-box movement becomes the law of the land… and if an employee with a violent, felonious record commits another violent crime in the workplace… who will be liable?  Will the employer bear responsibility?

 

Tough questions, friends… not absent compassion.  Not absent reason either.  May we always proceed with both.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

new year: 2014

All things new…

 

New year.  New Balance.  New chapter.  New career.  New kids on the block — and adults to be.  

 

New deal.  New diet.  New England.  Newfound.  New phone.  New iPhone.  New technology.

 

New Guinea.  New girl.  New horizons.  New Haven.  New Jordans.  New Jersey.  New Mexico.  New mercy.  

 

New look.  New life.  New York.  A whole new normal.  Even a new movie.  

 

New Orleans.  Newport.  New Smyrna.  Something new on DVD.

 

New Republic.  New study.  New series.  New season.  New show.  New Sunday night activity.

 

New Testament.  New track.  New top.  New something or another to you and me.

 

New uniform.  New use.  New vacation or view.  New wave.  New world.  New walk or Walking Dead TV.

 

It is no secret; the Intramuralist loves the “new” of the new year.  Not because of Times Square nor any confetti or massive, glitzy, dropping ball.  Not either because of more quaint celebrations in the privacy of our own homes.  The Intramuralist loves the “newness” because of the obvious opportunity it fords… to briefly look back… but then to surge ahead.  The past is the past; the slate is clean.  And no matter the good, bad, or ugly, we now move forward.

 

For pundits and politicians and sportsman and celebrities — for ordinary people such as you and me — moving forward is refreshing.

 

Historically, no less, when a moment of “newness” occurred, ordinary people set a stone in the ground to mark the occasion.  They didn’t mark the moment in order to cast in stone any past fear or failure; they solidly marked the moment so that they could learn from the past — and grow into the future.  To make the most of what’s ahead of us.  Hence, there is a beauty in what’s to come.  There is a beauty in the “newness.”

 

Happy New Year, friends!  Enjoy it.

 

We should.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

year end 2013

So there’s all this focus on annual acknowledgements… the man of the year, woman of the year, person of the year, sportsman of the year, singer of the year, celebrity of the year, year in review, year of yada yada yada…  Prior then to the onset of 2014 and the opportunity to start anew, allow me to add my own year end musings and acknowledgements…

 

First of all, if the Intramuralist was to acknowledge any one person for superlative notoriety, let me tell you who it would not be.  While I have tremendous respect for each of them, it would not be either Peyton Manning or the Pope (not that Sports Illustrated or Time made unwarranted selections).  I simply believe that Peyton’s societal influence is limited, and the extent of the Pope’s influence will be more evident over the course of his tenure than in the mere, initial 9 months of his papacy.

 

It would not be Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker who seemed to be a “runner up” on many year end lists.  I still can’t discern if Snowden is a hero or hoodlum — or perhaps a little of both.  Sorry, but the Intramuralist simply does not believe in paying attention to those who may not deserve the attention.

 

It would not be any politician.  It would not be Pres. Obama, who has not been the honest, uniting president he promised us he would be.  It would also not be any of his political counterparts, for whom so many, honesty is also in question.  Sorry, but if you can’t be honest, you can’t be my person or sportsman or whatever of the year.

 

I suppose as far as people are concerned, the Intramuralist is incapable of making a selection this year.  The reality is that each candidate would pale in comparison to one of my siblings, who currently, totally, amazingly inspires and spurs me on.  None of the above are capable of coming close.  It makes me wonder… makes me wonder who in each of our lives truly spurs us on.

 

I think then, too, of the events of the year gone past… the tragedy in Boston, Syria, and in Nairobi’s Westgate Mall… the downfall of the Obamacare rollout, Miley Cyrus, and our relationship with Russia… the controversy in federal surveillance, NFL officiating, and George Zimmerman’s acquittal… the attraction to zombies, hashtags, and the Harlem Shake… the dominance of Alabama football, the Miami Heat, and the brothers Harbaugh… the fascination with “Duck Dynasty,” selfies, and William and Kate’s new kid… the introduction of Elizabeth Warren, Ted Cruz, and bearded Boston baseball players… the loss of Paul Walker, James Gandolfini, and Nelson Mandela… not to mention Margaret Thatcher, Peter O’Toole, and Tom Clancy.

