intramuralist ™ – Page 149 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

02/06/2014

blame it on the boogie

Perhaps you noticed. Last week, in the lead up to the Super Bowl shuffle and Seattle and television’s biggest stage, an unusual event occurred; it snowed in the South. From New Orleans to Texas to the top tips of Florida, the flaky white stuff fell from the sky.

And then there was Atlanta.

As editorialized by PoliticoMagazine:

“On Tuesday, snowfall of just over 2 inches shut down metropolitan Atlanta’s roads, schools, churches, government offices and businesses. Thousands of flights were cancelled at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. More than 2,000 school children were separated from their parents, and spent the night in buses, police stations, or classrooms. It seemed that the only places open were Waffle House and Home Depot, the former serving hash browns and coffee and the latter opening up its stores as makeshift shelters. People who didn’t camp out in supermarket aisles and hotel lobbies were trapped in cars for 10, 16, 20 hours as they tried to make commutes that normally take just 30 minutes.”

Now let me begin by acknowledging how frustrated, annoyed, and even infuriated many could legitimately be if they couldn’t get to their kids. Let me also add that the situation worsened: a baby was delivered by her father in a car on the interstate; many elderly were without medication; and 13 deaths were considered a result of the storm. All this from 2.6” of the flaky white stuff.

Let me add, too, that not everyone did everything well. In an area where snow rarely falls, unusual, subjective decisions had to be made in what to open, what to close, when to send home, and how to tackle the slippery streets. Any time subjective decisions are made — precisely because the decisions are subjective — there will be error.

What happened next, however, struck me as somewhat profound. Parents and pundits rushed to their publicized platforms and pens to share their frustration, annoyance, and infuriation. Friends, I have no problem with the expression of passionate emotion as long as it’s respectful to others. I also have no problem with the expression of passionate emotion that questions whether everyone did everything well — again, as long as it’s respectful. But what happened in those publicized platforms seemed an evolution of emotion that was striking. Because people were passionate, they were seduced into doing what passionate, emotional people often do; they began to blame.

Who did they blame? Logically, they would find fault in the subjective decision-making of municipal authorities. Remember: any time subjective decisions are made, there will be error. But the blame continued. The emotion continued. I then heard blame boldly cast on suburban sprawl, racism, the Governor, and an actual government conspiracy. Really.

Years ago Harold Kushner wrote a book entitled, When Bad Things Happen to Good People. The thought-provoking, contemplative work wrestles with how to respond to the “why them’s” and “why me’s” in life. How do we deal with difficult circumstances? After all, bad stuff happens. Frustrating, annoying, infuriating stuff happens. How we deal with it matters.

It would seem to me a wiser response to acknowledge the circumstances, changing what can, accepting what we can’t, and having the wisdom to know the difference. Casting blame wherever possible is not healthy nor wise.

The Intramuralist so desires us to be a less finger-pointing, blame-oriented society. I wish we could accept both the good and the bad instead of using our legitimate emotion to cast blame on other people. I desire us to be wise. P.S. It’s snowing outside my house today. I think I’ll enjoy it.

Respectfully,

02/04/2014

amazing grace

Amazing. Simply amazing. Can we even wrap our brains around what “amazing grace” is? Or should we start simply with “grace”? After all, we use grace in so many ways… some “grace us” with their presence; others “say grace” before a meal; and next week’s female skaters in Sochi will undoubtedly be judged on their “gracefulness.”

Grace has everything to do with unmerited favor, courteous goodwill, a simple elegance, and an attractive way of behaving. Grace has zero to do with arrogance, ego, boasting, or brashness.

What amazes me is when persons in their brightest, most publicized moments — with the microphones and cameras both rolling — embrace grace… such as in the following comments, after Super Bowl XLVIII…

When Broncos’ QB Peyton Manning was asked about the lopsided loss: “We played a great team. We needed to play really well in order to win, and we didn’t come anywhere close to that.”

Or when recent ranter, Richard Sherman, the Seahawks cornerback responded on Twitter: “Peyton is the Classiest person/player I have ever met! I could learn so much from him! Thank you for being a great Competitor and person.”

