intramuralist ™ – Page 146 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

04/16/201404/17/2014

live strong

The images were poignant. Somber and silent, the nation paused on Tuesday to honor the fallen and remember the day. No, April 15th was not cause for revering the IRS’s massive, annual tax collection. It marked the one year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing, a day in which tragedy heartbreakingly took over our TVs, as more than 270 were wounded and 3 persons died… Martin Richard, only 8… Krystle Campbell, 29… and Boston University student Lingzi Lu, age 23. MIT police officer Sean Collier died 3 days later, allegedly also at the hands of the bomber.

Former Boston Mayor Tom Menino, who is currently battling his own serious health issues, stood boldly before Tuesday’s reverent crowd, sharing the following: “Now, I know some of you can’t hear me very well, and it’s not just because of the fancy way I talk. It’s because you lost some of your hearing that day. I want you to hear this solemn promise: when lights dim and cameras go away, know that our support and love for you will never waiver… We will never forget what this day means to you… this place will always be strong…”

Strong. “Boston Strong.”

Then it donned on me… what makes us “strong”? People love that word. They love to speak it, say it, and use it to describe someone they admire. “You are so strong,” we enthusiastically affirm. But I’m struck by what actually makes us “strong.” Note that it typically isn’t an idea, issue, or some polarizing policy approach. No… I get the keen sense that anything that makes us “strong” is not accompanied by any division or derision. Such disharmony does not equate to a strength.

I think of NFL coach Chuck Pagano. Only 3 games into the 2012 season as his first year as head of the Indianapolis Colts, Pagano was forced to take a leave of absence after being diagnosed with a cancer of the blood and bone marrow cells. As the season without him began to evolve, so did the inspirational movement that carried the Colts into the playoffs. As both fans and momentum amassed, they cheered and chanted and repeatedly hash-tagged “CHUCK STRONG!” … “Chuck Strong…”

What made them strong? An idea, issue, or policy approach? No way. In the wake of tragedy, we are once again united — on an issue in which there is no so-called “other side.” Tragedy unites us, as it causes us to recognize and prioritize what is truly most important.

Years ago I read the perplexing but simultaneously peace-giving, divine promise that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him. Truthfully, that concept is sometimes a little hard for me. It’s challenging to see the good embedded within trials and tragedies that are so grievous and make seemingly so little sense. We would wish those heartaches on no one.

Yet when we witness such a resilient response such as in Boston and Indianapolis, we begin to grasp a glimmer of where some good may actually exist. Without a doubt in those two cities, there is a strength that otherwise the people would have never known.

Yesterday I quietly pulled out my favorite Starbucks Boston mug in which to drink my morning coffee. It tasted good. It felt good, too.

Respectfully…

04/15/2014

blurred lines

Here’s a cross selection of what we actually said on Facebook last week. Sometimes our conversation is fairly fascinating…

You don’t have to worry about tomorrow. God is already there.

Beans and rice week. Trying to make a difference.

Not sure a “swimming pool” in the back of the truck was the best idea today, but apparently it was a necessary addition to their driveway hotel.

Raisin cookies that look like chocolate chip cookies are the main reason I have trust issues.

Sometimes out of the blue I am overwhelmed by sadness missing my dad.

Is it still considered planning when you lay in the sun and think about all you plan on doing?

Never debate a sensitive matter rationally with one who’s capability to engage on the particular subject is clearly only emotional.

Imposing term limits will not solve all of our problems, but it is a HUGE step in the right direction.

BRUUUUUUCE Springsteen baby!!!!!

Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Less than 20 minutes into the Cubs game, and it’s over. See you in 2015.

All three spilled their entire lunch plates on the floor today. Statistically, how is this even possible?

Stupid stomach bug.

Stupid rain.

Stupid girl scout cookies!!

Dear Facebook, just because I might have a friend in common with someone does not mean I know them.

This is the third g string I’ve been through in a week, frustrating. (That’s a guitar string for any of you concerned spectators with your mind in the gutter.)

Usually I meet the neighbors because they have puppies….today I met a new neighbor because he ran over my mailbox while I was in my driveway.

No, baby, you may not keep the baby bunnies living in my lavender bushes…

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.

All I need right now is a hug… and five thousand dollars in cash.

If more sane people were armed, the crazy people would get off fewer shots.

If you run on a political platform that boast a moral high ground, yet your actions run contrary to your words and promises, it is time to quit and find yourself a job where hypocrisy is one of your main occupational requirements.

