the intramuralist (tm)

CHECK OUT OUR NEW SITE!

2009-07-23T19:00:00.003-04:00

Now at www.intramuralist.com!!

See you there...

A GOOD NAME

2009-07-23T00:09:00.004-04:00

Throughout history, when a name fails to attract a desired level of interest, loyalty, or support, common strategy suggests altering the name...

Arizona State University has the second largest student enrollment in the country. My semi-risky hypothesis is that they attracted significantly less supporters when their name was “Tempe Normal School.” Do note, no less, they are not alone. Until 1963, Texas A&M was known as the “Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas.” Auburn University was once known as “Alabama Polytechnic Institute.” The title alterations seem to have been significantly beneficial.

The ploy extends further than higher education. Look at the degree to which business has benefitted... “Blue Ribbon Sports” is now known simply by its “swoosh,” that billion dollar Nike brand. “Marafuku” became Nintendo, “AuctionWeb” became EBay, and “Backrub” morphed into Google. Wonder what’s in a name? My guess is the founders of Pepsi Cola are thrilled with the loyalists who jumped on board now that they are no longer known as “Brad’s Drink.”

So successful, the strategy also extends into politics...

The anti-abortion movement of the 70’s became “pro-life,” and the abortion supporters are now identified as “pro-choice.” Funny now that both sides neglect to include the root issue in their name. (Perhaps they know “life” and “choice” are more pleasing to the ear than “abortion.”)

My current favorite evolver is “global warming.” The bottom line on this issue is that scientists around the world disagree on its cause, consequences, and the necessitated response. The dispute centers on whether the warming trends of the mid-20th century are unprecedented - and thus, whether they are man-made environmental deteriorations. At the beginning of this decade, thanks much in part to the seemingly genuine passion of Al Gore, global warming interest swelled. But watch what is now happening in the governments of Australia, the Czech Republic, France, Japan, New Zealand, and Poland. In each of these countries, skeptics are increasing exponentially... not because global warming has proved fiction. But because it has yet to be proven fact.

Hence, since the idea of “warming” seems inconsistent with the cool temperatures of the summer - or the massive snows of winter, the term, “global warming,” allows wiggle room for dispute. Global warming has now evolved into “climate change.”

The Intramuralist does not claim to know if this issue is fact or fiction. I simply wish to acknowledge that there exists a debate. Due to that debate, we need more research and respectful discussion - and less partisanship and subjective publicity. We need scientific assistance in comprehension - and no more PR campaigns aimed more to convince or manipulate. And thus, we need pause - pause prior to enacting any significant legislation during sensitive economic times that continue a massive spiral of spending. Spending should be based on fact.

I wonder... knowing some things remain a mystery to man... knowing some things are yet to be figured out... I wonder if someday we will alter the term, “climate change,” once again. I wonder if it will one day be called “the hand of God.” You never know... could be fiction... could be fact.

SOLID CARE

2009-07-21T01:00:00.004-04:00

In light of the perceived promotion for immediate healthcare reform, let me humbly (but hopefully creatively) offer my very unscientific list of current concerns:

(1) The need for legislation passage suddenly seems more important than what is actually in the legislation.

(2) As noted in previous Intramuralist accounts, our representatives have long been lax in reading the legislation written; a bill of this magnitude should never be voted upon without the actual, individual reading of the bill.

(3) Canada. Their socialized system seems to highlight several of the shortcomings of a government designed program.

(4) Any reform that is massive yet designed to be efficient and effective needs to be clearly communicated with the public it serves. With the current campaign designed to support reform passage prior to the congressional August recess, clear communication with the public in regard to the contents of the legislation seems a secondary priority. Give us time to agree or disagree. Give us time to fully comprehend the suggested reform.

(5) President Obama has long stated that healthcare reform must succeed in reducing the cost of medical care over the long run. Last Thursday, the head of Obama’s Congressional Budget Office testified that the legislation he had seen so far did not fulfill that goal. Hence, until the administration can agree on such, should we not invest the appropriate time it takes - even if that is after August?

(6) Making healthcare available to all is necessary. It also needs to be more portable and innovative in order to serve our country’s diversified needs well. Current proposals seem ambiguous in how innovation within care would be affected.

(7) Is the new way to pay for government spending to simply tax the wealthiest Americans? And thus, am I alone in wondering if taxing the rich becomes the primary payment method, will the rich soon learn how to save, spend, or hide their money differently? (psst... if any of them wish to pay my mortgage...)

(8) One trillion plus dollars. Need we say more? How can we spend what we do not have?

(9) Doing things right is more important than doing things fast.

(10) And perhaps the concern that intrigues me most... what will the name of a government-run healthcare system be? Hillarycare? Robin Hood Care? or McHealth? (... maybe they, too, will utilize the dollar menu... I heard it’s cheaper that way...)

FOOLISH

2009-07-19T08:34:00.006-04:00

In the words of a seemingly immortal 10 year old, “Shots stink!”

Truth is, the boy is right. No one enjoys the physician’s proclamation that a new inoculation is necessary (...and men, please withhold your well-intended empathy until an epidural has been placed in the lower portion of your back).

But Thursday’s shot sent my son spiraling downward in anger due to the unexpected pain. For several moments, more quiet than anything as the tears silently streamed down his face, I simply held him. Then the tears continued but the self justification of his anger swelled. “Shots stink! I shouldn’t have to get them! They don’t do any good! They just hurt!” As the anger persisted, I finally asked him if perhaps we should look at this from another perspective. At which point words spewed from a mere 10 year old that most of us adults spew as well - just below our breath so their logic will remain uncontested: “Shots stink! That’s the way I feel! And because I feel it, it MUST be right!!”

Scary. “Because I feel it, it must be right!”

How many of us have justified behavior based upon how we feel?

The woman who left her husband with 3 small children...

The parent who chewed out the coach as his son never entered the game...

The 20 year old girl who shot Steve McNair...

“Because I feel it, it must be right!”

I looked at my son, who can handle a wee bit more transparent conversation, and said, “I’m sorry, but you’re acting like a fool. When my feelings contradict what is virtuous and true, it is not what is virtuous and true that has now become wrong.”

“But I feel it! How can I be wrong??”

We are each capable of wrong. We are each vulnerable to varied temptations, some that entice us more strongly than others. But we must “live beyond ourselves,” say the wise words of Catherine Marshall, former author and wife of Peter Marshall, the 2-time Senate chaplain. We must learn to base our feelings upon what is authentic, ethical, and true - as opposed to alter what we believe to be true because of how we feel. Our feelings, while legitimately held, are capable of being wrong. They can produce faulty thinking and unethical behavior.

“I’m sorry, Mom.” It took approximately 40 minutes for my son to comprehend today’s teaching. My guess is we will speak of it again. And again. I shared with him that many of us adults still struggle with the question. He realized that even those of us aware of said truth still take turns acting as the fool.

MONKEYIN' AROUND

2009-07-16T08:03:00.005-04:00

Hey, hey, it’s my birthday
And people say we monkey around
But we're too busy singing

To put anybody down...

Or something like that... what a wonderful day yesterday was.

Birthday proceedings always amuse me. We watch people sing, blow out candles, lie about their age, fear their new age, distribute silly gifts - some serious, too. It can be tremendous fun. The entire lying-about-your-age-thing has incredible potential for irony. When we’re under 30 or over 65, our age is quite discernible. Those who lie are then between the 2 ages. Hence, it is only a matter of time before lying or refusing to tell simply surrenders to a logic the birthday boy girl has previously refused to acknowledge. I thus suppose the liar’s motive is to hold fast to a lie for their own, internal, esteeming needs.

Yesterday, though, I attempted something new...

In the morning, instead of prioritizing the activities of the day, planning out my ventures, pondering who would remember and who would call... I released my family and friends from any expectations. In the morning, I simply spent time in quiet gratitude...

Thank you for this friend...

Thank you for my family...

Thank you for the family I grew up with and admire still today...

No, no one is perfect this side of heaven, but that doesn’t negate the blessing...

I have been blessed by my family and friends... by those who prepared me for now... by those here with me now... by those who have shaped me... through whom God influenced me... I would not be who I am today save for the friends and family who intentionally invested their energies in me...

Here... there... close and far away...

Thank God for them... those genuine blessings in my life.

It was a wonderful day. It is amazing how time focused in gratitude softens the heart and keeps the focus in life where it needs to be...

Off of self.

My birthday. A beautiful day. p.s. Who do you need to say “thanks” for today?

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

2009-07-14T08:53:00.003-04:00

As Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor began Senate confirmation hearings Monday, the Intramuralist was somewhat disturbed by the plethora of opinion that seems presupposed for either rubber-stamping or opposing the nomination. Justice Sotomayor deserves our respect, and we deserve transparent answers prior to a lifetime High Court appointment. In lieu of partisan proclivity, I wish to ask the following:

10. Who are the 3 people who have influenced you most professionally? Were they all like-minded? Who have you most admired that has thought differently than you?

9. Tell us: what do your supporters claim about you that is untrue? And what do your detractors claim about you that is true?

8. Do you feel as if the Supreme Court has become more influential in recent decades, expressing jurisdiction in regard to unprecedented arenas or topics? If so, what do you feel are the positive and negative consequences of that activity?

7. Many have commented on your ethnicity. Some even disrespectfully. What bearing, if any, does your Hispanic heritage actually have on your decision-making? Has it ever been cause for personal, subjective error?

6. President Obama has identified what he terms “empathy” as a requirement for his judicial appointees. To whom and how do you extend judicial empathy? What does that look like? And is it possible to empathize with a person, but still acknowledge their wrongdoing?

5. Which is more important: your personal political opinion or a strict interpretation of the Constitution? If Chief Justice John Roberts was asked the same question, how would you advise him to respond? Hence, when your opinion differs from the law, how does that impact your professional thought process?

4. “Lady Justice,” Justitia, the Roman goddess of justice, is depicted clutching a downward double-edged sword in her right hand and measuring scales in her left. The sword symbolizes reason and justice, while the scales weigh the strengths and opposition of a specific case. Perceived as “an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems,” why, in your opinion, is Lady Justice typically depicted donning a blindfold? What is she intentionally attempting not to see?

3. How does the role of God and the hand of human justice fit together?

2. Of your 6 decisions that have previously been reviewed by the Supreme Court, 4 of them have been overturned. What have you learned from those rulings? Have you been emboldened? Have you been humbled? Have you thus ever changed your opinion?

And number 1...

Remembering that you represent all Americans and must serve as an impartial justice, how do you feel about the Yankees, Patriots, Dallas Cowboys, and LA Lakers? In other words, do tell: who is “America’s team”? :)

THE LEADER OF THE BAND

2009-07-12T07:55:00.004-04:00

7 years ago we sat in Dave Thomas’s franchise, enjoying those old fashioned hamburgers, when my jaw dropped, and we must have suddenly looked aghast. Previously uneventful, lunch evolved somewhat excitingly when my 9 month old son threw his hands in the air, and his cast - which extended from his fist to mid-forearm - went flying through the air! “Please don’t hit anyone!!” I agonized, as the small, purple plaster mold went airborne. Thankfully, it quickly came to rest at the feet of another table, and gracefully, the table’s young family joined us in the succeeding laughter.

A few months later - after a second, post-Wendy’s casting - one that would not be spontaneously released due to perspiration, the doctors felt Joshua’s finger had sufficiently healed. A 2”x 4” had fallen across the tops of Josh’s knuckles, slicing his middle proximal phalange in 2. While only a fractured finger, the immobilization was necessary, as a 9 month old is not likely to avoid any interference with his hands.

After removing the cast, the orthopedist said if an additional incident occurred to feel free to return. At that time, his resident in the room quietly muttered the following, loud enough for us to hear but quietly enough to be debated: “Of course, if something else does happen, you don’t have to come see us. It’s not like Josh will be playing in the orchestra one day.”

My son, Joshua, is an amazing child. He goes where seemingly some will never go. He touches people in ways the rest of us cannot, and he hits and throws a baseball as well or better than many adults. In Josh, we were given an unexpected gift. On day one, we realized the necessity of releasing him from all those parent-created expectations that each of us manufactures for our children. And even though we believe those expectations to be justified, the truth is, we have to release all of our children from those expectations. It is just that with Josh, we knew it right away. Josh has Down syndrome.

Go with me, though, to the legitimate concern I have for Josh in today’s growing political debate...

Good men and women are debating the need to reform healthcare. Healthcare needs to become more affordable and portable. Unfortunately, though, many current reform suggestions would make American healthcare more expensive and less innovative. My parental concern is that in any reform proposal, we need to ensure that people are guaranteed the medical attention they need. No man or woman should be viewed as a “number” - someone subjectively judged as a potential “drain on the system”... someone who in government’s eyes is viewed as costing society more than they can give.

Such seemed the mindset of the resident - believing Josh having a functional set of fingers was unnecessary - and truthfully, the doctor’s ignorance identifies perhaps Joshua’s most challenging hurdle: surpassing the low expectations our world often has for the disabled.

When the resident coarsely commented about our son’s lack of potential for future musical performance, I offered a wise smile and said, “Who knows... Josh might even direct that orchestra one day.”

Excuse me... I have a trumpet to purchase...

ACCURACY

2009-07-09T08:16:00.005-04:00

As a self-absorbed and overly ambitious young lawyer, Fletcher Reede has a habit of giving precedence to his employer, breaking promises to his young son, Max, and then lying to both. Soon Max (showing us once again that age and wisdom do not necessarily accompany one another) wishes before blowing out the candles that his father would be incapable of lying for a period of 24 hours. The resulting, fictitious tale, starring Jim Carrey in “Liar Liar,” borders on hilarity. An inability to deceive can at times be comically inconvenient.

All right, friends. It is time to make a critical distinction: there is difference between lying and simply being wrong.

When Reede tells his son he missed his birthday celebration because he had to work late - when instead he was engaged in copulation with a woman significant to future professional promotion - that is deceit. That is a lie.

But to lie means to intentionally mislead. We can lie by purposely articulating falsehoods - or by purposely omitting truth, truth which would impact the public’s otherwise accurate perception.

Years ago, many of us were grievously disgruntled when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. The valid rationale for that grievance is that the existence of WMD’s was offered as a primary reason for invasion. So the question is did the Bush and Clinton administrations - both of whom publicly acknowledged WMD’s during their tenure - did they lie to us?

Or... let me ask the unpopular question... were they simply wrong? Let us not diminish the error. Being “wrong” may well qualify as foolish, idiotic, and/or ignorant. Being “wrong,” however, is not immoral. If being “wrong” is iniquitous, then arguably the integrity of each of us in jeopardy.

This past Sunday, Vice President Biden was asked by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s "This Week," how he could explain the inaccurate forecasting utilized as motivation to pass the economic stimulus package. When the Obama administration urged passage of the stimulus plan at the beginning of this year, they claimed that with the stimulus, unemployment would peak at 8 percent in 2009; whereas without the stimulus, unemployment would rise to 9 percent in 2010. (See page 5 of "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.") We're still in 2009 and unemployment has already reached 9.5 percent. Biden’s explanation was, “We misread how bad the economy was.”

So the question is, when the administration was initially drumming up support for the stimulus package, did they lie to us? Or were they simply wrong? Being wrong is not unethical.

While the verdict remains out in regard to the success of the stimulus package (and thus should serve as significant pause in regard to enacting a second package), there is no evidence that anyone in the Obama administration knowingly lied to us.

Watch. Pay attention. Give each administration your respect. Seek that accurate perception.

LARGE

2009-07-07T08:18:00.005-04:00

(With respect and appreciation to Bonnie Tyler, for her catchy, musical hit, “Holding Out for a Hero,” originally released in 1984, also appearing on the phenomenal “Footloose” soundtrack...)

Where have all the good men gone and where are all the gods?

Where's the great white Hercules to fight the rising odds?

(psst... do you have a hero? ...do you long for a hero?)

Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?

Late at night I toss and I turn and I dream of what I need

(Are there still any heroes? With respect to the deceased, Michael Jackson made some amazing, unparalleled contributions to the music industry. He was so innovative - and he danced like no other! But the current worship by some is cause for discomfort. It seems as if we may be treating Michael more as hero than human.)

I need a hero

I'm holding out for a hero till the end of the night

he's gotta be strong and he's gotta be fast

and gotta be fresh from the fight

(What about Steve McNair? He was a hero, yes? An actual Titan? True, “Air McNair” was esteemed in that way, having a solid reputation as an NFL quarterback who was a tough, effective leader both on the field and in his community. The sad circumstances of his untimely death again remind us, however, that no man is fit to be the object of worship.)

I need a hero

I'm holding out for a hero till the morning light

He's gotta be sure and he's gotta be soon

And he's gotta be larger than life

Larger than life

Larger than life. Perhaps such is the misnomer. Who on this planet is capable of being assigned perfection? Hero status, if you will? Not Michael Jackson. Not Steve McNair. Even Solomon, the one history praises for desiring wisdom above all else, eventually allowed idolatry to be his downfall. He began to worship that which was undeserving.

