Category: Current Issue

Posted on

out!

Listen closely to line #1:  this is not a sports post.  (Remember that…)

This past weekend, I couldn’t believe the judgment of the infield umpire!

 

Alex, who plays for our team — the good team, the right team, the wisest and best — was leading off on first.  The game was tight — a top team tournament; it was close; only the winner would advance.  Let’s just say the intensity seemingly increased with each and every pitch.  This was serious.  This was 13 year old baseball.

 

Unbeknownst to all fans in the stands, Alex discretely received the “steal” sign.  He takes off.  He is fast!  The ball soars from the catcher’s hands, streaming across the infield, straight to the shortstop, whose current primary goal is to tag our Alex out.

 

Man, I had an excellent view from the stands!  I was standing directly in line with the base path; and so when the catcher let it loose, I saw the ball sail 2 feet behind the runner.  There was no tag.  “Way to go, Alex,” I immediately thought.  The ball was no where close.

 

Then came the umpire’s emphatic call…  “You’re OUT!”

 

Excuse me?

 

In order to throw out an attempted base stealer, the runner must be tagged.  Alex had to be tagged.  The ball was nowhere close.  There was no possible way for our player to be out.

 

Are you kidding me?  What are you thinking?!  Are you stupid?  How smart are you?

 

Oh, wait… I see now…

 

Alex is white.  The umpire is black.  He’s African-American.  That’s it!!  He must have called Alex out due to the color of his skin!!

 

Nothing else explains this.  Nothing else explains the ump’s insistent opinion that is completely inconsistent with mine.  He must have called Alex out due to the color of his skin.

 

This is truly unexplainable.  Why else would a seemingly intelligent person do this?  The ball was nowhere close!  There was no tag.  ‘Racist’!  ‘Racist,’ I say!!

 

And so begins my search for something that will explain the unexplainable.  In other words, I seek an answer that will make sense to me.  I, of course, had the clearest, wisest. and least obstructed view.

 

Hence, when someone else makes a judgment call that is nothing less than unfathomable to me, I seek for a way to comprehend their opinion… typically a way that makes them look a little lesser — and me look a little more…

 

(… more what, we ask?)

 

We often conclude the rationale of another is due to the most visible factor — not necessarily the most likely factor — simply the most visible.  If we can’t explain something, we often look only at what’s easiest to see.  That’s perhaps why so many are so quick to utilize race and/or ethnicity to explain away analysis that would take far more effort, time, and selflessness to truly comprehend.

 

The reason the infield umpire called Alex out had zero to do with either’s skin color.  The ump called him out because his perspective was different than mine.

 

I can’t argue that.  I can’t call him ‘racist’ nor even accuse him of being stupid.  I can, however, in the future, encourage him to alter his perspective…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

tweeting

What are we teaching the younger generation?

What are we modeling for our kids?

 

… that appearance is everything?

… that sports stars and celebrities are life’s most admirable professions?

… that an ABC summer show entitled “Mistresses” is good television?

 

That’s the question:  what are we teaching them?

 

Are we teaching that Facebook status updates are authentic?  … that we’re truly, transparently representing who and how we are?  … that Facebook relationships are real relationships?

 

Or better yet — and where my head and heart have lined up this day — that Twitter & Co. count for legitimate dialogue?

 

As all Intramuralist readers know, communication is of utmost importance.  How we communicate makes all the difference in the world.  The Intramuralist believes that all subjects can be discussed — albeit not necessarily agreed upon — if the approach is respectful and prioritizes active listening.  That’s the mantra of this blog:  all opinions are welcome as long as the opinion expressed is respectful to those with whom you may disagree.  Only through respectful discussion, friends, is solution viable.

 

Yet continually in Washington and in our work place, we have very intelligent men and women who for some reason reserve the right to rhetorically slam their brother and sister when the moment is too tempting and ripe.  They arrogantly belittle and bemoan, forgoing even the feigning of listening.  One wonders why.  Why is this so hard to comprehend?  Why is this still so challenging for otherwise bright-minded people?

 

Look at what we’re teaching the younger generation.

