Posts

Posted on

snarky & arrogant

From an interview last week with NBC congressional reporter Luke Russert — son of the widely respected Tim Russert — when asked if he believes the media and larger population has some sort of bias against people of faith:

 

“I think that’s absolutely accurate, and I think the current world in which we live in, specifically with the American media, snark is valued.  [emphasis mine]

 

And it’s very easy to come after people of faith no matter what their religion is — Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu.  That you’re sort of tagged with this label of being puritanical and not understanding of others or of different viewpoints and I think that’s kind of, it’s lazy, number one, and I think it’s just something that just feeds the snickering masses if you will in that regard.

 

For me, I think issues of faith are very complex.  When you cover them as a journalist, you simply can’t, I feel, stereotype somebody as fitting into a box…”

 

The Intramuralist actually finds Russert’s acknowledgement refreshing.  As one within the profession, he articulates what many of us outside have long increasingly sensed.

 

In all of culture’s efforts to supposedly refrain from being judgmental, many have still justified looking down upon persons whose faith guides their reasoning.  Yes, as acknowledged by Russert, a non-religious arrogance has permeated our media; and even more challenging is that such a perspective is then thinly veiled as “news.”

 

Let’s offer a few actual examples of such “news,” examples in which we will find both agreement and disagreement here on the Intramuralist.  It’s not that I share or do not share the below perspectives.  My question is how the media presents the perspective…

 

How does the media handle the perspective of the Catholic business man…  who based on his faith, does not believe he should have to provide free contraceptive and reproductive services via Obamacare to his employees?

 

… Does the media then look down upon his perspective — and air a “news” piece that makes him look foolish and his mandate to comply a wiser, necessary approach?

 

How does the media handle the perspective of the Washington state florist… who based on her Christian faith, refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding?

 

… Does the media then look down upon her perspective — and air a “news” piece that makes her look vindictive and the ACLU’s suit against her a victory for all of humanity?

 

How does the media handle the perspective of the Methodist man… who based on his faith, is an advocate for collective bargaining and thus supports striking union workers?  (Note:  collective bargaining is included in “The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church”…)

 

… Does the media then look down upon his perspective — and air yet another “news” piece that lambasts the man for his outdated, ineffective tactics?

 

While Russert unveils arguably one of culture’s more current, subtle but significant downfalls, the question is:  how does the media’s judgmental approach to persons of faith permeate our news?  Have we allowed a pervasive arrogance to be so meticulously morphed into an actual justification of thought, that we no longer recognize the judgment when it seeps into what is supposed to be an objective broadcast?

 

If the media and larger population look down upon reasoning which stems from spiritual thinking, by definition, that’s arrogance.  I wonder, also, then, if we justify and allow the arrogance based on whether we agree or disagree with the perspective.

 

Trying not to be arrogant in return.  Trying even harder not to be snarky.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

beware of the blogger

After the end of the partial government shut down last week — and most politicians wanting to distance themselves from the dysfunction as opposed to examine their role within it — Pres. Obama gave a speech addressing the issue and his coming policy priorities.  One line stood out to this semi-humble blogger:

 

“And now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do…”

 

I agree with his line discouraging the influence of lobbyists; ever since the lobbyist laws were eased during the Carter administration in the late 70’s, the polarization has exponentially digressed with each succeeding president.  Hence, contrary to the latest to suggest (i.e. Redford, Robert) that the opposition to Obama is rooted in racism, the Intramuralist’s strong belief based on historical study is that the increased access of lobbyists (and their money) to the elect is the primary, polarization driver (and divider).

 

Nonetheless, giving Obama the respectful benefit of doubt, my sense is what the President was attempting to say is to avoid those sources of influence which incite as opposed to inform.  The challenge, however, is that his words also encourage the extinguishing of opposing opinion.

 

In that sense, it seems he is only encouraging what so many of us already do.  We routinely tune into sources where we know we will find the likeminded.

 

Where has this belief stemmed from that it’s wisest to only listen to those who think identical to ourselves?  Where has the justification arisen that it’s wisest to omit oppositional thinking?  Where is the wisdom in thinking that opposing opinion is wrong or even bad?  Have we become so arrogant in our thinking that we are threatened by those that think differently than we do?

