Posts

Posted on

bye, Rick…

Everyone brings something to the table.  A passion perhaps that he or she uniquely brings that’s quickly embedded into the conversation and thus impacts the emotion and dialogue going forward.  Such is true whether your last name is Goldwater or Gore, Sharpton or Nader, Clinton or Quayle.  Today my focus is on the contributions of former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum.

 

This is not an endorsement; that’s not the Intramuralist’s calling nor desire.  Just as Ron Paul prompts us to consider the limits of constitutional government — or as Ronald Reagan reminded us of a national sense of renewal and “Morning in America” — or as Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama each embraced the inspiration of “change” — Rick Santorum has left his mark on the table and on the progression of our dialogue going forward…

 

Santorum reminded us that family comes first.  The involvement of his family in his decision to both enter and exit the campaign seemed genuine, more than a convenient, political photo op.

 

Santorum caused us to wrestle with the reality of life.  What’s most important?  When is life viable?  How as a nation do we desire to move forward with the government’s involvement in this deeply, divisive and sensitive issue?  While opinion varies, as a nation, we need to extinguish our infighting and discern how to best move forward.

 

Santorum modeled that quality of life is not always ours to assess.  All one has to do is look at his precious Bella.  Ok. True.  As a special needs parent — the parent of one considered “on the margins of society,” as the former senator said — Bella touches my heart immensely.  I never voted for Rick Santorum, but when I witnessed the authenticity of his love for that beautiful, almost 4 year old girl, never did Santorum catch my attention more.  He never treated Bella as if her life was somehow lesser… a judgment the most intelligent among us sometimes feel free to make.

 

Santorum challenged the standard economic thinking when he suggested that “the bottom line is we have a problem in this country, and the family is fracturing… We hear this all the time:  cut spending, limit the government, everything will be fine.  No, everything’s not going to be fine.  There are bigger problems at stake in America.”  While his words were unconventional and not necessarily garnering of votes, Santorum brought attention to the perspective that not all of the ways the American family is evolving are healthy.  Not all societal development should be celebrated.

 

Santorum taught us that money isn’t everything.  While the election bank accounts of both Romney and Obama continue to boom, Santorum began his campaign with very few financial resources.  He had so little money and momentum, that few thought he could make a splash in the presidential pool.  So Santorum instead focused on individual contact and face-to-face meetings.  Piquing at seemingly just the right time, he won the first caucus of the year.  For years to come, historians will examine Santorum’s strategy, what he did well and what he did not.

 

Don’t let me act as if Santorum never irritated any of us.  Whether it be how he articulated passionate social issues or proudly donned that sweater vest, that’s not my point.  Most all candidates irritate us somehow, in some way, about something.  In fact, if we ever feel a candidate agrees with us 100%, then we probably haven’t realized that candidates sometimes share different words in different circles, attempting to “be all things to all people” or at least generate future votes.  I appreciate that Santorum didn’t attempt to be “all things.”  Like him or not, I appreciate that he didn’t change his words as much depending on the circle.  I appreciate what Rick Santorum added to the conversation at the table.

 

Yesterday, after his official exit, Santorum was asked, “What’s next?”  To which Santorum responded, “I’d like to get some sleep.”

 

Get some sleep, Rick.  Regardless of who’s elected in the fall, thanks for adding to the national conversation.  I appreciate your spot at the table.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

battle of the sexes

Man vs. woman.  Woman vs. man.

 

Now that the madness of college basketball has concluded (at least until the fanaticism of college football begins), I am reminded of a lingering issue, as highlighted again by the major sports’ media last week.  For the record, this blog is not about sports.  Hence, my respected non-sports fans, please keep reading.

 

A growing trend in women’s basketball — both college and professional — is for teams to practice against men.  This trend started several years ago, and the exercise has evolved to a degree in which many teams actually host tryouts for the male practice squads.  According to an ESPN survey of last year’s top 25 teams, 92% of the women’s teams use male practice players at least some of the time.