 

It’s easy to sometimes think the routine events of our days are so dramatic… so intense and burdensome… allowing personal passion to blind us to the sobering significance of some of the events listed above.  Maybe in the year to come we’ll be better at that — better at not being blinded by the things of lesser importance… then again, maybe not.

 

And so we say goodbye to 2013 not with a whimper or bang but with honest reflection.  Consistent with our mantra, we look both back and forward with a desire to dialogue, a willingness to tackle the tough subjects, and a commitment to gird all conversation with respect.

 

While we start anew in 2014 — with new musings, acknowledgements, perspective, and reflection — thanks for joining us in the year now passed.  It was a blessed and banner year.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

end of year questions

As is no secret, the Intramuralist’s favorite punctuation mark is the question.  It’s the only grammatical device that requires a response.  In fact, if I were to momentarily embrace a tangent perspective, I would humbly suggest that the exclamation point and period are generously overused, as they invite no further conversation — and only allow for the continuance of self-focus or unchallenged opinion.

 

And so we find ourselves at the close of another year, with this semi-humble blogger holding onto several lingering questions, questions which may provoke strong opinion, but questions that could and should be asked, as we invite continued conversation.  It is the wise, I believe, who invite conversation, knowing that respectful challenge does not dissipate truth; respectful challenge and interaction perhaps more effectively actually unveil what is true.  Thus, we ask…

 

What will happen to Obamacare in 2014?  Will it be effective?  Will it be economically solvent?  Or will it drive our federal government deeper into debt, simultaneously, exponentially expanding the size of government?

 

Was the cancellation of individual policies and steering of persons onto government controlled plans all part of Pres. Obama’s original plan?  If not, how did he not foresee such a significant ramification?

 

How far does the government surveillance/spying extend?  Where is the ethical line between security and privacy?

 

What will the Tea Party do in 2014?  Are their ambitions all bad?  … or is it more an issue of poor articulation of opinion?  Is it both?

 

How can White House Press Secretary Jay Carney sleep at night?  The former Time Magazine reporter’s responses often fail to answer the question and seem like scripted rhetoric or mistruth.  (Note:  regardless of party or president, I’ve decided this may be the most obvious, public service position in which unethical behavior is tempting…) 

 

Will “Duck Dynasty” last?  (Note:  how does a ZZ Top-ish, Louisiana, duck-loving family even qualify as “reality tv”?)

 

Who, no less, will be the next celebrity or star we deem the need to silence?  How outlandish will be his or her opinion?  Why do opinions have need to be controlled?

 

Which activist groups will work most to squelch opinion — and which will instead embrace respectful, educating debate?

 

Who will run for president?  Hillary? (yes…)  Chris Christie?  (yes…)  (Note:  nonprofessional advice to Gov. Christie…  since the public is often swayed most — positively and negatively — by aspects that have nothing to do with actual, political issues — i.e. gender, ethnicity, appearance, etc. — what would happen to the voters’ mass perception if Christie lost significant weight?)

 

How large will the federal debt climb?  Better question:  who within government has the “guts” to attempt to stop it?

 

In 2014, what will happen in Iran, Syria, and in other volatile nations?  Where will it be volatile?

 

AND… what topics will the Intramuralist cover in 2014?

 

Now that’s a good question…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the day after

If Christmas really means what history tells us…

 

There’s still joy to the world…

Awe amidst silent nights…

And herald angels that still sing.

 

There can be peace on Earth…

Goodwill to all men…

And glad tidings we can bring.

 

Lo, the rose still blooms,

And we have a hope that lasts…

A hope that truly trumps everything.

 

Christmas may be over…

But peace, joy, and hope remain.

 

Respectfully… genuinely… always…

AR

Posted on

the annual (edited) night before Christmas

‘Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house…

The Intramuralist won’t rhyme as much this year — no, not a louse.

 

Allow me to share instead what Christmas is about.

First, though, what it’s not…

 

It’s not about pomp or politics or public display.

It’s not about singers or any old familiar carols play.

It’s not about correctness.

It’s also not about superficialness.

 

It has nothing to do with celebrity…

No “Duck Dynasty,” activist groups, nor Miley Cyrus festivity.

 

It has little to do with self… self-focus… or an “all about me” mentality…

 

Christmas instead has everything to do with a humble manger, humble birth, and a heartfelt response.

