3.31.2009

WALKING THE PLANK(s)


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

3.29.2009

LOOSENING THE GRASP


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

3.26.2009

ENTITLED TO WHAT?


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

3.24.2009

FREE THROWS


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

3.22.2009

NEEDING MORE THAN PR


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

3.19.2009

ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS


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

3.17.2009

TO THE RESCUE


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

3.15.2009

REAL


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

3.12.2009

RADICAL HEROES


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

3.10.2009

AMAZING RACE


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

3.08.2009

PEANUT BUTTER


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

3.05.2009

BLINDERS


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

3.03.2009

BIZZY


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

3.01.2009

OUTTA' MY HOUSE


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