 

Why?  According to Kelsey Bone, center for last year’s ladies of Texas A&M, the 2011 champions, “When we’re successful in practice against guys, it helps us and gives us confidence going into the games.”

 

Or according to Bones’ teammate, guard Sydney Carter, “I think it’s made me a lot smarter; it’s definitely made me quicker.  They give me the chance to learn the game at a different level, and so when I get to the women’s game and I’m playing against women, I feel like I’m a step ahead all the time.”

 

But as perhaps some imagined, regardless of whether or not it gives the women confidence or makes them smarter and/or quicker, some are vehemently protesting the practice and asking the NCAA to eliminate the exercise.  The NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics says this “violates the spirit of gender equity and Title IX” (Title IX is the legislation which requires that gender never be cause for exclusion from education programs receiving federal financial assistance; granted, athletics were never mentioned in the original statute).  

 

The Title IX aspect of the opposition has ample validity.  Some are concerned that by utilizing men, less female scholarships are offered because not as many players are needed on the team for practice purposes; hence, fewer female scholarships are offered.  The question, though, is the validity regarding “gender equity.”

 

Gender equity.  Man vs. woman.  Woman vs. man.

 

Equity.  Fairness.  Ah, a current, populist buzz word.

 

Even though most all involved admit that the use of male athletes makes practice more competitive and challenges the women’s teams in an unprecedented way, many still camp on the issue of fairness.  It’s not fair to use men.

 

Friends, when we utilize the concept of “fairness” to frame demographic differences — instead of embracing, celebrating, learning and growing — my sense is that we miss the available wisdom.  While all men were created equal, the Declaration’s prudent proclamation should not be equated with God creating us male and female, each beautifully distinct.  Equal rights does not equate to equal gifting nor ability.

 

Thus, we would be a healthier, more discerning culture if we recognized that not all people are the same.  Men and women do things differently.  While no stereotype is 100% full-proof, there are certain activities that men as a whole and women as a whole do typically better or worse.  After all, as best as I can tell, only 6 women have ever dunked in a college or professional game.  Men and women are different.  In more than just basketball.

 

The point of this blog is not about dunking nor about sports.  My desire instead is to erase the notion that the differences between genders is something to be “battled.”  If we celebrated our differences instead of fighting their existence, we would be wiser.  There would be fewer “chips on shoulders” and less division in society.  My desire is to eliminate the embracing of division.

 

We certainly are a fickle society… embracing division when it serves us, but claiming “fairness” when we’re uncomfortable.  There need not be a battle of any sexes.

 

Regardless of the court.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

happy easter

Pick your current event:  Politics.  World development.  Incident or issue.

Choose the life circumstance:  Profession.  Family.  Kids’ sports or education.

We are typically angry with any situation we perceive to be unjust.  As blogged here recently, we have an innate need for justice…  whatever the scenario may be…

… be that in crime scenarios…

… be that with dishonest politicians…

… be that with unfaithful spouses…

… be that with unscrupulous athletes… 

… be that with cheating coaches…

… be that with those who hurt our kids…

… or hurt us.

 

We desire justice.

 

Allow me to articulate our need in a more arguably appropriate, colloquial way.  We want someone to pay.  We want someone to pay for the injustice.

“How dare this happen!  There are innocent victims!  Someone needs to pay for this!”

From trial to tragedy — from Trayvon Martin to the Colorado forest fires — when victims exist, we want someone to pay.

 

Hence, we come to Easter.

With respect to all religions of the world, the Intramuralist finds it absolutely fascinating that Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Bahá’í faith, and the New Age Movement all agree that Jesus Christ was a real person who walked this Earth.  Most all also acknowledge that Jesus was a wise man who had a special relationship with God.  In other words, the factual existence of Jesus Christ is not in question.  What we sometimes question is what Jesus said — and what he did, being the only person who violently died and then rose again.