 

If the Messiah of the world was born in that stable some 2000 years ago — and there exist exponentially more records of that event than there exist of any manuscript of Homer’s, Plato’s, or Aristotle’s — each a work we teach to be true — then that birth requires a response.

 

Will our response be to really wrestle with it?

Or will we disregard and look away?

 

If Jesus Christ is who he says he is — and did what so many say he did — then how will we each respond?

 

How will we respond?

How will we wrestle with the reality?

 

In humility… in worship… in wonder?

 

Great questions, friends… challenging for each of us.

 

From my house to yours — from my computer to yours, the Intramuralist wishes you the peace, joy, and hope that so uniquely girds this season.  May your days be merry, your moments be bright, and may you find yourself engaging in amazing, authentic wonder.

 

Blessings to all… and to all, yes, a good night…

 

AR

Posted on

duck dynasty

 

“Do we always have to make people go away?”

 

It’s not like the Intramuralist to begin with or even include a quote from political commentator, Bill Maher, but irony seems oddly apparent this time of year… and Maher’s one time question begs asking again now.

 

Why is it that instead of entertaining dialogue — instead of engaging in an interactive, back-and-forth conversation — instead of listening and learning and actually humbly educating one another through public discourse — why is it we often instead attempt to silence an opposing voice?  Why can we not even entertain the conversation?  Is it just too tough?  Is it just so wrong?  Is it just that their opinion is so wrong no one deserves to ever hear it?

 

As many are now aware, popular “Duck Dynasty” patriarch, Phil Robertson, was suspended by the A&E network because of his comments in GQ magazine regarding homosexual intercourse, sharing his opinion in a rather coarse way that homosexuality is sinful.  Immediately, there were adamant calls for his firing and claims of Christian bigotry.  While questions instinctively arise as to why calls for Robertson’s release were passionately immediate — but calls for recent non-Christian rants have been similarly silent —  allow me to humbly return to what I believe is the better question:  why is there a need by some to silence Robertson?

 

Can we not handle the conversation?  Or do some, for some reason, not want us to even discuss this issue?

 

Friends, there exists all sorts of tangents to this controversy.  Is it a free speech issue?  Is it an issue of employment discrimination?  Is Robertson’s perspective biblical?  Is it contradictory?  Are we practicing tolerance?  Intolerance?  And why this controversy now?  As said at the onset of this post, irony seems oddly apparent this time of year.  I find it fascinating that Robertson’s interview took place some time ago; television executives had to have known what Robertson said.  However, only after the public pressure mounted by activist groups — and, immediately preceding A&E’s planned “Duck Dynasty” marathon — did the suspension — and supposed outrage — occur.

 

As typical then of the Intramuralist, let’s boldly but humbly ask the better question:  can we or can we not handle the conversation?  Can we wrestle with Robertson’s actual opinion?

 

Call me an idealist, but the Intramuralist adheres to the belief that truth always wins out in the end.  In other words, what’s good and right and true cannot be squelched by the foolish acts of an individual.  We cannot contain the truth.

 

Hence, wouldn’t it be wiser to allow the conversation?  To work less to silence an opinion but to wrestle with its validity or lack of it?  … Are we fearful? … are we righteous? … are we self-righteous?  I speak not only of this somewhat silly show; I speak also of politics… religion.  Again, quoting Maher, why do we always have to make people — and their opinion — go away?

 

My strong sense is the most effective way to influence others is to act wisely oneself — to engage in respectful dialogue — as opposed to dictating the dialogue.  No one need to ever reason nor conclude — or grow —  if opposing opinion is simply silenced.  Come now; let’s reason together, fording one another the freedom to decide what is actually good and true… regardless of irony.

 

Respectfully,

 

AR

 

Posted on

mandating behavior

In our 3 most recent posts, I’ve seen a trend appearing.  As a society, we struggle when anyone attempts to mandate behavior for the masses.  From how we teach our kids about Santa to how we care for the least of these to yes, even how and if we celebrate the Christmas season, we continually have persons who want to tell us what we can and cannot do.  Isn’t that our challenge?

 

I mean, the challenge on both sides of the equation within contemporary Christmas controversies is that people keep wanting to dictate what we do.  People keep wanting to mandate the specifics of how a holiday can or can’t or shouldn’t be celebrated.  We aren’t ok allowing the freedom of individual decision-making.  Why is that?  What’s the motive?