No one on Earth is larger than life... no matter how strong... no matter how fast... no matter how fresh from the fight.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

2009-07-05T08:06:00.005-04:00

According to the Barna Group, 9 out of 10 adults admit that their faith plays a meaningful role in their life. Quoting the California-based, marketing research firm, “It is still fashionable in America for people to believe in God.” Hence, with the abundance of conviction, why does there still seem to exist significant chaos, lack of peace, and hypocrisy among us? It would seem that faith should impact its followers. Tell me: has faith changed you? Deeply changed you? What difference does faith make in how you think and behave?

We hear multiple, admirable persons articulate their religious beliefs... often in rather public moments...

“I feel so amazing... I’m so blessed... I thank my God, Jehovah, for letting me stay - get healthy through this match...”

- Serena Williams, after winning yesterday’s Ladies Singles Championship at Wimbledon

Has your faith changed you?

“I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.”

- Then Presidential Candidate, Sen. Barack Obama

So how has faith changed you?

“First, I want to thank God, man, ‘cause without Him, none of this would be possible.”

- Orlando’s favorite Superman impersonator, Dwight Howard, upon reaching the NBA Finals

Yes, but has faith changed you?

“Today, I thank God for Watergate. It taught me the greatest lesson of my life, the paradox of power: that he who seeks to save his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for Jesus’ sake shall find it.”

- Chuck Colson, former White House Special Counsel, whose transformation has been undeniably radical

I do not claim to know the inner workings of the hearts of the men and women above; all may be admirably genuine. The essence is that for those whose faith is authentic, it is reasonable to believe that it would impact how they think and behave - how we think and behave... unless, of course, instead of adopting a faith, we simply advocate a cafeteria approach...

“Cafeteria plans” are popular in the workplace, for just as individuals may opt for their food of choice, employees may choose benefits of their choice. They select the benefits which are most applicable to their family needs. I often wonder if such is the case for faith and explains the sometimes lack of authentic change in behavior and belief. Instead of adopting the full menu, we pick and choose which aspects of God we wish to believe in... usually accepting the benefits that are easiest to both explain and apply. That way (how nice) we can continue to base our actions on what feels good or keeps others happy - as opposed to what may be best or even true.

Authentic faith is hard. It is hard due to the totality of change that should accompany the application.

THE MEANING OF THE DAY

2009-07-02T07:59:00.004-04:00

She’s hot. She holds a flame to which no one comes close. Moreover, she seems metallic, made of pure copper hung on a framework of steel - save for that torch’s flame, which is coated in gold leaf. She is also green, which currently seems to count as the hippest adjective in colloquial conversation.

But too, the gifted statue has served as the first glimpse of America for millions of immigrants... inspiring those who truly comprehend that freedom comes at a cost. Remember it is she who stood firm while her neighboring twin towers collapsed.

Tell me: what does liberty mean?

lib⋅er⋅ty [lib-er-tee] –noun, plural -ties.

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.

There is little doubt the huddled masses yearn to breathe free. Free as citizens. Freedom in our soul. The question is what does freedom actually mean. Are we free from despotic control? Free from interference and obligation?

According to our greatly admired, 16th President... “We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty.”

Which man is truly free: the one who may do as he pleases with the product of his labor? Or the one who believes he can do as he pleases with the labor of other men?

As Independence Day approaches, perhaps we should look at the liberty the celebration commemorates: our independence from the perceived overextending law and obligations, arbitrarily placed upon us by the Kingdom of Great Britain. Independence Day is thus more than fireworks... more than picnics and parades... more than baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet. (Actually, since the government now controls GM’s top-selling brand, perhaps the 4th of July is more about Chevy than previously fathomed.)

It is a day to celebrate the freedom of control, interference, obligation, restriction, and hampering conditions arbitrarily placed upon us. I pray our current government - especially those who continue to contemplate further obligations - understand the meaning of the day.

MORE ENERGY NECESSARY

2009-06-30T07:55:00.004-04:00

“How can they not read a book twice the size of the largest Harry Potter book and actually expect to know what it says?”

(From Jake, Age 12)

On Friday the House of Representatives passed the Cap and Trade bill, also known as H.R. 2998, Waxman-Markey Energy Tax Bill. Its final form contained 1500 pages. In the early hours of the morning in which congressional debate was scheduled, a 300 page amendment was added. Question: which of our congressmen read all 1500 pages? Who read the amendment? And today’s million dollar question: who voted on the bill without reading its contents? Who assumed they knew all that was included without reading the actual legislation?

Let me even quote Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) during committee hearings: “I certainly don’t claim to know everything that’s in this bill.” Um, Waxman is the bill’s co-sponsor.

(Psst... see the words from my son above.)

Sadly, this congressional injustice not only applies to cap and trade. Remember the billion dollar stimulus package passed in February?

According to CNSNews.com, “Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would ‘have the chance’ to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress... Of the several senators that CNSNews.com interviewed on Thursday, only Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) claimed to have read the entire bill--and he was speaking of the preliminary version that had been approved by the Senate, not the final 999-page version that the House-Senate conference committee was still haggling over on Thursday afternoon. When CNSNews.com asked members of both parties on Capitol Hill on Thursday whether they had read the full, final bill, not one member could say, ‘Yes.’"

What?! Should any of us be sitting down?! How can our elected representation claim to represent us well if they are not even reading the proposed legislation? Is our government so eager to flaunt its resume that the legislative branch is not taking the time (and thus discernment) in order to act responsibly? Is it too strong a statement to declare this practice as ridiculous??

Note: On June 16th, Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) introduced H.R. 554, which would amend House rules to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House (See Baird’s project at www.readthebill.org). Let us watch what our astute congressmen think of this proposal.

Nonetheless, the same thing keeps running through my head. I think of the saying that “a little child will lead them.”

And then I think of my 12 year old... wishing our congressmen would listen to him.

REMEMBER THE TIME

2009-06-28T08:26:00.004-04:00

For all the controversy... for all the people that wanna be startin’ somethin’... for all the stories now plastered on TV... this is what I wish to say to Michael...

As an 80’s high school graduate, my friends and I spent many moments with you... dancin’ on the beds, singing with our hairbrush microphones, seeing if there was any way we could even partially imitate that moondance. The winter after graduation, we huddled around our newfound MTV (even though our parents thought we were studying for semester finals!), loving all 14 minutes of “Thriller.” You entertained us often and much. Thank you!

When fame surrounds a person, it seems to cast layers around the person’s potentially fragile heart. Did we ever get a true picture of your heart, Michael? Were you a lover, not a fighter? Were you lonely? What was true? What was not? Did you feel respected?

Since none of us truly were acquainted with your heart, let us simply repeat some of the wisdom of your words...

Don’t play the fool for the rest of your life

Work on it brother and you’ll make it

Someday go for what you want and don’t forget the faith

Look at yourself and what You doin’ right now

Stand back a minute just to check yourself out

Straighten out Your life and how you’re livin’ each day

Get yourself together cause you got to keep the Faith... (“Keep the Faith”)

People always told me be careful of what you do

And don’t go around breaking young girls hearts

And mother always told me be careful of who you love

And be careful of what you do cause the lie becomes the truth... (“Billie Jean”)

And the dream we were conceived in

Will reveal a joyful face

And the world we once believed in

Will shine again in grace

Then why do we keep strangling life

Wound this earth, crucify its soul

Though it's plain to see, this world is heavenly

Be God's glow... (“Heal the World”)

And one more, from “Gone Too Soon”...

Like The Loss Of Sunlight On A Cloudy Afternoon, Gone Too Soon;

Like A Castle Built Upon A Sandy Beach, Gone Too Soon;

Like A Perfect Flower That Is Just Beyond Your Reach, Gone Too Soon;

Born To Amuse, To Inspire, To Delight

Here One Day, Gone One Night;

Like A Sunset, Dying With The Rising Of The Moon

Gone Too Soon, Gone Too Soon...

A tribute to Michael Jackson... We never know when death will come. May each of us have peace with God now.

IMPERFECT

2009-06-25T08:38:00.006-04:00

Hold the presses... yesterday’s news trumps today’s headlines.

Yet another respected politician had his professional bubble burst yesterday, with the admission of heartbreaking infidelity. The subject is one each of us can relate to... as we have either been hurt from it, engaged in it, or tempted by it. “Good people” are often involved.

Let me first note that one act does not define a man. If each of us were judged by singular moments in our lives, I wonder who could stand blameless. To think that “it is I” is most likely either ignorant, arrogant, or naive. This side of heaven, no man is perfect.

Publicly, the list of imperfect men and women knows few boundaries...

Bill Clinton.

John Edwards.

John Ensign.

Rudy Guiliani.

Jim McGreevey.

Eliot Spitzer.

And now Gov. Mark Sanford.

(Intramuralist note: while no women are included in the above, more publicized list, please make no conclusions about female susceptibility.)

Our often forgiving public, no less, seems to have realized that while infidelity certainly indicates disreputable decision-making, it is not a pure reflection of the totality of a man’s character. With authentic, private repentance, most have more to give. According to a recent Fortune 500 article, for example, in regard to the power of philanthropy, “Bill Gates has the money. But no one motivates people and moves mountains like Bill Clinton.” There is much more to Clinton’s character than his previous poor behavior.

But why is it that we have trouble admitting the “good” and “bad” in some? Why do we seem to ignore the infidelity of specific people? Why do some seem to bypass the scrutinization... especially perhaps, in the name of celebrity?

Prince Charles.

Bill Cosby.

Katharine Hepburn.

Paul Newman.

FDR.

Julia Roberts.

Donald Trump.

(There are many, many more for whom the rumors hold more than substantial speculation.)

These persons, too, certainly have much more to their character; they have made positive contributions in multiple areas. But with the exception of FDR, it sometimes seems as if we hold politicians to a standard that we choose to ignore in others. Does celebrity motivate us to conceal imperfection?

Each of us has something to give... imperfect as each of us is. We simply need to be wise, graceful, and consistent in handling those imperfections.

AWARE OF “JORDANESQUE”

2009-06-23T08:12:00.004-04:00

A-ha! I got it! We finally got it!!

Follow me here for a moment...

The 2008 season was not supposed to end that way. When time expired and New England’s Patriots suffered a “Giant” loss in Super Bowl XLII - ruining what would have been a rare, perfect season, seemingly only 2 reactions surfaced: either (1) gut-wrenching heartache or (2) unexpected elation. Distress or delight. No in between. We either love ‘em or hate ‘em. Few football fans remained emotionally unattached.

Less than 2 weeks ago the Lakers won their 15th NBA championship. Led by shooting guard, Kobe Bryant, basketball fans either (1) cheered or (2) jeered as the Orlando Magic found themselves exiting The Finals more with a whimper than a bang. For those who have difficulty witnessing Bryant excel (many of whom are still awaiting the coming reign of King LeBron), 1 more publicized “showtime” of Lakers was disgusting.

Let us not forget baseball’s finest, none other than the American League’s Yankees. “I don’t care if ARod is among the best ever; he plays for New York, and they’re all arrogant and don’t deserve another title!” Yes, love ‘em or hate ‘em... such is how sports fans follow the Yankees.

The wide world of sports has morphed into passionate emotional displays. When we support a team, assuming they maintain an adequate level of success, we either see little wrong or gloss over the imperfections that may impede the road to victory. We support them no matter what... often blindly. And their adversaries, well, of course, they consistently engage in error. Their leaders are either evil or incompetent, but there exists no way the adversary could be as wise nor as talented as we.

Think a Jets’ fan acknowledges the superior game management by Brady and Belichick? Or those in Boston compliment Kobe on his Jordanesque closing skills?

The “A-ha” moment, my friends, is that as a culture, we have allowed this passionate, polarized emotion to transcend into areas where it does not belong and it is often unhealthy. We have wrongly encouraged our culture to see Democrats and Republicans more along the lines of Yankees and Red Sox, as opposed to the public servants that they are. No one party has all the right answers. No one party has all the wrong answers. Like it or not, there are members of each team that positively contribute to the lineup. There are talented point guards on each team and some quarterbacks that are pretty amazing.

But sadly, we hide behind loyalty as if it is noble. The conflict is certainly understandable. Loyalty is a trait far too uncommon in current culture, and many of us work diligently to instill this in our children. However, the danger of political loyalty is similar to that directed toward MLB, the NFL, or NBA: loyalty breeds blindness... and blindness may keep us from recognizing when even Brady or Bryant has an excellent idea and thus makes an incredible play. Instead, we greet the play with skepticism and doubt.

Remember, sports fans, even for the dreaded adversary, some quarterbacks are pretty amazing.

SHOW THEM THE MONEY!

2009-06-21T10:58:00.005-04:00

From yesterday’s edition of The Cincinnati Enquirer:

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Gov. Ted Strickland reversed his longstanding opposition to gambling Friday, saying Ohio should add electronic slot machines at the state’s seven horse tracks, including River Downs in Anderson Township and Lebanon Raceway in Warren County. "This is the best course of action to meet our balanced budget obligations,’’ he said at a Statehouse news conference. "If the economy was robust, I probably would not have made this decision.”

Let us not feel a need to opine about the perceived oppressive perils of organized gambling. (Although if I see one more very large, older man or woman, wheeled up to the slots, even on oxygen, inserting their last best hope into the machine’s narrow, eternal black hole, the temptation to utilize sarcasm will certainly increase.)

Yet the question remains: does money trump principle?

Strickland has long been opposed to gambling, but the economy is tough. Government funds are limited, and budget cuts are painful. Face it, friends, each of us works diligently to avoid that which is painful, and no elected official - Democrat or Republican from any state or federal body - likes to eliminate funding for a voting bloc currently favorably disposed toward the decision-making bureaucrat. That could be personally painful come November.

Yet wisdom is arguably in question if money is the motivating factor. Let me go a step further... when else has money been the motivator for our government? When has the motivation for enacting legislation been money - but, knowing a discerning public would note the hypocrisy, when have our elected officials articulated noble principles that they instead hid behind?

Was there any such motive behind the bank bailout? The auto maker bailout? Any of the previous sanctions applied to Iraq? Or do I dare ask, are they contemplating any such motive in regard to a healthcare overhaul? Remember that current debated proposals establish the federal government as an insurance provider, and requiring insurance may be mandatory.

Is the real reason our federal government is contemplating taxing soft drinks and those popular energy drinks not because they are bad for us, but rather, because it is an excellent source to obtain income?

At least Governor Strickland was honest with the citizens of Ohio, acknowledging his underlying motives. The greater concern is when the true motives are not acknowledged.

Think that never happens?

Interesting.

WARNING: MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF NUTS

2009-06-18T07:53:00.007-04:00

Yes, I am fearful we are going nuts.

There are all sorts of them. Cashews, almonds, walnuts, brazils, filberts, peanuts, pine, and pecans... There exist immeasurable means of preparation. Dry roasted, honey roasted, salted, shelled, redskin, blanched, granulated, not to mention that wonderful cinnamon glazed. Next we must choose what form we desire the protein to come in... whole, half, pieces, mixed... It certainly makes it hard to choose. Some are grouped together via creative packaging; some are not available at the local grocer; some are available only from preferred networks. And some people, too, are allergic, making obtaining nuts currently impossible.

I am sorry to say, but the cost of nuts has soared. I remember boiled peanuts from Plains, Georgia being significantly less expensive 25 years ago. It is challenging to continue paying more for protein... something that gives us the energy to go on and keeps our bodies in solid shape (thank you, Dr. Atkins).

And so perhaps we should control the ebb and flow of nuts in this country. Perhaps we should socialize both its production and availability. If we overhaul the nut system in this country, perhaps we could save billions! Hail, Plains! We need our nuts!!

Hmmm... forgive my sarcasm... but the Intramuralist foresees two significant hiccups (in addition to the gestational reactions)...

Hiccup #1: The nut system overhaul claims to save us billions but cost us trillions. It is money we do not have. Do you know where our government currently finds its bill-paying, auspicious pot of gold? We continue to borrow money from China, and frankly, the Chinese are not known to be crazy about our nuts. (They have also been known not to be too fond of our values.) My friends, no single entity in this country is allowed to operate at a continual, annual loss without either being eliminated or going bankrupt. For the US government to continue borrowing - justifying being an exception to this rule - it is worrisome indeed... even if it is simply about nuts.

Hiccup #2: If the government controls the nuts, the government will discern which nuts are worthy - and which are expendable. Since the initial nut costs are nothing short of outrageous, they cannot afford to take care of the nut-eaters who are a perceived financial drain on the system. In other words, the government will be picking out the pistachios. Perhaps, in fact, the pistachios will no longer exist. We will then as a country miss out on what even a green, little nut can contribute to our culture.

People who need nuts should get nuts. Even Macadamia. But government assuming control of everyone’s protein choice seems arguably Orweillian. If the control seizing also entails the utilization of a checkbook with zero money left in the account, then financial foolishness is at the very least an incredibly valid question.

Time to snack on the Thai lime chili cashews in my cupboard. Perhaps the break will enable me to refrain from acknowledging all the nuts involved in this process.

FIRST PRIDE, THEN THE CRASH

2009-06-16T08:42:00.003-04:00

“Too much pride can put you to shame. It's wiser to be humble.”

