EXOTIC (...and mind-boggling!)

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.  

AR

STOPPING THE PARTISAN WAR

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.

AR 

VEEP STATUS

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.

AR

TICK TICK TICK...

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.

AR

JUST WONDERING

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.

AR

ETYMOLOGY

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?

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

(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

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

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?

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!

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

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