And more from Sherman on Manning on Monday: “When I was limping up to my press conference and trying to make it up the stairs, somebody taps me on the shoulder and extends their hand and asks if I’m all right. My eyes try to make it up to see who it is, and it’s Peyton … fully dressed in a suit and obviously very concerned about my well-being. You know, after a game like that, biggest stage ever — to ask how you’re doing and really be generally concerned about an opponent, that shows an incredibly different amount of humility and class.”

And from Russell Wilson the morning after: “God’s given me so much talent and my height doesn’t define my skill set. I believe that God has given me a right arm and for some reason even though I’m 5’11” to be able to make the throws and make great decisions on the field and all that. I think to be a great quarterback, you have to have a great leadership, great attention to detail, and a relentless competitive nature. And that’s what I try to bring to the table and I have a long way to go. I’m still learning and I’m still on a constant quest for knowledge.”

Then regarding the Broncos’ quarterback Manning, Wilson said he spoke to him after the game, telling him it was an honor to face-off in the game. Wilson said, “He’s one of the best quarterbacks — if not the best quarterback — to play the game. You know, it’s just truly an honor.”

Years ago I read a fantastic book entitled: What’s So Amazing About Grace? One of my conclusions was that grace is amazing because it’s unique; it’s rare; it’s not the path most travelled. Most people, most often — from the athlete to the president to the interviewer of the president — choose a lesser path. We often choose arrogance, ego, boasting, or brashness.

While each of us is capable of boastful moments, what attracts me in the above responses is the obvious grace. It’s attractive because it’s the less frequent choice. Boasting would be easier. And so the grace must stem from something deeper, something internal, from within someone who has a healthy opinion of self but yet not one who thinks too highly of self. The expression of grace is simply amazing.

Respectfully,

02/02/2014

super sunday

So we again come to this supposedly “super” day, where there exist a few facts that make me pause a little less than admiring Peyton process plays so quickly — and Richard Sherman rant at game’s end…

If we compare to last year, 108.4 million of us will sit down in front of the television at some point this evening and turn on Super Bowl XLVIII. The Seattle Seahawks will face the Denver Broncos. We will watch. We will enjoy. And we will eat. In fact, we will eat a lot…

Some of us will grill. Regardless of snow covering half the country (and the 2” – geepers – in Atlanta) Super Bowl Sunday is the second biggest grilling day of the year — the first being the 4th of July.

Dips and spreads are the top choice to eat today, followed by chicken wings and pizza. It’s the busiest day of the year for pizza restaurants, with major chains selling double what they do on a regular day. Americans will also consume an estimated 50 million cases of beer; and we’ll eat chips — an estimated 11 million pounds of them (… uh, not a ton of health food… but wait… obesity is now a “disease”).

Second only to Thanksgiving, Americans are expected to double their food consumption to 33 million pounds of snacks (… did I mention that since last year’s Harbaugh Bros. Bowl, the American Medical Association voted to recognize obesity as a “disease”?).

Beyond the indulgence of food, how about massive amounts of money? … for a “game,” I might add?

CBS is charging advertisers an estimated $4 million dollars per 30-second spot. 30 seconds. 4 million. That equates to approximately $133,333 per second (… trying not to think about all the hungry people in the world… nor that the US national debt is increasing at a rate more than $60,000 a second — and it’s unfortunately not limited to a 30-second spot!)

How about betting? Is the Super Bowl the number one gambling day of the year? Probably. According to “Business Week” magazine, “No one knows for sure since the huge majority of the money changes hands under the table.” But last year, sports fans bet a record $98.9 million at Nevada casinos on the Super Bowl. The NCAA men’s basketball tournament, aka “March Madness,” recently surpassed the Super Bowl’s total amount wagered, but that includes 67 games. So while no one truly knows, the actual figure wagered worldwide is estimated in the low billions. Gamblers place bets on everything from the length of the national anthem to who wins the coin toss.

Acknowledging the worldwide appeal, the game will be broadcast live in over 180 countries and territories and in more than 25 different languages. Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Russia and the United Kingdom each will have crews on-site for the game.