I will never forget that moment. Any time an impressive record is broken (save arguably by Bonds, B.), we watch... cheer... we look forward to the day. When Mark McGwire broke the single season home run record in 1998, the family of the man who previously held the record, Roger Maris, was in attendance in order to personally offer both congratulations and respect.

But would we congratulate if we felt the felicitations fueled arrogance?

On May 1, 1991, baseball legend, Rickey Henderson, stole his 939th base, passing Lou Brock as baseball’s career leader. He was given a microphone to address the crowd, at which time he first thanked God, his fans, and family, and then he added, “Lou Brock was the symbol of great base stealing. But today, I’m the greatest of all time.”

Who then rushed to congratulate him?

Even though Henderson says he reviewed his statement with Brock beforehand - and it was said in reference to his idol, Muhammad Ali - Henderson soon knew he had committed an offensive error. According to Dennis Manoloff in his interview for Baseball Digest, Henderson contritely commented, “As soon as I said it, it ruined everything. Everybody thought it was the worst thing you could ever say. Those words haunt me to this day, and will continue to haunt me.”

Why do the words haunt Henderson? Why does he now express regret?

Perhaps Henderson is disappointed that his words seem to have overshadowed his accomplishment. Perhaps he gave us an insight into his character which he had hoped to keep less transparent. Perhaps he is only regretful - as opposed to remorseful, not truly understanding the extent of his error. Or perhaps, just perhaps, baseball’s stolen base king stumbled upon an unwritten truth: arrogance is unattractive.

Whether within sports, politics, the workplace, or within relationship, no one responds well to arrogance. To be unpretentiously proud of an achievement is valid, but arrogance is an attitude of superiority; it presumes the way we think, behave, or perform is better than all others. When expressed, arrogance squelches both the efforts and opinions of others. It shuts down dialogue and erases any good. Just ask Rickey Henderson, as perceived arrogance erased the primary memory of his accomplishment.

Whether arrogance is real or simply perceived, it remains unattractive. Each of us could learn much in that regard.

P.S. It is wiser to be humble.

REPRESENTATION WITH WHAT?

2009-06-14T07:58:00.004-04:00

It would seem as if current government has misunderstood the grievance of 18th century British colonists. "No taxation without representation!” they exclaimed, passionately expressing the unfairness of being taxed in the British Parliament without direct representation in the governing body. Progressing 3 centuries, we have seemingly altered that slogan: “No representation without taxation!!”

(Accumulated and quoted from recent reports via The Chicago Tribune, CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post...)

* The IRS is weighing a proposal to deem one-quarter of employees' use of work cell phones as personal use and therefore subject to tax as a fringe benefit.

* Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, has repeatedly advocated changing tax laws to include employer benefits.

* The Center for Science in the Public Interest plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas... Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.

* Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty has proposed a slew of new taxes to meet his city's massive deficit. His first target: budget-busting street lights, which Washingtonians will now fund with an extra $51 monthly tax.

* The cigarette excise tax that tobacco companies must pay the federal government rose Wednesday by 61.6 cents per pack, or $6.16 per carton. The tax now comes to about $10.10 per carton, or $1.01 per pack.

* (Considered in Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Ohio...) Instead of taxing users based on how much gas they use, the tax will be based on how many miles you travel. When you pull up to the pump, the GPS navigational system in your car will be accessed by the gas station. The pump will calculate how many miles you have traveled, and where you have traveled, and tax you accordingly. But that's not all: You will be charged extra if you drove during rush hour, or through a congested area.

* A Washington state representative was beaten back in February when he suggested taxing pornographic materials to save programs that serve the poor and disabled. A noble gesture indeed, which would have taxed adult magazines, adult photographs, adult videos, adult phone services and a few things even adults wouldn't want to talk about. The flesh lobby stopped the bill in its tracks, a rare win for anti-tax forces this season. The ACLU opposed the bill, too, arguing that taxing pornography is a tax on free speech.

Ok, the Intramuralist may be going out on a limb here, but has our representation ever thought of spending less instead of taxing more?

Just a thought, of course.

TO SPUR ON

2009-06-11T08:05:00.004-04:00

Follow me a moment as the Intramuralist strays a tad off course today. The passion remains... the wit and truth, hopefully, too... just a bit more personal...

It seems as if we look at others in one of two ways: (1) what they are capable of doing, or (2) what they are not. We employ this tactic often, and it appears we employ it with a confidence that is questionable... perhaps sometimes inappropriate.

For example, each fall the pre-season football rankings are announced by the Associated Press, predicting the seasonal success of all 119 NCAA Division I teams; such analysis is based upon what others believe the totality of the team’s players can or cannot do. In 2008, the University of Georgia Bulldogs were presumptuously “crowned” at the top of the polls. However, under the humble leadership of quarterback Tim Tebow, it was the Florida Gators who finished #1.

Politically, we also pre-judge the success - or lack of it - of our elected officials. We base this, too, upon what we have established the person’s capability to be. We often do not believe polarized politicians are capable of making the best decision; granted, sadly, too many politicians have given us both pause and cause to expect our representatives to simply vote along party lines.

But indulge me in my no doubt favorite example...

Today my youngest son “graduates” from his first school. He has attended the early childhood center for 5 years, having the privilege of learning under some extremely, highly skilled educators since the age of 2. He has grown. He has blossomed. He can now do things we once wondered if impossible! Joshua is ready to tackle whatever happens next. He is fully confident that he can move forward - even without knowing all that “forward” entails.

His propitious development astounds all who invest in him. Remember, this is the same child who solicited an initial inutero response from more than one doctor in regard to our desire to abort him. Please know their question was asked respectfully. It simply would have been more tactful had they congratulated us on his conception first.

Each day Josh looks at mountains and perceives them to be merely mole hills. Each day there are those who try to remind him they are really mountains. Some hold sincere intention, like his elementary, female peers who possess that seemingly innate mothering gene and thus work to instill some type of control in all those around them. But I also see adults interact with him... like the mom on the baseball field who seems to only announce what my son is doing wrong. Where is the affirmation for being on that field instead? Where is the affirmation for what my son can potentially do? Who he can potentially be?

I believe one of our objectives in life on planet Earth is to spur others on to be who they were called to be. To encourage them all the more. To motivate them to use their gifts. If we only look at others from the perspective of what they cannot do, we ourselves will never spur on another. We will then be the ones incapable.

SUPER SIZED

2009-06-09T07:57:00.004-04:00

“Everything’s bigger in America. We’ve got the biggest cars. The biggest houses. The biggest companies. The biggest food. And finally, the biggest people. America has now become the fattest nation in the world.” (From Morgan, in “Super Size Me”)

The fattest nation in the world. I wonder: is bigger always better?

In the wake of prodigious deficit spending, we continue to hear the government convening in order to decipher what new legislation to enact. They speak of which programs to add and where to increase spending. Let me be the first to say, much legislation supports what many consider to be a good program. But question: when do we employ our discernment skills? In other words, when do Democrats and Republicans examine which programs are no longer effective or which do we simply have no resources to fund? Once a program is funded, does that mean it is subsidized for life?

The size of our government has increased exponentially under most all current and recent executive and legislative branches. Few laws are rescinded. Hence, our “fat” nation now controls how we park, how we drive, what we drive, what we eat, what we drink, how we behave in public, the level of noise we can make, what drugs are available, what words can be said on television, our guns, our banks, the car manufacturers, interest rates, dairy standards, the animal population, what others can say in regard to our health, what they can say in regard to our character, what must be taught, what must be preserved, what is extinct, how to vote, how to marry, how to own, how to rent, how to buy, how to sell, how to operate a boat, what insurance to obtain, the toll roads, parks, how many can sleep in a hotel room, when and where you can buy alcohol, how much income tax to pay, sales tax, gas tax, real estate tax, personal property tax, estate tax, excise tax, utilities tax, payroll tax, dividends tax, motor oil tax, gift tax, amusements tax, consumption tax, yada yada yada. That looks on the plus size to me. Let us say it differently: our government is big! And that is due to both Democrat and Republican-led efforts.

Is this what the Constitution intended? Big government? Control and influence in as many aspects as elected officials deem necessary? Where will they stop? Where is the discernment? I will refrain from Orwellian adjectives, but it would not be surprising if our super sized government prompts questions in regard to the presence of an actual “Big Brother.”

What happened to the following?

“We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over.”

This came not from a Bush nor a vocal Vice-President. It comes to us via the 1996 State of the Union address by President William Jefferson Clinton.

President Clinton, will you advise us now?

ADULT FICTION

2009-06-07T07:33:00.002-04:00

“Bad luck, come and get me!” says a smug and smiling Peter Brady, lounging in the Hawaiian Islands, with that taboo idol around his neck. Unfortunately for the plot of episode #73 and for one of our favorite fictional characters of the 70’s, Brady was not a worshipper of idols. Note that the key word in that sentence is “fictional.”

What good is an idol carved by man, or a cast image that deceives you?
How foolish to trust in your own creation—a god that can’t even talk!
What sorrow awaits you who say to wooden idols, ‘Wake up and save us!’
To speechless stone images you say,

‘Rise up and teach us!’ Can an idol tell you what to do?

They may be overlaid with gold and silver, but they are lifeless inside.

What do we worship that is lifeless inside? What do we exalt or crave?

A celebrity.

A gadget.

A fantasy.

A lifestyle.

A dream.

A status level.

Sports team.

Promotion.

Relationship.

Or an expectation for our children.

Perhaps for ourselves.

It is not that the above are without value. It is not that their pursuit or possession should be avoided. It is more that if such is what we worship, such is what we put our trust in, such is where we find our worth... sorrow awaits.

Thankfully, Peter had Mike, the valiant, ever-so-slightly-nerdy father, who bravely removed the terror-producing tarantula that crawled up Peter’s chest that night. Peter did not worship the idol, but after the predatory arachnid crept up his torso, he began to believe in the carved image’s fictional power.

What fictional item are you giving power to? Are you exalting? Craving?

Be careful of the sorrow that potentially awaits. P.S. I have a feeling that’s much more than a hunch.

NOTES ON THE BACK OF MY PARKING STUB

2009-06-04T07:57:00.006-04:00

Observations from yesterday at Children’s Hospital...

I see all races, ages, demographics. Worried parents of an infant. There are all sorts of colored scrubs. Smiling siblings. Professionalism. Lots of professionalism.

Educational displays - even in varied language. Did you hear that voice? Other nationalities are here.

Lots of paperwork. I wonder if the workers ever tire of it. There’s a lot. A lot.

Parents and grandparents huddled around the toddler in the exam room. “Who should go back?” they ask. No joy there.

My own anxious son. Does he know of the days he spent here before? Does he remember? It was a struggle. Gut-wrenching. I pray not to forget what we learned.

An older, wheel chair bound boy, whose only word was unintelligible. He seemed frustrated at the lack of understanding around him. He was animated. Another boy with similar circumstances, completely unaware of the little understanding around him.

An older lady in traditional, Islamic garb. A little girl in precious, princess garb. Everything goes here.

A young lady with a large gash under her right eye.

A sad parent, picking at her salad in the cafeteria. I wanted to talk with her... to see what had broken her heart. Several worn out adults.

A lady whose knee hinged to the side instead of backwards. A toddler crying. Multiple moderate disabilities. Intensive needs, too.

A woman on her cell phone scrambling to decipher how to pay her bill. She did not know.

A boy with Down syndrome, who somehow found a way to make a grumpy woman smile. One was white; one was black. It did not matter.

Doctors conferring. Conferring more. Sometimes with sobering looks on their faces.

A newborn, only 9 lbs., with the cardiologist. His father cradling him. A teenage boy with a tracheotomy. A boy whose legs were only bones, it seemed.

Paralysis.

On those days when you think, “Woe is me. Doesn’t the world revolve around me?!” Remember that it does not. Our troubles are momentary. Replace thoughts of self with expressions of thanks... we have much to be thankful for.

FOR US ALL

2009-06-02T07:56:00.004-04:00

Few play God well.

George Burns did it. So did Morgan Freeman. I love the transparent scene in “Bruce Almighty,” when Bruce (Jim Carrey), who had been given God’s (Freeman’s) powers with the challenge of playing God better than he, says the following to God:

“How do you make so many people love you without affecting Free Will?”

To which God (Freeman) answers: [snort] “Heh, welcome to my world, son. If you come up with an answer to that one, let me know.”

If we are going to start playing God, then perhaps we should know Him well enough to do so. On Sunday morning, a man decided it was his turn to play the role.

While ushering in the foyer of his church, America’s arguably most well known abortion practitioner, Dr. George Tiller, was shot and killed. Tiller was the medical director at Witchita’s Women’s Health Care Services, 1 of only 3 clinics in the nation that will perform abortions after week 21 of gestation. The controversy in regard to such practice is that after week 21, babies are considered potentially viable, meaning the baby could possibly survive in an extrauterine environment. Kansas law prohibits the killing of viable fetuses.

Please note that Tiller was never found guilty of criminal wrongdoing prior to his death; however, note also that a state medical board continues to investigate possible ethical violations.

What motivates a man to perform late term abortions, I do not know. I have heard arguments based on both cause - and convenience. (I have a feeling it is some combination of the two.) But what motivates a man to assassinate the one who performs those abortions, I also do not know. Regardless of whether Tiller was an usher or saint, no man has the right to play God and take his life. Tiller’s killing is tragic. Ungodly. And wrong.

What people fail to understand is that if they employ disrespectful means to articulate a respectful cause, no one will care what they have to say. If they utilize ungodly methods to fight potentially Godly causes, no one will listen to their opinion. They are acting as imperfect reflections of who God truly is.

We have to learn to be respectful in stating disagreement. That goes for us all.

EXOTIC (...and mind-boggling!)

2009-05-31T07:28:00.005-04:00

On June 9th a meeting will take place between officials from San Diego County and representatives for county residents, David and Mary Jones.

Every Tuesday for the past 5 years, David and Mary have hosted a bible study in their home. Attendance is approximately 15 persons weekly. On what was (obviously not a) Good Friday, a county official visited the couple and informed them that their activity in their home was illegal. They were not authorized to host “religious assemblies” at home without the county’s permission. David and Mary were then ordered to "cease/stop religious assembly on parcel or obtain major use permit."

Let me attempt to comprehend.

I can have all sorts of exotic animals in my home.

I can drink all the alcohol my heart (or liver) desires.

I can engage in sexual activity with however many consenting adults I wish.

I can curse like a sailor.

I can speak ill of anyone I wish or even damn them to hell.

I can gorge myself on as much junk food as I want.

I can TiVo horrific murder and crime scene investigations nightly.

I can be incredibly disrespectful to my spouse.

I can even take the Lord’s name in vain!

But taking it not in vain... meeting with friends to discuss the bible... that is illegal?

How big does government need to get?

It matters not if you are a follower of Christ. The above incident should send shudders up your spine. A government body is attempting to curtail a specific, spiritual activity. Activities that do no harm to others are typically rendered legal (see above). Hence, it seems that San Diego County officials question if undocumented, organized bible study is potentially harmful.

Please tell me this has absolutely nothing to do with the Dept. of Homeland Security’s (also-released-in-April) assessment of the potential dangers of “rightwing extremism” - and how specific groups may gather and rally behind passionate, religious causes. Remember that the scope of their report began by stating, “The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.”

Is San Diego County in receipt of that report?

Perhaps we will find out on June 9th. At that time representatives for David and Mary will again meet with county officials and remind them of the First Amendment...

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...”

Sorry... my blood is boiling. Maybe I will purchase an exotic animal. I may even feed it junk food.

STOPPING THE PARTISAN WAR

2009-05-28T09:03:00.004-04:00

As referenced in the Intramuralist’s “Recent Good Reads” listing, Common Ground, co-authored by liberal Bob Beckel and conservative Cal Thomas, is an excellent book. Endorsed by both George McGovern and the recently deceased Jack Kemp, Common Ground encourages each of us to one, end partisanship, and thus two, “save America.” The book is insightful, especially for any of us whose blood boils when the Washington wrangling intensifies.

Beckel and Thomas contend that our nation has not always existed in such a polarized political state. Unfortunately, beginning in the 70’s, polarization was promoted and party loyalists such as themselves contributed to the corrosive culture that currently exists. No wonder both parties are witnessing their membership rolls dwindle!

According to Beckel and Thomas...

The size of the federal government grew under both Democratic and Republican presidents. These new agencies and departments created a substantial increase in government rules and regulations, impacting citizens and businesses alike. The growth of governments produced cadres of political activists who would descend on Washington, demanding (and getting) access to policy makers. Activists working for change were countered by an increase in the number of people who worked to protect the status quo. The result was a tenfold increase in the number of lobbyists and lawyers...

Something else happened on Carter’s watch that would feed polarization. Congress, especially the House, began to change the structure of committees. Important committees, including Ways and Means and Appropriations, established subcommittees with new chairmen. New subcommittees meant more staffers and congressional hearings, which meant more lobbyists and special-interest groups would descend on Washington.

