JUST BRILLIANT!

We are such smart people. Amazing, are we not? We are so good. So wise. Sometimes seemingly brilliant! Our society is absolutely superior when it comes to knowing it all. Should we hit what could merely be termed a temporary mind block, surely some Jobs or Gates will tinkle with the technology and miraculously save the day.

One of my favorite places dripping with humble astuteness is this keen ability to assess the value of life. Perhaps better articulated: the ability to accurately pinpoint one’s “quality of life.” Yes, we are amazing!

The University of Vermont has created an integrated definition of the “quality of life” that describes eleven objective human "needs" that are moderated by subjective human "wants."

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) advocates the HRQOL (Health-Related Quality of Life), a tool for medical professionals to measure the effects of disorders, disability, and disease to assist in guiding policy and intervention.

And lest we not notice, in the congressionally-written stimulus/spending/spending/stimulus package, at least prior to Friday night’s passage, there was a section buried within the 1,071 pages that made certain healthcare provisions contingent on a subjective government evaluation of that quality. (FYI: for the record, it is utterly irresponsible for any congressman or woman to have voted for OR against that package without reading its entire pages.)

The challenge with man believing he possesses the ability to discern quality of life is that man could be wrong. Man is not God. Quality of life is not based on how many video systems we own or $3.70 lattes we can buy in a week (granted, my young adolescents would perhaps vehemently dispute the first of those 2). Quality of life is not measured via materialism. It is not measured by wealth, prosperity, and or even appearance or abundance. I would add that an accurate diagnosis cannot be made even with acknowledgement of the aforementioned disorder, disability, or disease. Life is certainly more challenging when confronting gut-wrenching hardship, but that does not compute to an automatic lessening of quality.

There were two friends whose primary years of influence paralleled one another. One was gorgeous. One was not. One was surrounded by wealth. The other surrounded by sickness. Yet while one avoided the limelight, the other could not shake its publicizing rays. When their years ended, one died with a bang. The other went out with a whimper.

Diana, Princess of Wales, died on August 31, 1997. 5 days later Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, Mother Teresa, passed away. Based on our measurements, the royalty, celebrity, and prosperity of Princess Diana’s life (minus the infidelity and hounding paparazzi) would still have produced a significantly high score on the quality of life assessment. Mother Teresa, who devoted her life to showing grace and mercy to “the poorest of the poor” - and I am sure had some quiet sense of divine satisfaction - well, I am sorry, but she would have scored fairly low.

Yes, we are such smart people. Amazing, are we not?

AR

THE LOCUS OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Americans are a feisty bunch. We like to cast credit and blame on the most obvious target. (See Cubs fans: Steve Bartman, 2003 NLCS, Game 6.)

And so in order to clear our personal resumes of any wrongdoing or even unintentional error, we assign all responsibility on someone else. Call it part of the “victim mentality” which permeates our culture. “It’s not my fault this happened.” If you have a teenager in your household, perhaps you have witnessed significant proclamations firsthand.

President Obama cannot alone solve our financial crisis. Strong in leadership as he may be, no large red and yellow “S” is concealed on his undershirt. Just as true, however, is that President Bush is not to blame for our financial crisis. This may be contrary to recent rhetoric, but the more we politicize economic policy, the greater is the probability that we will lack discernment in assessing appropriate responsibility. Bush certainly committed multiple mistakes (as all Presidents will do - again, back to the no red and yellow “S”), but destabilizing our economy was not one of them.

The best explanation I’ve heard to date comes from Barron’s, with an editorial this week written by Scott S. Powell, a senior VP at ELP Capital and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. Powell writes:

“Today's problems have their roots in programs and financial instruments that shifted the locus of moral responsibility away from private individuals and institutions to wider circles that were understood to end with a government guarantee. Heads of the top banks and financial institutions could approve substandard home-mortgage underwriting -- prone to increased default -- because those loans could be securitized by Wall Street and sold off to investors or to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), with no likely recourse to the financial institution of origin.

