Showing posts with label political campaigns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political campaigns. Show all posts
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Post No. 179: Neither Republican, Democrat, nor Libertarian are We
© 2012, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
We try to stimulate thought, particularly among college students, by providing a forum where diverse ideas are discussed with a tone of civility. We hope the leaders of tomorrow will develop new ways to address societal issues. We also believe that if we individual citizens take more responsibility for our actions, societal problems will decrease in number and significance.
We try to walk down the middle of the road. We have all types of social, political, economic, and philosophical views here at the Institute. Each one of us has been a business owner with varying degrees of success. We’ve been solo, with mid-size firms, and with the big, bad bullies of industry.
Yesterday, President Obama joked that his opponent, Governor Romney, changes his position on issues for political expediency. He described the condition as “Romnesia,” and suggested the Governor has difficulty remembering past statements and positions.
While one might question a change of position over a period of weeks or even months, as business owners we understand someone changing or taking different positions over a period of years. Why? Because that’s what business owners and managers do in the economic theater – a different dance like Fred Astaire, depending on whether it is Ginger Rogers or Cyd Charisse.
On moral / religious / social issues, we understand why private citizens tend to stick to the same positions they held as grade school children, especially if there is some familial, religious, or community peer pressure.
One of the 27+ problems politicians have is trying to navigate a double black diamond slope with one economic snow ski, and one social ski, while shaking the hands of those on both sides of the Swiss-Italian border, and smiling for the camera.
Earlier this week, we heard a political ad where the candidate said he wanted the government off the backs of businesses so that they could “prosper.” We often joke that during good times, when we had numerous employees in branch offices, we were Republicans. Trying to deal with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and the California Family Leave Act, complicated making a profit.
However, during the lean times while operating with few employees and struggling to survive, we were more likely to embrace Democratic positions. But then again, we aren’t politicians.
Recently, we’ve been thinking about the extent of government regulation we embrace, if any, or whether we want the government off of our backs entirely. We concluded that it is a complicated decision, and one not taken lightly. Consider the following:
(a) The contraction of salmonella from miniature turtles by young children. It appears that the Food and Drug Administration previously banned the sale of turtles less than a certain length because they are more likely to carry bacteria;
(b) A report revealing that 97% of on-line pharmacies are illegal in the U.S., and that many sell fake products;
(c) The outbreak of meningitis and resultant deaths as a result of contaminated vials of steroids produced by a Massachusetts compounding lab; and
(d) Seats on American Airlines Boeing 757 planes, which became loose during flights because of some fastening issues.
We had a heated discussion, resulting in fisticuffs, about whether the free market should be allowed to fully operate and industries be left alone to police themselves. Some argued that the civil legal system adequately addresses problems, and others suggested that there is a deterrent in the form of potential criminal prosecution, in the case of egregious conduct.
(Shortly after we started writing this post, we heard that a 4 mile oil slick was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, and efforts were being made to determine whether it was connected with the BP - Deep Water Horizon explosion several years ago.)
Republicans argue that “excessive” regulation discourages business investment, hurts profits, reduces jobs, and drives companies to other countries. Interestingly, non-politician CEOs throughout the U.S. claim they have jobs, but that American workers in those geographical areas where jobs are located are not qualified or properly trained.
Should government be involved in training or encouraging these prospective workers, or should the government stay out of that arena? Should government assist qualified workers in relocating, and leaving their families and homes to work in other regions where the jobs are?
Just yesterday, we heard that businesses and local community colleges are working in tandem to address staffing needs, and that billions in federal dollars are being distributed to community colleges to train workers in those regions where the businesses claim they have openings.
To what extent should government regulate or be involved in our lives? We suspect that it varies depending on the subject at hand, and the location of those affected. But there is a concept in life called a continuum.
One thing we know for sure – the amount of government regulation of businesses is not one, hard and fast, absolute position embraced by either political party.
Just imagine the captain of a ship in choppy waters being restricted in thought and action while navigating his ship across the Atlantic Ocean, with crew members criticizing his every move and decision. Yep - - That’s a boat that we want to be on….
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Post No. 178a: Why the Presidential Debate Last Week was a Waste of Our Time
Why a waste of time? Because the candidates debated all around the issues that matter. We will not be able to solve problems in this country until we stop doing two things: (a) politicizing discussions simply to appeal to the emotional component of voters; and (b) suggesting that our problems can be addressed by simply implementing Policy A or Policy B.
We previously generated this piece under the title, "If Tin Whistles are Made of Tin, What are Credit Default Swaps Made Of?" We believe that the neglected issues discussed previously (at the height of our financial crisis) in this piece continue to be applicable to our current situation. It's time for us to get busy folks.
© 2009 and 2012, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
There’s a reason the Logistician likes the Laughingman. The Laughingman can reduce crap to its irreducible aroma.
We generally try to avoid taking sides in our discussions. It just doesn’t get us anywhere. No party or ideologue can legitimately lay claim to the concepts Common Sense and Personal Responsibility, both of which we try to weave into each original article posted.
Our goal is to get 95% of the heads nodding. Sometimes we get close. Others times, it’s a reach.
We recently sought topics from you, with the hope that we would all learn something new through the exchange, and take away something of value. Exasperated by all the barking about our economic situation, the Logistician posted the following comment on a number of blogs he frequents. His thoughts jived with the topic suggested by the Laughingman, and thus the title of this piece.
“We as a society, and as individuals, have to take responsibility for where we find ourselves today. By doing so, we might be able to turn this thing around.
“We have a tendency to forget the basic, big picture stuff, and then we complain when things deteriorate.
“Things on planet Earth are actually quite simple. (Gore Vidal once referred to us as the ‘United States of Amnesia.’ Perhaps we’re such a young nation, we haven’t fully learned to appreciate history.) Consider the following:
“1. Innovation and technology, leading to building and creating 'things,' determines EVERYTHING in a civilized society. (If you don't personally know a scientist or inventor in your neighborhood advancing society's interests, or some kid who WANTS TO DO SO, you have a long term problem.
“2. New technology, followed by the production of things using the technology, generates JOBS. The tax revenues derived from those technological enterprises determine what government ultimately can do. No innovation and no production of things - no tax revenues.
“3. The more hours that one works, the more one produces. (Up to a point, of course. We do not want people collapsing from exhaustion.) Exhaustion occurs way beyond 40, or even 60 hours a week for that matter. Take a break, and you run the risk of falling behind your competition.
“4. When a substantial segment of your society has to spend the vast majority of their time to cover the essentials, that segment isn’t particularly useful. It’s no different than the role played by mass agriculture in history. Food production has to be relegated to a few, so that the others can engage in the advancement of innovation and technology, and the trade and exchange of the products produced.
“5. The simplest way to reduce rising health care costs (and thus the health care component of our deficit)? Stop eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, smoking Camels, drinking Colt 45, and hit the treadmill. You'll see a dramatic improvement in health, and at a pretty low cost.
“6. Retirement (when workers still have talent and the ability to contribute) kills your society and generates other problems, especially when you shift tax revenue to people who sit on their asses for years. Capable people who work until the day they die are more productive members of society, physically and mentally. And, they feel that they have some value and stake in society.
“7. War is not a revenue generating enterprise. There are few positive ramifications. It’s a resource drain. It kills productive members of society (who could be inventing some stuff), and gets people pissed off at you.
“8. When you treat any segment of society unfairly, for whatever reason, they become less motivated, and less capable, to work in concert with you to pursue long-term societal interests. It makes more sense to have them voluntarily and emotionally 'buy into' your societal goals. They'll be more motivated .”
If one looks back in history, it’s clear that this is simply Common Sense.
A society which rationalizes its poor choices for too long a period of time is ultimately doomed. It might ride its success for a short period of time, but not for very long.
We, as a society, are ignoring all of the stuff that really matters. We're fooling ourselves while we engage in meaningless debates.
And wasting time.
It's like a boat sinking because of a leak, and the sailors are all arguing, while blowing tin whistles, about who’s responsible for the leak, and what mechanism to use to get the water out of the vessel.
If tin whistles are made of tin, what are credit default swap derivatives made of?
We’d like to know.
We also approached our current problems from a different perspective in another piece entitled, "Pigs Get Fat; Hogs Get Slaughtered." Address the issues raised in these two pieces, and we will be on our way back to fiscal and societal stability.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Post No. 147a: What Makes People Vote Republican?
We previously provided a link to this article, by Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. He conducts research on morality and emotion and how they vary across cultures. We found this article to be particularly thought-provoking.
The following is an excerpt from the article:
“What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress.
“[Paragraph break added.] But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world. “
We are providing the link once again before delving into some other topics.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Post No. 51: Finally, Let Me Get this O.J. Stuff out of My System
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Having been fortunate enough to have visited a number of countries in this world, some third world in status, I have often thought that very few of us in this country fully appreciate the luxury of “disposable opinion.”
Once certain basic priorities have been addressed, humans then have the luxury, or time, to think about other, less pressing issues. While explaining why the Taliban was welcome in Afghanistan despite the Western world’s objections, a peasant told a reporter in a recent documentary, “Who cares about women’s rights when you have moved from chaos to order in your daily lives.”
In Post No. 50, entitled, “O.J.’s Opportunity – Lost” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-50-ojs-opportunity-lost.html), I noted that it was sad that Simpson’s life could not have continued on a positive path, uninterrupted by the murder charges. I further noted that an opportunity had been lost to provide inspiration to millions of kids.