These activists, lawyers, lobbyists, and special-interest groups possess personal motivations in regard to singular agendas. Polarization keeps their agenda alive. The problem is that it also promotes skewed perspective. Ask Presidents Clinton and Bush 42, who, according to Common Ground, served as “Polarization’s Poster Children.” Ask Ann Coulter and Arianna Huffington, whose careers have thrived on it. Or ask Robert Bork, whose career was derailed by it. Again, according to our liberal and conservative authors:

The Bork battle [Reagan’s 2nd nominee for the Supreme Court] rewrote the rules for future nominees. No longer were a potential jurist’s qualifications paramount; ideology and personal issues were now fair game. After Bork, no Supreme Court nominee would be as candid in confirmation hearings as Bork had been. The Bork defeat, as much as any other event, helped launch a new era of “the politics of personal destruction.”

This week, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was introduced as the next Supreme Court nominee. She deserves our respect and no attacks on personal issues. As a nation, we deserve meaningful congressional hearings. We deserve no “rubber stamps,” no “over-valuing” or “de-valuing” of race, and full disclosure of her qualifications.

VEEP STATUS

2009-05-26T09:06:00.004-04:00

I’ve changed my mind. When I grow up, I think I will run for Vice-President...

* You are elected jointly with the President.

* You can run on his coattails.

* The campaign pressure is off.

* Only the President has to be popular.

* You are expected to assist in seizing the votes of only a small, populous state (i.e. Delaware, Wyoming, etc.).

* Taming your tongue is unnecessary; you can run your mouth either in office or when you leave.

* At the White House Correspondents Dinner, they will make more fun of the President than of you.

* You are not necessarily expected to know how to spell.

* You can claim to have invented pretty much anything.

* You only have 2 official duties:

(1) Casting a vote in the event a deadlock within the Senate.

(2) Certifying the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College.

* All other duties are largely ceremonial.

* Your mortgage is paid for.

* You can declare yourself an expert, even when global scientists offer contradictory opinions.

* You will attend many political functions, but if you commit a faux pas, it matters not, as it was the President the audience desired to hear from most.

* You can claim to have reprimanded previous administrations.

* The only one who asks you to remain silent will most likely do so privately (i.e. see G.H.W. Bush or B.Obama).

* No one is capable of distinguishing the self-held belief that the President should have been you.

* You can be a man or a woman (p.s. If you are a “pro-life” woman, beware).

* And last but not least, in 4 years, you will be able to utilize your current position to launch the career you truly craved when you accepted the position.

Yes, yes... let’s run for Vice-President... when I grow up, of course.

TICK TICK TICK...

2009-05-24T08:28:00.005-04:00

9/11 gets everyone’s attention. It, too, is a day which will live in infamy. While a department was created, the illusion of homeland security was destroyed.

Yet remember what else was established that horrific day? The oh-so-informative, now-ever-present ticker. We now have the ability to comprehend all daily news through simple headlines. The quandary is that all daily news is not contained in the headlines, so reliance upon such concocts a comprehension that is partial and potentially inaccurate. With respect to Paul Harvey, “the rest of the story,” what’s embedded in the article, is often significant. For example...

Last week President Obama announced standards that all automakers would be required to meet in order to ease our national dependency on foreign oil. Headline: “Obama Announces New Fuel Economy Standards.” What Was Absent From the Headline: Automakers responded by declaring the standards will only work if government can keep gasoline prices high.

Also from last week... Headline: “New Hampshire Governor Won’t Sign Gay Marriage Bill.” What Was Absent From the Headline: Gov. John Lynch (D) stated that the legislation as written did not protect churches and other religious groups from being forced to conduct "marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs." He will sign the statute if new, protective wording is added.

Or... Headline: “House Panel Passes Limit on Greenhouse-Gas Emissions.” What Was Absent From the Headline: According to The Washington Post, multiple amendments were submitted allowing the bill to be nullified if too many jobs are lost, if electricity prices go too high, or if China and India do not rein in their emissions. All amendments failed.

Or from the entertainment world... Headline: “'Idol' Upset: Did The Evangelical Christian Vote Push Kris Allen Over The Edge?” What Was Absent From the Headline: Adam Lambert, the runner-up, was a more polarizing, theatrical performer. You either loved him or loved him not. Previous to last week the vote was split among 3. For the finals, the vote was split among 2. The votes previously given to contestant #3 had to go somewhere. I suspect someone other than “evangelical Christians” had been voting for #3.

Ah, thanks for the ticker, 9/11. Thanks for the headlines.

We continue to have a nation that is sometimes, just not quite completely, accurately informed... even when we think we are.

JUST WONDERING

2009-05-21T08:57:00.005-04:00

Is “progressive” synonymous with good?

pro⋅gres⋅sive [pruh-gres-iv] –adjective

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.

2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.

5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.

Second question: does definition #2 always apply? Making progress toward better conditions?

Feel free to chime in. I do not claim to know the answer.

I know many would promulgate tremendous progression in this country. Our technological innovations have been phenomenal. The web is at our fingertips. We can TiVo or DVR practically anything we desire. We can nightly fill our minds with all sorts of horrific criminal images or salacious, libidinous relationships. Technology can even help us mistake fantasy with reality!

But wait... our medical progression has been outstanding. We can detect and discern disease quicker than ever before. We have hopes of beating cancer. We have also made it easier to identify when a disabled child is about to enter the world, so we can prevent him from doing so since his quality of life will be so much lesser. We are so smart! (Intramuralist note: remember that “wise” and “smart” are not synonymous.)

Forgive me, but our governing progression is second to none. The United States government has abolished slavery, enacted formidable civil rights legislation, and established an enduring Constitution. We protect our people. Of course, if you disagree with any politician’s approach, you are allowed to call any prior administration a complete failure, invoke the name of Hitler, or call a person “unpatriotic.” In fact, those in government who represent us must no longer read the legislation they enact on our behalf. How efficient of them! Apparently, protecting the people and respecting the people are also not the same.

Progression... always good? Always better? Always characterized by continuous improvement?

I wonder. I do not claim to know.

ETYMOLOGY

2009-05-19T08:28:00.006-04:00

With respect (or perhaps apologies) to the Supreme Court, the FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation, and to the deceased George Carlin, who seemed to master the art of “black comedy,” finding humor in topics considered culturally taboo...

“The Seven Words You Can Never Say In Politics”...

I love words.
I thank you for hearing my words.
I want to tell you something about words that I think is important.
They're my work;
they're my play;
they're my passion.
Words are all we have, really.
We have thoughts, but thoughts are fluid.
Then we assign a word to a thought,
and we're stuck with that word for that thought,
so be careful with words.
I like to think that the same words that hurt can heal;
it is a matter of how you pick them.
There are some people that are not into all the words.
There are some that would have you not use certain words.
There are 400,000 words in the English language,
and there are 7 of them you can't say in politics.
What a ratio that is.
399,993 to 7.
They must really be bad.
They'd have to be outrageous to be separated from a group that large.
All of you over here, you 7.
Bad Words.
That's what they told us they were, remember?
"That's a bad word!"
No bad words, bad thoughts, bad intentions, and words.
You know the 7, don't you, that you can't say in politics?

Hate.
Shame.
Anywingedextremist.
Failedadministration.
Clinton.
Bush.
Nobama.

The above words provoke from the start... dissolving objectivity from the dialogue.

(P.S. I love words.)

AR

FIGHTING WHAT?

2009-05-17T09:32:00.004-04:00

Conflict resolution. Ouch. For those of you unskilled in such area, please do not quit reading. For those of you believing you have already thoroughly mastered the art, also continue on. News flash, my friends: I have yet to see a Ph.D. awarded for said personal proficiency.

There are those who believe they are masters in this area. However, we have each known persons whose mastery methods include redirecting responsibility, assigning blame, or rewriting history in order to negate their individual role in the existing conflict. For them to assume they are “masters” is a fallacy indeed. (Note: See Pelosi, N.)

We have potential to learn from our President’s example. Love ‘em or hate ‘em (or recognize that either one is most likely, currently based on an insufficient track record combined with strong emotion), witness Obama’s visit today to South Bend, Indiana, speaking at the University of Notre Dame. For the record, those of us not active in Catholicism should probably refrain from entering the debate. The appropriateness of his appearance - and whether an abortion advocate is qualified for good standing in a religious institution whose international headquarters preaches otherwise - seems to accentuate a developing paradox within the American Catholic church. There seems to exist an intra-Catholic struggle - and an intra-Protestant struggle - in regard to how accommodating the church should be in regard to secular American culture. The invitation to Obama is perceived by many to be accommodating.

Yet in deference to Obama, he plans to address the controversial invite. He will not ignore the friction nor attempt to manipulate his audience into believing something he is not (in this case, “pro-life”). He will engage in an honorable method of conflict resolution, which espouses the idea of discussing conflict with respect to persons who feel differently than he. According to White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs (who himself has mastered the word “uhhh” since January), “I think the President is somebody who has taught in a university setting, would understand that this is exactly the type of give and take that's had on college campuses all over the country." Gibbs stated that he expects Obama to address the dissension in regard to his own presence.

Consequently, if Obama engages in a process that allows for the expression of respectful disagreement and discussion, if he acknowledges his role in the conflict, and if he works to promote further, healthy dialogue, then he has modeled for each of us an appropriate means of conflict resolution, leading to growth and greater understanding. Any clandestine goal that works more to “contain and forget” would be less than honorable - and more related to image than effective leadership.

Granted, containing and forgetting would be easier methodology. So would redirecting responsibility, assigning blame, and rewriting history... even when we do it ourselves. Note that “easy” is not necessarily wise... no matter if you are President or have that Ph.D.

AR

THE BETTER QUESTION

2009-05-14T07:20:00.004-04:00

(With special thanks to the wit provided by www.urbandictionary.com...)

blame - n. or v.

1. to put all of the consequences unto another person. Usually to get yourself out of trouble.

(Origin: 20th & 21st Century Americans)

An awful story appeared on yesterday’s front page section...

Last summer an 18 year old, beautiful young lady in Cincinnati tragically ended her own life. She had succumbed to the emotional strains of insult and ridicule, resulting from “sexting.” On their 2008 spring break trip, Jessica and her 2 girlfriends each chose to take nude photos of themselves with their cell phones. Jessica intentionally disseminated her bare picture to one teen boy, and the photos were then unknowingly distributed to multiple other teens (who, for the record, are not necessarily known to be the wisest segment of our population). After approximately 2-3 months of taunting - and aware of a schoolmate who recently hung himself - Jessica did the same. I cannot imagine the depth of the grief and sorrow her family must feel.

But that is not the awful front page story...

In an 11 page document filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton Co., Ohio, Jessica’s parents filed suit this week against her school, their city, a resource officer in their city, Jessica’s 2 girlfriends, their families, the boy to whom Jessica sent her picture, and the other teens accused of distributing the photo. The lawsuit claims negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of civil rights, and “pandering pornographic matter.” Jessica’s parents are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and a monetary atonement for emotional loss.

There is a gulp in my throat as I write this. Yes, it is awful. Jessica’s parents must hurt immensely, and it is a fair criticism to say our empathetic abilities are limited. Yet I cannot help but tearily ask who are Jessica’s parents holding responsible for their daughter’s tragic death? The porn was pandered, but Jessica produced the porn. The school and city did not prevent death, but the parents who saw her daily did not either.

This story is awful... when life is ended intentionally, it is unspeakably heartbreaking. Yet when we ache through such an ugly, gut-wrenching sequence of events, we cannot allow the agony to redirect responsibility. Did others contribute to the pain that so disturbed Jessica? Of course. But was Jessica most responsible for her own death? That is the better question.

My condolences to her family. I am deeply sorry.

AR

DIVIDING LINES

2009-05-12T07:30:00.003-04:00

Sometimes the world simply seems dripping in irony. Our passions prompt us to think the compilation of our thinking is both principled and accurate - and all nicely fits together... even when our thinking may be porous.

A highly intelligent friend of mine recently posed a phenomenal question: how can a person be pro-life yet a supporter of both war and capital punishment? In other words, how can one be pro-life, anti-life, and anti-life? The contrary also holds true; how can a person be pro-abortion yet an opponent of war and capital punishment? OR -- anti-life, pro-life, and pro-life? (Note: this is where the fabulous adjective, “oxymoronic,” attains its meaning.)

Before referring to any organized political party talking points, can you logically substantiate your response? Let me add a word of caution: If you blindly base your argument on any political platform, the probability exponentially increases that the totality of your beliefs will feign hypocrisy. Pro, anti, anti... anti, pro, pro...

We must base our beliefs on something greater... otherwise the irony will only prompt continued chuckle...

As a nation, we have passionately debated the separation of church and state; the dispute centers between the mucky First Amendment clauses of establishment and exercise. It is a valid question, as the founding fathers did not intend for an absence of religion but advocated avoiding government control. They learned from their European predecessors. (One more note of caution: I have noticed this conversation is prone to spikes in individual blood pressure).

Yet here is where the irony arises. There are those who passionately proclaim that there should be no defined division between church and state. “Everything goes! We can talk about God in government and school however and whenever we want to!!” But some of those are persons similarly vocal about the current far-reaching of the government’s hand into the private sector. They claim there, the walls of separation must exist.

The contrary also holds true; many who believe in a impermeable wall between church and state are currently advocating no division between the private and public sectors. “There should be no mention of God in government, but if government wants to control the private sector, no worries. The government can control anything it wants to!”

Both are belief systems based on party platforms... pro-control, anti-control... anti, pro... What is your belief system based on? It must be on something greater...

The irony only prompts continued chuckle...

AR

CYNICAL

2009-05-10T08:18:00.003-04:00

Funny how people work so diligently to control the flow of information when truth contradicts behavior. The Yankees’ ARod has been masterful at this, urging us to cheer on his home run trots with zero acknowledgement of illegal drugs... oops... When new information surfaced discrediting him, then he decided to be honest with us. I am certain he must now be telling the truth. As he said in an interview with ESPN’s Peter Gammons, upon the discovery of his past lies, “Today, I'm here to tell the truth, and I feel good about that.” Good, good... you should feel good, Alex... now that you are being completely honest. Of course, you are.

The current truth debate seemingly rests in our nation’s capital, discerning the appropriateness of “waterboarding.” Waterboarding, as you know, is an interrogation technique that immobilizes one in custody on his back with his head inclined downward; water is then poured over his face and breathing passages, simulating drowning, allowing the person to believe they are about to die. Waterboarding is as old as the Spanish Inquisition. The argument about its appropriateness is valid.

In the wake of 9/11, when the death of 2,974 mostly American civilians was freshly disturbing, as a nation, we were seemingly more apt to fervently attain information on the masterminding of such evil. As with all events, as time passes, so does the fervency. Current public opinion (which let me remind you, is not always an immense source of wisdom) tells us that some of our past national information-attaining attempts are no longer acceptable. Waterboarding reigns at the top of that list.

Wanting to conform to public opinion (as such is known to be accompanied by certain political advantages), many rushed to publicly declare waterboarding an atrocity (often declared soon after invoking the name of a specific, for-now-unnamed, former administration). Less emotionally driven, President Obama and Sen. John McCain both expressed valid concern that the technique violates American ideals.

The conflict arises, however, for House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Rep. Pelosi jumped on the atrocity bandwagon, declaring the method as “torture,” even though she was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. On April 23rd, she stated, “We were not told of waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation methods used.”

It was then reported that in Sept. of 2002, 4 members of Congress, including Pelosi, met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk. Among the techniques described was waterboarding. No objections were raised.

Ah, how the fervency wanes...

Working diligently to control the information flow, Pelosi backtracked this week and admitted she was briefed on said interrogation methods, but insisted she did not know they “were used." Then on Friday, with others in the meeting discounting that proclamation, Pelosi acknowledged she was told they would be used, although interestingly, that account also conflicts with CIA records.

What is the truth? Does anyone feel good about this one?

And we wonder why many of us are cynical about politics... about the dishonesty... about Republicans and Democrats alike... about the motivation for conforming to public opinion... or saving one’s own skin.

AR

SPRECHEN SIE DEUTSCH?

2009-05-07T07:02:00.003-04:00

Invoke the name of Hitler and grab the room’s attention. Whatever is said next is a lose-lose scenario. Satirist, Jon Stewart (not to be confused with “news anchor, Jon Stewart”), provides some insight on the matter...

“These days when it comes to demonizing your enemies, there’s a certain someone whose name is on everybody’s lips... (clips played of Michael Moore, Donald Rumsfeld, Ted Turner, and other garrulous talk show hosts invoking the name of Hitler). And the Hitler’s keep on comin’! Yes, Adolph Hitler, one of the worst mass-murderers in all of history, has now become the go-to metaphor in comparison for anyone you have a minor disagreement with. Pick earlier this year (2005) when Republican senators had threatened to change a parliamentary filibuster rule... (clip played of Sen. Robert Byrd - D/W.Va. - invoking Hitler’s name). You see what he did right there? He set up the moral equivalency between ending the filibuster - and - ENDING THE HOLOCAUST! It’s personally offensive to me because my grandfather survived... the filibuster. (pause for moment of sarcastic reflection)... Thankfully, Sen. Rick Santorum - R/Pennsylvania, stepped in to say, Byrd’s remarks ‘lessen the decorum of the Senate.’ Thank you, Rick Santorum! And that was really how Rick Santorum felt... until 2 months later when he took to the Senate floor to discuss the filibuster issue (also invoking Hitler’s name).