Our present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. Then in the 1990s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development took a fateful step by getting the GSEs to accept subprime mortgages. With Fannie and Freddie easing credit requirements on loans they would purchase from lenders, banks could greatly increase lending to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. In the name of extending affordable housing, this broadened the acceptability of risky loans throughout the financial system.”

Powell makes a great point, certainly an enlightening one for those of us who are novices in evaluating economic policy. Let me add one more encouragement from Mr. Powell:

“George Washington also warned against excessive partisanship, which distracts public councils and enfeebles public administration. Rather than blaming the party in power or the party formerly in power, the nation should stop living in denial of the mistakes of both parties.”

Did you hear that? The mistakes of both parties. Enough said.

AR

THE KING OF HEARTS

Each of us is guilty. We all have done it, whether transparency reigns or not. History has proven we all have our ugly moments. We all have clamored for one to lead us... to save us... to enable our eternal hope.

See Cleveland.
Oakland.
Even San Francisco.

Every year when the snow thaws and April arrives, there is a ground swelling of support for a youthful man to finally direct us to greatness. Ah, the NFL Draft. Perhaps finally a new, franchise quarterback can lead us to the end zone! (Let the record show, in order to be a successful savior, he will need to lead you there more than once. Again, see Cleveland, Oakland, and San Francisco.)

Wait. To be fair we must acknowledge that Atlanta’s Matt Ryan actually did seemingly save the day in 2008. But after years of inhaling much of the Vick inequities, Ryan was a refreshing rookie who led his Falcons to the promised playoffs - if not the land.

The historical reality is that people clamor for a king.

The Romans clamored for the great Cincinnatus. The Sicilians clamored for “the General,” Giuseppe Garibaldi. And lest you are on the edge of your seats, ready to pounce, thinking I may again address the perceived Obama love affair, we should acknowledge that many of us were just as guilty with the election of President Bush. “Now that a conservative Christian is in the White House... now we can finally save America!”

In approximately 1050 B.C., the ground swelling rose to its maximum voice. The people had spiritual leaders, men and women to guide them, helping them see the world rightly and give God credit for his creation, but they didn’t have a “king.” “Give us a king to rule us!” the people chanted. If only we had a king, those hopes would ring true. They were told that a king could not save them. A king could not do what only God can do. We should never put more faith in a man than in the one who created man. But the people ignored wisdom. They continued to mandate, “We want a king so we can be like everyone else!” Adhering to the wants of the people as opposed to the wisdom of one greater, the leading prophet of the land surrendered to their wishes. Yet he eerily added, “The day will come when you will cry in desperation because of this king you so much want for yourselves. But don't expect God to answer.” Because their trust was displaced, their prayers were discarded.

No one man (or woman, Hillary and Sarah) can save America. No conservative Christian. No liberal, independent, franchise quarterback, or even global warming aficionado. No man can do what only God can do. So why, as a people, do we continue to look for love in all the wrong places? What makes us clamor for a king?

Ok, it’s confession time. Among other loyalties, I am a Bengals’ fan. Can’t wait to see who we draft.

AR

LESS IS MORE

With the new buzz line substantiating appropriations being whether or not jobs are created (and remembering that the corner lemonade stand will put at least 2 of my 3 kids to work), I felt an honest look at job creation may be beneficial.

No matter your opinion in regard to what should be trimmed from the current stimulus package - which reasonable people differ on - remember that the health of our economy is primarily measured by the totality of consumption, gross investment, government spending, and the difference between exports and imports. Republicans and Democrats have historically attempted various means to increase that conglomerate number, and they have not always adhered to strict party lines. Job creation (including the lemonade stands) is only one aspect of the equation. Hence, to assist in the debate, perhaps the following would be insightful to our astute congressional representatives:

TOP 10 JOBS WE COULD USE LESS OF!