Note that some of the world’s best-known entertainers have performed at the Super Bowl. This year’s national anthem will be performed by American soprano Renee Fleming with Grammy Award-winning singer Bruno Mars leading the halftime show. Both, no less, are hoping for no “wardrobe malfunction.”

I’m amazed at what we eat… what we spend… and how uniquely united we are…

… for a game.

Respectfully,

01/30/201401/30/2014

funny, God

What if God has a sense of humor?

Well, I can’t say anything for certain, and yes, I realize it’s not very scriptural or academic — maybe not even all that mature — but what if God has a sense of humor? I kind of like thinking of the whole big God of the universe like that…

What if somewhere — wherever somewhere is — he’s watching us, witnessing our successes and failures, subtly and sometimes not so subtly cheering us on… always rooting for us? … always in our corner? He’d be in everybody’s corner!

What if, too, as he observes — desiring for us to fully learn and grow and actually become mature — what if he also takes note of those areas in each of our lives where we don’t rely on him, acknowledge him, or give him any credit? … and so he masterfully and creatively allows for circumstances to exist, giving us added opportunity to rely, acknowledge, and give credit? … giving credit to where it is due, dare I suggest?

Friends, I must first admit that there are many areas that I don’t fully rely, acknowledge, nor credit the God of the universe. Too often I take too much credit. If I were to go back in time, for instance, remembering one of my all-time favorite moments, I would share that when I won the Purdue University intramural racquetball championship, my first thought had far more to do with how good and talented I was — than acknowledging the One who made me good and talented. We like to think we’re so good, smart, and talented, and that thinking often obstructs the opportunity to know and rely on God.

So what if he has a sense of humor? And what if he uses that to teach us?

What if?

Again Tuesday night, the climate change debate arose. Actually, let me change that. There was no debate. In fact, the President’s exact words were: “The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”

I get that lots of scientists believe man is responsible for a perceived trend that the Earth is warming. I get that many members of the Democrat Party wholeheartedly also believe the trend (note: not all; Sen. Joe Manchin [D-WVa] did not join in with his likeminded peers’ prompted applause). I also get that a lot of people believe the trend solely because the Democrats sans Manchin & co. declare it as truth. I get, too, that still more refuse to believe it solely because of those who declare it as truth.

Let me again share: I don’t know if global warming/climate change/next-most-convenient term is true or not. I don’t know. I’m not a rocket scientist. And last I heard, Pres. Obama was not one either. My point, though, today speaks not to the arguable hubris of declaring the debate over, but rather: where is God in the discussion? Where is the reliance, acknowledgement, and credit to the God of the universe? If we are having a conversation about the planet’s possible warming, shouldn’t we submit ourselves to the One who actually created the planet? … the One who obviously would know far more than the rest of us? Friends, I have said this repeatedly. No conversation about whether the world is warming or not can be had without God as part of the discussion. What do the ancient scriptures say? … about the Earth? … about our need to care for the Earth? … and about any future end?

For those who believe solidly in climate change (and may actually be rocket scientists), they contend the Earth has warmed approximately 1.53°F in the last 130 years; they don’t have tons of data prior to 1880. Yet here with the Earth warming, the United States has experienced an unprecedented, freezing cold winter; it’s snowing in New Orleans!

Doesn’t God have a sense of humor?!

I mean no disrespect. I don’t know if climate change is real. What I do believe is that God masterfully and creatively allows for circumstances to exist, giving us added opportunity to rely, acknowledge, and give credit to him. When we omit him from the debate, maybe he gets our attention by allowing snow in New Orleans.

Just maybe.

Respectfully,

01/28/2014

state of the government

Today marks our 5th 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.

Allow me first a few brief notes on each state…

Government is too partisan. So first just the facts… House Republicans stymie the President’s major policy initiatives; Senate Democrats stymie the Republicans; the President utilizes Executive Orders to bypass Congress; and each of them complain about the other. So which came first: the House Republicans, Senate Democrats, the President, the chicken, or the egg? The point is that each always blames their partisan behavior on someone else.