In that article, I also mentioned two factors that suggested to me that perhaps Simpson did not commit the murders, at least not personally. In response thereto, I received some pretty intense comments, most of which came to me directly via e-mail. I found it interesting that so many folks continue to have such strong opinions about the first Simpson criminal verdict. (I strongly suspect that the jurors’ personal feelings about the first trial were a significant factor in the most recent verdict, whether rightly or wrongly.)
The intensity of opinions held by supporters and detractors of the two current presidential candidates has often reminded me of the intensity of opinions held by observers of the Simpson verdict.
The Simpson trials and our current presidential election exposed the American public’s feelings about a host of issues. What has astounded me is how rigidly held the beliefs and positions are, on both sides of the fence.
All of this has incredible complexity, and our personal reactions are obviously complicated by our personal experiences.
I honestly do not know whether Simpson did it. It is, of course, possible. I just think that there is a 51% probability that he did not do it. Not 50%, but 51%. There was a lot of tough evidence against him. Since I wasn’t there, and there were no other first party witnesses to the event, I just don’t know with any degree of certainty. However, there are many people in our society who feel strongly about this verdict and “know” one way or the other. I find that fascinating.
Anytime a case is based on circumstantial evidence, and there is a lack of “direct evidence,” the analysis becomes problematic. Here, in the case of the Simpson / Goldman murders, there were no direct witnesses. The only potentially direct evidence was the blood evidence, and a question was raised, either rightly or wrongly, about that evidence.
A circumstantial case is like a suit of clothes and make-up. It can be applied to lots of individuals. Remember the movie Trading Places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places)? There has been some research in connection with widely differing jury verdicts stemming from applying the same set of facts to different people. That’s why trial lawyers work so hard to promote certain images to jurors. The same applies to political handlers and media outlets.
One could take Warren Buffet, transform him into a homeless person in appearance, put him on trial for a crime, and I suspect that he’ll get convicted more than 50% of the time. You could replace him with various other substitute homeless people, Bill Gates, Tyra Banks, Heather Locklear, and get varying results, all with the same evidence.
A prosecutorial filing deputy has to be very careful in deciding to file the initial charges when there is only circumstantial evidence to support the charge. It’s not clear to me that the Simpson criminal charges would have been filed against John Doe husband, without the public history of prior assaults. But I’m not into second guessing people’s motives. The media should also be careful in how it paints and characterizes candidates.
That being said, I fully believe in the system. It’s about procedure and guidelines, and I’m a procedure and process kind of guy.
Can it be made better? Of course. But once you insert the raw human element, it becomes far more complicated and problematic, and therefore the out product becomes inconsistent. That doesn’t mean that the system is faulty.
I think that the biggest problem Simpson had to overcome in his first trial was his prior altercations with his wife. Some believe that if you beat your wife 3 or 4 times previously, you are more pre-disposed to, or will finally, murder her.
It is my understanding that 25% of all violence against women is committed by a “loved one,” or someone with whom the victim is intimately familiar. (Some have even argued that the most effective way to reduce violence against women would be to outlaw the development of interpersonal, heterosexual relationships.) While growing up, I knew many a couple where the husband physically assaulted the wife, on multiple occasions, and they stayed married, kept it undercover, and they live together to this day. Murder never took place.
Quite frankly, it has always been my view that the first time that a woman is hit, she should summon the authorities and immediately leave the relationship so that there is no second event. There is absolutely no excuse for a man to hit a woman; however, I have known many a man to do so, or be very close to doing so, and I’ve had to pull them away, quickly. And yet, I never sensed murderous intent.
When I was in the D.A.’s Office, there was a period when I had to try cases which I disliked. Typical scenario: Drunk man on Friday night beats wife. Kids yell and scream. Someone calls the police. The police arrive, and the husband is belligerent. The assaulted wife and the kids identify the husband as the perpetrator.
The issue then became whether there was a felony or a misdemeanor committed. Generally speaking, the police can arrest if there is sufficient corroborating evidence (other witnesses, or sufficient injury) to support felony assault, or if the assault is made in their presence. The police can not arrest for misdemeanor conduct outside of their presence, unless the wife makes a citizen’s arrest, thus authorizing the police to arrest the husband.
In the typical situation, the husband was arrested and charged with assault on the wife, resisting arrest, and assault on a peace officer. Criminal charges were filed and a trial date was set. However, by the time of the trial, the husband and wife had filed a civil lawsuit, seeking millions, and alleging police brutality and excessive force. Since the criminal trial was held before the civil trial, and could potentially affect the civil trial because of the higher burden of proof at the criminal level, I had to win the criminal trial.
There was intense pressure from the police department. In virtually every instance, by the time that the criminal trial rolled around, the wife had changed her testimony and was prepared to testify on behalf of the husband that he did not do anything to justify summoning the police, and they overreacted. That is why the D.A. changed its policy and decided that the offense was “against the state or society,” and not against the wife. In the late 1970s, the D.A. decided to pursue prosecution of cases, even if the wife dropped the charges leading to the citizen’s arrest.
I think that a significant segment of the population felt that O.J. was guilty because he previously assaulted his wife. In my view, as reprehensible as that prior conduct may have been, the leap from wife assault to murder should not have been made lightly.
We have lots of scientific evidence about brain function to at least partially understand rage. What we don’t generally see is the ability of a first time murderer to simply walk away calmly without a distinct, obvious, physiological reaction.
We have known for years that a certain part of the brain kicks in when a person feels threatened to the point that survival becomes an issue, which explains cannibalism by shipwrecked or downed airplane crews, and parents fighting off attacking bears or sharks. They are, at least temporarily, traumatized knowing that they resorted to that behavior.
A story appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Times some years ago, about the post traumatic stress suffered by both female and male former members of the Israeli Army. Upon discharge, they found themselves heading to distant lands where they could readily acquire illicit, dangerous drugs to blur their memories of the pain of death.
The body’s natural functional response to death is fairly automatic and obvious. You have to stand over a whacked body to fully appreciate the hard-wired nervous system response, which is built into us all. It’s designed to kick in with respect to attacks on members of our tribe/species. It does not kick it as much in connection with those animals outside of our tribe/species. If the animal coming toward you is charging, then a different part of the brain, dealing with survival, kicks in. Even after that survival experience, you will still see physiological changes. There are auditory, visual, tactile, taste, and olfactory stimuli which can immediately produce violent and fairly long lasting automatic responses in the human body. You usually regurgitate first, the heart races uncontrollably, and you sweat profusely.
Ordering someone to do something is VERY different. There is a buffer. But no one alleged that Simpson hired someone else to commit the murders.
Our brain scan technology and research has improved dramatically over the past 13 years, and we can now map brain activity using computer monitors. Still, very little research is done on violent criminals. We often hear about the cold blooded attitude of teenagers, and how they dismiss their conduct so easily and have truly become sociopaths. However, they were not born that way, and generally they have had years of anti-social support and activity to reach that point.
Thus it is my feeling that it is difficult to find people who can kill a human being for the first time, and then calmly walk away without exhibiting physiological changes. If someone had produced evidence that O.J. had previously killed some folks in years prior, to develop a cold-blooded attitude, I might have felt differently.
This purpose of this article is not to justify Simpson’s conduct, but rather outline the type of analysis which we hope would be employed if we were on trial for such an offense.
All of this brings me to the current political climate. In the jury trial context, I always felt that jurors should dismiss their personal experiences and prejudices, and analyze cases from as pure and non-biased a perspective as possible.
As a general rule, a trial attorney tries to hammer home 3 or 4 major points in advocating on behalf of his client. In a similar vein, there should be 3 or 4 overriding considerations that we take into account in deciding our next leader, not 37 different, dissected, personal characteristics or relationships.
In fact, all jury instructions read by judges to the jurors before they deliberate indicate that they should block out their personal biases, and base their decision entirely on the evidence. It’s a goal, but unfortunately, not a reality.
I never understood why folks inject their personal views in analyzing a situation to reach a decision about something that does not personally affect them. Aren’t we interested in doing what is in the best interests of society at large? That so many people had fixed opinions about the O.J. verdict along gender, racial, age, social status, economic, and other lines has always been troubling to me. How about pure analysis just based on the facts?
Perhaps Johnnie Cochran was correct in imploring the jury not to “rush to judgment.”
We are seeing virtually the same type of personal analysis and dissection, with very little attention to facts and objectivity, occurring in connection with this political campaign, by both sides. Isn’t there a more objective means by which we can analyze and judge the candidates without invoking our personal biases?
A black siding with Simpson in response to the evidence, or a female siding with the deceased, or Republicans siding with Palin in connection with her comments, and Republicans attacking Jeremiah Wright, while Democrats attack John Hagee, all represent the worst in our culture.
And gains us little.
Governor Palin apparently thinks that hammering home that Obama had a relationship with former “domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers will be the equivalent to Simpson’s prior assaults on Nicole Brown.
As silly as this might sound, fans rooting for their home team do not get to determine the winner just by arguing their position and attacking the other team. Some objectivity is built into sporting events so that there is little question as to which team or side has prevailed.
How about a little more intellectual honesty as we walk into the voting booth next month? Remember that reasonable people can differ. Remember that we all want to come out of this stagnancy, and that there is more strength in unity.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Having been fortunate enough to have visited a number of countries in this world, some third world in status, I have often thought that very few of us in this country fully appreciate the luxury of “disposable opinion.”
Once certain basic priorities have been addressed, humans then have the luxury, or time, to think about other, less pressing issues. While explaining why the Taliban was welcome in Afghanistan despite the Western world’s objections, a peasant told a reporter in a recent documentary, “Who cares about women’s rights when you have moved from chaos to order in your daily lives.”