 

As social media has exploded over the past half dozen years, we have allowed them to accept Twitter as a wise form of dialogue.  In fact, we have allowed them to believe that it even is dialogue.

 

Excuse me?

 

Dialogue is a conversation between 2 or more people.  To engage in dialogue means to converse or discuss in order to resolve a problem.

 

There is no dialogue on Twitter.  There is no conversation.  In fact, there is little conversation whatsoever in all of social media.

 

Twitter is simply a listing of one-liners where the Tweeter can tweet whatever he or she desires.  There is no eye contact.  There is no empathetic, compassionate, nor comprehending glance in that person’s direction.  There is no feeling; there is nothing warm nor cold.

 

Twitter is a list of comments — often snarky or satirical — in which one person attempts to manage the impression others have of them.  There is no respectful back-and-forth.  In fact, because it’s not actually dialogue, Twitter and the rest of social cyberspace often damage more relationships than they maintain or repair.

 

Friends, Twitter is not an evil within society.  Just like most things, a positive tool can be negatively employed.  The disservice we are allowing for the younger generation, however — as we tweet, too — is that social media is something it’s not… that Twitter and tweeting and even texting take the place of authentic, wise communication.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

what keeps us from lying?

Too many times we turn off the news in disbelief and disgust.  Sometimes it’s ugly; there’s too much wickedness and wrongdoing in the world, as — save for one ’80’s pop song — most of us realize that heaven is not a place on Earth.

 

One of the more frequent motives for current head shaking is all the lies — or perhaps better said — all the potential lies.  The deceit.  The cover up.  The shifting of blame.  It’s almost robotic that when a person is accused of wrongdoing, they immediately claim responsibility rests elsewhere…

 

He did it.  She did it.  I wasn’t in charge then.  It’s his fault.  Who, me?  I’m a victim…

 

Not only is responsibility immediately deflected, most add an instant reason why another is actually to blame…

 

He doesn’t like me.  She’s out to get me.  He’s too young.  She doesn’t know any better.  They love persecuting Christians.  Bigots, that’s what they are…

 

… like the chairwoman of Louisiana’s Democratic Party, who said last week that much of the opposition to Obamacare is due to the color of Pres. Obama’s skin.  Please.  The Intramuralist read the legislation when proposed.  There is much to be concerned about (i.e. rising premiums, government overreach, care decisions based on cost — such as for the elderly and overweight…), but the concern has nothing to do with anyone’s skin color.  Ah, but lest I digress…

 

My point is that regardless of politics or personally awkward scenarios, there exists a huge potential for deceit.  As we watch the disturbing scandals unfold, for example, within the IRS and Justice Dept., the challenge is that we can’t tell who and when someone is telling the truth.  Friends, don’t let me infer that I believe all individuals are lying; the problem is that we can’t tell if they are.

 

And so we ask:  what keeps a person from lying?  Really.  What keeps us from being deceitful?  What stops us from sharing a little white lie or even a huge fib?  What within us stops us from shifting that blame elsewhere?  … or from just declaring “I don’t remember”? (… the current, least-damaging deceit method — because if we can’t remember, we can’t possibly tell the truth.)

 

Seriously, though, what stops us from lying?

 

It isn’t intelligence.  There is no moral compass automatically associated with intellectual brilliance.  James Frey, author of the autobiographical “A Million Little Pieces,” seemed highly intelligent when he appeared on “Oprah.”  Granted, it was fairly humbling when he had to admit that many of the events in his quite profitable bestseller were intentionally fabricated.

 

What keeps us from lying?

 

A position of power?  No.  The 37th President of the United States, one Richard M. Nixon, put that reason to rest.  Does the lie depend on topic?  Many claimed President #42’s lies under oath were acceptable because “everybody lies about sex.”  Did Pres. Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction?  Did Pres. Obama lie about Benghazi?