Government is too influenced by money. Again, people blame someone else or a single judicial decision for this issue, focusing on the speck in another while ignoring the log in their own eye. 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.

Government is too big. Let’s make this metaphorically simple. Who watches their pennies more: a small business on a tight budget or a massive business with no budget? In 2014 the federal government is expected to spend near $4 trillion — and they have no budget holding them accountable. There is no way all those pennies are being spent efficiently… or probably, even counted.

Government is financially imbalanced. Whether monies are spent on war, Obamacare, or wars on Obamacare, the government continues to make no attempt to balance their budget. Any entity with this much deficit spending this long with no repayment plan would cease to exist. However, the elect keep kicking the financial can down the road paved by future generations.

Government is too far removed from the Constitution. “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.” Our founders desired a country that would be just, internally peaceful, and externally protected. Too many today, though, feel omnisciently justified dictating exactly how all should prosper, how our tranquility is insured, and what a union that’s perfect should be.

So where do we start? Where do we go in order to truly, respectfully find solution for a government that’s broken? Is it by the President enacting more Executive Orders, as some say he will pledge tonight? Or does that only make government more partisan, “more big,” and “more-you-get-my-point”? In an interactive November series, Intramuralist readers affirmed that solution begins with the following: term limits and money limits… limits! And next — and always — our leaders must embrace respect… for us… for one another… for varied opinion… in public and private… in all interactions… cameras on or off.

These past 5 years, the Intramuralist has concluded that while the State of the Government has digressed over several decades, until we responsibly address partisanship, special interests, size, spending, and straying from the Constitution, we will be challenged to admit the Union is strong. I don’t believe our Union is permanently broken. I do believe, though, that ordinary people need to be more involved.

Respectfully,

01/26/2014

Obama’s equality

Let’s be frank. As I’ve said from the onset of the Intramuralist, no one need to agree with me. Really. I’m comfortable enough in my own skin to omit my opinions… and to admit that some of them may be wrong. I also may not know which ones are wrong. Guess what? Some of yours are wrong, too…. and you may or may not know it. That said, we must still trod through all discussion and debate respectfully; such is key to solution.

My right-or-wrong opinion shared this day concerns the upcoming policy push by Pres. Obama. You can expect it to be hammered home in this week’s State of the Union address. Friends, allow me to play most all my cards on the table… when Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ran for president in 2008, there was much about him and his charisma that excited me. He was/is no doubt brilliant and incredibly gifted. Privately, I admiringly called him “Barackstar.” But the chief concern I expressed when he initially ran for office was his lack of economic experience.

In all honesty, I care less about the party a person hails from than their background and experience. The fact that then Sen. Obama had little economic experience concerned me greatly. I desire a president who is first and foremost ethically above question — and then has proven experience working with diverse people groups and running a multi-million/billion dollar state/operation. The U.S. economy is a 16 plus trillion dollar operation; it’s important to me that our leader has some experience with such. Pres. Obama, oratorically attractive as he was, did not have such experience.

Economists can gather and respectfully debate how such has affected his policy advocacy thus far. That is not the point of today’s blog. The point is that in 2 days, on Tuesday, Pres. Obama is going to stress “income equality.” In his annual State of the Union address, he is going to make the point for all the world to see (or at least for the United States) that wealth among American households is unequally distributed — and that the federal government has the responsibility to redistribute that wealth, in a way for all intents and purposes, that’s arguably fairer to all.

Great. That makes many of us feel good. Here’s my question: feel good or not, does it make economic sense?

Please hear me on this. Feeling good about a specific policy means less than whether or not the policy makes sense. Say what you want. Say what you want to energize the people. But if the policy does not make sense, it matters not how we feel. If the policy is not economically logical, then the policy should not be advocated for — and cannot be economically sustained.

This is not a criticism of Pres. Obama. He is a fantastic politician who is oratorically gifted, but again, he has little economic experience. Liking the President, wanting to support him and his policy initiatives, speaks nothing to the credence of whether or not his initiatives are economically sustainable, good, and true.