In Post No. 50, entitled, “O.J.’s Opportunity – Lost” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-50-ojs-opportunity-lost.html), I noted that it was sad that Simpson’s life could not have continued on a positive path, uninterrupted by the murder charges. I further noted that an opportunity had been lost to provide inspiration to millions of kids.
In that article, I also mentioned two factors that suggested to me that perhaps Simpson did not commit the murders, at least not personally. In response thereto, I received some pretty intense comments, most of which came to me directly via e-mail. I found it interesting that so many folks continue to have such strong opinions about the first Simpson criminal verdict. (I strongly suspect that the jurors’ personal feelings about the first trial were a significant factor in the most recent verdict, whether rightly or wrongly.)
The intensity of opinions held by supporters and detractors of the two current presidential candidates has often reminded me of the intensity of opinions held by observers of the Simpson verdict.
The Simpson trials and our current presidential election exposed the American public’s feelings about a host of issues. What has astounded me is how rigidly held the beliefs and positions are, on both sides of the fence.
All of this has incredible complexity, and our personal reactions are obviously complicated by our personal experiences.
I honestly do not know whether Simpson did it. It is, of course, possible. I just think that there is a 51% probability that he did not do it. Not 50%, but 51%. There was a lot of tough evidence against him. Since I wasn’t there, and there were no other first party witnesses to the event, I just don’t know with any degree of certainty. However, there are many people in our society who feel strongly about this verdict and “know” one way or the other. I find that fascinating.
Anytime a case is based on circumstantial evidence, and there is a lack of “direct evidence,” the analysis becomes problematic. Here, in the case of the Simpson / Goldman murders, there were no direct witnesses. The only potentially direct evidence was the blood evidence, and a question was raised, either rightly or wrongly, about that evidence.
A circumstantial case is like a suit of clothes and make-up. It can be applied to lots of individuals. Remember the movie Trading Places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places)? There has been some research in connection with widely differing jury verdicts stemming from applying the same set of facts to different people. That’s why trial lawyers work so hard to promote certain images to jurors. The same applies to political handlers and media outlets.
One could take Warren Buffet, transform him into a homeless person in appearance, put him on trial for a crime, and I suspect that he’ll get convicted more than 50% of the time. You could replace him with various other substitute homeless people, Bill Gates, Tyra Banks, Heather Locklear, and get varying results, all with the same evidence.
A prosecutorial filing deputy has to be very careful in deciding to file the initial charges when there is only circumstantial evidence to support the charge. It’s not clear to me that the Simpson criminal charges would have been filed against John Doe husband, without the public history of prior assaults. But I’m not into second guessing people’s motives. The media should also be careful in how it paints and characterizes candidates.
That being said, I fully believe in the system. It’s about procedure and guidelines, and I’m a procedure and process kind of guy.
Can it be made better? Of course. But once you insert the raw human element, it becomes far more complicated and problematic, and therefore the out product becomes inconsistent. That doesn’t mean that the system is faulty.
I think that the biggest problem Simpson had to overcome in his first trial was his prior altercations with his wife. Some believe that if you beat your wife 3 or 4 times previously, you are more pre-disposed to, or will finally, murder her.
It is my understanding that 25% of all violence against women is committed by a “loved one,” or someone with whom the victim is intimately familiar. (Some have even argued that the most effective way to reduce violence against women would be to outlaw the development of interpersonal, heterosexual relationships.) While growing up, I knew many a couple where the husband physically assaulted the wife, on multiple occasions, and they stayed married, kept it undercover, and they live together to this day. Murder never took place.
Quite frankly, it has always been my view that the first time that a woman is hit, she should summon the authorities and immediately leave the relationship so that there is no second event. There is absolutely no excuse for a man to hit a woman; however, I have known many a man to do so, or be very close to doing so, and I’ve had to pull them away, quickly. And yet, I never sensed murderous intent.
When I was in the D.A.’s Office, there was a period when I had to try cases which I disliked. Typical scenario: Drunk man on Friday night beats wife. Kids yell and scream. Someone calls the police. The police arrive, and the husband is belligerent. The assaulted wife and the kids identify the husband as the perpetrator.
The issue then became whether there was a felony or a misdemeanor committed. Generally speaking, the police can arrest if there is sufficient corroborating evidence (other witnesses, or sufficient injury) to support felony assault, or if the assault is made in their presence. The police can not arrest for misdemeanor conduct outside of their presence, unless the wife makes a citizen’s arrest, thus authorizing the police to arrest the husband.
In the typical situation, the husband was arrested and charged with assault on the wife, resisting arrest, and assault on a peace officer. Criminal charges were filed and a trial date was set. However, by the time of the trial, the husband and wife had filed a civil lawsuit, seeking millions, and alleging police brutality and excessive force. Since the criminal trial was held before the civil trial, and could potentially affect the civil trial because of the higher burden of proof at the criminal level, I had to win the criminal trial.
There was intense pressure from the police department. In virtually every instance, by the time that the criminal trial rolled around, the wife had changed her testimony and was prepared to testify on behalf of the husband that he did not do anything to justify summoning the police, and they overreacted. That is why the D.A. changed its policy and decided that the offense was “against the state or society,” and not against the wife. In the late 1970s, the D.A. decided to pursue prosecution of cases, even if the wife dropped the charges leading to the citizen’s arrest.
I think that a significant segment of the population felt that O.J. was guilty because he previously assaulted his wife. In my view, as reprehensible as that prior conduct may have been, the leap from wife assault to murder should not have been made lightly.
We have lots of scientific evidence about brain function to at least partially understand rage. What we don’t generally see is the ability of a first time murderer to simply walk away calmly without a distinct, obvious, physiological reaction.
We have known for years that a certain part of the brain kicks in when a person feels threatened to the point that survival becomes an issue, which explains cannibalism by shipwrecked or downed airplane crews, and parents fighting off attacking bears or sharks. They are, at least temporarily, traumatized knowing that they resorted to that behavior.
A story appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Times some years ago, about the post traumatic stress suffered by both female and male former members of the Israeli Army. Upon discharge, they found themselves heading to distant lands where they could readily acquire illicit, dangerous drugs to blur their memories of the pain of death.
The body’s natural functional response to death is fairly automatic and obvious. You have to stand over a whacked body to fully appreciate the hard-wired nervous system response, which is built into us all. It’s designed to kick in with respect to attacks on members of our tribe/species. It does not kick it as much in connection with those animals outside of our tribe/species. If the animal coming toward you is charging, then a different part of the brain, dealing with survival, kicks in. Even after that survival experience, you will still see physiological changes. There are auditory, visual, tactile, taste, and olfactory stimuli which can immediately produce violent and fairly long lasting automatic responses in the human body. You usually regurgitate first, the heart races uncontrollably, and you sweat profusely.
Ordering someone to do something is VERY different. There is a buffer. But no one alleged that Simpson hired someone else to commit the murders.
Our brain scan technology and research has improved dramatically over the past 13 years, and we can now map brain activity using computer monitors. Still, very little research is done on violent criminals. We often hear about the cold blooded attitude of teenagers, and how they dismiss their conduct so easily and have truly become sociopaths. However, they were not born that way, and generally they have had years of anti-social support and activity to reach that point.
Thus it is my feeling that it is difficult to find people who can kill a human being for the first time, and then calmly walk away without exhibiting physiological changes. If someone had produced evidence that O.J. had previously killed some folks in years prior, to develop a cold-blooded attitude, I might have felt differently.
This purpose of this article is not to justify Simpson’s conduct, but rather outline the type of analysis which we hope would be employed if we were on trial for such an offense.
All of this brings me to the current political climate. In the jury trial context, I always felt that jurors should dismiss their personal experiences and prejudices, and analyze cases from as pure and non-biased a perspective as possible.
As a general rule, a trial attorney tries to hammer home 3 or 4 major points in advocating on behalf of his client. In a similar vein, there should be 3 or 4 overriding considerations that we take into account in deciding our next leader, not 37 different, dissected, personal characteristics or relationships.
In fact, all jury instructions read by judges to the jurors before they deliberate indicate that they should block out their personal biases, and base their decision entirely on the evidence. It’s a goal, but unfortunately, not a reality.
I never understood why folks inject their personal views in analyzing a situation to reach a decision about something that does not personally affect them. Aren’t we interested in doing what is in the best interests of society at large? That so many people had fixed opinions about the O.J. verdict along gender, racial, age, social status, economic, and other lines has always been troubling to me. How about pure analysis just based on the facts?
Perhaps Johnnie Cochran was correct in imploring the jury not to “rush to judgment.”
We are seeing virtually the same type of personal analysis and dissection, with very little attention to facts and objectivity, occurring in connection with this political campaign, by both sides. Isn’t there a more objective means by which we can analyze and judge the candidates without invoking our personal biases?
A black siding with Simpson in response to the evidence, or a female siding with the deceased, or Republicans siding with Palin in connection with her comments, and Republicans attacking Jeremiah Wright, while Democrats attack John Hagee, all represent the worst in our culture.
And gains us little.
Governor Palin apparently thinks that hammering home that Obama had a relationship with former “domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers will be the equivalent to Simpson’s prior assaults on Nicole Brown.
As silly as this might sound, fans rooting for their home team do not get to determine the winner just by arguing their position and attacking the other team. Some objectivity is built into sporting events so that there is little question as to which team or side has prevailed.
How about a little more intellectual honesty as we walk into the voting booth next month? Remember that reasonable people can differ. Remember that we all want to come out of this stagnancy, and that there is more strength in unity.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Post No. 48: A Missed Opportunity
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Candidate McCain has frequently noted that many of his colleagues headed to Washington to change Washington, and that Washington actually changed them. Unfortunately, the former naval fighter pilot may be the best example of that phenomenon.