 

Unfortunately, it seems, instead of examining the argument and weighing the wisdom or potential lack of it, we are wired to react.  We respond immediately via passion or emotion without ever weighing the wisdom of another’s words.  Friends, regardless of intellect, if we cannot entertain opposing thought and respectfully dialogue about it, what does it say that our own opinion cannot stand up under such scrutiny?

 

The discomfort I have in Obama’s most recent encouragement is that it avoids the scrutiny.  I don’t, however, believe he’s any different than the rest of us.  We often choose to avoid the scrutiny.

 

A wiser approach would mean to engage in the dialogue.  Don’t immediately react.  Listen.  Weigh the wisdom.  Be respectful.  Omit the insults.  Ask good questions… Does it make sense to keep borrowing money?  What are the long term implications?  Is there a true economic benefit to immigration reform?  Are other motives in play?  Is Obamacare working?  How can health care be more effective and cost-efficient?

 

Ask the questions.  Don’t avoid the scrutiny.  And allow your opinion to be changed if it cannot hold up to respectful examination.  That goes for each of us.

 

Let me also note that the President asked us to stop focusing on the bloggers.  Yes, that would include me.  Hmmm… only one more word…

 

Beware. 🙂

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

now

While there certainly exists “a time for everything,” now is not the time for…

 

Blame.

Finger pointing.

Any “I-told-you-so’s.”

Declarations of winning.

Accusations of losing.

Arrogance.

Loquacious boasts.

Rhetoric.

Disrespect.

Nor any pats on the back.

 

While many will cast verbal stones at who’s responsible, our government experienced a partial shut down due to one primary bottom line:  our fiscal house is out of order.  We are spending too much money, too fast, with minimally restricted borrowing… AND… we have no specific, measurable plan to pay it back.  As said here amid multiple posts — just like any financial entity, such an approach is unsustainable.

 

Hence, while there exists that time for everything, now is the time for…

 

Courageous leadership.

Courage to tackle the politically unpopular.

Courage to consider specific plans to pay foreign countries back.

Courage to change the federal programs that continue to run at an increased loss.

Courage to address the meaning of “entitlement.”

 

What are the people entitled to?  Who and how shall such be paid for?  Those questions must be asked and answered — and answered free from the rhetoric and disrespect we’ve witnessed these last 3 weeks especially from the legislative and executive branch.

 

Let me add one more idea as to what, also, this is not the time for…

 

Politicians and pundits often pursue policy initiatives based on when they feel they have the strongest “political capital,” meaning they have more leverage and public popularity which could potentially propel into law policy that would otherwise be more challenging to enact.  (FYI:  The Affordable Care Act is an excellent study in political capital utilization.)  If our leaders are going to lead courageously — and not politically — they will pursue what’s most important now; they will not pursue other agenda items first.

 

In the opinion of this semi-humble blogger, what’s most important is getting our federal fiscal house in order.  Now.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

groups

As my teenagers consistently calculate their oh-so-active weekend social schedule, there exists constant talk of, with, and about the “group.”

 

The “group.”  What’s the “group” going to do?  Where are they?  What’s the “group” think?  Text the “group.”  What do they say?

 

For months I’ve witnessed this phenomena unfold.  The evolution and application never quite donned on me… until well, now…

 

The “group” plans everything.  The “group” is in control.  It’s not especially democratic nor does the majority always rule.  It would seem instead that often the loudest voices in the “group” make the decision; sometimes there are several who are simply silent, but who still seemingly, at least, go along with the “group.”

 

It’s not, however, just for the big dance.  The “group” plans pretty much everything… what are we doing this weekend?  Where are we going?  Whose house will we stay at?  What do we want to eat?  How do we feel about that?

 

And membership, well, it’s a bit exclusive.

 

I remember when a new gal appeared, with nothing less than a trepidatious tiptoe, obviously desiring to join them.  “Not so fast,” seemed the initially unspoken claim.  Soon after, however, came, “Well, she can join us, but she’s not a member of the ‘group.’”  [Yes, an actual quote.]  Membership is a privilege.

 

I’ve decided that once again our teens have watched us adults a little too well… witnessing how we behave, taking both conscious and subconscious note, and then emulating our habits in ways which first adopt and then magnify both the good and the bad.