Hence, it doesn’t matter how we feel. Economically, we cannot extract wealth from the wealthy, redistribute to the un-wealthy, and then make the un-wealthy somehow prosperous. It does not make economic sense.

Such then prompts me to investigate the President’s motives. I do not know what his motives are. I will say that again: I don’t know — we don’t know — none of us truly know — what the President’s motives are. But I do know that with Obamacare escalating in unpopularity, there is motive to remove the national focus off of that subject. Let’s get the focus onto something more popular… something the people can support… income equality… yes… it’s unfair! Let’s distribute wealth more fairly!

Great emotional argument, my friends. The wiser challenge is whether it makes sense.

Respectfully,

01/23/2014

do you care?

My current sense is this will not be a very popular post. Sorry. It’s never my intent to alarm or offend; it is, however, my desire to handle all topics honestly — regardless of controversy — and to handle them well.

I’ve been watching. (Surprise, surprise.) We learn much from watching; we learn more from listening and observing than from hearing our own selves speak. But I’ve recently been watching and have thus concluded that we are a society of “selective carers.” Many will push back on that — perhaps the most compassionate among us — but even the most compassionate have that place in their rear view mirror that serves as a significant blind spot. Each of us is a “selective carer.”

We don’t truly care about all things… we don’t truly care about all people.

Yes, I hear the rants and raves. I hear the noble, contradictory proclamations. And truthfully, it’s probably more an issue of empathy than of caring. We don’t empathize truly well until the experience directly affects us…

We don’t care about the sick… until someone we know is sick.

We don’t care about the poor… unless someone we know is poor.

We don’t care about HIV/AIDS research… until someone we know tests positive for HIV.

We don’t care about gun control… until someone we know is shot and killed.

We don’t care about unemployment… until someone we know loses their job.

After the rousing “right on’s” from those of us immediate to empathize, let’s continue…

We don’t care about extracting money from the wealthy… unless someone we know is wealthy.

We don’t care about Obamacare causing many to lose their insurance… until someone we know has lost theirs and must now pay more.

We don’t care about entitlement abuse… unless we know someone who is receiving unemployment benefits but making no effort to look for a job.

In other words, we selectively care. We typically only best care for “one side of an equation.” Pick your issue. Pick your person. Even to the most compassionate among us: do we only care about who or what we’ve determined to be the biggest victim or injustice?

Let’s try further examples… do we care so much about pro-life, that we forget about the young woman actually wrestling with the decision? … do we care so much about the woman, that we forget about the babe inside of her? Do we care so much about LGBT activism, that we forget about the good people who sincerely believe it’s immoral? … do we care so much about the lifestyle being immoral, that we forget about the good people in that community? What about race? … do we care so much about one race, we forget about another?

Do we remember only the poor but not the wealthy? … only the sick and not the healthy? Do we… selectively care?

Friends, I am not saying that we cannot be passionate about one issue or side. I am simply stating that sometimes in our passion we glaringly omit empathy for another. We quit caring about other sides and situations that affect us less. We are more numb to the news.

On Tuesday of this past week, a 23 year old gunman shot and killed his fellow teaching assistant on the campus of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. Purdue is my respected and beloved alma mater… a place with people I know. While I have always been sobered by the acts of violence at every institution, this one hurt a little more. I pray for all those affected… for the students, for the family of the 21 year old who died… and for the man who pulled the trigger and for his family. I pray for wisdom for each of them… for peace to those whose lives were seemingly shattered… for repentance for the gunman… for justice and mercy… and for wisdom for all to know what is good and right and true.

I care.

Respectfully,

01/21/2014

humility

“People with humility don’t think less of themselves; they just think about themselves less.” — Ken Blanchard

It may be a minority opinion, but to this current events observer, thinking about oneself less is always more attractive — humility is more attractive… more attractive than boasting, more attractive than ego, more attractive than any criticism or lessening of others. Any among us can swagger and swoon, directing all eyes to “look at me… look at who I am… look at what I’ve done.” It seems the rarer, wiser man, however, who knows that the more attractive, influential approach is to be humble, especially when chosen amid the display of distinct ability, accomplishment, influence, or intellect… especially when the cameras are on…

It was hard not to notice Richard Sherman’s rant Sunday night after his Seattle Seahawks earned their position in Super Bowl XLVIII. After sealing a Seahawk victory by making a fantastic, late-in-the-game play that denied what could have been the winning touchdown for the opposition, cornerback Sherman was interviewed on the sidelines by FOX reporter, Erin Andrews.