The non-eventful first debate between the presidential candidates last Friday supports that notion.
There’s something “unique” about being an active participant in war. That unity of experience and emotion draws warriors together, no matter the generation. (And if you note, they rarely talk about it, until some documentary film maker shoves a microphone in their faces, or their remaining years are few in number.)
After a major earthquake in California in 1994, a WWII veteran father in North Carolina called his mid-40s son in an effort to ensure that he was not too rattled. Although he had never been in an earthquake, the father recounted his unsettling feeling when one of Hitler’s V bombs exploded next to him. That 87 year old veteran, despite a lifetime of voting the straight Democratic ticket, has hinted that he plans to vote for a fellow warrior, although of a different war.
In a recent article, we noted that any modern solder will tell you that in selecting a combat leader, they would not give a rat’s ___ whether he was white, black, Harvard or Academy educated, Democrat, Republican, old, young, eastern, northern, Christian, Muslim, male, female, pro-choice, pro-life, had “family values,” whatever that is, or ate caribou. (They would all want him to be a gun toter.)
They would tell you that they would want someone who could best manage to save their rear ends by their ability to manage the team and the dangers in front of them, right then and there.
They would also all tell you that the preceding 17 factors do not really bear on that elusive leadership quality. We must admit that there has to be something beyond all of that dissection.
On Friday night past, there was a one time, never to come again, opportunity for candidates McCain and Obama to walk across the stage...look each other in the eye...shake hands...and promise the American public that our economic engine would not self-destruct... regardless of who gets elected. With McCain having the background in triage and team building, and the benefit of experience, at a minimum, he should have suggested the maneuver.
They didn't do it.
Apparently, it is also considered political suicide to ask the American people to knowingly support the cost of current American foreign policy with the financial sacrifices necessary to support same.Or to admit that the $10 billion/month current cost of our Iraqi involvement, and our former bad planning, means there is no money for either candidate to fulfill any of their campaign promises.We’re now in a “war,” but not the type of war about which our current President often speaks. Question any Middle East expert who has studied Osama bid Laden’s game plan for the past 20 years, and they will tell you that despite the rhetoric about killing the Great Satan, the goal is not to kill our people...they want to convert them...
Twice they attacked the World Trade Center. Twice. If this is not about symbols and philosophy…. This is a war about values executed through a war on our economy, and there are probably lots of smiles in the caves these days.
By sucking us into a couple of wars in the Middle East, the cost of which our current administration is unwilling to acknowledge...we are right back to Viet Nam...and all of the nonsense that follows. That someone thought that we could somehow transport resources over thousands of miles to accomplish something that others could not in their own backyards should cause us to pause.
We suspect that the cost of our “enemy's” per person kill rate is running something less than $5,000/per funeral... and the cost of our kill rate is running something like $500,000/per... not including friendly funerals.
Maybe more.
A snarky guy might even suggest that our economic enemies are winning...at least on the only short term over riding measure we consider important.
When you think that you’re fighting charging water buffalos, and you’re really standing knee deep in a snake pit, things get a little distorted.
So...how do we fix this?
Radically change the paradigm. Back in June, we posted an article entitled, “How Radical Action Could be a Good Thing Right Now.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/06/post-no-18-how-radical-action-could-be.html.) In that article, we suggested that each candidate name the other as his vice-presidential choice. Quite frankly, we’re not sure whether under the current political party rules, candidates Biden and Palin could be replaced by the names of McCain and Obama.
But who’s following rules these days any way? And these rules do not even have the force of law, in that they were not promulgated by legislative or administrative governmental bodies. Perhaps the two presidential candidates should take a lesson from the guys on Wall Street and do whatever they think is in their best interests.
Since we have faith in the basic, underlying motivations of these two mavericks, we are reasonably certain that they would do what was in the best interests of this nation. And that’s more than what the Wall Street guys did for us.
Once again, it’s the party handlers and consultants about whom we’re concerned.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Candidate McCain has frequently noted that many of his colleagues headed to Washington to change Washington, and that Washington actually changed them. Unfortunately, the former naval fighter pilot may be the best example of that phenomenon.
The non-eventful first debate between the presidential candidates last Friday supports that notion.
There’s something “unique” about being an active participant in war. That unity of experience and emotion draws warriors together, no matter the generation. (And if you note, they rarely talk about it, until some documentary film maker shoves a microphone in their faces, or their remaining years are few in number.)
After a major earthquake in California in 1994, a WWII veteran father in North Carolina called his mid-40s son in an effort to ensure that he was not too rattled. Although he had never been in an earthquake, the father recounted his unsettling feeling when one of Hitler’s V bombs exploded next to him. That 87 year old veteran, despite a lifetime of voting the straight Democratic ticket, has hinted that he plans to vote for a fellow warrior, although of a different war.
In a recent article, we noted that any modern solder will tell you that in selecting a combat leader, they would not give a rat’s ___ whether he was white, black, Harvard or Academy educated, Democrat, Republican, old, young, eastern, northern, Christian, Muslim, male, female, pro-choice, pro-life, had “family values,” whatever that is, or ate caribou. (They would all want him to be a gun toter.)
They would tell you that they would want someone who could best manage to save their rear ends by their ability to manage the team and the dangers in front of them, right then and there.
They would also all tell you that the preceding 17 factors do not really bear on that elusive leadership quality. We must admit that there has to be something beyond all of that dissection.
On Friday night past, there was a one time, never to come again, opportunity for candidates McCain and Obama to walk across the stage...look each other in the eye...shake hands...and promise the American public that our economic engine would not self-destruct... regardless of who gets elected. With McCain having the background in triage and team building, and the benefit of experience, at a minimum, he should have suggested the maneuver.
They didn't do it.
Apparently, it is also considered political suicide to ask the American people to knowingly support the cost of current American foreign policy with the financial sacrifices necessary to support same.Or to admit that the $10 billion/month current cost of our Iraqi involvement, and our former bad planning, means there is no money for either candidate to fulfill any of their campaign promises.We’re now in a “war,” but not the type of war about which our current President often speaks. Question any Middle East expert who has studied Osama bid Laden’s game plan for the past 20 years, and they will tell you that despite the rhetoric about killing the Great Satan, the goal is not to kill our people...they want to convert them...
Twice they attacked the World Trade Center. Twice. If this is not about symbols and philosophy…. This is a war about values executed through a war on our economy, and there are probably lots of smiles in the caves these days.
By sucking us into a couple of wars in the Middle East, the cost of which our current administration is unwilling to acknowledge...we are right back to Viet Nam...and all of the nonsense that follows. That someone thought that we could somehow transport resources over thousands of miles to accomplish something that others could not in their own backyards should cause us to pause.
We suspect that the cost of our “enemy's” per person kill rate is running something less than $5,000/per funeral... and the cost of our kill rate is running something like $500,000/per... not including friendly funerals.
Maybe more.
A snarky guy might even suggest that our economic enemies are winning...at least on the only short term over riding measure we consider important.
When you think that you’re fighting charging water buffalos, and you’re really standing knee deep in a snake pit, things get a little distorted.
So...how do we fix this?
Radically change the paradigm. Back in June, we posted an article entitled, “How Radical Action Could be a Good Thing Right Now.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/06/post-no-18-how-radical-action-could-be.html.) In that article, we suggested that each candidate name the other as his vice-presidential choice. Quite frankly, we’re not sure whether under the current political party rules, candidates Biden and Palin could be replaced by the names of McCain and Obama.
But who’s following rules these days any way? And these rules do not even have the force of law, in that they were not promulgated by legislative or administrative governmental bodies. Perhaps the two presidential candidates should take a lesson from the guys on Wall Street and do whatever they think is in their best interests.
Since we have faith in the basic, underlying motivations of these two mavericks, we are reasonably certain that they would do what was in the best interests of this nation. And that’s more than what the Wall Street guys did for us.
Once again, it’s the party handlers and consultants about whom we’re concerned.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Post No. 46: They Actually Faked Me Out - They Really Did
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There are significant problems associated with being an eternal optimist, and always hoping for the best. I’ve often been described as naïve and unsophisticated. I’ve generally responded that I’m usually aware of the dangers and the negative side of things, but that I do not like to occupy my time watching my back.
As a general proposition, I always assume that people will do the right thing at least 51% of the time, and that at least 51% of people are good.
There is another character trait which has been problematic on occasion, that being that I’ve never seen any real reason for conflict. In my view of the world, it’s just not frigging necessary. I mean, why spend your time that way?
For over a year now, I have been absolutely amazed at the vituperative and acrimonious nature of the debate about the various candidates, both during the primaries, and after their respective selections. I’ve watched both sides draw lines in the sand, denigrate one another, and accuse the other of the most heinous acts. That people think that this is acceptable is an issue for another day.
What has most fascinated me is the manner in which party loyalists have lined up to support their candidate’s or party’s position, to the point of being disingenuous. Intellectual honesty has largely been absent. On both sides.
I mean, come on, let’s face it. This disaster has been decades in the making. Anyone who suggests otherwise is just not being honest. It can not be traced to one event in 1999 when a Democratic president was in office, and it can not be traced to any one single event during the Bush administration. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been complicit in running this country into the ground.
It’s been pretty obvious to common folk. It’s only the intellectuals, the upper middle class, and the talking heads who have managed to convince themselves otherwise, or that the other party was primarily responsible. It’s always been my understanding that the first step in addressing a problem is to take responsibility for having participated in its creation.
It’s just common sense to me.