Here’s my point: when you compare people to Hitler, eeeh, you lose a little credibility...

So to sum up, please stop calling people Hitler when you disagree with them. It demeans you, it demeans your opponent, and to be honest, it demeans Hitler! That guy worked too many years, too hard, to be that evil, to have any Tom, Dick, and Harry come along and say, ‘Hey, you’re being Hitler.’ No! You know who was Hitler? Hitler!”

In light of Stewart stating the obvious, let’s not invoke the evil name of Hitler for emotion-inciting means. Bush, Clinton, Putin, Gore, and Albright have all joined the fray in recent years. Invoking the name of humanized evil never broadens a discussion; it is simply an attempt to place your opponent in an indefensible position. Who of us would admit to being on the same side as Hitler?

In an upcoming blog we will take a factual look at some relevant comparisons between Germany in the 20th century and potential propositions for the USA in century 21. But we will follow Godwin’s Law (also know as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies). Created by Mike Godwin in 1990, the maxim states that as an internet discussion grows longer, “the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” According to the ever-evolving Wikipedia, Godwin has maintained that “overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.”

So... to those of you who consider yourselves “right wing extremists”: no more references to President Obama as Hitler. And to those of you who are still in therapy due to your hatred of President Bush: no more references to Bush as Hitler either.

As for Jon Stewart? I’m sorry about your grandfather.

AR

19...35...2...2009...HUTT...HUTT...HIKE!

2009-05-05T07:15:00.004-04:00

Today’s column salutes a man who modeled the Intramuralist mantra. Not necessarily a man that we always agreed or disagreed with (still searching for him or her). But yet a man who was seemingly passionate in opinion, while maintaining an obvious respect for those who felt differently than he.

Former Buffalo Bills quarterback, Jack Kemp, passed away Saturday evening at the age of 73. He was an unselfish congressman, loyal husband, proud father and grandfather, energetic campaigner, and an influential economic voice, especially in the 80’s. Before labeling him as a conservative, we should rightly acknowledge that Kemp’s opinions spanned the political spectrum. While stalwart in opposing abortion and supporting prayer in schools, Kemp intentionally and consistently reached out to minorities and worked to make sure all economic policy was empathetic of the poor. He was tremendously respected by parties on both sides of the aisle.

President Obama praised Kemp on Sunday, acknowledging that incredible empathy: “Jack Kemp’s commitment to public service and his passion for politics influenced not only the direction of his party, but his country. From his tenure as a Buffalo congressman to his ascent in national politics, Jack Kemp was a man who could fiercely advocate his own beliefs and principles while also remembering the lessons he learned years earlier on the football field: that bitter divisiveness between race and class and station only stood in the way of the common aim of a team to win.”

Former President George H.W. Bush articulated that he and wife, Barbara, would miss Kemp much and released the following statement: “Jack fought the good fight all his life. He exemplified for me the best of public service. He was a man of dedicated selflessness, and a man of conviction. His courage in the face of adversity inspired all who knew him."

From liberal columnist, J.P. Green, on the “Democratic Strategist”: “Jack Kemp was a sincere advocate of interracial justice and goodwill... What has not been well-reported in the obits in the major rags is that Kemp also provided pivotal, perhaps decisive support for the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday legislation, twisting the arms of GOP moderates and even some conservatives to support the bill. He remained a friend of black leaders, including Coretta Scott King...”

Kemp humbly proclaimed that his gridiron career prepared him for politics. "We didn't tolerate bigotry on the field, either, Any difference in race, creed and class immediately dissolved in the common aim of a team win. Divisiveness only weakens a team. It has no place in a huddle, on or off the field."

Let me add a few more “Kempism’s”...

“Democracy without morality is impossible.”

“The supply-side claim is not a claim. It is empirically true and historically convincing that with lower rates of taxation on labor and capital, the factors of production, you'll get a bigger economy.”

“Pro football gave me a good perspective. When I entered the political arena, I had already been booed, cheered, cut, sold, traded, and hung in effigy.”

“Winning is like shaving - you do it every day or you wind up looking like a bum.”

There are many politicians today - on both sides of that aisle - who could learn much about wisdom and selflessness from the life of Jack French Kemp. Well done, sir. Thanks for your good and faithful example.

AR

OINK

2009-05-03T07:57:00.005-04:00

I thought it might be fun
To take a brief look at the week in review.
Surely there is something more to discuss
Other than this media-indulged swine flu.

Oh, don’t let me panic
Or disrespect others for whom the topic is sore.
I only find it somewhat ironic
That the so-called “normal” flu annually kills more.

Pandemic... epidemic...
Egad, buy a mask.
But Mr. Biden, please be more discerning
And not make the pandemonium last.

Yes, Biden’s untamed tongue was once again active
And the 100 day TelePrompTer, too.
Do you think the entire world should also evaluate
The first 100 days for me and you?

If so, do tell them passionately
That you oh-so-enjoy The Intramuralist,
One who advocates respect for all
And may challenge the ultra-extremist.

We will also creatively challenge
The week’s political and cultural events,
Like Sebelius’s confirmation
No matter how much money Dr. Tiller sent.

Or how ‘bout good ole’ boy, Arlen
Who actually crossed the party line,
Because the people of Pennsylvania
May not allow him personally any more time?

Oh, do I detest publication and preservation
All in “the name of me.”
People who paint an integrity facade
Depicting instead an egotistic quality.

So in the weeks ahead we’ll continue writing
With certainly more on Congress and The Court.
But if that unnamed flu comes up again
Feel free to add a sarcastic snort.

AR

THIS USED TO BE MY PLAYGROUND

2009-04-30T07:42:00.008-04:00

Let me share with you a sly little secret: my husband detests most reality shows. Oh, not all. “Dancing with the Stars” is fine, and “Amazing Race” passes the test, assuming the participants are not digesting too many of those odious, indigenous foods. “The Apprentice” and “The Biggest Loser,” well, they sometimes fail to maintain his attention, but both have their wholesome moments. And truthfully, “The Bachelor” and “Bachelorette” are not reality; they are only fantasized escapes from reality (which can be quite enjoyable at times if you are longing to DENY the world we live in...).

My husband does not care for shows that do 2 things: (1) manipulate people’s feelings, and (2) return us to the elementary school, kickball playground...

“Pick me! Pick me!”

“No, I should be first!”

“No, no... I play the best at short.”

“Well, whatever you do, certainly don’t pick him! He’s too fat and too slow. He’d bring our entire team down.”

“Of course, I won’t pick him. I don’t want to be seen with any of the wrong people. I want to be cool.”

“I’m cool. Pick me!”

CBS’s “Survivor” has an interesting, “elementary” flavor, if you will. In fact, this so-called reality slice originated in 1997 on Swedish television, and now attracts a loyal, global audience. In Austria and Germany, it is termed “Expedition Robinson”; in Russia, it is “Last Hero”; and in Venezuela, they call it, “Robinson: La Gran Aventura.”

Did you see the “Survivor” episode a few years ago where at its onset, 18 people arrived on a remote island, and immediately, with minimal, previous interaction, 1 was voted off? I wonder how it felt to be that 1. This was not the playground; these were adults... adults who assumed they were capable of judging someone’s strengths, weaknesses, team benefit, and even their heart - based on looks and first impressions.

But we would never do that, right?

We would never judge a person based on looks and first impression. I could suggest that we do not judge based on the color of skin, but because thankfully fewer are racist, we sometimes negate personal application on this teaching - forgetting that we actually still might judge another by something else... by their weight, by their athletic ability, by their accent, by their political standing, by their wealth, by their faith... or lack of it. We would never judge their heart. Let me be clear on the meaning of judgment. Judgment in regard to a consequence rendered for wrongful behavior is appropriate. Judgment in its colloquial definition of looking down on someone is not.

But we would never do that, right?

AR

FIRST GRADE

2009-04-28T07:05:00.006-04:00

Make the grade. Pass a grade. Salary grade. Investment grade. Grade level. Above my pay grade. Percent grade. Grade book. GPA.

How in the name of political correctness, do we perceive ourselves with the profound proficiency to “grade” another? The capability to establish accurate, expeditious assessments?

From all 256 selections of last weekend’s NFL, 40-zillion-hour-long draft to President Obama’s first 100 days in office, somehow so many of us believe we can accurately assess a person’s performance or value instantaneously. Now it is no secret that I am not a fan of spending money not in my possession (See “Personal Finance 101”); however, a majority of Obama’s monetary spree falls into the category of “S.N.A.R.L.” -- “Spend Now And Results Later.” In other words, we have yet to net the results. Thus, a positive OR negative assessment is inconclusive at this time.

I wonder how the Boston Celtics, the NBA’s winningest championship franchise, was graded following the 1986 NBA draft. They had tremendous, birdlike returning talent, but still attained the 2nd pick in the entire draft. With our profound assessment ability going immediately into affect, any Mel-Kiper-like appraisal would have been superb. Yet less than 48 hours after the draft, the Celtics’ pick, Maryland’s Len Bias, suffered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia that resulted from a cocaine overdose. Bias was projected to be a “can’t-miss” superstar, drawing comparisons to the Airness himself, who was only in year 2 at the time. Rims shattered throughout the fragile basketball world.

Magic Johnson, 3 time NBA MVP and 12-time all-star, said the following in remembrance of Bias’s death a few years ago:

"I can't believe it's been 20 years. I thought he was going to not just be an all-star but make an incredible impact on basketball. But to leave us early and not have a chance to even put on that Boston Celtics uniform, buy his mother that house, brag to his friends that he scored on Magic and Dr. J and Michael Jordan. He didn't get a chance to do any of it. You work your whole young life to be drafted and fulfill that dream of making it in the NBA . . . and all because you experimented with drugs. . . . I think it shocked the whole sports community. And unfortunately, I don't know that we've learned. That would be the saddest part, that we didn't learn and kids in our communities are still dying, still ruining their lives by selling it... It's just on, and on."

The grades were wrong. Instantaneous assessment is full of loopholes. From athletic drafts to presidential activity, we “grade” based on superstardom and public perception. The conflict is that superstardom and perception do not dictate long term performance. Performance cannot be accurately assessed via public opinion.

Chances are we will be wrong again. Probably already are.

AR

OUTRAGE

2009-04-26T07:12:00.004-04:00

Rumor has it a funny thing happened at last weekend’s Miss USA pageant. I am not certain my facts are correct, but here is the grapevine version not currently found via mainstream sources...

The beautiful and talented Miss California, 22 year old Carrie Prejean, gracefully ambled her way before the microphone, in preparation for the used-to-be-softball question, this one from judge, Mario Lavandeira, better known as Perez Hilton. Hilton has long been known in celebrity circles for his tremendous tameness, modest appearance, and respect for all peoples, especially for those who disagree with him.

Prejean is ready, and Hilton asks, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"

Prejean hesitates for a minute, perhaps knowing that there exists no win/win answer to the controversial inquiry... perhaps wondering why she, too, failed to receive a chance to instead declare her abundant affinity for world peace. Then, with the eager audience on the edge of their seats, she offers the following:

”We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between whoever you want it to be - man, boy, woman, girl, animal, you-name-it. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

Hilton, a blogger who proclaims to speak “what is on everyone’s minds,” is obviously uncomfortable and outraged. He scored Prejean a zero for her response, and later called her a “dumb b**ch,” one who offered the "worst answer in pageant history." (Never mind that the contestants are not to be judged on the position of their opinion - but rather on the articulation of it.)

Following the pageant, the celebrities (who seem to think that because they are celebrities, their public opinions are also necessary to articulate) chimed in. From E! News anchor, Giuliana Rancic, on twitter.com: "I know I'm a journalist, and I should be objective ... but she is an ignorant disgrace and she makes me sick to my stomach."

An ignorant disgrace. A dumb you-know-what. All because the prepossessing Prejean supported gay marriage.

What would happen in our country if someone publicly expressed support for homosexual marriage and the response was outrage? The response was name-calling? ...and “how dare you have that opinion!” Tell me: is outrage only allowed in one direction?

Just a question... and just a rumor, of course.

AR

CHOOSING WISELY

2009-04-23T13:35:00.004-04:00

It is always interesting when a story is retold... the lessons repeated... often stories of good and evil... stories with great moral dilemmas... wise truth presented.

Never will I forget the 1982 drama, “Sophie’s Choice,” starring the Academy Award winning Meryl Streep. Streep portrays Sophie Zawistowski, a beautiful Polish immigrant from the post-World War II era, fragilely displaying the remnants of serial number “111379” tattooed into her forearm. In a story of love, tragedy, and attention-attracting triangles, Streep’s character reveals a history of tremendous heartache, walking through the perils of Auschwitz, tormented by having to choose which of her two children will live... and which one will die.

At the movie’s climax, Sophie pleads, "Don't make me choose. I can't choose!" Horrifically, the Nazi soldiers share no sympathy. Without the articulation of her choice, the soldier seizes both. Hence, Sophie screams, "Take my little girl!" Her moment of harrowing decision shapes the rest of her life, concluding she is an unfit and cruel mother, as at the last moment, she actually chose between her children.

The story’s origin lies in a 2000 year old dialogue between two prostitutes and their king...

The one woman said, "My master, this woman and I live in the same house. While we were living together, I had a baby. Three days after I gave birth, this woman also had a baby. We were alone—there wasn't anyone else in the house except for the two of us. The infant son of this woman died one night when she rolled over on him in her sleep. She got up in the middle of the night and took my son—I was sound asleep, mind you!—and put him at her breast and put her dead son at my breast. When I got up in the morning to nurse my son, here was this dead baby! But when I looked at him in the morning light, I saw immediately that he wasn't my baby."

"Not so!" said the other woman. "The living one's mine; the dead one's yours."

The first woman countered, "No! Your son's the dead one; mine's the living one." They went back and forth this way in front of the king.

The king said, "What are we to do? This woman says, 'The living son is mine and the dead one is yours,' and this woman says, 'No, the dead one's yours and the living one's mine.'" After a moment the king said, "Bring me a sword." They brought the sword to the king. Then he said, "Cut the living baby in two—give half to one and half to the other."

The real mother of the living baby was overcome with emotion for her son and said, "Oh no, master! Give her the whole baby alive; don't kill him!" But the other one said, "If I can't have him, you can't have him—cut away!"

The king gave his decision: "Give the living baby to the first woman. Nobody is going to kill this baby. She is the real mother."

Wisdom to ponder for the day... recognizing we are always in need of wisdom...

AR

GREEN HAM (aka "Pork")

2009-04-21T07:05:00.005-04:00

(Note: Today's creativity is dedicated to the Congressmen toying this week with the idea of abolishing the internet sales tax moratorium... thereby increasing the taxes of persons of ALL income levels.)

That plethora of taxes!
That plethora of taxes!
I do not like
that plethora of taxes!

Do you like a plethora of taxes?

I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.
I do not like a plethora of taxes.

Would you like them here or there?

I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like a plethora of taxes.
 I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.

Would you like them from your city?
Would you like them as huge government spending pity?

I do not like them from my city.
I do not like them as huge government spending pity.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like a plethora of taxes.
I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.

Would you like them from your state?
Would you like them to pay for our polarized campaign slate?

Not from my state.
Not for your slate.
Not from my city.
Not for government pity.
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I will not pay a plethora of taxes.
I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.

How about our new tax - taxing internet sales?
Or to pay more before another school fails?

I do not like taxing internet sales.
It’s not my fault if another school fails.
I do not like a plethora of taxes.
I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man.

But in Seuss’s story, you try it and see,
That trying something new is a great way to be.

A capitalist government should not try it and see
For it is not a great way to be.
It creates everlasting programs and helps not the debt
As investing incentives will no longer be kept...
I do not like a plethora of taxes.
I do not like them, Tax-&-Spend Man!

AR

PICK A WING

2009-04-19T07:39:00.004-04:00

Here we go again... call it the politics of the politically correct. Call it a positive spin. Call it a half full glass approach.

In February, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano, made her initial congressional appearance and intentionally refrained from utilizing the word, “terrorism.” She was questioned by many thereafter in regard to her word choice. In fact, when asked by a foreign reporter if Islamic terrorism suddenly no longer poses a threat to our country, Napolitano said:

“Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Truthfully, to debate Napolitano’s vernacular seems fruitless to me. Despite the distinct, vocabulary difference from her predecessors, as long as she recognizes that 9/11 was an attack spurred on by people motivated by evil, I care not if she cleverly calls it something other than “terrorism,” thinking somehow it will make for better politics. Hence, I will take her at her word... attempting to move away from these “politics of fear.”

Last week Napolitano’s department then released the following report: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” I heard the buzz outside the beltway and thus decided to read the 9 page, McCarthyistic document myself. It is a broad, fascinating document, which singles out those who oppose abortion and immigration, gun owners, and returning veterans as potential “extremists,” primarily due to a slowed economy and the “historic election of our first African American President.” The generalized categories do not necessarily have a history of violence; the report asserts that the holding of such opinions alone may lead to violence. It is not specific, unlike the previous 7 page DHS report, “Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade” (yes, which I also so joyfully read in my free time this week). The “leftwing” report named specific extremist groups with violent histories, their planned targets, and proposed intentional strategies.