10. Network marketers
9. Politically correct police
8. Butter producers (...have you seen lately how many choices are on the shelves?)
7. Reality TV show participants (...reality? ..."you mean I can meet my future husband here?")
6. Poker players (...how many “World Series of Poker” can ESPN actually show in a week?)
5. Prosperity Gospel preachers (...uh, there’s a little more to faith than “everything will be wonderful and you will be rich and incredibly, materially blessed...”)
4. Stupid blog writers (...whoops...)
3. Pornographic web site developers
2. Moms having babies hoping to profit

And #1... drum roll please...

Inaccurate weathermen! Sorry, but the 9” of snow that fell in 5 hours at my house last week, that NO ONE predicted, was a little on the hilarious side. Can we please include in the stimulus package sending some of them back to school??

Just a commentary... with all due respect, of course... still shoveling...

AR

A LOSS FOR HUMANITY

Nearly 30 years ago, my family shared an unforgettable weekend. First was that slimy hotel. Ok... I admit it... ask my husband. I’m a hotel snob. My idea of “roughing it” is a stay without the amenities. I should probably warn you... I have also been accused of being a Starbucks and Big Ten snob. I would debate the Big Ten one... I mean, some of the arrogance oozing from perennial winning programs compels me to cheer for the underdog - regardless of conference. For this memorable weekend, we were in SEC territory...

Down in the heart of Georgia, we first went to Plains. As my political roots were deepening, I desired to visit the hometown of President Jimmy Carter, in office at the time, and taste the produce of the man who campaigned for the 1970 Georgia Governorship as the “Peanut Farmer.” Just for the record - with no intended disrespect to the Carter family - my peanut discernment capabilities were underdeveloped at the time; hence, I wasn’t quite able to grasp the uniqueness, save for the label hailing from Plains.

The next stop was undoubtedly the most memorable. My stepfather drove us to Koinonia Farms in Americus, Georgia, just a few country miles from the Carter abode. Koinonia was a farm community founded by Clarence Jordan in 1942. In the 1960’s, a man by the name of Millard Fuller came to Koinonia. Together with Jordan, he established Partnership Housing, to provide capital and thus housing for the poor. This would serve as the birth for Habitat for Humanity International. Habitat’s goal was to build simple, decent houses for low-income families using volunteer labor and donations, and requiring repayment only of the cost of the materials used. No interest was charged and no profit was made... An amazing thought when you consider that Fuller was a self-made millionaire by age 29, as a successful entrepreneur and attorney. But according to Habitat, “As his finances flourished, his health and marriage crumbled. To save their marriage, the Fullers decided to begin anew. They sold all that they owned, gave the money to the poor and in their searching, landed at Koinonia.” Millard and his wife, Linda, realized that some things were more important than wealth, and they surrendered their lifestyle for something better and more.

Serving with multiple board members through the years, including both Carter and my stepfather, the interracial ministry grew exponentially under Millard’s leadership. Yet he and Linda still had time to welcome us to their dinner table that weekend in Georgia. That was the kind of man Millard was, my stepfather would say... a visionary who put his faith first... a man whose faith played itself out practically and powerfully in his life.

Millard shockingly died Tuesday night at the age of 74. He will be buried like his mentor, Jordan, in a crate on a hill, with no significant marker for his grave. Interviewed the morning after his death, Linda added one more thing: “Millard would not want people to mourn his death," she said. "He would be more interested in having people put on a tool belt and build a house for people in need."

Thank you, Millard, for that weekend in Georgia and for the example of a life lived well.

AR

STIMULATING

Fact: I am not an economist. Perhaps some of you are. Granted, I did take 4-5 econ classes in the Krannert School of Management and an advanced class in regulatory policy, but my credentials don’t substantiate an expertise. Hence, let’s examine the stimulus from a non-expert perspective.