I just received the news that my son, a minor with a disability, will be paying 16% tax this year to the state and federal government on money held in a special needs trust.

Don’t miss all the beautiful colors of the rainbow looking for the pot of gold.

Prom 2014.

Both parties have a lot to squirm about and I am having a hard time enjoying it as much as I used to.

Sorry, but your password must contain an uppercase letter, a number, a haiku, a gang sign, a hieroglyph, and the blood of a virgin.

Phony scandal, right?

And…

Chocolate comes from cocoa which comes out of a tree. That makes it a plant. Therefore, chocolate counts as salad. The end.

Yes, the end.

Respectfully…

04/12/2014

ethnic objectivity

Kobe Bryant, perennial NBA all-star, made news for something far less athletic recently. When asked about fellow pro players’ Twitter activism after Trayvon Martin’s death, posing in hoodies as a protest against racial profiling, Bryant offered the following, even though significant time has passed since Martin’s death:

“I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American. That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and as a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American, we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, if we’ve progressed as a society, then you don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right? So I won’t assert myself.”

Unsurprisingly, many immediately lambasted Bryant, especially African-American commentators — proclaiming Bryant’s “disingenuous appeal for colorblindness” to suggesting the star was “promoting Rush Limbaugh’s opening monologue” to one former CNN contributor who questioned whether or not Kobe Bryant actually had “a brain.”

Let’s look at what Bryant actually said…

While acknowledging his own ethnicity, he said he cannot nor will not make a judgment solely based on ethnicity. My sense is that Bryant called for each of us to embrace objectivity. He called for us to be color blind. And he called for none of us — none of us — even if we share his ethnicity — to base our opposition or support based on the color of our skin.

Bryant’s critics continued. They called him a “cornball,” “clueless,” and a “jerk.”

His critics called his names because they disagreed with his opinion.

Thank God for Stephen A. Smith, the loquacious, outspoken ESPN host, who while he, too, shares Kobe’s ethnicity, sees the bigger picture…

“Kobe Bryant basically has the attitude that justice should be equal, no matter what, in regards to race or gender. And that was his position. All he was trying to say was that, ‘Excuse me. Let’s listen to the facts first. Let’s make sure we know everything before we jump out and judge accordingly. You can’t sit there and take somebody’s side just because they’re an African American. You can’t turn around and assume that people from other races are ever going to be fair to you if you’re not willing to exercise fairness yourself. Lay back listen to the facts and then accord justice where it should be served.’ I don’t have a problem with that. Me personally, I definitely think he was right on point with that.

… Even though the system sometimes is unjust — it sometimes is unfair — it doesn’t accord us the license to be unfair as well. We have to make sure that if we’re shining a light on issues we’re just as fair-minded as we’re asking other people to be toward us. If we’re not willing to do that, then we don’t have a strong argument.”

No argument, friends, from any of us, is strong or wise if absent of objectivity. We need to learn to discuss and disagree with respect, fair-mindedness, and without instant criticism and judgment.

Respectfully,

04/10/201404/10/2014

another’s words

I was in a meeting when the call came. I recognized the number immediately. I excused myself, found a quiet room, and then answered the principal’s call. One of my sons had behaved inappropriately at school; a brief suspension would be his consequence.

Now prior to arriving at the main point of today’s post — which has little to do with adolescents acting out — let me add a few relevant caveats. One, the improper behavior is atypical of my son. And two, the behavior would be improper by any who engaged in it.

When the call critical of my child came, I had to choose how to respond. Do I ignore? … deny? … attack back?

Let’s face it; the news was negative. My son needed to be disciplined. No one enjoys hearing unfavorable words about their own flesh and blood — about someone or something so near and dear to their heart — about something of which we are deeply passionate. It’s possible that I could have disagreed with either the assessment of behavior or the apt consequences. It’s then equally possible that I would have allowed myself to entertain the idea that perhaps someone else motivated my son’s poor choice — that someone else may thus bear the blame.

Such has caused me to wonder how as adults we handle similar situations…

Someone shares negative news or opinion about something near and dear to our adult hearts… about a person, policy, or passion. And instead of prudently weighing the wisdom within the words and considering the opinion — wisely discerning any truth within the perspective shared — we often ignore, deny, or (seemingly typically) attack back.