 

For adults, too, we have our “groups”… “groups” in which the identity of the “group” often becomes priority number one…  when the fight for preservation of the “group” trumps what is wisest and best…

 

… we fight for our groups based on team… for Cowboys or Patriots…

… we fight for our groups based on race… for black or Hispanic…

… we fight for our groups based on politics… for Democrats or Republicans…

… we fight for our groups based on profession… gender… demographics… religion… education… based on a singular commonality or focus.  And that singular focus often paves the path for a significant blindside, as when we fight only for our “group,” we tend to lose sight of the bigger, wiser picture…

 

When we fight only for our sports “group,” we no longer can appreciate the remarkable talent on display when Tom Brady throws that perfect, last second pass…

 

When we fight only for our ethnic “group,” we no longer see that when we put one race first, we’re engaging in the same behavior of which we are critical…

 

And when we fight only for our political “group,” we no longer recognize that spending on our party initiatives can blind us to the perils of unsustainable, deficit spending.

 

When we fight only for our “groups,” it seems we act more like our teens.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

handshakes

And then there was this, according to ABC News:

 

“Post-game handshakes are meant to symbolize good sportsmanship, but the ritual has become so volatile on Kentucky high school fields that the supervising association is urging to schools to skip the practice.

 

‘We’ve had situations where young men in football this year reach across and punch a kid below the belt,’ said Julian Tackett, commissioner of the Kentucky High School Athletic Association.  ‘And we’ve had two young ladies at the volleyball net get into a fist fight when shaking hands.’

 

In an attempt to end the post-game fights, the KHSAA released a statement last month telling coaches they should stop the practice.

 

‘Personally I hate to see this change,’ Tackett wrote on Sept. 19. ‘I think we should reinforce behavior and civility, but incidents even in our own state in volleyball, soccer and football, have illustrated this need.’”

 

Now even though the Kentucky High School Athletic Association has since received significant backlash after publicity by ABC, CBS, and FOX and others, which has caused the athletic organization to clarify that they were not “banning” the practice, but rather “advising against it” and will thus hold coaches responsible for any assaults, the Intramuralist can understand the initial, potentially outrageous response.

 

How is such a response a surprise in a culture which continually preaches civility but also, simultaneously, seemingly follows the glaring mantra of “do as I say, not as I do”? …

 

… in sports… relationships… governing…

 

… for example…

 

In September, after a baseball game — note I said “game” — a 24 year old Dodgers fan was fatally stabbed after a confrontation with some fans of the San Francisco Giants.

 

And in Washington, not long after politicians and pundits flocked to the pulpits and podiums to admonish the violent vernacular that may have contributed to the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in which 6 were killed and 19 were injured — including Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), those same politicians and pundits are arguing today, justifying the use of the very words they at one time berated.  Pres. Obama and congressional Republicans and Democrats seem too busy arguing to solve the current budget/spending/entitlement crisis.

 

So why should it surprise us that a supervising athletic organization of our teens simply desires not to fake it?  Can’t you hear their huddles?

 

Shake hands?  Are you kidding me?!  Why would they shake hands with their opponent?  All these supposedly smart people, grow up and go to Washington; they don’t shake hands.  They don’t treat each other with respect.  Who are they kidding?  At least our high schoolers will no longer have to fake respect.  Why then, should we make them shake hands?

 

If we are going to teach the younger generation well, we should start by not faking respect.  Civility will only be reinforced when we truly mean every ounce of the respect a simple handshake conveys.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

reasoning like a child

Years ago there was a significant part of me that would acknowledge, “I talked like a child; I thought like a child; I reasoned like a child.”  I suppose deep within each of us there will always exist some grappling with that immaturity.  12 years ago my immaturity was altered.

 

I was awaiting my authorized exit from the hospital, having given birth the day before to our third son.  My exit was authorized; his was not.

 

Note #1:  Josh wasn’t the child I expected.

Note #2:  none of our children are what we expect.

 

As valiantly as any attempt, we cannot control all aspects of any child — who they are or what they will become.  With young master Josh, we simply knew that right away.

 

Josh was born with Down syndrome.  He was also born with a life-threatening congenital heart defect that would cause us to spend a month in the cardiac ICU wing, only a few short months after his birth.