The stark contrast between the two reports is most revealing, and before any of us begin to crow about the appropriateness of either winged report, we need to read the other, also. Thankfully, Napolitano has already publicly apologized to our veterans, recognizing that uniformly lumping them into potential extremist groups upon their return to civilian life, was perhaps not the best means of expressing the government’s gratitude for their service.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat with congressional DHS oversight said he was “dumbfounded” by Napolitano’s assertions. To her, Thompson wrote: "This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans. As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans — whether a person’s beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are ‘extremist’ or not.” Believing an opinion different than another does not substantiate extremism... or terrorism for that matter either.

Excuse me...what again does it mean to avoid the politics of fear?

AR

AYE, AYE...

2009-04-16T00:12:00.004-04:00

“Psst! Avast there! It be too late to alter course, mateys. And there be plundering pirates lurkin' in ev'ry cove, waitin' to board. Sit closer together and keep your ruddy hands in board. That be the best way to repel boarders. And mark well me words, mateys: Dead men tell no tales! Ye come seekin' adventure with salty old pirates, eh? Sure you've come to the proper place. But keep a weather eye open mates, and hold on tight. With both hands, if you please. Thar be squalls ahead, and Davy Jones waiting for them what don't obey.”

Next in Disneyland, the ride’s chilling sounds echo even more audibly, as the guests plunge down a thundering waterfall. When they reach the bottom of the waterfall, guests actually are entitled to a brief respite - albeit however briefly... "Dead men tell no tales!"

“Pirates of the Caribbean” was the the last attraction in which Walt Disney himself participated in designing; it premiered 3 months after his death. If only it was still 1966... and still simply a theme park ride.

Piracy has existed since the onset of oceanic trade routes. Julius Caesar was even kidnapped once by Cilician pirates. The story is told that the pirates demanded a ransom of 20 talents of gold, to which Caesar, humble as he was, declared he was worth at least 50. When the ante was upped, the sum was paid, and Caesar was released.

Currently, piracy has escalated off Somalia’s Horn of Africa and in the Indian Ocean. U.S. Secretaries Gates and Clinton are huddling to address this both efficiently and well. Yet while this criminal, maritime activity may be as old as the seas themselves, current events should not be equated with Disney or Johnny Depp. The International Marine Bureau, in their most recent statistics, report 263 attacks in 2007; that does not account for the resulting hostages and/or murders. Somalian rebels have posed a threat to international shipping since the country’s civil war began in the early 1990’s. The state of Somalia is treacherous; children, refugees, and Christians are dying daily. But piracy is not a war between countries; the pirates have no national authority to attack either last week’s Maersk Alabama or this week’s MV Liberty Sun. They are simply men acting maliciously.

The pirates are also not easily governed nor deterred. Note pirate Omar Dahir Idle’s words to The Associated Press, in response to a U.S. warning and the death of 5 of his unscrupulous cohorts: “Our latest hijackings are meant to show that no one can deter us from protecting our waters from the enemy because we believe in dying for our land. Our guns do not fire water. I am sure we will avenge.“ It would seem as if the pirates have confused the enemy’s true identity.

Following heroic efforts instead - and the Easter rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips, President Obama vowed to “halt the rise of piracy.” Following his own renewed freedom, Julius Caesar also executed an aggressive course of action; he hawkishly pursued his captors and then had them put to death. Guess he assumed 50 talents was also not enough.

There may be plundering pirates “lurkin,” but in order to truly keep the peace, the United States should be waiting for them that “don’t obey.”

AR

THE PARTY LINE

2009-04-14T07:32:00.006-04:00

Let’s start today with a word of caution: today’s blog will upset many. My apologies. I have no desire to upset you. My goal is simply to handle truth well and to dialogue respectfully. Sometimes truth upsets us, as it forces us to examine our thinking. Some of that thinking we’ve long held with solid, strong, seemingly confidently clenched fists; it is painful to admit some ideals have been wrongly - or perhaps, stubbornly - clenched.

Contrasting that pain, sometimes we are instead angered by truth, which usually reveals we may have most to learn. The wise man realizes there is always more to learn; the wise man knows his thinking should never be free from examination. Thus, I humbly offer one more nugget of wisdom: belief alone does not make something right.

In our inaugural November 4th posting, the following election learning was presented: “Jesus would not be a Democrat OR a Republican.” I was delighted to hear the echoing “amens”... even from those for whom “amen” is not included in their accustomed Sunday morning rhetoric.

Yet I wonder if we realized what truth our amens were affirming...

The paradox undoubtedly develops as each of us enjoys the public declaration that our so-called opposing party has yet to corner the market on righteousness (... note that self-righteousness also remains up for grabs). The clever sneer emerging from our un-pried lips forgets that our party falls into the same bracket of untruth. Some of us are so loyal to one political party, we ignore the fact that Jesus would most likely have a few issues with our platform as well.

For Democrats, my sensitive stab is Jesus would have a few problems with how they handle certain social issues. For Republicans, my equally sensitive stab is Jesus would have a few problems with how they handle certain social issues. And for both established parties, my not-so-sensitive stab is Jesus would be disgusted with the lack of respect they offer one another.

Let me not suggest that any of us have the thinking of Jesus entirely deciphered. That is exactly the point we tend to miss. But it sometimes seems as if we sell our souls for a decidedly greater good, instead of having the courage, integrity, and humility to admit that “it’s not all good.” For example, we know now that political earmarks are spending directives subtly inserted into legislation, designed to avoid both congressional debate and public scrutiny. We are outraged when millions of dollars are inserted by a member of the opposing party! But when the inserter is supposedly “one of our own,” we tend to either ignore or divert attention. Remind me what courage it takes to ignore.

We have failed to realize that loyalty sometimes obstructs integrity. Party loyalty often breeds both ignorance and polarization. Ignorance and polarization fail to comply with those who ask “What Would Jesus Do.”

What would Jesus do? Great question. Perhaps we should ask.

AR

LOGIC

2009-04-12T09:00:00.003-04:00

I am not normally one to be accused of being too “churchy” or religious. To me, religion is very logical. It makes sense... especially when you consider this day. Today is a day celebrated by billions around the world. It is the one thing that separates a belief in Jesus from all other faiths. Most reputed religions possess some degree of wise teaching and a wise leader. Jesus, however, is the only leader who appeared in bodily form, whose body is currently not decaying in a tomb.

From a classic, Josh McDowell’s More Than a Carpenter:

“Dr. Simon Greenleaf was one of the greatest legal minds we have had in this country. He was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. H.W.H. Knotts in the Dictionary of American Biography says of him: ‘To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among legal schools of the United States.’ While professor of law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume in which he examined the legal value of the apostles’ testimony to the resurrection of Christ. He observed that it was impossible that the apostles ‘could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.’ Greenleaf concluded that the resurrection of Christ was one of the best supported events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence administered in courts of justice.”

(For the record, famous Harvard law graduates include Rutherford B. Hayes, Barack Obama, 5 sitting Supreme Court justices, and even notables such as the former NBA player Len Elmore and Basil O’Connor, the former polio research advocate and president of the American Red Cross.)

But the point is this, again borrowing from the articulate McDowell:

“...What do you think of the empty tomb? After examining the evidence from a judicial perspective, Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, concluded that ‘there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.’”

That truth makes following Jesus quite logical.

AR

COLORED GLASSES

2009-04-09T08:41:00.005-04:00

Wow... and to think I thought so many embraced a world of black and white, with random protrusions of gray. Examine a sampling of persuasive headlines from recent months:

How Green Is Your Cell Phone?

How Green Are Plastic and Wire Coat Hangers?

How Green Was the Inauguration of Barack Obama?

How Green Is Thy Stimulus?

How Green Is Energy From Pond Scum? 

How Green Are 'Organic' Shoes?

How Green Are Low-Flow Toilets?

How Green Is Green?

You can find web sites encouraging us to “Go Green,” “Think Green,” and “Vote for a Green Hero.” In fact, there are now “green celebrities,” “green politicians,” and “green-collar workers.” Excellent! No longer must the Grinch and Yoda live in isolation!

Truthfully, I appreciate the eco-encouragement. Each of us needs to be responsible for the planet we inhabit. What more causes question are operations that are either intentionally covert or intrinsically arrogant. Case in point... Today’s web article entitled “10 Ways to Convince People To Go Green Without Mentioning the Environment.” Please mention the environment. We need to care for the world in which our children hope to dwell; however, not all wish to belong to an arguably almost-religious movement analyzing our toilets and pond scum. (Did I mention the “organic shoes”?) We should never let caring for the Earth and worshipping the Earth be equated with one another.

Also, I am concerned about the lack of respect given to a person who neglects the bandwagon jump and views the Earth via different colored glasses. Responsible people disagree on what harms the Earth and what does not. To assume one has every malevolent angle deciphered - and thus conclude those who feel differently are either ignorant or abusive, seems to ignite an arrogant perspective.

I would write more, but I need to reflect a few minutes, assessing how I can be a better steward of this Earth, and thus not begin any sarcastic barrage. Time to hit the piano and play a few notes. I think I’ll start in the “Wicked” songbook - with a song from the so-called “wicked witch,” Elphaba’s “The Wizard and I,” singing: “...And since folks here to an absurd degree, seem fixated on your verdigris, Would it be all right by you, If I de-greenify you?”

We can start with my shoes.

AR

FEELIN' GOOD

2009-04-07T00:06:00.004-04:00

Have you noticed the new, liberating mentality embraced by current culture? If it feels good, do it! Go for it! It must be good! It must be ok! It must be right.

This type of logical processing is a derivative of “emotivism,” the prominent 20th century meta-ethical viewpoint, developed 3 centuries earlier by George Berkeley. Emotivism states that (1) ethical principles do not need propositions, content, and/or meaning; and (2) ethical principles express emotional attitudes. In more simplistic terms, moral behavior is primarily determined as an expression of personal desire.

At this notion, perhaps some quietly mutter an “Amen, brother.” However, lest you respond too hastily in your concurrence, note existing establishments in this country, specifically designed to promote unique, personal desires. For example:

Meet NAMBLA... The North American Man/Boy Love Association is a New York City and San Francisco-based organization that advocates the liberalization of laws against sexual relations between boys and men. Their stated goal is to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships." They believe male children should be “free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences." (Intramuralist’s Creative Word of Wisdom: see definition of the word “pedophile.”) While NAMBLA’s numbers are both secretive and small, a rocket scientist is unnecessary to depict the healthiness of the desire forming the foundation for this organization.

Yes, but if it feels good, do it! Go for it! It must be good! It must be ok! It must be right.

So today’s question is this: what are our laws based upon? Should we substantiate governing based on something greater? On historical precedent? Something more? Or should we substantiate governing based upon how we feel? On feelings that have the potential to merely sway with the wind?

It must be right, right?

Opponents of governing based on something greater are not guilty of a “God-intoxicating bigotry,” as coined by Rod Dreher in this week’s Dallas Morning News editorials; they have simply chosen differently. They have determined that feelings will not substantiate their basis for contemporary cultural debate. They have intentionally chosen a more lasting moral compass. Research the fate of cultures who have based their belief system and their government on more emotive principles; they no longer exist. Hence, one may consider the tenet that just because it feels good, does not make it right.

What serves as your moral compass? Better yet... is it something that will last?

AR

RARE

2009-04-05T08:36:00.005-04:00

“Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected.” — M.Ghandi

Mahatma Ghandi was undoubtedly a man of tremendous wisdom. His teaching of “satyagraha” — resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience — was firmly founded upon non-violence, which prompted authentic change throughout the world. If we have gained any knowledge from the most recent election cycle, we have learned that a belief in change that precipitates hope is an attractive, motivating message.

Ghandi’s promotion of non-violence was sometimes, seemingly extreme. For example, after World War II, he gently but publicly offered the following: "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." He was advocating not fighting back with one’s fist. But Ghandi also knew that such level of principled commitment requires incredible faith and courage. Problem: incredible faith and courage is rare. Very rare. Such is/was not possessed by the following:

...the Binghampton, New York gunman...
...the G20 summit protesters...
...the pie-in-the-face PETA people (although sometimes they are really funny)...
...the abortion clinic bombers...
...the Proposition 8 supporting vandals...
...the 9/11 hijackers...

I know their message is significant; their passion seems purposeful. But if any promotion of message is attempted via violence and vandalism, no one will hear what is actually trying to be articulated. Both the messenger and the message will be rejected. It seems often as if protesters are clamoring for tolerance and respect... while simultaneously engaging in intolerance and disrespect.

So what does it take to think rightly? To present passion respectfully? In a way others can hear it?

Incredible faith and courage. Yes, such is rare.

AR

DEAR ABBY

2009-04-02T09:15:00.004-04:00

For years I have been enamored with her. Somewhere between harmless, fictitious stalking and an admiration from afar - very far, something about the one and only Dr. Abby Lockhart has always grabbed my attention (yes, yes, I can hear the initial snorts of some of you snickering).

Dr. Lockhart was not your most venerated doctor who had a professional pathway smoothly paved in front of her. In fact, even as a third year med student, she did not possess the finances to finish paying for school; hence, she resigned from the program, despondently becoming a full time obstetrics nurse instead, in order to make family, financial ends meet. Years later, when school was intentionally returned to, completed, and her MCAT’s solidly scored, those of us in the audience cheered her on with tears of elation... even though she could not hear us through that blue screen which separates the great expanses of fiction and reality.

Personally, Abby was also fairly flawed. Her innate grit and/or stubbornness - however one desires to spin it - combined with her desire to “always do the right thing,” conflicted her at times... especially in regard to relationships. From Carter to Kovac to her mother and brother, she made both foolish and wise decisions. She struggled with alcohol, infidelity, and alcohol again, which only seemed to somehow add to her extreme expressions of both wit and pain; surely it also enhanced NBC’s ratings. But listen to her words to a hurting teen this season: “I know you think you’re a bad person, but you’re not. You just did a bad thing.” Such was a glimpse into Abby’s heart; she was learning to forgive herself.

Abby had a magnanimous, sensitive heart, but as with each of us, the scars of disappointment and unforgiveness had hardened her; they produced a guardedness that impacted and sometimes repelled future relationships. Thus, when Abby finally let not only her guard down but extinguished it as well, we cried again. Our fictionally flawed, adult character was growing up.

In her last episode as a regular character, “ER’s” Dr. Abby Lockhart, portrayed by the talented Maura Tierney, unveiled that no longer religiously guarded heart, realizing that in spite of her flaws - perhaps because of her flaws - she was still able to grow. Reading from the book of Job, she quoted, “Why is light given to those in misery?” Her misery enabled her to see the world in a more humble, healthier way.

Tonight after 15 seasons, the most Emmy-nominated series in the history of television, “ER,” will come to its end. After moments of laughing at Romano and with Frank, the door to the supply closet’s brick wall will finally be sealed. No more adhered locker plate names will be added... no more Greene, Gallant, even Hathaway or Lockhart.

I will probably cry again. It’s that sentimental part of me... with my head somewhere between the expanses of fiction and reality... reminded of a heart less guarded.

Thanks, Abby. You were dear.

AR

WALKING THE PLANK(s)

2009-03-31T07:30:00.006-04:00

Today we have a very important announcement. Please join me in first glance at the official Intramuralist platform, should we ever initiate a run for public office. (Note: the word “should” is highly significant in that last sentence). I will be as concise as possible. Politicians would be wise to operate on a similar principle...

1. BUDGET/ECONOMIC PLANK
At no time will we spend money we do not possess.

2. DEFICIT PLANK
We will pay back what we owe.

3. SOCIAL PLANK
Policy debates will begin by establishing common ground.

4. MILITARY PLANK
Force will be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. The reason for going to war needs to be just, and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

5. FOREIGN POLICY PLANK
We will treat all nations with compassion and respect. Respect, however, does not equate to an acceptance of indigenous behavior as appropriate for our nation, as well.

6. EDUCATION PLANK
Every child should have access to a safe and solid learning environment. Teachers should be paid well; however, teachers should not attain tenure simply due to length of employment. They must be good at what they do.

7. JUDICIAL PLANK
Judges will be appointed to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied. They will leave creation of law to the legislative branch, as directed by the U.S. Constitution.

8. CONSTITUTIONAL PLANK
As a republic, we will embrace the 10th Amendment, saying: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

9. RE-ELECTION PLANK
We will never run for a second term in the midst of term number one.

(And last but not least...) 10. INDEPENDENCE PLANK
We will remember that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Pursuing happiness... today by imagining how our representatives should behave in office. (Note: the word “should” is highly significant in that last sentence).

AR

LOOSENING THE GRASP

2009-03-29T09:57:00.003-04:00

With the increasing number of publicized chest bumps, fist pumps, and swatted rumps this month (usually in the name of college basketball’s madness), I have concluded that humility is a rare trait. Neither our President nor his most recent predecessor have been affirmed most for said trait; in fact, the perceived lack of it seems to be what drives their most vocal, respective critics... (notice I did not say their most “respectful” critics).