ANDREWS: “Richard, let me ask you. The final play — take me through it.”

SHERMAN: (loudly) “Well, I’m the best corner in the game! When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that’s the result you gonna get! Don’t you ever talk about me!”

ANDREWS: (gently — geepers — seemingly working extra hard to maintain her composure on national television) “Who was talking about you?”

SHERMAN: “Crabtree! Don’t you open your mouth about the best, or I’m gonna settle it for you real quick! L.O.B.!”

(Note: “L.O.B.” refers to “Legion of Boom,” Seattle’s nickname for its defense.)

For the record, Sherman is inarguably considered one of the best cornerbacks in the NFL today. But the message the Intramuralist has for Sherman — and it’s the same message I attempt to remember myself, teaching my kids as well — is to act like you’ve been there before. When you accomplish something great — when you win a competition, an election or award, even a spot in the Super Bowl — no matter the magnitude of the accomplishment, act like you’ve been there before. Act like you know how to win with grace and humility. Don’t use the moment to say “look at me… look at who I am… look at what I’ve done.” Use the moment wisely; use it humbly. Remember that humility is the more attractive, influential approach.

It’s the same message I would suggest each time a politician feels need to tell us that “I won” the election. There’s no need to announce one’s status. There’s no need to ostentatiously vocalize victory nor boast about being the best; that approach typically solely serves to lesson someone else. Using one’s own ability or accomplishment to lessen someone else only lessens the accomplishment.

Perhaps then the primary point is found in author Blanchard’s quote, that humble people actually “think about themselves less.” They don’t have to boast or brag or announce victory because it’s simply not the way they think; those words aren’t routinely uttered because they aren’t on the tip of their tongue; they aren’t actually thinking about how wonderful or powerful they are. They aren’t focused on self.

Not focused on self. Perhaps a minority opinion. Still wise.

Respectfully,

01/19/201401/19/2014

meat sticks

When I was a child, my mother had this ingenious idea. Knowing none of her children were too fond of liver and onions, she would quietly take the vitamin-rich meat, slice it into very thin strips, crisp it up in the frying pan, and then enthusiastically present it as — ta-da! — “meat strips.” Note: we loved meat strips. Couldn’t stand liver… but my brothers and I loved “meat strips.”

Now with all due respect to each of my parents, my mother’s desire was simple. Here were 3 young children who didn’t know any better, where she had decided what was best for us. Granted, she knew best; we were children. We needed someone to teach and train us in the way we should go.

As the Intramuralist sees it, one of our culture’s current challenges is that we have men and women who believe they know best, and they have decided that they know what’s best for the rest of us — even though the rest of us aren’t children; we don’t need someone to teach and train us in the way we should go. That’s not someone else’s job. Government should never be confused as our parent.

I shuddered this week when listening to the United Nations Climate Chief. Yes, I know that climate change is a hot button issue… yes, I know it’s going to become a bigger issue (… especially, again, at least in part to take attention off of the negative ramifications of Obamacare)… and yes, I know that several among us passionately believe that man is responsible for changes to the Earth. The Intramuralist’s position on climate change remains steadfast: man’s role in any perceived earthly changes cannot be fully evaluated without an acknowledgement of and a submission to the one who actually created the Earth.

Lest I digress…

When UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres interviewed with Bloomberg News late last week, the perceived world spokesman on global warming/climate change said that China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing the issue. Figueres added that the American system of government is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming.

Friends, my concern today centers not on the validity of global warming. My concern is that a global spokesman publicly praised an oppressive means of decision-making. Not only did she praise the decision-making of a communist government, she criticized the decision-making of a democracy. She has decided what is best, and in order to achieve that, she believes an authoritarian dictatorship is more effective in accomplishing the end goal. She advocates for the removal of decision-making by the people; in my opinion, she thus advocates for treating adults like children.