 

I see this pattern repeated in multiple scenarios.  Sometimes it’s packaged up a little nicer and neater — arguably a little more covertly — but there exist multiple examples of entities attempting to mandate behavior for the masses, attempting to require specific actions on our part.

 

Isn’t that the reality behind Pres. Obama’s broken healthcare promise — that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it?”  In my opinion, the President is too smart to have not known that such was untrue.  He’s a brilliant man; he had to have known the implications of the law for which he was advocating.

 

Please know I am not declaring that Pres. Obama lied.  Let’s face it; anytime we assert that one another is a liar, it complicates the conversation.  The dialogue becomes more passionate and emotional, and the temptation to become disrespectful increases exponentially.  So let me truthfully, transparently assert what I believe to be the primary motivation for the untruth:  those advocating for Obamacare are attempting to mandate behavior for the masses — and convince the rest of us that such is good.

 

All healthcare plans starting after 2014 are required to offer the same benefits but will have different out-of-pocket costs.  Question:  do we need the same benefits?  Does one size truly fit all?  Do men and women need the same healthcare?  Do men need maternity care?  Do persons in varied geographic areas need the same care?  How about the elderly?

 

Friends, I’m not attempting to be disrespectful in my questions; the reality is that by mandating the behavior for the masses, we end up mandating things for some that are unnecessary.

 

So what’s the motive?  Is the motive as some would suggest that people aren’t bright enough — that they don’t know what’s good for them — and so someone has to control the decision-making?

 

Or… is the motive more economic — that the only way to make the policy work for some is to mandate the behavior for all?

 

Under Obamacare, it’s great to be a woman.  Women can’t be charged more than men.  On one hand that sounds great; we can hear the rallying calls that no longer will women be discriminated against.  But let me also ask the next logical question:  is it discrimination if the woman’s care costs more because it actually covers more?

 

My sense is that in the case of Obamacare, the motive is economic.  The federal government charges the men more to pay for the women; they charge the young more to pay for the elderly; and they charge the upper and middle classes more to pay for the lower class.  Mandating the behavior of the masses is necessary in order to make the plan work.  What any individual needs is less significant than the macroeconomic approach necessary to support the totality of the system.

 

The lingering question is whether or not such mandating is good.

 

P.S.  Merry Christmas.  Happy Festivus, too.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

“war” on Christmas?

Every year at this time, we seem to hear the recharged vernacular about the existence of a “war on Christmas.”  Funny.  I mean, as a nation, I don’t think we’re all that fond of war, but yet we seem to find the term rhetorically pleasing when it best suits our passion… a war on Christmas, war on teachers… war on drugs, poverty, marriage, you-name-it.  As a nation not so fond of war, we sure speak of it frequently.

 

The Intramuralist cannot say with certainty if any “war” exists — and as I learned well from my respected friends in the military — I’m not comfortable with such casual use of the word, “war.”  War is an armed conflict between different nations or groups.  Last I heard, we were still called a united state of America.

 

The controversy, no less, refers to the acknowledgement of Christmas in government, media, and advertising.  Christmas, as evidenced in its name, is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the long awaited day that the Messiah was embodied in human form.  That’s the meaning of Christmas.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who does not believe in him.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who — consistent with many religions, including Islam and Judaism — believes Jesus was a real person who walked this planet but was not the son of God.  I say that not with any disrespect.  I am simply identifying the basis for the holiday.

 

The controversy also is not as simple as some suggest, reducing it to the preference of articulating either “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” or something jolly old else.  A person could say “Season’s Greetings” and still acknowledge God.  Hence, the question is whether or not there is an intentional attempt to omit God during the season.

 

So… asking the better question… I won’t ask whether or not there is any existence of war; but is there an intent to omit any acknowledgement of Jesus in the holiday that originated because of him?  I ask because of what we have again recently witnessed…

 

  • Although changing their mind after a significant nationwide outrage, ESPN rejected a commercial set to run during a college basketball game from Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center.  The executive director of the foundation said the ad was rejected because ESPN found the words “Jesus” and “God” to be “problematic.”

 

  • A nativity scene was removed from Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina.  The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which works to eradicate any reference to religion and especially Christianity, pursued the removal, calling it illegal because it was not erected near a chapel.

 

  • Or in College Park, Georgia — similar to multiple places across the country — where elementary school children were to perform their annual Christmas musical program, prior to which the parents each received a letter saying, “Religious songs will not be included.”