I do not believe that strong leadership and lacking humility must be simultaneous (note: see previous Intramuralist references to M.L. King, Jr., Mother Teresa, and T. Dungy). I also remain unsure if true humility is detectable - as the truly humble would avoid any Pharisaic articulation of their unostentatious behavior.

But I am wondering today if most of the people on this planet actually consider humility a strength. Is that something you are teaching your children? Or something in yourself that you value?

After all, if someone slaps your kid’s cheek at school, how would you want him to respond? I know... I’d want my kid to deck that guy! Yes, I, too, have much to learn.

True humility means having an accurate grasp of who we are and our role on Earth. True humility means never considering equality with God something to be grasped... not thinking we have life all figured out... and then realizing how that impacts our relationships with one another.

I had the pleasure of listening to a man the other night, who publicly (and hence ironically) “declared” his immense, personal humility. He has now determined that there is no God, as the self realization has enabled him to reconcile the rationale of equating himself to proposed godlike status. But this perceived intellectual then responded to respectful questioning by embracing the absence of God by newfound belief in the supposed “Big Bang” theory. You know the one... the one cosmologists have publicized suggesting that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition. Am I the only one who wonders how that initial condition was created in the first place?? Sadly, I believe the man’s purported truth was not an “inconvenient” one.

To believe that God exists admits a sense of personal humility; it is an acknowledgement that someone bigger and better than me knows more about life than I do. It means we acknowledge that equality with God cannot be grasped. His thoughts are not necessarily ours. His ways may vary, as well. Learning those ways may be the key to actual and factual wisdom. That acknowledgement may be what we can best teach our children... and hold on to dearly ourselves.

Time to go... must turn on the basketball... wondering if any of my kids are available for a chest bump...

AR

ENTITLED TO WHAT?

2009-03-26T07:36:00.005-04:00

Here is the zillion dollar dilemma: entitlement or waste? Entitlement or waste.

Do you believe in a guarantee of access to benefits due to law? Do you believe in paying for programs simply because they are “good”? Do you instead believe all entitlements are wasteful spending?

Or perhaps... perhaps... is there a balance somewhere in the middle?

First, let’s not equate this current culture of entitlement with “Entitlement Theory.” “Entitlement Theory,” coined by Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, creates a strong system of private property and a free-market economy based on voluntary transactions. Since transactions are to be voluntary, taxation of the rich to support social programs for the poor is not advocated because the acquisition of money is not voluntary. This theory has been embraced by many libertarians.

Truthfully, some degree of taxation (WITH representation) to support social programs has been efficient and effective in this country. The dilemma is how far do we invest in that process. It is thus reasonable to ask if our pace of current entitlement spending has become unsustainable. Have we lost our balance in the middle?

Quoting from The Weekly Standard, written 18 months ago: “Conventional wisdom has held that Congress won't tackle entitlements until they are forced to; that they will be forced to create a blue-ribbon panel of experts to deflect blame for the political pain; and that it will require significant support from both Republicans and Democrats to pass.” It may be time to force Congress to tackle this polarization-based problem.

Please note that The Weekly Standard is a national publication with a politically conservative slant. Note also that its reading is supported by multiple slants, including Slate.com, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, GQ Magazine, and Abe Rosenthal, former editor of The New York Times. We need Republicans and Democrats to respectfully convene and discern which entitlements are necessary. In the wake of President Obama’s proposed $3.55 TRILLION budget, let’s ask: which entitlements simply satisfy party “passionates”? Which qualify as waste? Which are truly necessary? Two congressmen showing solid leadership in this area are Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member, Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire). They have encouraged lawmakers to tackle the long-term budget problems posed by these entitlement programs. Senator Joe Lieberman (D- then I- then D- then back to I-Connecticut) joined them last week, as he (along with Gregg) unveiled targeted legislation aimed at reducing both wasteful federal spending and the deficit.

Prior to taking office, then President-Elect Obama acknowledged the threat these entitlements pose to our already fragile economy. He said, “If we do nothing, then we will continue to see red ink as far as the eye can see.” He is a smart man. The fair question is if his proposed budget contains any of that red ink. Maybe it does. Maybe it does not.

Back to that zillion dollar dilemma...

AR

FREE THROWS

2009-03-24T07:31:00.004-04:00

Each of us dons different hats. Some more tasteful than others. If I fail wearing my hat as a “SPEWT” (that would be my subtle, semi-superhero title as a combined “Speaker, Parent, Encourager, Writer, and Teacher”), I have long felt I would pursue a position coaching college basketball. There is something within that madness of March and sweetness of sixteen that is highly gravitating.

As a coach, I would teach that the game is approximately 35% physical and 65% mental; talent alone will cease to win a championship. It is what gives credence to the theory that any team is capable of winning any game once they step onto that court. Such is why the ever-inspiring Jim Valvano and his Wolfpack were able to deny “Phi Slamma Jamma’s Dream” in 1983. It also serves as reason why last year’s talented Memphis team ceded overtime (and eventually the tournament title) to those hovering Jayhawks. John Calipari’s Tigers missed 4 of 5 free throws that would have put the game and the title out of reach, paving the way for a dramatic, Kansas comeback, recovering from 9 points down with only 2:12 left to play.

The point is when you lose focus of the end goal, the game to get there begins to rattle - both above and below the rim. If you cannot control what’s in your head, your head will be clouded with pressures surrounding self most of all. You then begin to focus on things of lesser importance. Hence, the missed free throws.

In basketball if we lose sight of the team’s success, spurred on by stingy defense and offensively, “finding the open man,” scoring becomes painful (Note: see Ohio State vs. Siena, last 10 minutes of game, Friday, March 20th).

The same holds true for those of us who refrain from athletic competition: if you lose sight of where you wish to go in life, you will be rattled along the way. You will begin to focus on things of lesser importance... things that distract you from focusing on what is good and true and right in this world. Perhaps they are those little, daily irritants. Perhaps they are matters seemingly even greater. Usually, they have a lot to do with “I, me, my, myself.” No matter what, they have the potential to throw you off your game.

There was a time in my life I was involved in a relationship that became unhealthy. It was demanding. There was a lot of self involved, and best said, it did not spur me on things that were greater. The unhealthiness of that friendship then kept me from being effective when wearing my other hats; it threw me off my entire game.

Where is your focus today? Is it on something that is good and true and right in this world? Or do I dare ask... is it on something that more revolves around the “me and myself”?

Here’s to keeping focused... hitting all 5 of those free throws...

AR

NEEDING MORE THAN PR

2009-03-22T09:39:00.004-04:00

Public relations is a billion dollar business. Agencies and agents are paid to make you look good... even when you do not.

The Intramuralist enjoys looking good, yet it does not believe in glossing over “when one does not.” We do not advocate blind loyalty to any party, especially when that passion extinguishes our ability to discern ethics and integrity. No political party has exclusively coined that responsible behavior. No political party possesses the complete lack of it either.

The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) is a US government program designed to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions in order to strengthen the financial sector. It was the largest component of the 2008 measures addressing the subprime mortgage crisis. Through this program, with some bipartisan TARP support originally, our congressmen allocated up to $700 billion for the US Treasury to purchase “troubled assets.” American International Group, Inc. (AIG) has been the recipient of over $170 billion of that allocation.

Wednesday afternoon (in my search to find fruitful entertainment), I had the pleasure of witnessing the dialogue between AIG CEO, Edward M. Liddy, and a House panel, enraged by AIG’s immediate usage of these public funds. AIG spent what now accounts to $218 million of OUR MONEY to dole out bonuses to executives. During Wednesday’s dialogue, Liddy admitted the money would not have been paid out had they not received our tax dollars. He said the retention bonuses were needed to persuade the recipients to stay long enough to untangle their own work. "They've been so vilified that they just want to go somewhere else.” Never mind that said persuasion came from our hard-earned efforts - not theirs.

What’s worse? There actually was an amendment in the original TARP bill that would have prevented the executives from receiving their bonuses. However, it was taken out of the bill by Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.

On Tuesday of last week Dodd said he did not add the exemption. On Wednesday, uh, he said he did. He attempted then to say the administration made him do it. (Ahem, cough, cough... is that where the “throwing under the bus” concept comes in?)

Perhaps Dodd should hire a PR firm... someone to make him look good even when he does not.

Just a commentary from someone whose tax dollars paid the bonus for another... still searching for fruitful entertainment...

AR

ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS

2009-03-19T00:01:00.003-04:00

Today’s posting comes from my 12 year old’s algebra text...

in⋅e⋅qual⋅i⋅ty [in-i-kwol-i-tee] –noun, plural -ties.
A mathematical sentence stating that two quantities are unequal, indicated by the symbol ≠; alternatively, by the symbol <, signifying that the quantity preceding the symbol is less than that following, or by the symbol >, signifying that the quantity preceding the symbol is greater than that following.

I am wondering if most of contemporary culture failed algebra.

Look at a prevalent, societal equation: Celebrities = Role Models

Dr. Drew Pinsky and S. Mark Young have co-authored the book, The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism Is Seducing America. Narcissism is an excessive interest in oneself. “Dr. Drew,” as the TV/radio personality is known, sat down with USA Today this week and detailed the problem:

“I’ve been working with celebrities many, many years. I’ve treated many for chemical dependency and the like. They have profound childhood trauma. It’s not something to do with their job or the life they lead. They just happen to be people driven to seek celebrity as a way to make themselves feel better. Then the question becomes, why are we preoccupied with this population? This points toward the mirror. We, too, have been increasingly narcissistic. I speculate that that’s what drives us toward this phenomenon of elevating people to almost godlike status.”

This perceived status is the substantiation for hollow self-credence, propelling the Sean Penn’s and Ashley Judd’s of the world to shame all with whom they disagree. Narcissistic individuals fixate on the reactions of others in order to validate their own sense of self. This distorts our societal equations.

Drew goes on to say that our culture’s promoting of this focus on celebrities is indubitably harmful, especially to our teens and young adults, “the sponges of our culture.” He adds: “Their values are now being set. Are they really the values we want our young people to be absorbing? Do we want them to have a revolving-door love life, or stable relationships? It harkens back to the question of how much are young people affected by models of social learning.”

Back to the inequality: Celebrities ≠ Role Models

Perhaps our culture needs to immerse itself in algebra.

AR

TO THE RESCUE

2009-03-17T07:12:00.004-04:00

Let’s state the obvious: We are in the midst of a national debate as to the best approach to stop the economic bleeding. Reasonable people disagree as to which tourniquet to apply.

In our stated goal to model respectful dialogue, let’s take a semi-analytical stab at a heart of the disagreement. Let’s put micro and macro theory aside for the moment, looking at a perspective which is used to both validate or invalidate, currently depending on partisan positioning.

The debate is the answer the following question: when does individual, personal financial responsibility begin? As President Obama declared shortly after his election, “We’re going to have to embrace a culture of responsibility.” When does that begin? To whom does it apply?

As a parent, I have certain expectations for my children. (Have fun attempting to argue that you do not.) We want our offspring to perform fairly well academically, hold their own athletically, be confident socially, have a solid faith or belief system, and grow up to marry someone as bright and beautiful as my own. When potholes arise on this supposed pathway to success, we become concerned about the pavement - how experiencing something other than smoothness might derail their future prosperity. Our heart even breaks when they have to experience something - for lack of better words - that is “bad.” From our parent perspective, we wish to protect our children from negative consequences, negative circumstances, or anything that alters that perceived “best.” The true pothole in that theory is that we forget that lifelong learning comes from experiencing the consequences of our own decisions. Such is where conviction, drive, and wisdom are often born.

True, the cognitively disabled in our society need assistance. According to the most recent census, however, that number accounts for somewhere less than approximately 5.6% of the U.S. population.

Hence, those who are in peril because of their lack of cognitive ability should receive some kind of help navigating through difficult, economic circumstances. Those who are in peril because of scenarios completely out of their control should also receive some assistance, although perhaps lesser in degree than a complete, financial crutch - and perhaps from institutions other than the government. But rescuing those who cannot pay their mortgage because their monies instead went to pay for their flat screen TV’s and island vacations, seems as if we believe it is inappropriate to allow the irresponsible to experience negative consequences. Are we more or less compassionate when we save the irresponsible from the results of their own decision-making?

Where does this line of personal financial responsibility begin? Somewhere short of a rescue... somewhere that helps those who cannot help themselves... somewhere that considers those whose circumstances are no fault of their own... but somewhere that does not negate the value of learning from challenging consequences.

AR

REAL

2009-03-15T00:11:00.004-04:00

We found ourselves singing together this weekend, playfully belting at the top of our lungs... “Everyone needs a little holiday... a time away... from each other...” Right after that came creative renditions from the Carpenters and Captain and Tennille. You can thank me. I will spare you.

In each of those moments, no less, when we do take that break, find the time away, and invest in the activities that refresh the soul, I find the benefit exponentially increased when shared with “real friends.”

Not just those who know your name, but those who will jump in the trenches with you... those who are loyal... those who laugh with you at the silly, yet still take time to reflect on the serious... who will love you no matter what... and who fear not to share truth with you... even when it hurts.

Sharing the hurt is often the paver of the road to authenticity - real friendship. When words from friends hurt, will you walk away? Will you think your friend is messed up or mixed up or should not hold as high of status as they actually do in your life? Will you dismiss his or her words simply because you do not like what they say? Or will you realize that the transparency of the words provides proof of a relationship that’s real?

I polled a few friends this past Saturday at our annual weekend getaway. Each year we plan a small break from our families, blogs, and the stresses prompted by life’s daily routines. It is time cherished... time that refreshes the soul... time that strengthens the other relationships in my life. So yesterday I asked the following: “Why do you enjoy this weekend? What is it about this weekend that propels you forward?”

“...we get a break...”
“...we can focus on each other...”
“...no one cares about our imperfections...”
“...we are real...”

Adding to the silly, the only real pressure, one may conclude, comes from the digestive tract. No attempt to be crude... just sharing from my weekend... laughing, playing, eating too much... trying to be real.

Truth is, everyone needs a little holiday... a time away... WITH each other.

AR

RADICAL HEROES

2009-03-12T06:59:00.007-04:00

I will never forget that 5th grade Sunday school class. “Write down your 3 favorite heroes.” And without pause, I quickly scribbled down the names of Jesus, John F. Kennedy, and none other than baseball’s hit king, Pete Rose.

Jesus was a no brainer. I mean, the man brought a message of hope and redemption to the world that is radical beyond measure, but so empowering if embraced. Even as a child, his example was obvious.

John F. Kennedy, well, my political astuteness was somewhere short of astounding, but at the age of 11, I thought he was about the coolest President that had ever lived.

And Pete Rose? Wow... that guy even hustled on a walk to 1st base! I loved his effort and enthusiasm - even his batting stance. Granted, as a youth, we are often oblivious to the sins of an adult. Something about that youthful obliviousness and innocence remains ignorantly attractive.

Yet if our lists would be re-written without the innocence, who would appear as your heroes? Who would you choose as a role model - the men and women you admire - you look up to? What intrinsic traits provide the source of your admiration?

Jesus’ name would still be on my list. Something about unconditional love and radical forgiveness permanently establishes him at the top. JFK, well, I still think he was cool, but as usual, I tend to favor less spending by any administration; and personally, I probably would have preferred the personal rumor mill was a little quieter in his regard. Pete Rose?! Wow... I still think #14 was great on the field, and I have little understanding of an inconsistent litmus test that bars him from the Hall of Fame but allows others with outlandish impropriety to enter. True, though, his play off the field bars him from my list, as well.

Martin Luther King, Jr. would be a possibility. So would basketball’s John Wooden, my youngest son, Josh (the bravest person I know), and notable author, Elisabeth Elliot. In the 1950’s, early in their marriage, Elliot and her husband, Jim, worked among the tribal areas with the Quichua Indians in Equador. Jim and 4 other missionaries were soon speared to death by members of the Aucas tribe. Elisabeth would later return and and actually live with and minister to the same tribe that killed her husband. Speaking of radical forgiveness... It is possible.

Who are your heroes? Who are your role models? And most importantly, what characteristics propel them to the top of your list?

Those are the traits we should be teaching our innocent children now.

AR

AMAZING RACE

2009-03-10T07:20:00.005-04:00

With the election of our 44th President, the discussion of race has risen to the forefront of national conversation. Thank God the color of a man’s skin served not as a deterrent nor qualification for his White House tenure. Beauty and integrity are internal; hence, skin color matters not... mattering not for us all.

The challenge in this dialogue is to address race well. Several poor examples have disrupted the conversation. For instance, we have heard from the emotionally-inciting, both the white and the black, the Ku Klux Klan and the New Black Panther Party, both seemingly to whom, skin color matters much.

In February we heard the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, say the following: "Though the nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” President Obama backed off Holder’s statements, obviously wondering who exactly Holder was referring to as the cowards, but both Obama and Holder seem correct when they say we need to learn to dialogue about this issue well.

Let us begin as a nation by allowing the other to celebrate their heritage. Celebration is appropriate, assuming it includes no superior lines of thought. Thus, there should be no offense when People Magazine runs last week’s "Power Players -- Black Hollywood celebrates some of its most acclaimed stars at the Essence Luncheon in Beverly Hills." Equally said, there should be no offense should the publication this week present: “Power Players -- White Hollywood celebrates some of its most acclaimed stars at the Essential Luncheon in Beverly Hills.”