 

Funny, that questioning process is kind of what we do with people who say things we don’t like.  We intentionally distance ourselves from others when we don’t like what they say, because what they point out is so hard to wrestle with — be those acquaintances, friends, or politicians that annoy us.  Let’s make no mistake about this; some of what Jesus said is incredibly difficult to wrestle with.  I don’t understand it all, and some things remain a mystery.  And so what many of us do in order to diminish the need to wrestle with potential truth, is that we question an aspect of Christ’s existence instead; it removes the individual need to wrestle.

 

Christ’s account is that he came here as the long awaited Messiah, the one for whom the world was waiting to “save us” from our sins.  Interestingly, a lot of us don’t think we need any “saving.”  We’re fairly self-reliant.  Pretty decent people.  But in the same breath we’ll also acknowledge that none of us is perfect, and each of us has done some pretty rotten things; we’ve thought even worse things.

That’s the difference between Jesus and you and me.  He is perfect.  He had no dishonest thought nor unscrupulous activity nor questionable behavior.  And so around this day some 2000 years ago, Jesus came to this planet and did the one thing we all keep wishing for someone to do.

He came to pay.

He came to pay for the dishonest thoughts, unscrupulous activity, and questionable behavior in you and me.

 

The Intramuralist believes that the reason we so crave for justice on this planet — the need we have for someone to actually pay — is because we don’t fully grasp what Jesus did for us.  We don’t fully get that a perfect person would willingly pay for the imperfect.  That’s what we are.  We are imperfect people, created by a gloriously perfect God, who desires an intimate relationship with his kids, so much that he sent his only perfect kid to show us the way to that relationship.

So on this day, with recognition of the historical record, my prayer is that each of us would wrestle not only with who Jesus is and what he said, but also with what he actually did.

 

He paid.  Someone had to.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

courting

In continuous search of wisdom, I am wondering anew this day.  Is there anything wrong with the following presidential exhortation?

 

“Last Thursday I described the American form of Government as a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. The three horses are, of course, the three branches of government — the Congress, the Executive and the Courts. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not. Those who have intimated that the President of the United States is trying to drive that team, overlook the simple fact that the President, as Chief Executive, is himself one of the three horses.

It is the American people themselves who are in the driver’s seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.

It is the American people themselves who expect the third horse to pull in unison with the other two.

I hope that you have re-read the Constitution of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again…

But since the rise of the modern movement for social and economic progress through legislation, the Court has more and more often and more and more boldly asserted a power to veto laws passed by the Congress and State Legislatures in complete disregard of this original limitation.

In the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body…

We have, therefore, reached the point as a Nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution — not over it. In our Courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

I want — as all Americans want — an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written — that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power — amendment by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts universally recognized.”

 

There has existed much vocal ruckus in regard to the healthcare law.  With last week’s hearing before the Supreme Court, the ruckus has evolved into a political jockeying in regard to how the high court will soon rule.  Please know that the Intramuralist is no expert in regard to the law’s constitutionality; however, as is no secret, I am hesitant to support any legislation that mandates purchase simply because we breathe.

Nonetheless, after his turn at the jockeying, Pres. Obama has been criticized this week, with many suggesting he is “attacking” the court — that he does not respect the court’s authority because they are unelected — and that overturning the act would be unprecedented.  Obama has been fairly vocal in his confidence that the judicial branch will not nor should not overturn a bill that Congress and the President agreed upon, even if by partisan means.

Friends, I don’t know Obama.  I don’t know if he’s attacking the court or not. I don’t know his heart nor all his motives nor if he really believes that the judicial branch isn’t “pulling in unison” with the rest of the country.  I do believe politics serve as a significant motivation for him, as Obama consistently utilizes strong rhetoric to seemingly sway public opinion (an indigenous tactic of multiple politicians, regardless of party affiliation).

But let’s remember that attacking the Supreme Court — as questionable and unwise as it may seem — is nothing new.

The above words were said by Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.

In 1937.

Power impacts perspective.  Might be good.  Might not.

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

humility

Call it question day… a few thought-filled, brief ones…

If the Supreme Court rules that the healthcare law — and specifically, the individual mandate — is constitutional, will all those who have declared otherwise acknowledge that they were wrong?