Someone calls us a name, so we call them something else. Someone hurts us, so we justify hurting them back. Someone disagrees with us, so we pressure them into silence. Someone wrongs us, so we work for their firing. Someone shares a perspective critical of what we believe in, and so instead of weighing the wisdom within the words, we only hear criticism. We thus justify attacking back. Granted, we use bigger words than on the middle school playground. I am, however, again reminded that intelligence and wisdom are not synonymous. The adult who fights back first is no wiser no matter his or her utilized syllable count.

When I responded to the school administration, my first response was to thank them for calling. As much as I may not like what they had to say, I want to know what they believe and why. I want them to transparently share their perspective. I then affirmed their perspective. They were there; I was not. Their perspective is valid. And third, I acknowledged that we’re on the same team — we all want the same thing — which is for my son to mature wisely and thus curb any negative behavior. I shared that I would reinforce the consequences at home.

Friends, my sense is that sometimes we become more focused on the consequences than on curbing the behavior. We spend so much time and energy fighting for our passions, that we rarely weigh the validity within a perspective that seems critical of our passions.

Thank God for those who care enough about our children to invest in them — investing in them via education, encouragement, challenge, and discipline. Yes, it is only a loving adult who disciplines the child, even though no discipline seems pleasant at the time. We thus should always weigh the wisdom in another’s words.

Respectfully…

04/08/201404/08/2014

debate over?

On Sunday we penned a poignant post about the self-proclaimed tolerant being intolerant. While it is rare I wish to primarily borrow from another source, the following weekend editorial in the Orange County Register insightfully expanded upon that thought, calling it “the debate is over syndrome.” Written by Joel Kotkin, I thought his analysis was excellent. It has been edited slightly for space purposes — and of course, so I can add my own emphasis and editorial comments…

The ongoing trial involving journalist Mark Steyn – accused of defaming climate change theorist Michael Mann – reflects an increasingly dangerous tendency among our intellectual classes to embrace homogeneity of viewpoint. Steyn, whose column has appeared for years on these pages, may be alternatingly entertaining or over-the-top obnoxious, but the slander lawsuit against him marks a milestone in what has become a dangerously authoritarian worldview being adopted in academia, the media and large sections of the government bureaucracy.

Let’s call it “the debate is over” syndrome, referring to a term used most often in relationship with climate change but also by President Barack Obama last week in reference to what remains his contentious, and theoretically reformable, health care plan. Ironically, this shift to certainty now comes increasingly from what passes for the Left in America.

These are the same people who historically have identified themselves with open-mindedness and the defense of free speech, while conservatives, with some justification, were associated more often with such traits as criminalizing unpopular views – as seen in the 1950s McCarthy era – and embracing canonical bans on all sorts of personal behavior, a tendency still more evident than necessary among some socially minded conservatives.

But when it comes to authoritarian expression of “true” beliefs, it’s the progressive Left that increasingly seeks to impose orthodoxy. In this rising intellectual order, those who dissent on everything from climate change, the causes of poverty and the definition of marriage, to opposition to abortion are increasingly marginalized and, in some cases, as in the Steyn trial, legally attacked.

Kotkin then references the case of Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla Firefox [see post entitled “Tolerance,” 4.6.14], who was pressured out of his position for a 6 year old donation in support of traditional marriage. Some gay activist groups decided “the debate is over.”

…Liberals should find these intolerant tendencies terrifying and dangerous in a democracy dependent on the free interchange of ideas…

But what started as liberation and openness has now engendered an ever-more powerful clerisy – an educated class – that seeks to impose particular viewpoints while marginalizing and, in the most-extreme cases, criminalizing, divergent views…

Those who dissent from the “accepted” point of view may not suffer excommunication, burning at the stake or other public rituals of penance, but can expect their work to be vilified or simply ignored…

Climate change is just one manifestation of the new authoritarian view in academia. On many college campuses, “speech codes” have become an increasingly popular way to control thought at many campuses. Like medieval dons, our academic worthies concentrate their fire on those whose views – say on social issues – offend the new canon. No surprise, then, as civil libertarian Nat Hentoff notes, that a 2010 survey of 24,000 college students found that barely a third of them thought it “safe to hold unpopular views on campus.”

This is not terribly surprising, given the lack of intellectual diversity on many campuses. Various studies of political orientation of academics have found liberals outnumber conservatives, from 8-to-1 to 14-to-1. Whether this is a reflection of simply natural preferences of the well-educated or partially blatant discrimination remains arguable, but some research suggests that roughly two of five professors would be less inclined to hire an evangelical or conservative colleague than one more conventionally liberal…

The lack of intellectual diversity is hurting our country. Hopefully, that debate is not over, too.