And the other countries of the world watched this whole thing with amazement.
And while I understand the importance of not creating panic and thus avoiding the generation of emotionally charged negative economic momentum, to have so many in our society (and they’re all responsible) tell us only weeks or months ago that the American economy was strong, and for this meltdown to occur “virtually overnight,” left my head spinning.
Who are these people? Was this a movie that I just watched?
And so it was with some delight, and relief, that I watched the Senate Banking Committee hearing on Tuesday, as they grilled the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Secretary.
I first detected a hint of bipartisan outrage. I thought I observed and heard Senators from both sides of the aisle ask some tough, and not unreasonable, questions. I noted the absence of the speeches typically made before the speakers pose their questions which always telegraph their positions.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I said to myself, “We might actually get something done here.”
Not being quite sure as to whether my perceptions were shared by others, I then watched the news coverage throughout Tuesday evening. Much to my delight, they generally had the same impression as did I. Apart from the banter about the media’s access to vice-presidential candidate Palin during her U.N. visit, it appeared as though some civility had been established.
I managed to miss the political news all during the morning and early afternoon on Wednesday. At roughly 3:30 pm on Wednesday, I saw candidate McCain participating in a news conference indicating that he would suspend his campaign to focus his efforts on the economic situation. He further indicated that he had spoken with the Obama campaign, and that he had suggested that first debate be postponed.
I actually said out loud, “Finally, now we’re talking,” and a huge smile came on my face. Not only had the system worked, but we had finally come together as a country.
I did question why Senator Obama, who has painted himself as able to cross party lines, did not initiate this seemingly collaborative effort. And then reality set in, and the usual partisanship revealed its ugly head.
The Obama campaign had purportedly initiated the contact at 8:30 am, and had suggested a joint statement. The McCain campaign had not gotten back to them until 2:30 pm, and wanted something beyond a statement, and shortly thereafter, the news conference was held.
There were accusations on both sides. “Obama thinks the campaign is more important than the financial crisis.” “McCain is afraid to debate Obama, and is unprepared.” “Obama refuses to respond to McCain’s statesmanlike gesture.” “McCain tried to upstage Obama.”
A joint statement was issued, which was not actually joint. The party loyalists, once again, joined in lock step support of their particular candidate. The noise of the talk show hosts, and their talking heads, reached a fever pitch.
And the band played on….
And I realized that I had been had.
“They” had actually faked me out.
I felt like a fool for having had faith that they could have dealt with this thing collaboratively.
Perhaps I shouldn’t take it so personally. It’s not the first time that a member of the American public has been faked out.
My concern is whether I’ll be able to whip up my enthusiasm again, and again, and again….
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There are significant problems associated with being an eternal optimist, and always hoping for the best. I’ve often been described as naïve and unsophisticated. I’ve generally responded that I’m usually aware of the dangers and the negative side of things, but that I do not like to occupy my time watching my back.
As a general proposition, I always assume that people will do the right thing at least 51% of the time, and that at least 51% of people are good.
There is another character trait which has been problematic on occasion, that being that I’ve never seen any real reason for conflict. In my view of the world, it’s just not frigging necessary. I mean, why spend your time that way?
For over a year now, I have been absolutely amazed at the vituperative and acrimonious nature of the debate about the various candidates, both during the primaries, and after their respective selections. I’ve watched both sides draw lines in the sand, denigrate one another, and accuse the other of the most heinous acts. That people think that this is acceptable is an issue for another day.
What has most fascinated me is the manner in which party loyalists have lined up to support their candidate’s or party’s position, to the point of being disingenuous. Intellectual honesty has largely been absent. On both sides.
I mean, come on, let’s face it. This disaster has been decades in the making. Anyone who suggests otherwise is just not being honest. It can not be traced to one event in 1999 when a Democratic president was in office, and it can not be traced to any one single event during the Bush administration. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been complicit in running this country into the ground.
It’s been pretty obvious to common folk. It’s only the intellectuals, the upper middle class, and the talking heads who have managed to convince themselves otherwise, or that the other party was primarily responsible. It’s always been my understanding that the first step in addressing a problem is to take responsibility for having participated in its creation.
It’s just common sense to me.
And the other countries of the world watched this whole thing with amazement.
And while I understand the importance of not creating panic and thus avoiding the generation of emotionally charged negative economic momentum, to have so many in our society (and they’re all responsible) tell us only weeks or months ago that the American economy was strong, and for this meltdown to occur “virtually overnight,” left my head spinning.
Who are these people? Was this a movie that I just watched?
And so it was with some delight, and relief, that I watched the Senate Banking Committee hearing on Tuesday, as they grilled the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Secretary.
I first detected a hint of bipartisan outrage. I thought I observed and heard Senators from both sides of the aisle ask some tough, and not unreasonable, questions. I noted the absence of the speeches typically made before the speakers pose their questions which always telegraph their positions.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I said to myself, “We might actually get something done here.”
Not being quite sure as to whether my perceptions were shared by others, I then watched the news coverage throughout Tuesday evening. Much to my delight, they generally had the same impression as did I. Apart from the banter about the media’s access to vice-presidential candidate Palin during her U.N. visit, it appeared as though some civility had been established.
I managed to miss the political news all during the morning and early afternoon on Wednesday. At roughly 3:30 pm on Wednesday, I saw candidate McCain participating in a news conference indicating that he would suspend his campaign to focus his efforts on the economic situation. He further indicated that he had spoken with the Obama campaign, and that he had suggested that first debate be postponed.
I actually said out loud, “Finally, now we’re talking,” and a huge smile came on my face. Not only had the system worked, but we had finally come together as a country.
I did question why Senator Obama, who has painted himself as able to cross party lines, did not initiate this seemingly collaborative effort. And then reality set in, and the usual partisanship revealed its ugly head.
The Obama campaign had purportedly initiated the contact at 8:30 am, and had suggested a joint statement. The McCain campaign had not gotten back to them until 2:30 pm, and wanted something beyond a statement, and shortly thereafter, the news conference was held.
There were accusations on both sides. “Obama thinks the campaign is more important than the financial crisis.” “McCain is afraid to debate Obama, and is unprepared.” “Obama refuses to respond to McCain’s statesmanlike gesture.” “McCain tried to upstage Obama.”
A joint statement was issued, which was not actually joint. The party loyalists, once again, joined in lock step support of their particular candidate. The noise of the talk show hosts, and their talking heads, reached a fever pitch.
And the band played on….
And I realized that I had been had.
“They” had actually faked me out.
I felt like a fool for having had faith that they could have dealt with this thing collaboratively.
Perhaps I shouldn’t take it so personally. It’s not the first time that a member of the American public has been faked out.
My concern is whether I’ll be able to whip up my enthusiasm again, and again, and again….
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Post No. 43a: Special Edition of CBS 60 Minutes: Both Presidential Candidates
Special edition. Interviews of both McCain and OBama. 7:30 pm Eastern. Check your local listings for other time zones.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Post No. 43: A Few Thoughts about the Current Political Climate
© The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I believe that there is a strong argument which can be made for the abolition of both the Democratic and Republican parties.
The thinking public, I would suspect, has very little respect for either of them, based on the behavior of the parties during the past two years. Leaders, on both sides of the aisle, who I once regarded as intellectually sound stalwarts for their respective parties, have stooped to employ whatever means advances their party’s short-term interests, and have relegated the nation’s most pressing and long term interests to a tertiary consideration.
And there is another concept which appears to have been lost, that being, "taking responsibility for one's actions." One must be careful to avoid being caught in the volley of partisan accusations.
That we even engage in, or report on, conversations about “lipstick on a pig” during a period when we should be collaboratively applying triage principles to remedy significant problems, is, quite frankly, disillusionment at its worst.
Is the basic underlying assumption that we should play to the fears of the masses, because it “works?”
Is another basic underlying assumption that lying is justified if it "works?"
This is just sick. All of us, who have been fortunate enough to receive a decent education and have the luxury to engage in conversations about the major issues of the day (and not have to worry about child care, shitty schools, transportation, basic food, drive-by shootings, and the lack of health insurance), should say to the leaders of both parties that “enough is enough.”
I'll tell you this, if only the poor and disenfranchised were allowed to vote, they wouldn't vote in this type of con-man, or con-woman.
That we sit here and allow them to do this to us, and as a consequence, simultaneously convey certain messages and images to our children, is an abdication of our responsibilities as responsible citizens.
Where is the party of “common sense?”
Where is the party of “collaboration?”
Where is the party of “execution?”
Where is the party of "getting s___ done!?”
What is more troubling is that once the Democrat or Republican label is attached to an individual, then the lowest or wildest conduct, attributable to one member of that party, is so conveniently and swiftly attributed to others within the same.
This is insanity. The real change should be voting them all out.
Otherwise, I’m concerned that I just might not ultimately care. And that’s disturbing to me, on a personal level.
What's even more disturbing is that I believe that there is a 95% chance that they will get away with it unscathed.
© The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I believe that there is a strong argument which can be made for the abolition of both the Democratic and Republican parties.
The thinking public, I would suspect, has very little respect for either of them, based on the behavior of the parties during the past two years. Leaders, on both sides of the aisle, who I once regarded as intellectually sound stalwarts for their respective parties, have stooped to employ whatever means advances their party’s short-term interests, and have relegated the nation’s most pressing and long term interests to a tertiary consideration.
The recent collapse of several significant financial institutions is evidence enough of that, not to mention our continued dependence on foreign oil.