Senate proposal H.R.1 is intended to create jobs and grow the economy. It is professed to be a stimulus package - not an appropriations bill. As best I can discern reading through the proposal (best advised as creative bathroom literature), as of Monday, the bill now estimated at approximately $900 billion, contains the following:

$17 million for student loans
$40 million for health insurance for the unemployed
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$50 million for National Cemetery monument repairs
$75 million for smoking cessation programs
$150 million for honey bee insurance
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$200 million for earthquake and volcano monitoring
$200 million for National Mall repavement
$276 million for new computers at the State Department
$300 million to improve teacher quality
$355 million for sexually transmitted disease education
$400 million for global-warming research
$650 million for more digital TV conversion coupons
$650 million for government employee car purchases
$870 million for influenza pandemic preparation
$1 billion for Amtrak
$2 billion for child-care subsidies
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$6 billion for mass transit systems
$7 billion for modernizing federal facilities
$8 billion for renewable energy funding
$20 billion for food stamps
$30 billion for fixing bridges or other highway projects
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects
$83 billion for Earned Income Credit (for people who don’t pay income tax)
$89 billion for Medicaid

According to the outline of the current bill, monies will be distributed to persons who do not pay taxes and to illegal aliens.

Something is running amok. While our President is trying to usher in “a new era of responsibility,” the CSD’s (“Congressional Stimulus Designers”) are proposing multiple expenditures, many of which fail the litmus test for job creation AND responsibility. Also, Monday’s Washington Post, LA Times, Cincinnati Enquirer and no doubt multiple others report a rapidly swelling number of state lobbyists eerily similar to those eager children waiting in that December photo line at Macy’s. They want their Red Ryder BB guns, too!

Friends, research the New Deal. Research what worked and what did not. Research the expenditures which may have perpetuated the instability as opposed to stimulated the recovery. And then ask yourself: is the current bill in the Senate designed to stimulate the American economy? Or is it designed to advance a party agenda? Republican or Democrat does not matter; it should not matter. It’s time to discard the congressional red, padded suits, listen to Obama’s call for responsibility, and do what’s best and right for the entire American people.

AR

COMMENT COMMENTARY

From www.dictionary.com, definitions 1 and 2 of 6:

o⋅pin⋅ion   [uh-pin-yuhn] –noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Origin: 1250–1300; ME < OF < L opīniōn- (s. of opīniō), deriv. of opīnārī to opine

Is each of us entitled to our own opinion? Most would offer a resounding “yes.” Perhaps the reason for said justification lies in the second half of definition #1 above - that there exists “grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.”

That means that whether you are Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Pelosi, (lest I say it) Rod Blagojevich, proponents or opponents of Proposition 8, or yes, even the Intramuralist, you have a right to your opinion. It also means that we, (lest I say it again) that I, could be wrong. Egad.

I am encouraging you to comment on this blog with that in mind: the reality that each of us could be wrong. But I am also encouraging you to comment on this blog with the goal of sharpening one another. We can learn from those whose perspective begins from a different angle.

The purpose of the Intramuralist is not to make everyone think like me (not as if that would be such a terrible thing to do!). But the purpose is to prompt respectful dialogue. With respectful dialogue, we can model to the Washington partisans, media pundits, and Hollywood postulators that it is ok to listen to one another. It is ok to learn from one another. It is ok to admit you don’t have “it all figured out.” We can model an intellectual humility that is productive and beneficial to us all.

So today I invite you to join me. I invite you to join me by commenting on this blog regularly as we model to the rest of the world what respectful dialogue looks like. Simply below the blog entry which sparks a reaction in you, hit the link expressing the number of comments pertaining to that entry. That will take you to a window where comments are solicited. You may comment as a Google account holder or simply anonymously. Then your comment will be forwarded to me, and I will publish it, assuming one criteria: your comment is expressed in a way which is respectful to persons who feel differently than you.

That is what the Washington partisans, media pundits, and Hollywood postulators have yet to learn.

Just a commentary...

AR