 

There is much we could discuss today in regard to the specifics…  how much we knew beforehand… how he couldn’t breathe on his own when born… how the OB staff still saw Josh as a miracle… how I felt no pain, with no meds, even with contractions at their most intense point… the night he almost died… how people walked alongside us, learning to love us both practically and well… how others stumbled forward, not knowing what to say… how it was hard for all of us… how we understood…  how family embraced us… how other moments were awkward and some even ugly… like how the geneticist greeted us by saying, “This must be the saddest day of your whole life.”

 

Each of those could serve as a blog post in their own right (… and maybe they will some day), but with the plethora of unique and raw emotion, what the Intramuralist desires to focus on today — noting all the crud and disrespectful communication that’s especially rampant in the country — is how Josh’s birth changed how I think… how this then newborn babe helped me talk and think and reason a little less “like a child”…

 

I’m a little less judgmental.

I no longer believe intelligence and wisdom are the same.

I value wisdom more.

I don’t believe intelligence is all it’s cracked up to be.

I have a different concept of beauty.

Big words don’t always speak best.

Outward appearances mean less.

I really don’t care about IQ tests.

I care a lot about solid character.

I’m more intentional in teaching our children well.

I value life more.

I realize how little I’m in control.

I know God is real.

I know his ways aren’t always my ways, but I now know they’re still good.

I see a difference between what the world calls wisdom and what wisdom really is.

My heart is softer.

I have a greater recognition of something bigger than me.

I’m not afraid to speak truth.

With compassion, of course.

I love better and less conditionally.

And I recognize that none of us know it all.

 

I didn’t — and still don’t —  know it all.  I didn’t even know as much as I thought I did.  Years ago I never knew how one small child could melt my heart… melting it down to a place of greater compassion… and far greater wisdom… and how what this world considers bad and weak could be so ironically, good and strong.

 

Thank God for 12 years ago… for reasoning a little less “like a child.”

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

winning

(FYI:  This is not a sports post.  I promise.)

 

In an epic shootout, neither team seemed able to miss.  Each was continuously on the offensive.  They would sling the ball down the field, seemingly with ease, with previous rumors of solid defense having eerily dissipated as the game continued to unfold.  Fans in the stands, proudly donned their colors, cheering loudly and only for the team they’ve become devoted to via passion and habit…  habit and passion.  Yes, the fans have been rooting for their team for so long, so loyally, so blindly, that it did not matter the epic effort both teams were putting forth.  It did not matter the significance of the moment nor any semblance of ethical play.  The reality is that the play of the other team did not matter regardless of how historic or unprecedented.

 

It also did not matter what the other team said — before or after the game.  They are, after all, the other team.  The other team always talks trash… right??  Or so we perceive.

 

The bottom line is that the fans and the team only want one thing.  They want to win.

 

Our culture’s prioritization of winning unfortunately often allows foolishness to fall under the guise of something it’s not.  We want to win.  And so we quit listening and considering and offering one another the respect each man deserves in order to form that more perfect union.  As opposed to looking for the best, most effective solution, we instead focus on winning.

 

Friends, regardless of how often the President and congressional Democrats and Republicans examine their internal polling data, no one is winning the current government shut down.  Regardless of the cyber space status updates by the fans in the stands, no one is winning.  In fact this game is not about winning.

 

There is a problem that needs to be solved more than the scoring of any political points.  The problem with the current shut down and debt ceiling debate is that Democrat and Republican congressmen and presidents have kicked the budgetary can down the road for far too long.  They have each utilized a politically expedient approach to fund their party initiatives instead of responsibly fund the federal government.

 

Let’s face it… our elect have been arguing (and yes, the so-called mature are arguing) over a “C.R.,” a “continuing resolution.”  Continuing resolutions are only necessary when no budget exists.  No federal budget has existed for the last 5 years.  Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has even said there’s “no need” to have one.  Every financial entity, my friends — from our minute households to major corporations — operates on some kind of budget.  Our federal government has avoided crafting and passing a budget for 5 years.

 

Budgets let us know the specifics of how much we’re spending and what we’re spending our money on.  They provide a framework for fiscal accountability, financial prudence, and future planning; they thus allow us to ensure entitlement spending doesn’t exponentially — and unsustainably — expand.  Without a budget, there is little to no accountability, prudence, and planning.