 

If we instead suggest that people refrain from lying because of that inner moral compass, I’m not certain that theory holds true either, as a close examination of society quickly depicts morality as increasingly relative.  Many of what was once considered wicked or wrong now seems actually accepted as good and pure and wise.  Friends, don’t misquote me; I am not suggesting that discrimination or disrespect was ever appropriately “considered wicked or wrong.”  My perception is that morality has become so relative that it’s logical to conclude that “to lie or not to lie” will also become a negative manifestation.

 

People lie.  People always have the potential to lie.  Even good people.  Unless we adopt a timeless teaching of truth that doesn’t sway with the winds of society, the potential for each of us to lie will only continue to increase.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

lies

All parents of teenagers will tell you one thing:  sometimes teenagers lie.

 

Don’t get me wrong.  The Intramuralist has nothing against teenagers (save the added gray hair most of us adults seem to too easily acquire when a new young teen blesses our household.)  At some point, no less, they will lie.

 

It’s not that they’re bad or compulsive liars or even young persons who will seemingly be scarred for all of adulthood.  It’s not that they’ve developed an incapacity for truth nor a fondness for the frequency of fibbing.  No, in fact, I believe there exist multiple reasons for the deceit.

 

One, we might not like the truth; we might disagree with what they did and why they did it.

 

Two, the truth might make them look bad.  Who among us likes to look bad?

 

And three, sometimes it’s just easier to lie.  The truth can be too complicated.  In order for another to fully understand, there may exist too many details or too much complexity; hence, lying is simply easier to articulate.

 

The challenge, though, exists in what happens — in how we respond, what we believe — in interactions after the lie.

 

After a situation in which — regardless of reason #1, 2, or 3 above — in which our teens tell a lie, does that deem them never truthful again?  Does that make them incapable of telling the truth?

 

Of course not.  They probably still are typically more truthful than not.

 

Does that mean, though, that we should doubt everything they say?

 

Of course not.  They still have things to share, and we still need to listen.

 

But does it put their credibility in question — especially when the topics are trickier, the situation is more sensitive, and/or the potential consequences are more severe?

 

Of course.  Deceit and duplicity may be their default response when the circumstances become too intense.

 

And so I must ask:  what’s the difference between a teen and an adult?  Is it only teenagers who sometimes lie?  Is it only the immature?

 

Is it only teenagers who sometimes hide the truth because a significant rest of us might disagree? … because it might make them look bad?  … or the truth is too complicated?

 

I think one of the hardest things for us to wrestle with as adults is trusting the person who once has lied; harder still is trusting the person we believe has lied, even if the proof of their intentional fabrication was ambiguous at best.  That could be a grandparent or person in government.  It could be a person we know well or simply see on the news.

 

My point is this, friends…  “Once a liar, always a liar” is not a wise proverb.  The reality is that even a person who sometimes lies, still — most likely — tells the truth more often than not.  It’s not that the person who lied can never be trusted again; the challenge, though, is that his or her credibility is damaged because we can’t discern the exact moment of deceit.  The unfortunate reality also is, that “Lie once, lie again,” may be a wise proverb.  We simply don’t know when that lie will come again.  When the circumstances are more serious and the potential to look bad skyrockets, the potential for deception also increases exponentially… no matter the intelligence of the person… no matter a grandparent or person in government…  people will sometimes lie.

 

Sometimes teenagers lie.  And yes, so do gray-haired adults.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the best we’ve got

There was a special election last week in South Carolina.  Granted, most deemed it “special” because the vote was held to replace a senatorial appointee.  However, the Intramuralist finds it “special” because of the uniqueness of the candidates.

 

While each candidate certainly sported a resume that deserved serious consideration, neither was noted most for any professional qualification.  The Republican candidate was Mark Sanford, known most as the former governor who resigned 4 years ago after lying about his whereabouts as opposed to being forthcoming about his affair.  The Democrat candidate was Elizabeth Colbert Busch, known most as the sister of popular satirist Stephen Colbert as opposed to any individual accolades.  From a distant, arguably judgmental vantage point, it seemed a poor choice of candidates.

 

Poor indeed.  Sanford won by an approximate 10% point margin.

 

While not a resident of the Palmetto State, part of me wonders if this is the wisest representation for the people of the 1st Congressional District.  A former governor… a man who left because of lies — granted, they were entirely regarding his personal endeavors — left his wife, children, and statehouse to pursue the object of his infidelity.  He is engaged to her today.

 

Ah, yes, I hear the rousing chorus of “amen’s.”  In fact, I read the screeching comments in cyberspace and selective editorials in the immediate aftermath.  “Is this the best we’ve got?” seemed the strong — and even oft articulated — implication.

 

Truthfully, I agree.  Is Sanford the best we’ve got?  Now many of you have participated in this dialogue long enough to know that the Intramuralist unabashedly believes in the giving of second, third, and even fourth and fifth chances.  Many times I have mercifully been on the receiving end of those grace extensions, and hence, I believe wholeheartedly in the generous outpouring to others.  But that outpouring is accompanied by one caveat.  Only one.  But a significant one at that.

 

In order to freely offer that second or even seventeenth chance, the heart of the recipient should be willingly repentant.  True, no man can fully gauge the heart of another, yet the question is:  was Sanford repentant of his actions?  Was he truly repentant of the destruction of his family?  Or rather, was he simply sorry he got caught?  Repentance and remorse are two totally different things.

 

Again come the “amen’s,” especially, I assume, from those who supported the candidacy of Sanford’s opponent.  Of course.  That’s the way partisanship sadly works in 21st century America.  When we desire the liberal candidate, we loudly pounce upon the indiscretions of one conservative Mark Sanford.  Oh, wait; many of us will then turn a blind eye to the indiscretions of a liberal Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, two more whose unscrupulous behavior merited their political exit but are seemingly, currently, waiting for enough time to pass so they, too, can re-enter the political arena.  Again, let’s ask the question:  are they repentant of their actions?  Or are they only waiting for enough time to pass?  Better said:  has the heart of the man changed?

 

Too often we assume the heart has changed because the candidate in question advances our desired political cause.  Sorry, but that’s not enough for me.  Call me an idealist.  But the Intramuralist wants representation by a person who is wise and of solid integrity.  Note that I’m not talking about a man who is perfect and ever without error.  A man of solid integrity still makes mistakes.  But he doesn’t hide them.  He doesn’t repeatedly lie about them.  He doesn’t just “repackage his behavior” in order to make himself sound better.  He also doesn’t merely wait for enough time to pass so that we forget about the magnitude of his indiscretions —  and so he can resume a desired political career.  He is instead truly repentant for what he’s done.

 

“Is that the best we’ve got?”  The best, my friends, equates to nothing less than a man of integrity.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

to listen or reject?

On Sunday, the President gave the commencement address at The Ohio State University.  In his address, Obama included the following:

 

“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

 

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”

 

I appreciate the President’s comment that “we have never been a people who place all our faith in government” and that “we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems.”  The balance of those isolated statements seems prudent indeed.

 

However, the Intramuralist is concerned about one aspect contradictory of our mantra…

 

“… nothing more than some separate, sinister voices…”

 

No, I don’t care about that.  There are people on the right, left, middle, all-over-the-place who call certain somethings “sinister.”  That doesn’t alarm me.

 

“… tyranny is always lurking just around the corner…”

 

Lurking?  Lurking?!  Well, maybe.  But that sounds more like an emotional plea designed to drum up passion.  The President, his opponents, and supporters all seem to resort to emotional pleas when unfortunately deemed necessary.  I, for one, believe arguments should be debated more on their logic than on all the accompanying emotion.  But alas, I again digress…

 

“… And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”

 

Excellent!  We need to get the younger generations involved!  You need to understand how government works!  … it’s efficiencies and inefficiencies; it’s up to you to change this… to improve it… to be involved.  Well said, Pres. Obama.

 

What concerns me?  One line:  “You should reject these voices.”

 

As long apparent amidst our postings, the Intramuralist always — yes, I said “always” —  encourages dialogue.  The only way to encourage dialogue is to also encourage active, sincere listening — and active, sincere listening of those who feel differently than you.  If your argument is solid — absent of logical loopholes — there should be no reason to outright reject opposing voices.  While there is no doubt Pres. Obama is an articulate, intelligent man, his admonition that the younger generation should simply reject the voices of those who passionately advocate for limited government seems unwise to me.

 

If — and I realize that’s a mighty big “if” — if we would entertain why there is a vocal desire for limited government — if we listened to those voices — what would we learn?  Would we learn about where government is both efficient and inefficient?  Would we learn about history? … where some governments have overreached and thus prompted national demise?  What’s wrong with listening to those voices as opposed to rejection?

 

Listening, my friends, is wiser.

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

a “bad” experience

Years ago when my oldest son was a wibbling, wobbling toddler, I will never forget the day his stuffed Curious George went sailing through the aisle at our local grocery.  While first appalled that my son would turn his beloved companion into a public projectile, I couldn’t help but chuckle as George came to rest in the narrow gauntlet between multiple canned goods.  I may have even grinned from ear to ear.

 

Unfortunately, my laughter quickly subsided, as George landed a mere 3-4 feet in front of one of those motorized carts, donned by an obviously, elderly lady.

 

“I’m sorry, ma’am.  My son threw his favorite stuffed animal.”

 

Instead of the articulated grace perhaps far too naively expected, the lady’s countenance turned immediately stern, glaring at me, squinting her eyes, and then retorting, “You need to get better control of your children!”

 

I was shocked.  What?  I need to get better control?  There is no grace for a harmless throw of Curious George?

 

Let me tell you what I did not…

I did not conclude that all elderly women are as withholding of grace as she.  I did not conclude that all persons on motorized carts have lost respect for the rest of the waiting world.  No.  I made zero conclusions about the elderly nor those on those oh-so-cool motorized carts.

 

However, my sense is that refraining from making conclusions — when we have 1 “bad” experience — is the rarity as opposed to the norm.

 

How often do we do that?  How often do we make conclusions about an entire demographic because of a singular experience?  For example…

 

Have you had 1 “bad” experience with a Christian?  (“Bad” equates to harshness and immediate judgment.)  Have you had 2, 4, maybe even 17 “bad” interactions?  There are billions of Christians on this planet.  Even 17 so-called “bad” experiences pale in comparison.

 

Have you had 1 “bad” experience with a Republican or Democrat?  (“Bad” equates to arrogance and a clear failure to listen.)  There are millions of partisans on this planet; they are not all the same.  In fact, I have a brother who is a state legislator.  He is ethical, fiscally responsible, and he listens to those he represents.  More of our representatives — regardless of party — should be like him.

 

Have you had 1 “bad” experience with a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community? … or with someone who believes LGBT behavior is unnatural?  (“Bad” equates to so passionate they actually justify condescendence of persons with differing opinion.)  I have friends who are gay… and friends who believe homosexuality is sinful.  I have both who still love and respect their neighbor.

 

Friends, one of the most accepted forms of arrogance on this planet is when we make judgments about entire people groups because of 1 “bad” experience.  Sure, we don’t feel it’s only 1.  We find other likeminded persons to “amen” our experience, so we’re never confronted with the darts that pierce our self-inflated bubbles; we’re never confronted with the reality that challenges our self-created reality.  In other words, we allow 1 or 2 or even 17 “bad” experiences to tell us what we want to hear — as opposed to be on a continuous seeking of actual truth.  Too many times, experience trumps truth.

 

When the lady at that grocery challenged my parenting, I wish all could have witnessed the astonished look on my face…

 

“What?  I need to get better control of my children?”

 

I knew her response was not the response of all people.  It was not even the response of all elderly women on motorized carts.  Hence, I smiled, paused, and said the first thing that came to mind…

 

“Have a nice day, ma’am.  I will, too.”

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

fixing our eyes

Let me be frank:  there is one thing I have hated my entire life.  No, not pickles.  Not even disrespect.  Unfortunately, too many times in my playful adolescence, I partook of both.

 

While it is true our family has attempted as best as possible to adopt the “hate what God hates” mentality (which thus allows pickles to remain a non-hated option), the Intramuralist must confess to a tinge of hypocrisy, as my enduring hatred has yet to be mentioned negatively in any even dead sea scroll.

 

I have always hated running.  Yep, running.  Moving one foot in front of the other for an extended period of time, without a book to read, show to watch, or witty person to talk to.  Dwelling on my perceived boredom associated with the activity, I remember years ago during pre-iPod/Walkman days, donning my cool cassette player and a basketball, thinking perhaps the clever combination of music and dribbling would somehow ease my pain.  Note:  it didn’t work.

 

In recent years, no less, I have been humbly graced by the friendship of a few persistent, pesky, and pretty perky runners in my life.  God bless you, guys, but that’s still not my ‘thing.’  But yet, they’ve taught me something…

 

My running friends profess the process is more mental than physical; running has more to do with the mind and spirit as opposed to the actual body.  Mind over matter.  A reshaping of the mind.  As one wise friend says with unparalleled passion, “whatever we pay attention to grows.”  If we pay attention to how much our body hurts when running  (or how bored we may be), we will fail to persevere.  We’ll miss the run.  Hence, the question is:  what’s our focus?  On what are we fixing our eyes?

 

Where we go, what we do, the successes we enjoy, the places we falter… on what are we fixing our eyes?  Allow me to thus assert, that whatever our eyes are fixed upon is solely what we will see.  For example…

 

… if we fix our eyes upon Boehner or Barack’s broken promises, we’ll miss their promises kept.

… if we fix our eyes upon one party’s infinite wisdom, we’ll miss our own lack of objectivity.

… if we fix our eyes upon another’s lack of grace, we’ll miss the times we ourselves have justified refusal.

… if we fix our eyes upon the praise of NBA’er Jason Collins — who was vocal about his sexuality last week, we’ll miss the criticism of NFL’er Tim Tebow — who many have asked to remain silent.

… if we fix our eyes upon the need for all to have free education and healthcare, we’ll miss that our government doesn’t have enough money for it to be free.

… if we fix our eyes upon our government’s lack of money, we’ll miss how to care for “the least of these.”

… if we fix our eyes upon the emotion stemming from the victims in Newtown, we’ll miss the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.

… if we fix our eyes upon the existing prejudice of many white people, we’ll miss the existing prejudice of many black people.

… if we fix our eyes upon “if-it-feels-good-do-it,” we’ll miss the negative impact of moral relativity.

… and if we fix our eyes upon the ‘speck in another’s eye,’ we’ll miss the log in our own.

 

Such begs the question:  what should we fix our eyes upon?  What’s so worth it — that the focus does not result in blindness elsewhere?  What lasts?  My running friends suggest we must keep our eyes on the prize — on where we want to end up — on the big picture, so-to-speak.  Only by keeping our eyes fixed upon where we want to go will our gaze not prompt blindness somewhere else.

 

Meanwhile… yes… true… I’ve started running.  Shocking, I know… I, too, am a little dumbstruck.  But my focus is no longer on the perceived boredom nor bodily harm; it’s on something bigger.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

community

Imagine if America was a community… one large, real, significant, interactive, healthy community.  What would that change?  What would we be like?

 

Perhaps some would suggest:  we already are a community — maybe not so healthy — but we’re still a community!  It ‘takes a village,’ you know.

 

I think not.

 

To be a community — an authentic community —  is first, not something forced upon us.  Community is a choice.  It’s a choice, in its simplest manifestation, to do life together.

 

Does that mean there never exists disagreement?  Of course not.  Disagreement does not equate to disrespect (… a few more of us could learn that, I’m thinking…).

 

But if we functioned as an authentic community, we would never work so hard to squelch or silence opinion solely because it’s different.  Dare I say that neither the Executive nor Legislative branches consistently practice such wisdom.  Far too often, P.R. campaigns and rhetorical put-downs are instead, lavishly employed.

 

To live in community means to be on mission together…  We saw that in the days immediately succeeding the Boston Marathon bombing.  Not solely the city proper nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts but rather, seemingly the entire U.S. of A. was passionately seeking the arrest of those responsible.  Cheers, tweets, and texts rang out when the suspects were apprehended.  Being united in purpose prompted a truer sense of community.

 

Hence, what mission could endure in this country?  What mission could a “united state” of America join in on together?  A mission that would last? …

 

To fend off all evil.

To pursue life.

To pursue liberty.

To even pursue happiness.

To recognize that opposition does not equate to evil.

To recognize that evil is the utter absence of God.

To defend our inalienable rights.

To recognize that those rights come from someone bigger and better than you and me.

To learn to preach to ourselves as opposed to listen to ourselves.

To acknowledge God.

To relentlessly pursue his blessing and perspective.

To extinguish terrorism.

To recognize that there exist multiple, organized, anti-Christian organizations that wish to bring us serious harm.

To seek God’s best for all people.

To be humble enough to pray.

To submit.

To do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.

 

Again I ask, what mission could we join in on together?

 

As I look at the purpose articulated by current leadership — regardless of party affiliation — I don’t see much of the above.  Instead, it seems we have a plethora of “me first”…  “Party first”…  and a generous helping of “I know best.”

 

I don’t see a lot of humility, submission, and putting others before ourselves.

 

The reality, therefore, is that I don’t see a lot of community.

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

what’s wrong with this law?

What’s wrong with “Obamacare”?

 

Please.  Pause.  As always, the Intramuralist attempts to stand as a beacon of respect.  You, my friends, have done an excellent job at modeling your diversity of opinion without succumbing to the temptation of disrespect.  Far too many intelligent people continue to justify disrespectful articulation when the moment serves them well.  As best as possible, we strive not to fall so infamously far.

 

It is no secret that the Intramuralist is no fan of the Patient Affordable Care Act.  Having read the entire legislation prior to its passage, we found multiple enactments, which were are not only prone to government overreach but also social concern.  When healthcare is proposed as a “one size fits all model,” the underlying reality is that as the model evolves and impure motive sets in, perceived economic drains on the system will be extracted.  If we can ensure continued care for 100 at the same price as the one-time surgery of 1, why would we choose the 1?  Funds are not limitless.  Hence, economically, it makes more sense to care for the 100.  It’s the survival of the fittest.  It’s natural selection.  Is it moral?  Of course not.  But when a person actually reads the legislation, the embedded motive of moral behavior is ambiguous.

 

Do not allow me to suggest that I believe the creators of this law were motivated by impure motive.  I do believe, however, that as the law evolves, the exponentially increased potential for impurity exists, as money and power never fail to pollute policy.  At some point in time — with the wrong people in charge — I believe Obamacare will be a dire, iniquitous law.

 

Allow me, no less, to return to my original question:  what’s wrong with this law?  Perhaps you even question the basis for my question.  Here is the reason for my current pondering:

 

According to Politico and The Wall Street Journal, congressional leaders have been holding closed-door discussions regarding how to exempt themselves from the law.  When Politico broke the story last week, the conversations collapsed — obviously because of the complete lack of positive publicity.

 

Reports are that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initiated the discussions, although he denies such an account; he says he simply wants the law to be “workable for everyone.”  The loophole in Reid’s claim is that when the law was being crafted in 2009, Democrats repeatedly attempted to exempt themselves and/or their key aides.

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) had authored an amendment approved by the Senate Finance Committee that compelled Congress to partake, but yet, when brought to the floor by Sen. Reid, the bill’s language had been altered, exempting congressional aides and party leaders.

 

If this law is good, why are those who know what’s in it wanting to avoid it?

 

Oh, wait… I return to my original concerns about the bill…

 

Never mind the broken promises.  Never mind the poor P.R.  Never mind that when the town hall meetings got too tough, the town hall meetings were shut down.

 

Never mind that some Republicans seemed simply obstructionists.  Never mind that the legislation only passed through a partisan measure designed for the budget reconciliation process.  Never mind that premiums are now increasing and options for keeping existent care are decreasing.

 

This original, approximate 2000 page legislation was approved and opposed by those who never read it.  They never read it, yet they want to be exempt.

 

Hence, I ask again:  what’s wrong with “Obamacare”?

 

Respectfully…

AR