If the Supreme Court rules that the healthcare law — and specifically, the individual mandate — is unconstitutional, will the President and all those who have declared otherwise acknowledge they were wrong?

If concrete evidence is found that George Zimmerman was unprovoked in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, will his vocal supporters acknowledge they were wrong?

If concrete evidence is found that Trayvon Martin did indeed physically attack George Zimmerman, will Martin’s supporters acknowledge they were wrong?

Oh, how the arrogant grieve me.  They pour out words, full of boasting, crushing those with whom they disagree.  When will they become wise?  We aren’t good at admitting our wrongs.

Chances are likely that in most (if not all) of the above, instead of humbling oneself and acknowledging potential mistakes, those on the opposing side of the proclaimed truth will do one or both of the following:

  1. Attack the judge.
  2. Politicize the judgment.

Dare we ask:  why?  Why is responding wisely so hard?

In Sunday’s blog identifying the prevalent motives for all those interested or involved in the Trayvon Martin investigation, the Intramuralist proposed that justice is an innate human desire.  We desire justice.  We seek justice.  We believe in just consequences.  However, we are often conflicted when someone else’s judgment contradicts our own view of what exact form justice should take.

Note that I did not argue that the need for justice was the only motive for those interested or involved.  Other motives are most certainly in play…

For some, to avenge an eye for an eye… the motive to get even.

For others, to be on camera… the motive to be noticed.

For still more, to make political strides… on the right…. on the left.  Both.

For more still, to be personally satisfied… to fight for something greater than self, to find a purpose bigger than you and me, as that can be satisfying indeed.

And for still others — again on the right, left, or somewhere in between — it is not so much about fighting for justice or injustice, but rather, about responding to a perceived prejudice.  Don’t let me act as if prejudice isn’t alive and well on planet Earth.  I would only add that there exists prejudice on all sides of the equation.  In those who fight for… and in those who fight against.

The only way we can react wisely to all situations when we disagree with the judgment — be that with the healthcare law, George Zimmerman, or simply any messy dispute in our daily lives — is to be humble first.

To be humble first.  To embrace humility.

Did I mention we aren’t good at that?

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

justice for all

As we witness the emotional response to the death of Trayvon Martin continue to pour out, I’m reminded of one prevailing, human emotion. We have a need for justice.

Why does Martin’s family cry out, demanding George Zimmerman be arrested now? Because they desire justice.

Why does the Zimmerman family defend the shooter, crying out that he is wrongly accused? Because they desire justice.

Why do Spike Lee and Rosanne Barr tweet supposed addresses of Zimmerman’s family, invading their privacy? Because they desire justice.

Why did Pres. Obama stir the conversation, saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”? Because he desires justice.

Why do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson appear adjacent to the family before all those rolling cameras? Because they each desire justice.

Why did the New Black Panther Party but a $10,000 reward out for Zimmerman’s abduction? Because they desire justice.

Why has the Sanford Police Department taken so long to investigate? Because it desires justice.

Why did the U.S. Attorney General’s office get involved? Because it desires justice.

Why do Facebook users post continual rants in support of Martin? Because they desire justice.

Why do Facebook users post continual rants in support of Zimmerman? Because they desire justice.

Herein lies the problem. The Intramuralist believes most of us want the same thing. We want justice. The challenge is that we are uncomfortable when someone else does the deciding as to what exactly justice is.

The God I serve is said to be just. Call that radical. Call that conservative. Call it something. Throughout all of recorded history, his justice is both proven and proclaimed. I’ll be honest with you; sometimes it’s hard to trust in that. It’s hard to see that without him having skin on. But I must remember that the God I serve is still bigger than you and me. He’s got his eyes on the planet, and my guess is that there isn’t a thing on Earth that escapes him. Does he who fashioned the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see? Does he not hear or see Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

God knows what is just.

You and me might necessarily not.