Next, let us eliminate emotionally-inciting vocabulary. That means, for example, black and white alike terminate use of the word “nigger.” If one people group should disallow a word, ALL people groups should disallow the word.

And lastly, let us follow Martin Luther King Jr.’s example, and individually discard any remaining, quiet prejudice or hate in our hearts...

“Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.”

Hate confuses the false with the true... and the black with the white... the white with the black.

Let the dialogue begin. May it progress respectfully and well.

AR

PEANUT BUTTER

2009-03-08T08:35:00.006-04:00

I pray you are sitting down. For some, this may be a challenging discussion... more on the grotesque side of life, if you will. Also, I apologize beforehand should I offend any loyal, Intramuralist readers. Some conversations are simply difficult. I must tell you that as a child, I learned to love crunchy peanut butter on my ice cream.

Granted, while my father’s example was undoubtedly responsible for my behavior, I am thankful my ice cream toppings never neared his more, shall we say, creative selection (...can you say cheese and maple syrup?).

Nonetheless, when the craving comes as an adult, I enjoy this delicacy in the privacy of my own home. Few see me. Few witness to either cheer or jeer. Granted, if the world knew, some would say it is unhealthy for me. Others would rally behind me. Still more would note the grotesque quality, but would add that my choice impacts no one; thus, my choice matters not. Each are valid arguments. Reasonable people reach distinctly different conclusions, and respectful dialogue in the dairy debate (meaning no shaming of another opinion) could be beneficial for us to learn from... especially when listening to my peanut butter passion.

However, since I live in a federal constitutional republic, the supreme power rests not in my individual desire, but rather, in our citizens as a whole, who are entitled to vote for their representation and essentially establish the law. We have executive, legislative, and judicial representation. Each of these representatives must then abide by a constitution, a document outlining the supreme law of the republic. At both the national and state level, the constitution can only be amended by the vote of its citizens. At the state level, the only caveat is that I cannot contradict the expressed rights of the national document. Hence, if the citizens of my state gathered in majority agreement to disallow crunchy peanut butter on ice cream, even though it brings me great joy and I would vehemently disagree with said decision, the citizens are entitled to that opinion. No judge nor attorney general has more authority than the vote of the people.

To be fair, there have been moments in this country where we have voted for constitutional amendments only to later rescind them. For example, the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption was prohibited by a vote of the people via the 18th Amendment. However, 14 years later, this amendment was repealed. The key: ratification and repeal both proceeded through a vote of the people. While we may disagree with the contents of any amendment, as a nation, we must be careful if we ever project the power of the people onto a judge or general. Such violates the very definition of a republic and establishes a perilous precedent.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I sure do hope they let me keep peanut butter on my ice cream.

AR

BLINDERS

2009-03-05T07:36:00.005-05:00

Give me a choice between Diet Pepsi and anything else, and I’ll choose anything else. Nothing against PepsiCo, but as a loyal Diet Coke consumer, I cannot nor will not tolerate any Diet Pepsi in my system. I will not drink it in a box. I will not drink it with a fox. I do not like Diet Pepsi.

Just as I approach PepsiCo, most of us evaluate people and politicos from a similar perspective. Our loyalty to one brand often blinds our ability to see rightly in regard to another. It tilts our perspective, often making us very black and white. (Ahem... ask any Ohio State or University of Michigan football fan.) We can then become unknowingly self-focused... ignorant of the strengths of another or the weaknesses of our own.

Loyal Democrats praise the change President Obama now offers our country. Have we not realized that he promised earmark reform on the campaign trail, but his very first budget proposal includes over 9,000 earmarks? That is not change.

Loyal Republicans scream about the unethical use of those hidden earmarks. Have we not realized that they are responsible for 40% of the pet projects? That is not responsible governing.

Democrats and Republicans alike blame President Bush and Obama respectively for the stock market’s free fall. Have we not realized that the market is driven by consumer confidence, and the market has been sliding under both of them? That is not confidence.

And arguably my current favorite, changing gears somewhat... Loyal ABC “Bachelor” enthusiasts cry foul when Melissa is chosen over Molly... or was it Molly over Melissa? Or wait... will that single father please make up his mind?? Maybe we should just quit watching that show. That is not reality.

That’s the problem. Because we are passionate, we become confused as to what reality actually is. Our emotions get in the way of thinking and seeing rightly. If we could actually see - and not allow our perspective to be blurred by passion - we would ask the above to do the following:

(1) Remove the earmarks.

(2) Govern responsibly.

(3) Stop the selfish thinking.

As for me, I’m going back to my Diet Coke. I hate Diet Pepsi.

AR

BIZZY

2009-03-03T07:43:00.003-05:00

We go to work.
Climb the corporate ladder.
Bring home the bacon.
Fry it up in the pan.
Sort through the mail.
Read the paper.
Do the dishes.
Remember the laundry.
Take our kids to practice.
Sometimes multiple practices.
Even coach.
Drive kids to violin lessons.
Even Tae Kwon Do.
Ensure they are adequately socialized.
Answer the phone.
Go out to eat.
Attend church on Sunday.
Watch the game.
Invite friends over.
Dabble on Facebook.
Join our teens on Guitar Hero.
Read the latest John Grisham novel.
Be sure to watch Sportscenter.
At least the top 10 plays.
Keep track of the market.
Watch it plummet these past 3 months.
Redecorate.
Plan.
Purchase.
Purchase more.

We are busy.

I heard once that if satan can’t make you “bad,” he’ll make you busy. (Yes, I am aware “satan” is not capitalized, but I am not one who feels he deserves it.)

If we remain so busy throughout our lives, when our days on Earth end, what will we have missed? What will we regret? Will we miss accomplishing just one more thing? Will we miss attaining an additional piece of “stuff”? Or rather, will we regret not taking time to wonder... time to worship... and time to focus on what is good and right in this world?

When we are so busy, our lives are dictated more by circumstance. I have a strong suspicion that a life lived as a response to circumstance - as opposed to a life intentional in that wonder and worship - is one that has the highest potential of netting regret.

Here’s to finding what is good and right in this world. Here’s to finding it now.

AR

OUTTA' MY HOUSE

2009-03-01T09:14:00.004-05:00

Remember that sophomoric cheer? “U-G-L-Y... You don’t need no alibi. YOU’RE UGLY... ab-so-lute-ly UGLY!” Granted, even accompanied by a teen chorus, no shreds of wisdom are necessarily evidenced in the previous articulation. But at least as teenagers - even though not the most respectful in regard to semantic selection - we were not afraid to call a spade, a “spade,” and the ugly, “ugly.”

Disrespect.

Chastisement of the poor or disabled.

Celebration of arrogance.

Whatever that was left in my refrigerator last week.

And let me offer one more: polarization.

Polarization is “U-G-L-Y.” Polarization incites, manipulates, and encourages nothing that is good and pure and right in this world. Polarization is a strategic initiative covertly utilized for a person or party’s own agenda. I read yesterday morning where one political party has already created advertising specifically designed to encourage the public to vote against the opposing party. Never mind that the elections will not take place until November of 2010. What is the purpose? How can one accurately assess the credibility of my congressman without discerning the effectiveness of his voting record over the length of his term? The reason is that the party operatives are solely attempting to polarize. Accuracy is irrelevant.

The worst offenders? The U.S. House of Representatives. We have leadership on the Supreme Court. Leadership in the White House. Leadership on many state and local levels. While several of those leaders hail from a specific party, bipartisanship remains a stated goal. But in the U.S. House of Representatives, polarization seems like a celebrated art form. Leadership seems wrought with polarization, and it negatively impacts their daily operations. With terms of service only 2 years, representatives fail to ford one another common decencies... listening, learning, being sharpened by one another. Perhaps they feel they do not have enough time to listen... knowing re-election opportunities will be soon be upon them. Unlike the Senate, no less, where the “good ole’ boys” seem to appreciate one another more and actually work to find effective compromise - the House leadership seems to encourage hunkering down in their ideological bunkers. This weakness in our House is concerning, especially, for example, when they felt called to craft the original stimulus bill. It fails to surprise that said bill included by far the greatest amounts of pet project, “smells-like-pork” spending.

My point? Truthfully, the point exhausts me. Few seem to mind the polarization of the House when their favored fulfills the majority. Yet my point is that it matters not who holds that majority. Our laws would be better crafted if the majority and minority of any tenure would learn to surrender polarization and work together... if partisanship and polarization were set aside in the name of the better good.

Maybe then we would witness less alibis - and ugliness - in Washington.

AR

PURPLE PASSION

2009-02-26T07:30:00.002-05:00

Some see red. Some see blue. Most of us see a blend of purple in there somewhere, but others are so narrowly focused that any tint of purple is offensive.

Several weeks ago I witnessed an adult man who was particularly blind. He was loud. Vocal. You know the kind. Very unattractive. He had a favorite candidate - his chosen one - and come hell or that rising water, he was going to offer whatever assistance he could to spur his choice on to victory. Many of us witnessed his erratic affection. Even those who also shared his passion and cheered on the blue - who actually agreed with his opinion - wrestled with distancing themselves from this man who found disrespectful articulation appropriate. When his favorite won, he celebrated loudly, regardless of any disappointed in his immediate audience. Also, even amidst victory, if a single word was uttered even constructively critically - a potential negative in regard to his primary candidate - the blinded man became predictably hostile.

It was ugly. I saw the blind man four inches from another’s face, fulfilling all aspects of Seinfeld’s “close talkers” rendition. The voice was raised and the finger fiercely wagging. He spewed at the teenager, who at a young age still logically opined that he felt the blind man’s candidate engaged in a stimulating action worthy of a foul. The blind man would have no part of it. The resulting confrontation led me to question who behaved more as the adolescent.

A week later the disrespectful spewing found itself solely directed at someone else, someone, too, who had concluded the blind man’s candidate was not quite as perfect as publicly acclaimed. This confrontation reached a new level, and our agitated blind man was actually asked to leave the public forum. In a moment that proved that age and maturity are not always coexistent, the blind man continued his jeers and jabbering jabs throughout his ejection.

Sometimes our passions get in the way of seeing rightly. Sometimes they get in the way of being respectful. Sometimes they tempt us to justify ugliness as a righteous behavior... just as it did for the aforementioned parent... at my 10 year old’s basketball game.

AR

OH, HOW WE LOVE EVERYONE

2009-02-24T07:16:00.003-05:00

There rings a familiar refrain in our household. The first justification goes something like this: “Everyone’s doing it!” The less than enthusiastic response echos as follows: “Just because everyone’s doing it, doesn’t make it right.”

Just because “everyone” owns a Playstation 3, XBOX 360, and/or a Wii, does not mean our children will be deprived without the latest unveiled gaming system.

Just because “everyone” determined Heath Ledger deserved the Oscar for his supporting role in “The Dark Knight,” does not mean we need to ignore that the role generated the nightmares that potentially precipitated his death.

Just because “everyone” is either a Yankees or Red Sox fan, does not mean we must avoid cheering for the less heralded underdog.

Just because “everyone” has adopted an attitude of political correctness, does not mean tolerance of all things is appropriate.

Just because “everyone” likes mushrooms and pickles, does not mean I need to relish them on my hamburger.

Just because “everyone” is overjoyed that their state government is a bailout recipient, does not mean we should withhold questioning the appropriateness of an Arkansan donating his taxpayer money to an unemployed Californian.

Just because “everyone” thinks Ashley Judd and Sean Penn are “cool,” does not mean we should think their shaming of those who articulate an alternate opinion is evidence of using their celebrity status well.

Just because “everyone” thinks global warming is now fact, does not mean the many scientists who have come to a conflicting conclusion need to be silenced.

And just because “everyone” calls the Dallas Cowboys “America’s Team,” does not mean we have to concur with T.O., Romo, and Jessica Simpson in their Super Bowl pick.

My point is this: wisdom triumphs over opinion; that includes all polling data. “Just because” our main man, “everyone,” feels a specific way does not equate to “rightness.” There was a time when “everyone” thought the world was flat. There was a time when “everyone” thought Hitler was ok. And there was a time “everyone” thought slavery represented a respectable employment opportunity.

“Everyone” is not necessarily wise. To equalize “everyone” with wisdom is simply a popular exercise... in foolishness, that is.

AR

SHOW ME SOME MONEY

2009-02-22T08:55:00.003-05:00

As we humanly attempt to wrap our minds around the billions of dollars bank bailout... the billions of dollars auto bailout... the somewhat lesser mortgage bailout... and the zillion dollar economic bailout... it seems only logical to ask what you hope has been included in the bailing... I mean, it is our money. (Part of me wonders how I became so instantly wealthy... oh, wait... I am not... I do not possess said zillions... uh, problem is the government does not either...)

And so (...according to a very UNscientific poll...), here is what some of you clamor for:

* A $4000 check.
* A $5000 check. (Personally, I like 5 better than 4.)
* ”I'd like some money towards my college education...if I had more help with that, then I'd stimulate the economy with other purchases rather then having all my money tied up in student loans & horrid interest rates.”
* ”My house paid for.”
* A live-in masseur.
* 40 BOGO (Buy-One-Get-One-Free) coupons to Applebees, Outback, Olive Garden, and Cracker Barrel... “We have to eat, but our freedom to choose how to spend our money should be limited.”
* Money for restaurants that don’t serve pork.
* Unlimited gift cards to Walmart.
* The Governorship of Illinois. (I heard it can be bought.)
* $100 Starbucks gift certificates... “How can we shop without caffeine?”
* Lattes for $13/week, “if you buy the small size.”
* More Starbucks. (Caffeine is stimulating.)
* Childcare for older, autistic kids.
* “Money for car washes. Then we would use less gas, because clean cars slide through the air better.”
* A check “in proportion to the amount of taxes I have paid in.”
* No pet projects.
* Money for the dairy farmers.
* Money for small market baseball teams.
* Accountability partners for all Senators and Congressmen!
* A proclamation encouraging the purchase of my book. (See ”Essential Survival Guide to Living on Your Own” by S.Siepel on www.amazon.com.)
* A house cleaning service “ so we can go out and shop, work, and stimulate the economy!”

And on the high end of creative thinking, listen to the following wise readers from Ohio and Texas respectively:

* ”All government workers should have 5 days of unpaid leave this year (this includes the President). We will then hold a national lottery (at $1 a ticket) to see who gets to run the country on the days Obama has off!” (Note: includes the potential to stimulate both the economy AND the ego.)

And...

* ”I would like federally funded pedicures for all. It is close to sandals season and well-groomed feet are something we should NOT have to live without. Plus, I don't want to look at anyone else's gnarly toes!”

Here’s to no gnarly toes... amen to that... they provide ZERO stimulation.

AR

UNCOMMON POLICY

2009-02-19T07:21:00.005-05:00

Ok. Maybe it’s just me. Maybe you, too. But somewhere along the line, probably due to my Judeo-Christian heritage, I learned that lying was wrong. It was not exactly one of those gray areas in life that our parents disagreed on which path of wisdom to impart. I mean, none know with certainty if Washington’s proclamation was factual, but honesty is a virtue.

So if it’s a virtue, why do so many adults avoid its possession?

I have been figuratively racking my brain... attempting to discern the motivation for such deceit. We have each heard some seemingly noble explanations for dishonest intent; however, the idea that therein lies any nobility makes it appear the deceit only continues. My best stab at intent is this: people lie because they wish to control what we think of them.

I’ll say it again. People lie because they wish to control what we think of them.

One of my favorite authors is John Ortberg. I especially appreciate his book, “The Life You’ve Always Wanted,” subtitled “Spiritual Disciplines for Ordinary People.” (One note of disclosure: I’m pretty ordinary, and I need discipline!) But Ortberg introduces the concept of how we individually attempt to control what others think of us... attempting to “convince them that our motives are pure, that our accomplishments are impressive, or that our life is in better shape than it seems.” The technical term for this manipulative behavior is “impression management.”

Sometimes the attempts simply are the forewarners of our conversation... For example... “You know, I would never cheat on my taxes, BUT...” “Obviously, I am not a regular viewer of soap operas, HOWEVER...” Each initial phrase is articulated in order to control the conclusions of my audience. Unfortunately, however, sometimes impression management plays out on a grander scale.

Like some notable, national politicians.
Like multiple Illinois Governors.
And like those who discovered steroids help the ball go a little farther.

The New York Yankees’ Alex Rodriquez has at times been considered one of the best players on the planet. He was named the 2003 Major League Baseball MVP - and since has become the youngest player to hit 500 home runs. He was marveled in the public eye. He also lied in that same eye about taking steroids. Granted, steroids were not illegal in MLB at the time of A-Rod’s admitted usage, but obviously A-Rod lied in order to manage the impression the public possessed in regard to his athletic prowess. He wanted his accomplishments and character to appear more impressive than they actually are.

Honesty is a virtue. Not all adults are virtuous. Perhaps like Mark Twain’s assessment, referring back to George Washington’s proclamation: “I am different from Washington; I have a higher, grander standard of principle. Washington could not lie. I can lie, but I won't.”

Sounds like a wise path for us all.

AR