 

Not be included.  Intentional omission.  No acknowledgement.

 

I understand that in order to be completely politically correct, we often have to “water things down.”  The inherent challenge, though, is when we water things down so much that we eventually remove the reason for the season.  Make no mistake about it; Christmas is about Christ.  Each of us can choose if and how to celebrate it.  What’s challenging is when we choose how someone else can or cannot celebrate.

 

Interestingly, there actually is a new holiday this time of year.  Perhaps you’ve heard of it:  “HumanLight.”  It was invented by secular humanists 12 years ago, celebrated annually on December 23rd.  It is not a direct attempt to secularize an existing holiday, but it is an intentional attempt to omit any acknowledgement of God.

 

I wonder if HumanLight has any songs… wonder, too, if they can actually be sung…

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

income inequality

While many may attempt to tell us they pay no attention to polls, I have one thing to say:  I don’t believe them.  They do pay attention.  The more pressing question is whether or not people act upon polls — and whether politicians actually govern by them.

 

From my limited vantage point, that’s been obvious the past month.  With ongoing, bipartisan criticism of Obamacare — and its flawed rollout, higher premiums, false promises, etc. — the President’s approval rating has fallen to the lowest point of his presidency.  The White House has thus attempted to change the subject; they have returned to the primary, passionate subjects that initially propelled Obama to office.  There seems intent to rally the base, his most passionate partisan supporters, since his approval numbers have dropped significantly even among them.

 

Note that this poll-driven tactic of rallying one’s base is by no means indigenous to Obama.  I have little doubt that if it was a Republican president whose support was eroding, we would be hearing him on FOX News talking about cutting taxes.  Instead, we’re hearing Obama on MSNBC talking about income inequality.  My question isn’t in regard to drumming up support for a passionate, partisan cause; my question is in regard to the logic behind such cause…

 

Isn’t it interesting that when we want to sway people to our side, we package perspective in a way it sounds best?  From fantastic food to super savings to magnanimous, wonderful, wise whatever, products and policies are always promoted in a way that makes them sound most pleasing and persuasive.  Hence, in the past decade, we have been lured by a newfound focus on fairness and equality…  foreclosure fairness, the Marketplace Fairness Act, Paycheck Fairness Act, the Fairness Doctrine… ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, Employment Equality, Marriage Equality, and the Equality Act.  I am not proposing that any of the above is or is not a wise pursuit; I am simply suggesting that utilizing the words “fairness” and “equality” is an intentional tactic designed to persuade.  Who among us would not desire to be equal or fair?

 

So in order to comprehend the challenge inherent within income inequality — as currently promoted — we must first move past the rhetoric.  The reality is that poverty is significant on this planet, and the compassionate, wise person has what I believe to be a calling to care for them.  The challenge, however, is when government mandates the means of that calling for the masses.

 

To support the current income inequality cause, people are pitted against one another:  the rich vs. the poor.  There is a strong suggestion and belief that if the rich weren’t as rich, then the poor wouldn’t be as poor — that success only stems from the expense of another.  There is a belief that wealth is limited, and thus, if it could simply be a little more redistributed, then life would finally be fair.

 

What I’m not always certain of is whether the intentional “pitting” is based on persuasion ploys or true belief.  Undoubtedly, when 2 groups are pitted against each other (i.e. Yankees vs. Red Sox, Duke vs. North Carolina, or Arabs vs. Israelis), we tend to more passionately favor one and denigrate the other.

 

The challenge within this argument then is that such assumes that wealth and money are equated.  Friends, wealth and money are not the same; money is a form of wealth.  Wealth can be manifested in a product or service or effort that adds value to someone else.  Wealth can then be traded for what the wealth creator needs or desires.  Hence, to assume that the “gain” of one is reflected in an identical “loss” of another — that his success only stems from that expense of the other — is a false concept of an economic transaction.  Furthermore, in my opinion, it is an illogical basis for the argument currently utilized to fight income inequality.

 

I do realize that the above discussion is undoubtedly incomplete.  It is also not offered without a genuine, gut-wrenching awareness of our ongoing need to care for the “least of these.”  But my point today is that the current call to combat income inequality — potentially driven by a drop in the polls — is based on incomplete logic… and possibly upon increased rhetoric and persuasion.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR