fruit in jello

president-obama-signing

As is well known, the Intramuralist values respect.  It’s the primary approach to this blog.  Whatever the issue, whatever the opinion, whatever the circumstance or scenario, we can talk about it as long as we each embrace respect.  It’s also why I feel increasing frustration in so many issues in today’s increasingly polarized culture.  Pick your issue.  Pick your point.  No matter how we feel about war, women, or the latest, greatest pursuit of rhetorical equality, we will solve no issue unless we learn to respect those who feel differently than we do.  Note that I didn’t say we need to embrace compromise.  Note that I also didn’t say adopting another’s opinion as equality good and true is wise.  My priority is recognizing that while each of us has value, we were also each created differently.  We have different viewpoints and select passions.  And we must learn to honor one another whose viewpoints and passions are different than our own.

 

That said, there is one character aspect that completely, colloquially “gets my goat.”  I find it perhaps the most troubling obstacle in my personal efforts to respect another.  I find it challenging to respect another when hypocrisy is either obvious or rampant.

 

Let’s face it.  There are times, I surmise, that each of us have engaged in some form of hypocrisy.  For example, the Intramuralist has a few “texture issues” when eating.  I really don’t care to eat something that is a combination of “liquids and solids,” so-to-speak.  Like tapioca pudding, any fruit in any Jello — the childhood staple at all after church fellowships — those foods drive me crazy.  I thought my texture issues were clear… until I married… and my spouse gently pointed out that my affinity for chunky peanut butter and vegetable soup totally contradicts my previously stated issue.  My very mature “texture issue” passion — which I had oft, loudly, proudly articulated — totally, hypocritically fell apart.

 

As we witness current day events, I see seemingly larger issues fall apart.  I see our politicians embrace arguably more significant hypocrisy.  Each party.  Each president.  Each opposing party likes to claim hypocrisy is indigenous only to the other.  Let me make a bold, respectful point:  that is not true.  Hypocritical games are played by both.  Just watch each party approach extending the debt ceiling.  They want to spend more when the president shares their party affiliation; they want to spend less when the president is of the other party.  The approach of these grown men and women is with all due respect, hypocritically ridiculous.

 

The most recent rant where hypocrisy is glaring is in Pres. Obama’s approach to Executive Orders.  Granted, Obama seems stifled by having 3 equal branches of government, in which a politically divided Congress is able to thwart his desired policy initiatives.  Such is why Obama has been emphasizing that he can and will “go-it-alone.”  Those are not my words.  Those are his…

“I’ve got a pen, and I can use that pen to sign Executive Orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”

Note that Executive Orders bypass Congress.

 

Every president has used Executive Orders.  Some have used them incredibly controversially… such as Pres. Clinton utilizing one to fight the 1999 Kosovo War and Pres. Bush (43) in 2001, utilizing one to restrict public access to the papers of former presidents.  The WWII Japanese internment camps also were a result of Executive Order.

 

Here, however, is the aspect that drives this current events observer crazy.  Pres. Obama, who is now claiming his willingness and right to generously enact Executive Order, said this in 2008 when campaigning for the office:

“I taught constitutional law for 10 years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the Executive Branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

 

Bringing more and more power into the Executive Branch.  Bypassing Congress.

I really disrespect hypocrisy — no matter who it comes from — no matter the justification of the time.  Dealing with any fruit in any Jello would be far easier.

 

Respectfully,

AR

executive orders… round 2

In recent days, there has been much conversation about the appropriateness and legality of bypassing the legislative process via executive order.  The Intramuralist is certainly no expert, yet as Pres. Obama averred his presumed certain authority to exert specific decrees, my mind wandered (albeit fairly facetiously) as to what decrees I would declare, should I perceive such authority…

 

… I hereby declare that all young men under the age of 23 must pull up their pants, with underwear waistlines fully covered…

 

… I hereby declare that no texting, Facebook, Twitter, or alternative social media shall substitute for authentic dialogue…

 

… I hereby declare that Congress and the White House must work together and actually listen to one another…

 

… I hereby declare that Congress cannot simply, solely arrogantly obstruct the desires of the White House…

 

… I hereby declare that the White House cannot simply, solely arrogantly decide what is wisest and what is not…

 

… I hereby declare that Pres. Obama must discontinue use of the self-focused phrase “I won”…

 

… I hereby declare that the government can no longer spend more money than it takes in…

 

… I hereby declare that again…

 

… and again…

 

… I hereby declare that the Constitution must be adhered to…

 

… I hereby declare that term limits be imposed immediately…

 

… I hereby declare that radio stations must quit over-playing “Gangnam Style”…

 

… I hereby declare that “Keeping Up the Kardashians” is not reality…

 

… I hereby declare that most all reality shows are not reality…

 

… I hereby declare that we will no longer borrow money from China…

 

… I hereby declare that we will no longer borrow money from anyone…

 

… I hereby declare that we will not print money in order to make money, thus decreasing the American dollar in value…

 

… I hereby declare that no one is allowed to scare people via the inexact science of global warming or climate change…

 

… I hereby declare that no one is allowed to scare the elderly via inflammatory rhetoric so that they will be more prone to vote a certain way…

 

… I hereby declare that politicians will not and cannot lie… ever…

 

… I hereby declare that I will not and cannot lie… ever…

 

… I hereby declare that no politician will overlook what is good or right or true in order to advance their own political agenda…

 

… I hereby declare that no more executive “actions” or orders will be allowed.

 

By this I stand.

 

This is enough.

 

… albeit even facetiously…

 

Respectfully,

AR

executive orders

In the wake of emotion following the shock of Sandy Hook, this coming Tuesday, a Washington group led by VP Joe Biden plans to place on the desk of the President their recommendations regarding increased gun control and safety.  Foreshadowing their report, Biden publicly remarked that while multiple options remain, “The President is going to act.  There are executives orders — executive action that can be taken.”

 

U.S. presidents have been taking “executive action” for over 200 years.  While these orders are not legislation, they still are accompanied by full force of law.  The reality is there is no specific constitutional provision for the decrees, but there exists a vague granting of executive power in Article II.  The idea is that presidents issue executive orders in order to assist in operational management of federal agencies or to carry out what they perceive as their unequivocal, “constitutional responsibilities.”   That’s what the orders are supposed to do; however, through the years — as for some reason seems typical in contemporary culture — we have digressed…

 

Initially, executive orders were issued for such as the following:

 

  •   On December 25, 1868, Pres. Andrew Johnson pardoned “all and every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion” related to the Civil War (the “Christmas Proclamation”).

 

  • In 1861, Pres. Abraham Lincoln used presidential directives to run the early months of the Civil War.  Within his first two months in office, Lincoln issued a proclamation activating troops to defeat the Southern rebellion; he also issued proclamations to procure warships and to expand the size of the military.

 

  •   After World War II began, Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the interment of Japanese-Americans — thinking they may be a threat — thereby impacting more than 120,000 Japanese-Americans, even though many were U.S. citizens.  Note:  it is widely believed that in FDR’s clear growth of government, expansion of the extent of executive orders was also his practice.

 

Via executive order, Teddy Roosevelt protected 130 million acres of land and created 5 national parks.  Pres. Ford pardoned Richard Nixon.  Executive orders have been arbitrarily and subjectively utilized, all via one man’s discretion… albeit one very powerful man.

 

Don’t let me also act as if all of the above was deemed categorically constitutional; much, in fact — even then — was controversial.  Conventional wisdom tells us that Lincoln’s actions were most likely unconstitutional, and the purported cruelty of Roosevelt’s executive orders has been debated for decades.

 

Still, as alluded to, through the years, executive orders have digressed; they have become seemingly more arbitrary and albeit, more political.  Such as…

 

  • In reaction to 9/11, Pres. George W. Bush created the Dept. of Homeland Security.

 

  • On March 16, 2012, Pres. Obama gave the White House absolute control over all the country’s natural resources in case of a natural disaster or during a time of war.

 

There is more.

 

Friends, herein lies the challenge…

 

If you are a supporter of Pres. Obama, the probability is that you wholeheartedly support his executive orders.  If you were a supporter of Pres. Bush 43, you most likely supported his decrees.  The challenge is that wisdom must be adhered to regardless of who is president.  For example, should any president decide he or she has the discernment skills to dictate the approach to the economy — meaning proceed via executive order — such would scare me.  For example, as much as I respect Pres. Obama, his economic background, in my opinion, is strikingly minimal.  Hence, should he enact any executive order affecting our economic future, the Intramuralist would question the inherent wisdom.

 

Gun control?  Gun control?  Did VP Biden misspeak once again?  Or is it totally ok to bypass Congress and simply dictate one’s opinion, assuming it is wisest and best?  Is it ok to bypass bipartisan debate?  Is it wise?  Or is it arrogant?

 

Great questions.  Guess we’ll see on Tuesday.

 

Respectfully,

AR