 

Hence, the bottom line of the current issue is not about Obamacare nor about the Republicans or Democrats holding anything “hostage” (geepers).  The bottom line is that the stalemate exists because our elect continue to kick the fiscal can down the road and neglect dealing with an unsustainable pattern of deficit spending.  CR’s are not budgets; they are only provisions for continued spending.  The debate over more unsustainable spending — without accountability, prudence, and planning — is the bottom line of the current shut down.

 

Back to the epic shootout… I was actually thinking of Sunday’s Broncos-Cowboys game, the 4th highest scoring game in the history of the NFL.  Each team was playing to win…  unfortunately, for far too many of us, just like them, just like the elect, winning is often more important than recognizing the significance of the moment and any semblance of ethical play.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

spreading strife

Hate.  That’s a hard concept for me.  Truthfully, I think it’s a hard concept for most of us.  We find things that make us mad, things that annoy us, things that drive us crazy, and then we often justify hate.  I’ll quote my kids… “I hate spiders, English… and pickles.”  Yeah, we don’t quite have an accurate concept of hate.

 

But there’s something about the current Washington scenario that drives us crazy.  All these supposedly smart people… the President… Congress… regardless of party…  And they say all these disrespectful things to one another…

 

… “taking hostage,” “gun to the head,” “ransom,” “blackmail,” “arsonists,” oh, my…

 

I hate that.

 

I hate the hypocrisy.

 

It wasn’t that long ago that our country mourned the tragedy in Tucson…

 

Pres. Obama seemed so wise…  “At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

 

Talking to each other in a way that heals…

 

All that seems gone now.  It seems unimportant.  That hurts me.  Do I hate it?

 

As I wrestle with this concept of hate — noting that I hate hypocrisy — part of me wonders what’s actually appropriate to hate.

 

Deep within the historical scriptures, we find the following:

 

There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood, 

A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,

A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

 

So I see the following…

 

Arrogance.  Lies.  The killing of the innocent.

A heart that plots wicked. Running to evil.  Exaggeration about those lies.

 

And one who spreads strife among the brothers.

 

I think that’s what I hate so much about the current government shut down.  I hate that we have persons amongst both parties — the President and Congress — who are actively spreading strife.  Smart as they may be, they encourage dissension and disagreement, as they work first to win people to their side, and only then to solve the situation.

 

I hate this.

 

For the record, I also hate pickles.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the same team

“I have a serious concern to bring up with you, my friends… I’ll put it as urgently as I can:  you must get along with each other.  You must learn to be considerate of one another, cultivating a life in common.

 

I bring this up because some brought a most disturbing report to my attention — that you’re fighting among yourselves!  I’ll tell you exactly what I was told:  you’re all picking sides!”

 

For the first time since the leadership of Ronald Reagan, the President and Congress — led by 2 separate parties — are united.  I know that may surprise you.  The government is shut down, but they’re united.  They actually wholeheartedly agree on something.  They agree that the other party is totally to blame.

 

Yep, it’s totally the other party’s fault.  And by reading several cyberspace posts, it also appears many of us have been seduced into the same line of thinking…  One party is all right.  One party is all wrong.  How stupid can the supporters of that other party be?

 

The Intramuralist believes that this process is not good and not pure and not right.  And since both parties are fully involved in the process, I hold them both responsible.  Perhaps you favor one party over another.  But recognize that both have contributed to this process… perhaps by current tactics… perhaps by previous budget approaches… perhaps by lack of them.  Both parties have sufficiently contributed to the now.

 

“I’ll put it as urgently as I can:  you must get along with each other.”

 

My sense is that one of our greatest challenges as a nation is that we are awful at appreciating different opinion.  We fail to recognize that varied opinion has the potential to sharpen; varied opinion can ironically solidify what’s true.  And yet, we’re bad at both allowing and appreciating it.  Congress is bad at it.  Pres. Obama is bad at it.  Pundits and politicians and people on TV are bad at it.  Arguably worse, we are bad at it. Instead of allowing dissenting dialogue, learning to be considerate of one another, recognizing we’re on the same team and thus cultivating a life in common together in this country, we work instead to squelch.  Hence, we don’t negotiate… hence, we keep saying the same thing over and over… hence, we keep saying the same thing louder… hence, we play victim… hence, we become overly dramatic… hence, we trot out in front of the cameras… hence, we quit meeting face-to-face… hence, we work more to rally the masses than to solve the situation.

 

For smart people, we are not always wise.