“Group Think,” and “Group Speak” rule the day. What ever happened to intellectual honesty? Have we as a society eliminated the words “irrelevant,” “specious,” and “disingenuous” from our lexicon?And there is another concept which appears to have been lost, that being, "taking responsibility for one's actions." One must be careful to avoid being caught in the volley of partisan accusations.
That we even engage in, or report on, conversations about “lipstick on a pig” during a period when we should be collaboratively applying triage principles to remedy significant problems, is, quite frankly, disillusionment at its worst.
Is the basic underlying assumption that we should play to the fears of the masses, because it “works?”
Is another basic underlying assumption that lying is justified if it "works?"
This is just sick. All of us, who have been fortunate enough to receive a decent education and have the luxury to engage in conversations about the major issues of the day (and not have to worry about child care, shitty schools, transportation, basic food, drive-by shootings, and the lack of health insurance), should say to the leaders of both parties that “enough is enough.”
I'll tell you this, if only the poor and disenfranchised were allowed to vote, they wouldn't vote in this type of con-man, or con-woman.
That we sit here and allow them to do this to us, and as a consequence, simultaneously convey certain messages and images to our children, is an abdication of our responsibilities as responsible citizens.
Where is the party of “common sense?”
Where is the party of “collaboration?”
Where is the party of “execution?”
Where is the party of "getting s___ done!?”
What is more troubling is that once the Democrat or Republican label is attached to an individual, then the lowest or wildest conduct, attributable to one member of that party, is so conveniently and swiftly attributed to others within the same.
This is insanity. The real change should be voting them all out.
Otherwise, I’m concerned that I just might not ultimately care. And that’s disturbing to me, on a personal level.
What's even more disturbing is that I believe that there is a 95% chance that they will get away with it unscathed.
© The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Survey No. 1: Can You Indentify a Republican vs. a Democrat
Identification of Republicans vs. Democrats
I spend a tremendous amount of watching C-Span.
As a result, I watch many U.S. Senate and House proceedings.
Quite often, I turn off the sound for some unrelated reason, and when I turn around and focus on the TV screen, I usually see the face of an elected official speaking. However, since I do not have the benefit of sound, I am unable to determine the subject about which the person is speaking.
Frequently, there is a banner below the person identifying their state, whether that individual is a Representative or Senator, and the party affiliation.
I've found myself playing a game with myself, trying to guess the party of the person without looking at the banner, and without listening to his or her position. Although I have not actually kept score, I believe that I can, within 10 seconds, tell a Democrat versus a Republican, simply by looking at them, based purely on physicality, with an accuracy of roughly 95%. Can you?
Do you think that there are some distinguishing physical characteristics?
I spend a tremendous amount of watching C-Span.
As a result, I watch many U.S. Senate and House proceedings.
Quite often, I turn off the sound for some unrelated reason, and when I turn around and focus on the TV screen, I usually see the face of an elected official speaking. However, since I do not have the benefit of sound, I am unable to determine the subject about which the person is speaking.
Frequently, there is a banner below the person identifying their state, whether that individual is a Representative or Senator, and the party affiliation.
I've found myself playing a game with myself, trying to guess the party of the person without looking at the banner, and without listening to his or her position. Although I have not actually kept score, I believe that I can, within 10 seconds, tell a Democrat versus a Republican, simply by looking at them, based purely on physicality, with an accuracy of roughly 95%. Can you?
Do you think that there are some distinguishing physical characteristics?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Post No. 42: If You Really Want to Do Some Thinking
Reprint of Article of Interest: What Makes People Vote Republican by Jonathan Haidt
Yesterday, a friend of many years sent me the article the link for which appears below. It is a fascinating piece of work. For my purposes, quite frankly, it is way too deep for me to process within an hour or two after reading it. Even a day or two would be insufficient time to be honest. There are segments of it which are intellectually and emotionally appealing. I will probably read it five to ten more times before trying to work through it.
I’ll tell you this at this point. As a general rule, I try to identify internal consistencies when reading someone’s analysis of an issue. There is one line which I think provides the essence of the argument: “Most democrats don’t understand that politics is more like a religion than it is like shopping.”
I saw George Will on Charlie Rose a couple of months ago. He essentially said that conservatism has the upper hand because it is “pure.” The problem with liberalism, according to Will, is that it comes off as elitist, in that it essentially says that “we can do a better job of thinking about your interests than you can.”
I’ve been processing Will’s comment for the past two months. This piece provides a little more meat around which I can place my arms.
This is work. This one will keep me up tonight. As the individual who sent it to me suggested, please read it in its entirety. It’s a journey that….
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
Yesterday, a friend of many years sent me the article the link for which appears below. It is a fascinating piece of work. For my purposes, quite frankly, it is way too deep for me to process within an hour or two after reading it. Even a day or two would be insufficient time to be honest. There are segments of it which are intellectually and emotionally appealing. I will probably read it five to ten more times before trying to work through it.
I’ll tell you this at this point. As a general rule, I try to identify internal consistencies when reading someone’s analysis of an issue. There is one line which I think provides the essence of the argument: “Most democrats don’t understand that politics is more like a religion than it is like shopping.”
I saw George Will on Charlie Rose a couple of months ago. He essentially said that conservatism has the upper hand because it is “pure.” The problem with liberalism, according to Will, is that it comes off as elitist, in that it essentially says that “we can do a better job of thinking about your interests than you can.”
I’ve been processing Will’s comment for the past two months. This piece provides a little more meat around which I can place my arms.
This is work. This one will keep me up tonight. As the individual who sent it to me suggested, please read it in its entirety. It’s a journey that….
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
Friday, September 12, 2008
Post 41f: Since the Gas Prices Went Up So Dramatically Today
Earlier today, A friend indicated that when she awoke this morning, she looked out the window at a nearby gas station, and noted that the gas price for regular was $3.58. By the time she proceeded to work a couple of hours later, it was $3.89. By the time she returned home, it had risen to $4.09. I missed all of that. I did not notice the prices when I went to a luncheon meeting, but I sure noticed them when I pulled into a station on my way home: $4.19.
I actually thought that I had just awakened from a dream, since I just purchased gas yesterday, and did not see anything close to $4.19. In light of this dramatic increase, we thought it appropriate to revisit a couple of articles previously posted on energy issues:
The first deals with the various competing factors which come into play in the energy equation, and helps one understand the complexity of the issue. http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/06/post-no-21-solution-to-all-of-our.html.
The second deals with our past addiction to foreign oil, and the T. Boone Pickens plan for energy independence. http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/07/post-no-29-problems-associated-with.html.
The third is an article about alternative energy, specifically about the "Saudi Arabia" of solar energy. You might be surprised. http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-36b-guess-which-country-is-saudi.html.
Let's hear from you about what you think is really going on with respect to this energy issue.
I actually thought that I had just awakened from a dream, since I just purchased gas yesterday, and did not see anything close to $4.19. In light of this dramatic increase, we thought it appropriate to revisit a couple of articles previously posted on energy issues:
The first deals with the various competing factors which come into play in the energy equation, and helps one understand the complexity of the issue. http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/06/post-no-21-solution-to-all-of-our.html.
The second deals with our past addiction to foreign oil, and the T. Boone Pickens plan for energy independence. http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/07/post-no-29-problems-associated-with.html.
The third is an article about alternative energy, specifically about the "Saudi Arabia" of solar energy. You might be surprised. http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-36b-guess-which-country-is-saudi.html.
Let's hear from you about what you think is really going on with respect to this energy issue.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Post 41d: Coverage of Third Parties Convention on C-Span2
At the time of this post, this coverage is currently airing on C-Span2 / Campaign 2008
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=202120516
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=202120516
Post No. 41b: Television Worth Viewing
Charlie Rose on PBS: A conversation with Thomas Friedman
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/09/09/1/a-conversation-with-thomas-l-friedman
No matter what you may think of Thomas Friedman’s politics or positions, he raises some very significant points about innovation, global competition, and the future position of the United States, about which we should all be thinking. Friedman discusses his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America )http://books.google.com/books?id=FMCxKQAACAAJ&dq=%22hot,+flat+and+crowded%22&ei=0VDHSOm9JpLkywS_q9DkAw.)
We can not simply continue to sit around, argue amongst ourselves, and think that terrorists are around every corner, while the world passes us by. This is a big picture discussion. We need to come up with solutions, and Friedman at least suggests some for our consideration.
Check your local listings. On the East Coast, it aired at 11:30 am on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/09/09/1/a-conversation-with-thomas-l-friedman
No matter what you may think of Thomas Friedman’s politics or positions, he raises some very significant points about innovation, global competition, and the future position of the United States, about which we should all be thinking. Friedman discusses his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America )http://books.google.com/books?id=FMCxKQAACAAJ&dq=%22hot,+flat+and+crowded%22&ei=0VDHSOm9JpLkywS_q9DkAw.)
We can not simply continue to sit around, argue amongst ourselves, and think that terrorists are around every corner, while the world passes us by. This is a big picture discussion. We need to come up with solutions, and Friedman at least suggests some for our consideration.
Check your local listings. On the East Coast, it aired at 11:30 am on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Post No. 41a: This is a Very Special Weekend on C-Span2 BookTV
We, at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, frequently make reference to books and their authors in our articles. For those of you interested in the presidential campaigns, and getting to know the candidates better, this weekend is for you. http://www.booktv.org/
Once you click on to the link, check out the entire page, particularly those things under the section, "What's New." At least four books about Sens. McCain and Obama will be discussed, and at least two of them, "In Depth." No one should be legitimately able to say they do not know the candidates after listening to these discussions.
Did Sen. McCain show his true colors, as we suggested in Post No. 40, during his acceptance speech last night?