Respectfully,

04/06/201404/06/2014

tolerance

Are all men and women entitled to their own opinion? Rightly or wrongly? Wise or not? Can we allow dissenting opinion? … even if it’s perceived foolish?

In 2008, Brendan Eich gave $1000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, an amendment that defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman, which was later judicially struck down. Last month, Eich was appointed as CEO of Mozilla Firefox, the world’s second largest Web browser.

Upon Eich’s appointment, the popular dating site, OkCupid, called for their visitors to boycott the browser. Their boycott had nothing to do with Eich’s resume nor professional qualifications; in fact, Eich actually invented the programming language Javascript and co-founded Mozilla. OkCupid’s boycott was based solely on that $1000 donation.

As written by OkCupid: “Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people-all people-together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.”

On Thursday, Brendan Eich resigned as CEO.

Mozilla released the following statement: “Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all. We have employees with a wide diversity of views.”

The White House was asked about Eich’s resignation in Friday’s daily press briefing: “Does the White House think that there should at least be tolerance… and that there should be other views heard?” The White House said they’re not “in a position to weigh in on decisions made by a private company.”

Never mind that the White House regularly weighs in on decisions by private companies. Never mind that the White House has consistently called out both companies and citizens to point out agreement and/or disagreement. And never mind that in 2008, the year of Eich’s donation, Pres. Barack Obama was also against gay marriage.

Friends, there are good people on all sides of our nation’s most intense issues. There are also “bullies” on all sides of these issues. Bullies are not confined to middle school playgrounds; bullies are people — regardless of age — who by definition, use their influence or power to intimidate others, forcing them to do what they want. Bullies see holders of dissenting opinion as “enemies.”

If we are going to be a tolerant nation — if we are going to be a nation that “reflects diversity and inclusiveness” — then that means we also tolerate the person who thinks differently than we do.

Otherwise, we are not as diverse, inclusive, nor near as wise as we like to think.

Respectfully…

04/02/201404/03/2014

squelching opinion

Together we are a collective bunch of “pro’s” and “anti’s.” Some of us are pro-abortion; some of us are anti-abortion. Some of us are pro-gay marriage; some of us are anti-gay marriage. Some of us are pro-yada-yada-yada; still others are anti-yada-yada-yada. The bottom line is that there are good people who disagree on challenging issues.

The Intramuralist is comfortable with our differing. It’s not my job nor your job nor anyone’s job — nor even anyone’s capability — to be the convictor of truth. No one, my friends, is capable of usurping such a sacred role. What disturbs me, however, is when one works not to “win the argument,” so-to-speak, on the merits of the opinion itself, but instead works tirelessly to squelch opposing opinion. Allow me to borrow from Tuesday’s editorial in USA Today, written by Jonah Goldberg, member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Let’s discuss the yada yada yada… [Note that the emphasis will be mine.]

“… A writer for the website Gawker recently penned a self-described ‘rant’ on the pressing need to arrest, charge and imprison people who ‘deny’ global warming. In fairness, Adam Weinstein doesn’t want mass arrests (besides, in a country where only 44% of Americans say there is ‘solid evidence’ of global warming and it’s mostly due to human activity, you can’t round up every dissenter)… Weinstein suggests the government simply try the troublemakers and spokespeople… ‘Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.’

Weinstein says that this ‘is an argument that’s just being discussed seriously in some circles.’ He credits Rochester Institute of Technology philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello for getting the ball rolling. Last month, Torcello argued that America should follow Italy’s lead. In 2009, six seismologists were convicted of poorly communicating the risks of a major earthquake. When one struck, the scientists were sentenced to six years in jail for downplaying the risks. Torcello and Weinstein want a similar approach for climate change…

The truth is this isn’t as new an outlook as Weinstein suggests. For instance, in 2009, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insisted that ‘deniers’ in Congress who opposed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill were committing ‘treason’ while explaining their opposition on the House floor.

‘The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected,’ Krugman insisted. How fast the earth is changing is open to all kinds of debate, but short of an asteroid strike it won’t change as fast as the global warming pessimists have claimed. For example, in 2008, Al Gore predicted that the North Pole Ice Cap would be ice free by 2013. Arctic ice, which never came close to disappearing, has actually been making a bit of comeback lately.