Can we be ok with that? Can we be ok with not taking justice into our own hands or deciding for ourselves what authentic justice looks like? Were we ok when a jury of their peers found both OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony “not guilty”? What about no jury or no peers ever determining the fate of Adolf Hitler? … or never even catching Jack the Ripper? I’ll be honest again. That’s hard for me. It’s hard when thinking about Martin and Zimmerman.

Everything in me says that we can figure this out; we can decipher accurately every, minute detail; we can completely comprehend exactly what happened that night and discern in totality what is true. But we can’t.

We can’t.

Back to that God who is just. Back to all people on this planet finding a way to be ok with that.

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

Trayvon Martin

On Feb. 26th, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. The case has made national news. Here are some of the facts:

  • Martin was 17; Zimmerman is 28.
  • Martin was an African-American; Zimmerman is Hispanic.
  • Martin was wearing a “hoodie,” aka a hooded sweatshirt.
  • Martin had no criminal record nor any violent infractions on his school record.
  • At the time of his death, Martin was serving a 10 day school suspension for possessing a baggie with marijuana residue on it; this was his 3rd suspension — the first for possessing a “burglary implement” and second for vandalism.
  • Martin was carrying Skittles and a can of iced tea; Zimmerman was carrying a gun.
  • Zimmerman is a volunteer watch coordinator with Neighborhood Watch, an organized group of citizens devoted to crime and vandalism prevention.
  • Martin was walking from a convenience store to the home of his father’s girlfriend, when Zimmerman — on the phone with the Sanford (FL) Police Department — began following him, saying he witnessed suspicious behavior.
  • The police advised Zimmerman not to do anything.
  • There was soon a physical altercation, in which Zimmerman fatally shot Martin.
  • At the scene of the incident, Zimmerman claimed self-defense; he had a bloody nose, blood stains on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back.
  • Zimmerman has to date not been arrested, with the police department saying on March 12th that they have not found evidence contradicting his assertion of self-defense.
  • On March 13th, ABC News reported there was “questionable police conduct” in the investigation.
  • On March 19th, the U.S. Justice Dept. announces its involvement.
  • The Zimmerman family denies any racial profiling.
  • Many analysts suggest prosecuting Zimmerman is difficult due to Florida’s “stand-your-ground” law, saying that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to first retreat.
  • Throughout March, there has been an intensifying, articulate uproar (an observation — not a fact).
  • Outrage has been echoed from many, notably from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and Martin’s family.
  • Others have brought increased attention via their public comments, including Pres. Obama, Geraldo Rivera, and Spike Lee.
  • Also in response, hoodies have been donned by both Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) and the Miami Heat. Obama’s presidential campaign unveiled a new “Obama 2012” hoodie.
  • The New Black Panther Party has issued a $10,000 reward to any who would abduct Zimmerman.
  • Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, warned of “retaliation.”

No one has all of the facts. That’s a significant reminder. Hence, here are the Intramuralist’s subjective thoughts and observations:

  • Martin’s death is tragic; may God be with his grieving family.
  • Prejudice is rampant — by both whites and blacks.
  • God is the ultimate giver of justice; on the days I wonder if Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson sleep well at night, I remind myself that God is just. I, well, sometimes, am not.

Additional, heartfelt commentary…

The reality is that none of us were there that fateful night. None of us know what happened. Martin should not be considered guilty because he was black nor Zimmerman innocent because he is not. The color of a person’s skin speaks not to their innocence nor guilt. We cannot judge simply by means of what our eyes see nor what our heart’s believe; that speaks to profiling and social justice. The Intramuralist is thus uncomfortable with society’s immediate rush to judgment… be that judgment by George Zimmerman… or be that judgment by society in response.

While uncomfortable, also, with those who promote or politicize support or opposition for personal gain, I am most disturbed by society’s collective lack of wisdom. We would be far wiser if we would recognize that we don’t know all of the facts. We would be far wiser if we didn’t accuse or support based on skin color. We would be far wiser if we didn’t “profile” based on skin, dress, handicap, weight, party, status, education, income, etc. We would be far wiser if we didn’t think we “knew it all.”

In that respect, Martin’s death is disturbing. So is the response.

Respectfully… always…

AR