Once you click on to the link, check out the entire page, particularly those things under the section, "What's New." At least four books about Sens. McCain and Obama will be discussed, and at least two of them, "In Depth." No one should be legitimately able to say they do not know the candidates after listening to these discussions.
Did Sen. McCain show his true colors, as we suggested in Post No. 40, during his acceptance speech last night?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Post No. 41: Do I Have Something to Sell You!
© 2008, The Institute of Applied Common Sense
It is clear that modern day politicians and campaigns use advertising and public relations consultants in crafting their message to potential voters. We asked the Laughingman, an advertising professional with more than 30 years of experience, for his thoughts about the practice. More specifically, we inquired as to whether the utilization of such consultants served some long-term, positive, societal interests. He responded as follows.
Do I Have Something to Sell You!
I fear the learning may be going the other way...to everyone's detriment.
When the vaunted Tuesday Team, authors of Ronald Reagan's famous "Morning in America" spot, was invited to meet with Ross Perot, they brought beautifully drawn storyboards of a series of spots revisiting the Morning in America theme.
Mr. Perot asked the not unreasonable question, "How much will this cost?"
After hearing the figure, Mr. Perot's response was, "Five Million Dollars? Whose Money Do You Think That You are Spending?"
Hence Mr. Perot's pencil pointer and cardboard chart campaign, which was so effective in communicating his position on economic issues, that the Clinton administration was forced to accumulate a government surplus for the next eight years, out of fear of Mr. Perot running again.
If Mr. Perot's campaign cost more than $50 large per spot to produce, I will eat my stop watch.
If he spent even 10% of what the Republicans and Democrats spent that year on media, I will eat my rabbit ears.
Unfortunately, when you take the message out of the hands of the creative group and hand it over to the pollsters and accountants, you are guaranteed to see negative advertising. They spend millions and millions of dollars dissecting the country by voter district. Since we all seem to want the same things, namely security, stability, honesty, and the wherewithal to pay our bills, most of this research is focused on perceived weaknesses in the competition's perceptions.
Is it any wonder what they find winds up in their ads?
The funny thing is that trying to define yourself by what you aren't seldom has any effect. At best you can throw so much money at the market that the consumer becomes confused, responds with "a pox on all your houses," and goes on doing what he was doing before you spent all that money.
This strategy is supposed to work to the advantage of the dominant brand in the category...or the front runner in a political race. If you look at those who were most strident in objecting to a ban on television advertising for cigarettes, it wasn't the tobacco companies...it was the networks and big ad agencies. Similarly, Miller and Budweiser would not mind at all seeing a ban on television beer promotion...assuming such a ban would roughly freeze market share at its current levels, and allow them to trouser the better than $1 billion annually they currently piss away on Super Bowl entertainment.
More importantly, it is very hard to find any relationship between all this public mud slinging and measurable results. In fact, I have yet to see a macro statistical analysis that demonstrates that advertising causes sales. Rather, the numbers indicate that sales cause advertising.The ad industry's promises, that they could turn this situation around, produced campaigns like the pet food sock puppet, with an advertising budget two and a half times current sales...and a well and justifiably burst dot.com investment bubble.
"Boys and Girls, you need to be very careful these days about how you write your marketing plan. Being cooler or more popular than your neighbors is not a marketing objective, or a company credit, which you can sell to a bank."
Interestingly, neither Obama nor McCain had front runner status, or any money to speak of, last year. They both stayed pretty much above the mud slinging pit...and look what happened. It may seem an odd time to change strategies, but the guys advising both campaigns now come from the old, politics of division and reward, school...and risk the loss of their very lucrative careers if a Ross Perot like, issues oriented, campaign carries the election.
In the mean time, brands like Mini and Red Bull should have proved to everyone's satisfaction that it is, in fact, the product, stupid. Carpet bombing media campaigns are still trumped by clever marketing executions while the same old ad strategies position the product (animal, mineral, or political) as more of the same...and therefore not really worthy of the time necessary to learn about it...let alone try it.
For what it is worth, the single most powerful word in the advertising man's quiver remains, "New," not "Free," but new.
The consumer is not an idiot, she is your accountant.
Mud slinging suggests that we have no idea how to grow the once great American pie, so we are promising to get you more than your fair share. This kind of thinking may work in the Lake Woebegone School District, where everybody ranks above average, but it is has no place in this economic environment. Furthermore, it is an unconscionable justification to send our boys and girls in uniform into harm’s way.
So it goes...
© 2008, The Institute of Applied Common Sense
It is clear that modern day politicians and campaigns use advertising and public relations consultants in crafting their message to potential voters. We asked the Laughingman, an advertising professional with more than 30 years of experience, for his thoughts about the practice. More specifically, we inquired as to whether the utilization of such consultants served some long-term, positive, societal interests. He responded as follows.
Do I Have Something to Sell You!
I fear the learning may be going the other way...to everyone's detriment.
When the vaunted Tuesday Team, authors of Ronald Reagan's famous "Morning in America" spot, was invited to meet with Ross Perot, they brought beautifully drawn storyboards of a series of spots revisiting the Morning in America theme.
Mr. Perot asked the not unreasonable question, "How much will this cost?"
After hearing the figure, Mr. Perot's response was, "Five Million Dollars? Whose Money Do You Think That You are Spending?"
Hence Mr. Perot's pencil pointer and cardboard chart campaign, which was so effective in communicating his position on economic issues, that the Clinton administration was forced to accumulate a government surplus for the next eight years, out of fear of Mr. Perot running again.
If Mr. Perot's campaign cost more than $50 large per spot to produce, I will eat my stop watch.
If he spent even 10% of what the Republicans and Democrats spent that year on media, I will eat my rabbit ears.
Unfortunately, when you take the message out of the hands of the creative group and hand it over to the pollsters and accountants, you are guaranteed to see negative advertising. They spend millions and millions of dollars dissecting the country by voter district. Since we all seem to want the same things, namely security, stability, honesty, and the wherewithal to pay our bills, most of this research is focused on perceived weaknesses in the competition's perceptions.
Is it any wonder what they find winds up in their ads?
The funny thing is that trying to define yourself by what you aren't seldom has any effect. At best you can throw so much money at the market that the consumer becomes confused, responds with "a pox on all your houses," and goes on doing what he was doing before you spent all that money.
This strategy is supposed to work to the advantage of the dominant brand in the category...or the front runner in a political race. If you look at those who were most strident in objecting to a ban on television advertising for cigarettes, it wasn't the tobacco companies...it was the networks and big ad agencies. Similarly, Miller and Budweiser would not mind at all seeing a ban on television beer promotion...assuming such a ban would roughly freeze market share at its current levels, and allow them to trouser the better than $1 billion annually they currently piss away on Super Bowl entertainment.
More importantly, it is very hard to find any relationship between all this public mud slinging and measurable results. In fact, I have yet to see a macro statistical analysis that demonstrates that advertising causes sales. Rather, the numbers indicate that sales cause advertising.The ad industry's promises, that they could turn this situation around, produced campaigns like the pet food sock puppet, with an advertising budget two and a half times current sales...and a well and justifiably burst dot.com investment bubble.
"Boys and Girls, you need to be very careful these days about how you write your marketing plan. Being cooler or more popular than your neighbors is not a marketing objective, or a company credit, which you can sell to a bank."
Interestingly, neither Obama nor McCain had front runner status, or any money to speak of, last year. They both stayed pretty much above the mud slinging pit...and look what happened. It may seem an odd time to change strategies, but the guys advising both campaigns now come from the old, politics of division and reward, school...and risk the loss of their very lucrative careers if a Ross Perot like, issues oriented, campaign carries the election.
In the mean time, brands like Mini and Red Bull should have proved to everyone's satisfaction that it is, in fact, the product, stupid. Carpet bombing media campaigns are still trumped by clever marketing executions while the same old ad strategies position the product (animal, mineral, or political) as more of the same...and therefore not really worthy of the time necessary to learn about it...let alone try it.
For what it is worth, the single most powerful word in the advertising man's quiver remains, "New," not "Free," but new.
The consumer is not an idiot, she is your accountant.
Mud slinging suggests that we have no idea how to grow the once great American pie, so we are promising to get you more than your fair share. This kind of thinking may work in the Lake Woebegone School District, where everybody ranks above average, but it is has no place in this economic environment. Furthermore, it is an unconscionable justification to send our boys and girls in uniform into harm’s way.
So it goes...
© 2008, The Institute of Applied Common Sense
Post No. 40: Should I Vote for McCain or Obama? Hmmm, Let Me Think about That a Nanosecond
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There are two things that immediately come to mind with respect to the current Presidential campaign.
The first is that I could handle either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama being our next President. It’s all the handlers and hanger-ons about whom I am concerned.
The second is that Bristol Palin has emerged as the poster child for much that is screwed up about our political climate, and perhaps our expectations of our leaders.
The problems are much larger than this 17 year old and her family; however, the recent events should make us question some of the demands we place on our leaders and their families, and the length to which those interested in advancing their personal agendas will go. And that’s not to mention the media’s daily assembly of screamers, haters, and pitchmen to denigrate each other.
Is this collateral damage to our collective psyche really worth it? (We previously addressed this concern in early May in Post No. 3, “Some Lessons to be Learned by Our Kids in the Current Political Climate” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/05/some-lessons-to-be-learned-by-our-kids.html).
Since the name Palin exemplifies the tragedy of the day, I’ll focus on Sen. McCain in this piece. Much has been made of his campaign’s purported failure to properly investigate the background of Sarah Palin and her family. Some have even suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection, which, out of necessity, includes her baggage, may have been consciously done for devious purposes.