 

Wise people on the same team do not pick sides.  We are not a nation of Republicans and Democrats.  We are not any 99 and 1% nor 37 and 63; we are not separate percentages.  We are not the rich and poor, the black and white, the majority and minority, nor the educated and uneducated.  We are not the Catholics and the Protestants nor the atheists and the Jews.  We are also not even Patriots or Saints.  We are Americans.  We are cultivating a life in common.  We live here together.  We’re on the same team.  Hence, we must learn to allow, appreciate, and grow from dissenting opinion — as opposed to squelch it.

 

So as for the current shut down, here’s the Intramuralist quick fix:

 

  1. Stop payment of congressmen’s and the President’s pay.
  2. Get the biased media out of it.
  3. Meet with dissenters face-to-face with the intent to listen better — not simply restate own opinion.
  4. Compromise.  (You ask where can we compromise?  At the very least, in this layman’s opinion, we can require all members of the executive and legislative branches to abide by the same healthcare rules they are requiring of the rest of us.)  And…
  5. Be humble and quit saying and thinking that the other party is entirely wrong.

 

Such an approach may not quickly solve the shut down, but it would be a good start… especially for people who’ve forgotten which team they’re on.  That would be the same.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the games we play

Once again there was a full weekend slate of games, with each earnestly attempting to win.  The challenge is that such an account could easily depict either the National Football League or the President and Congress.  At least in the NFL, a struggling team takes more responsibility for the situation they’re in.  The President and Congress — regardless of party — spend more time blaming the situation on the other than they do in solving the problem.  They spend too much time in front of the cameras.  Too much time rallying the troops.  Too much time playing games!  They play political games.

 

Unfortunately, we, the public, too often camp in front of biased, un-objective “news” sources, allowing them to rhetorically seduce us, as we join in the reindeer games.

 

Geepers.  With all due respect (and “due” seems temptingly relative at the moment), the President and Congress need to halt the insults, turn away the cameras, roll up their sleeves, and learn to work together.  If we can negotiate with Syria, we can negotiate with senators and representatives.  I don’t care if their offensive lines are depleted.  I want our leaders of both parties to realize this is not a game.

 

As of midnight last night, a Republican-led House and a Democrat-led Senate and a Democrat-led White House hadn’t passed and enacted a law allowing the federal government to spend more money.  Constitutionally, if Congress doesn’t pass a law to spend money, the government isn’t allowed to spend it.  Hence, government is required to “shut down,” thereby no longer funding “non-essential” functions or personnel.

 

At this time, 3 observations in particular exist from the Intramuralist’s perspective…

 

One, hypocrisy is rampant in this situation.

 

As pointed out in Sunday’s post, how parties feel about spending more or less is often directly tied to their majority or minority position.  See Pres. Obama’s quotes as a president and senator; they are strikingly different.  The hypocrisy is central to each party’s game-playing.

 

Two, government shut downs have happened 17 times since 1976…

 

From a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate under Republican President Gerald Ford… to a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate under Democrat President Jimmy Carter (5 times)… to a Democrat-led House and a Republican-led Senate under Republican President Ronald Reagan (7 times)… to a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate also under Reagan… to a Democrat-led House and a Democrat-led Senate under Republican President George H.W. Bush… to a Republican-led House and a Republican-led Senate under Democrat President Bill Clinton (2 times)…

 

(Did I mention that hypocrisy was rampant?)

 

And finally, three, there’s a quick way to solve this shutdown…

 

Remember that only “non-essentials” go unfunded during a shut down; however, all lawmakers — including the President, representatives, and senators — continue to be paid.  Let’s withhold their paychecks.  Let’s refrain from funding them if they cannot or refuse to compromise and forgo the cameras.  Let’s watch then if they still engage in such a dysfunctional, political game.

 

Allow me to briefly recall a childhood memory…  My brothers will tell you that I used to consistently cheat when playing “Monopoly.”  I wasn’t very good at it — nor did I have the patience to play it well — so I would quietly and yes, oh-so deviously steal money from the bank when my older brother turned his head away.  Granted, my brothers will also gleefully add that I still couldn’t manage to win.  It wasn’t fun.  I had to steal to play.   At least when I engaged in disrespectful, hypocritical activity, I realized it was a game.

 

Respectfully,

AR