Gore’s prediction — echoed by then Sen. John Kerry and countless others — was always ridiculous hyperbole. But even most serious, non-hyperbolic, computer-modeled predictions have overestimated the amount of warming we’ve experienced. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has had to retract several histrionic predictions, such as its erroneous prophecy that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Its new report, out on Monday, contains a new raft of dire prophecies requiring trillions in new spending. If I greet it with skepticism, shall I pack a tooth brush for my trip to jail?

Climate change activists insist that in science, revisions are routine, and that such corrections prove the good faith of scientists. Even if that’s true, one might still note that incentives are unhealthily arranged so that even well-intentioned researchers are encouraged to exaggerate the dangers of climate change and discouraged to criticize hyperbole. Moreover, were it not for the skeptics and deniers, many such corrections would never have been brought to light…

The real problem is that political activists and many leading institutions, particularly in the news media and academia, are determined to demonize any kind of skepticism — about the extent of the threat or the efficacy of proposed solutions — as illegitimate idiocy…”

The point is not the proposed validity of global warming. The point is that it’s foolish to squelch opinion — whatever the yada yada yada.

Respectfully,

04/01/201404/01/2014

important

So as I sat in silence, prepared to pen today’s post, I ran through my mental list of what’s most important and what I desire to discuss today.

I contemplated writing about health care…

Sorry. I know this is an issue to which the Intramuralist frequently refers; my sense is simply that it’s a glaring example of partisan politics, in which transparency is scarce, economics and ethics are compromised, and neither advocates nor opposition are respectful of contrary opinion. Today is supposed to be the first day in which annual enrollment is complete, and mandates and fines are imposed. Talking with several of you across the country, I also hear your irritation in regard to how this has been implemented and executed. We could discuss this today, but my perception is that it isn’t what’s most important.

We could speak of Russia’s armed aggression…

Two weeks ago, they voted to annex the Crimea region of Ukraine after the people in the area supported a public referendum. (I wonder… if Minnesotans voted to be part of Canada, would we so easily support letting them go? But lest I digress…) I cautiously watch Russian Pres. Putin as he strongly and swiftly alters the Ukrainian border. I watch, too, how his military amassing seems unthwarted and his ambition unmoved no matter the words of Western leaders. And then I see Pres. Obama on ESPN.

I contemplated writing about Obama on ESPN…

I have mixed emotions on this, friends. The Intramuralist is no fan of being a critic for critical sakes. I expect our nations’ leaders to have interests outside of foreign policy. But there’s something about Pres. Obama’s frequent flirtation with pop culture that makes me uncomfortable.

On ESPN, the President did his annual analysis of his NCAA college basketball picks. We all do that. (Ok, most… sorry, Mom…) But the point is that the kind of analysis the President presented takes significant time. It takes focus. It takes energy and concentration to know that the Spartans of Michigan State were in position to make a long run in the tourney, due to their preseason ranking, early season injuries, and late season prowess. That takes time — more than the 2 hours interviewed by the original Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I want the leaders of our country, regardless of party, to spend their time on what’s most important. Right now, our foreign policy and relations are vital. Pop culture is not. Is it right? Is it wrong? I can’t definitively answer those questions. I simply suggest it makes me uncomfortable.

And so as I was seeking to focus today’s blog on what is most important, I had to chuckle. Down at the bottom of my page, as I prepared to type, was the following:

“josh is a awsome son”

So my 12 year old, special, special needs son doesn’t consistently hit the “shift” key. His spelling isn’t always correct, and sometimes he talks differently that you and me. There are a lot of things he can’t do. But what am I focused on? On what he can’t do — or what he can? Only one of those responses prompts gratitude in me this day. So I stopped writing, went to his room, and teased Josh about his semi-humble, self-assessment. He immediately matched my chuckle with his own contagious glee, and then joyfully said, “Mom, I want you to write about me today.”

Once again, when I look at life through eyes other than my own, I see what’s most important.

Respectfully,

03/29/2014

SEBELIUS v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.

In the week that was, we witnessed an especially interesting set of juxtaposed events, as the proprietors of Hobby Lobby met with the Supreme Court and Pres. Obama met with Pope Francis. Religious liberty was at the forefront of both discussions.

As always, we must first sift through the plethora of stabs at rhetorical spin, knowing that political motivations unfortunately always pierce the transparency objective observers crave. In fact, I found the dueling press releases from the White House and Vatican somewhat ironic, as the administration emphasized the topic of “growing inequality,” a phrase absent from the Vatican’s public statement.