I’m concerned that because many agree with her end goal, they, too, will embrace an oppressive means of decision-making. They will embrace not allowing diverse input when making decisions. They feel so passionately (and arguably arrogantly) justified about their position, they don’t believe a diverse democracy should enter into the equation. In other words — with all due respect to my mother — they’re ok with serving “meat sticks” to adults.

Just for the record, last week I baked sweet potatoes for my own kids. I cut them up into very thin strips, baked them to the point of ideal crispiness in the oven, and then enthusiastically presented them as — ta-da! — “sweet fries.” Note: my kids loved “sweet fries.” Can’t stand sweet potatoes… but loved the fries.

But then, my kids are kids —not adults from whom it’s necessary nor wise nor appropriate to remove the decision-making.

Respectfully,

01/16/201401/16/2014

equality

So perhaps my cranky self continues somewhat… I will attempt to reflect more — rant less. It’s just my opinion — semi-humble at that — but my sense is that while rants prompt more affirmation and amens, honest reflection spurs on dialogue and thus solution. I’m afraid such may be why our elect often choose the ranting, as they are not always interested in dialogue; they too frequently seem only desiring to drive home the opinion they have privately and partisanly determined to be true. The Intramuralist doesn’t have a lot of respect for that approach.

One area where this (yes, semi-humble) observer sees a ratcheting up in the rants is the issue of equality. Follow me here. We discussed this briefly in December, but with a need to divert the focus off of the current contempt for Obamacare, there is intent to find an issue that more soundly resonates with a plurality of voters. There is need for the affirmation and amens.

And so we come to the word “equality.” Great word! As shared here previously, in recent decades, we’ve been attracted to ERA, Employment Equality, Marriage Equality, and the Equality Act. The latest push (and the push which the Intramuralist believes to be ranted about even more in the months to come) is “income equality”… a fantastic idea! Income equality is the proposed more even distribution of wealth among households in our economy. Currently, the distribution is significantly uneven. Some people have far more or less than others. Isn’t it right for things to be equal? Isn’t it fair?

Or wait… it’s not that all things have to be exactly equal, but certainly it should be closer. Surely the gap between the rich and the poor is too much, and the rich among us could give away a little more. It’s an easy argument. Hence, it’s a fantastic idea. Really. But casting all emotion aside, we must recognize that it’s also a political ploy. Bear with me, friends, for it’s a rant.

All men/women were created equal. Truth. We were each divinely endowed with certain unalienable rights. Also true. But let’s additionally acknowledge what is not true. It’s not true that all men/women are as hard-working. It’s not true that all men/women are as ambitious or entrepreneurial or are blessed with the same talents and gifts. Don’t mistake me as being calloused. I am not. Without a doubt, many obtain their wealth via little effort of their own, as we are each born into certain circumstances. Different circumstances come with different challenges. And to those who have been given much, much is to be expected. So again, in my only semi-humble opinion, a generous, philanthropic heart is at the top of the list of expectations for the wealthy.

So this fantastic idea… is it income equality? Not from this perspective. The fairness phrasing does not consider the entirety of the truths. The fantastic idea here is to associate income with equality… to associate marriage with equality… to associate employment with equality. You see my point. Friends, I say such as one not suggesting that any of the above is unwise. My point is simply 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?

“Equality” is a rhetorical term utilized to generate the affirmation and amens — not a word that prompts dialogue nor solution. It’s actually a conversation killer, as there exists a strong inference within the word “equality” that those who do not support the issue do not believe all men/women were created equal… that our opponent somehow, actually, foolishly embraces discrimination. Thus, audiences are emotionally moved, feeling now justified to join in the rant… as opposed to recognizing the inference is categorically unfounded.

A person can oppose an equality issue without being prejudiced or discriminatory. On this supposed new push for “income equality,” for example, there are many economists who will openly opine that it’s impossible to “legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out.”

I’m done ranting, my friends. The logical reflection will continue, no less… hopefully for us all.

Respectfully,