The White House press office stated that the Pope “did not touch in detail on the Affordable Care Act,” and that he and Obama “actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms.” Obama added that any social schism “really was not a topic of conversation.”

The Vatican’s far more brief description stated the following: “In the context of bilateral relations and cooperation between Church and State, there was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform.”

With the Vatican referring to the case before the high court, the question is: should a company whose owners morally object to an action be forced by government to act anyway?

The issue with Hobby Lobby has zero to do with any or our personal opinions on whether or not birth control and contraception products and services should be included within Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act/whatever-you’re-most-comfortable-calling-it-now. The question before the court is whether the government is violating one’s religious liberty. The family-owned company is a crafts retail chain that objects to being compelled to provide four specific preventive services believed to be abortion-inducing.

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” Is the government burdening the owners’ free exercise?

What if we removed the specific subject? What if we spoke of something other than birth control? What if we removed the subject that causes some of our emotions to swell? Simply stated, does the government have the right to trump our religious beliefs? Is some wiser, compelling governmental interest involved?

As I wrestle with this, two aspects cause me to pause. One, if the federal government is allowed to mandate behavior here, how far will they go? What limitations will exist on what government can require? And two, I’m uncomfortable with government feeling they are wiser than the church. Friends, the Intramuralist is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but my sense is that the Pope is attempting to receive his direction from an authority greater than most. Obama uttered a similar statement, saying after their meeting, “His job is a little more elevated. We’re down on the ground dealing with the often profane, and he’s dealing with higher powers.”

My sense is we should pay more respect to anyone dealing with the divine than pursuing our own political policy and opinion. My sense is also that when we begin to justify trumping an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs — whether or not we adhere to similar thinking — we are treading in dangerous territory, less mindful of any “higher power.”

Respectfully,

03/27/201403/27/2014

yes & no

For years I’ve wrestled with Obamacare. Call it Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, the “healthcare security act” — each of which I’ve heard a person utilize when it’s most politically expedient. When the bill was perceived popular, some made certain to name it after the President; others were resolute in avoiding any name recognition. Once the act became far less popular, the utilization of the term totally changed. Geepers. Talk about Washington hypocrisy. It’s rampant. For both parties. (Please allow me one more “geepers.”)

But after the new healthcare law officially passed its 4th anniversary (note that I didn’t say “celebrated,” as it’s not a term generally thought to be compatible with the law), I believe I’ve finally discerned the Intramuralist’s bottom line on why this bill bugs me so. It’s no secret, friends; after reading the proposal, the Intramuralist has long thought the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unwise policy. While it addresses some significant problems within the application of healthcare, it also creates a whole new host of serious snags.

The snags are significant…

Rising costs…

Cancelled policies…

Loss of doctors and hospitals…

Poor execution of enrollment…

Mandates, taxes, and fines…

More mandates, taxes, and fines…

Arbitrary and inconsistent implementation…

Making people pay for services they don’t need…

Etc., etc., etc…

These are just a few of the snags. Still, none of the above are my primary problem. None are why the bill bugs me so.

Economically, I don’t believe the bill is wise. You can’t expect to cover more people more effectively and efficiently, give them more stuff, and for the care to somehow cost less. That doesn’t make economic sense. Again, however, such is not my primary problem.

The bill is still not popular. Current polling data puts support of the bill at no more than 40-42%, while now 54-56% oppose the law. Granted, the Intramuralist has never been driven by popularity.

As stated here multiple times previously, the bill was passed via a strictly partisan vote. Only one party voted for this law. I don’t like any law crafted in such a way; however, still not my bottom line.

My bottom line problem with this law is actually rather simple. It has nothing to do with economic theory nor the nuances within healthcare. It’s basic. Perhaps its one of those “all I really need to know” things from kindergarden. It’s easy. But it’s true.

I was always taught to let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no. It’s not rocket science. In other words, we should mean what we say and say what we mean. So much rhetoric and salesmanship was used to make us want this bill. It was not honest, transparent conversation. From being able to “keep your doctors” to “liking the plan once we found out what’s in it,” all seems designed to sell us on something the majority of us don’t want. Even if the majority wanted it, the Intramuralist will never be attracted to the politician whose “yes” and “no” mean something other than “yes” and “no.” That bugs me. Still.

Respectfully,