Sure, it’s now very clear that the campaign dropped the ball with respect to the investigation. Quite frankly, I don’t think that John McCain is subject to political whims, and I do not read him as “spin oriented.” At some point one has to feel that there wouldn’t be any need to extensively investigate someone, about whom you feel instinctively good and who has three or four basic leadership qualities, were it not necessary to prepare for the scrutiny juggernaut consisting of dissecting our candidates to determine their positions on 38 different subjects.
I think that Sen. McCain is a pretty good guy. I also think that he has, reluctantly, chosen to appear like a Bush clone, pursuant to the advice of his handlers, and the demands of the Republican Party. I suspect that they have been pressuring him to appear to be more right wing than he really is, to please the religious right and ensure that they come out and vote in November.
I also suspect that Palin was HIS pick (the Washington establishment be damned), and a transitory expression of his “free will”, after the pro-life forces rejected his other choices. Mrs. McCain was a participant in the selection process, which probably made the men in the room squirm.
This guy has traditionally been a maverick and a pain in the ass to many Republicans. His new persona got him past the primary phase. The “real McCain” will return should he be elected.
Watch him speak. He’s so rehearsed and jerry rigged that he’s uncomfortable. You can see the distress in his face, and hear the tone of acquiescence in his voice. This is not the feisty, shoot-from-the-hip, John McCain we’ve known.
I am reasonably sure that he knew that the Palin girl was pregnant before the announcement. Knowing John McCain, he probably said, “Who gives a rat’s ____.”
It’s all the dissectors out there, who, by the way, have never had to run or manage anything of any size or importance in life, who care about all of this nit-picking over minutiae. And all in an effort to have him represent their squalid, selfish, hypocritical, and often contradictory interests.
This country needs a change in many respects. To those who opposed Sen. Obama’s campaign based on change by asking “change to what?” I respond “a change to anything that advances the long term interests of the majority of our citizens, and not just the fortunate, the privileged, the lucky, and the corporate.
Why not vote out ALL elected officials nationwide? This is supposed to be a country of, by, and for the people, not big money interests. And to think that these people, on both sides of the aisle, not only quietly fill their pockets while in office, but then become consultants in areas over which they previously had regulatory and oversight responsibilities.
I think that McCain is a solid citizen, genuinely interested in doing the best for his country, and not for his personal pocketbook or that of his buddies or supporters. I, like the majority of Americans based on long standing research, really don’t care what his qualifications are. He’ll be alright when he needs to be. It’s not like he’ll function alone, without a support system. Same with Obama. I could handle either one. Additionally, as George Will reminds us, there is the inertia that is Washington.
War, and time spent in a prisoner of war camp, make one view the world from a perspective not shared by the majority of voters. The vast majority of us have never had any real trying experience, beyond our personal issues, in life. There is something about having responsibility, either good or bad, for the lives and welfare of dozens of people under your command that transforms a person. That sense of responsibility increases exponentially as the number of people for whom you have charge increases arithmetically. That’s very different than just worrying about your immediate stuff.
The next time that we flip out over some personal crisis, stop and consider how our attitude would change if the precipitating event occurred just prior to a 7.5 earthquake, or a Category 5 hurricane, or a wild fire ravaging your neighborhood; I suspect that you might have a different sense of priorities.
John McCain has been to the edge of the earth, and barely avoided falling off. That’s good enough for me.
Everyday we should recite Bogart’s line to Bergman, in the movie Casablanca, each day when we wake up.
Its time for a new paradigm.
Either Obama or McCain will be just fine, but for entirely different reasons. We should be proud of the process this election year. That the two candidates are who they are speaks volumes about the zeitgeist.
As the Laughingman once said, “Why can’t we simply let McCain, be McCain, be McCain, and let Obama be Obama?
One last note on this pregnancy issue. I’m positive that none of my baby boomer friends had sex right out of high school during the 60s and 70s. Yeah. Some of you were just down right lucky that you, or your girlfriend, managed not to get pregnant during that period. So now it’s time to judge….
Leave this gal alone. She doesn’t deserve this, even if her Mother could have avoided it.
By the way, when it is revealed who the father of the child is, please restrain yourselves. It’s a can of worms which need not be opened right now.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There are two things that immediately come to mind with respect to the current Presidential campaign.
The first is that I could handle either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama being our next President. It’s all the handlers and hanger-ons about whom I am concerned.
The second is that Bristol Palin has emerged as the poster child for much that is screwed up about our political climate, and perhaps our expectations of our leaders.
The problems are much larger than this 17 year old and her family; however, the recent events should make us question some of the demands we place on our leaders and their families, and the length to which those interested in advancing their personal agendas will go. And that’s not to mention the media’s daily assembly of screamers, haters, and pitchmen to denigrate each other.
Is this collateral damage to our collective psyche really worth it? (We previously addressed this concern in early May in Post No. 3, “Some Lessons to be Learned by Our Kids in the Current Political Climate” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/05/some-lessons-to-be-learned-by-our-kids.html).
Since the name Palin exemplifies the tragedy of the day, I’ll focus on Sen. McCain in this piece. Much has been made of his campaign’s purported failure to properly investigate the background of Sarah Palin and her family. Some have even suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection, which, out of necessity, includes her baggage, may have been consciously done for devious purposes.
Sure, it’s now very clear that the campaign dropped the ball with respect to the investigation. Quite frankly, I don’t think that John McCain is subject to political whims, and I do not read him as “spin oriented.” At some point one has to feel that there wouldn’t be any need to extensively investigate someone, about whom you feel instinctively good and who has three or four basic leadership qualities, were it not necessary to prepare for the scrutiny juggernaut consisting of dissecting our candidates to determine their positions on 38 different subjects.
I think that Sen. McCain is a pretty good guy. I also think that he has, reluctantly, chosen to appear like a Bush clone, pursuant to the advice of his handlers, and the demands of the Republican Party. I suspect that they have been pressuring him to appear to be more right wing than he really is, to please the religious right and ensure that they come out and vote in November.
I also suspect that Palin was HIS pick (the Washington establishment be damned), and a transitory expression of his “free will”, after the pro-life forces rejected his other choices. Mrs. McCain was a participant in the selection process, which probably made the men in the room squirm.
This guy has traditionally been a maverick and a pain in the ass to many Republicans. His new persona got him past the primary phase. The “real McCain” will return should he be elected.
Watch him speak. He’s so rehearsed and jerry rigged that he’s uncomfortable. You can see the distress in his face, and hear the tone of acquiescence in his voice. This is not the feisty, shoot-from-the-hip, John McCain we’ve known.
I am reasonably sure that he knew that the Palin girl was pregnant before the announcement. Knowing John McCain, he probably said, “Who gives a rat’s ____.”
It’s all the dissectors out there, who, by the way, have never had to run or manage anything of any size or importance in life, who care about all of this nit-picking over minutiae. And all in an effort to have him represent their squalid, selfish, hypocritical, and often contradictory interests.
This country needs a change in many respects. To those who opposed Sen. Obama’s campaign based on change by asking “change to what?” I respond “a change to anything that advances the long term interests of the majority of our citizens, and not just the fortunate, the privileged, the lucky, and the corporate.
Why not vote out ALL elected officials nationwide? This is supposed to be a country of, by, and for the people, not big money interests. And to think that these people, on both sides of the aisle, not only quietly fill their pockets while in office, but then become consultants in areas over which they previously had regulatory and oversight responsibilities.
I think that McCain is a solid citizen, genuinely interested in doing the best for his country, and not for his personal pocketbook or that of his buddies or supporters. I, like the majority of Americans based on long standing research, really don’t care what his qualifications are. He’ll be alright when he needs to be. It’s not like he’ll function alone, without a support system. Same with Obama. I could handle either one. Additionally, as George Will reminds us, there is the inertia that is Washington.
War, and time spent in a prisoner of war camp, make one view the world from a perspective not shared by the majority of voters. The vast majority of us have never had any real trying experience, beyond our personal issues, in life. There is something about having responsibility, either good or bad, for the lives and welfare of dozens of people under your command that transforms a person. That sense of responsibility increases exponentially as the number of people for whom you have charge increases arithmetically. That’s very different than just worrying about your immediate stuff.
The next time that we flip out over some personal crisis, stop and consider how our attitude would change if the precipitating event occurred just prior to a 7.5 earthquake, or a Category 5 hurricane, or a wild fire ravaging your neighborhood; I suspect that you might have a different sense of priorities.
John McCain has been to the edge of the earth, and barely avoided falling off. That’s good enough for me.
Everyday we should recite Bogart’s line to Bergman, in the movie Casablanca, each day when we wake up.
Its time for a new paradigm.
Either Obama or McCain will be just fine, but for entirely different reasons. We should be proud of the process this election year. That the two candidates are who they are speaks volumes about the zeitgeist.
As the Laughingman once said, “Why can’t we simply let McCain, be McCain, be McCain, and let Obama be Obama?
One last note on this pregnancy issue. I’m positive that none of my baby boomer friends had sex right out of high school during the 60s and 70s. Yeah. Some of you were just down right lucky that you, or your girlfriend, managed not to get pregnant during that period. So now it’s time to judge….
Leave this gal alone. She doesn’t deserve this, even if her Mother could have avoided it.
By the way, when it is revealed who the father of the child is, please restrain yourselves. It’s a can of worms which need not be opened right now.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Post 39a: Reposting of May 2008 Article in Light of Sarah and Bristol Palin Pregnancy Issue
A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR PARENTHOOD
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Being that I am 56 years of age, I am often asked whether I have ever been married and have a family. My response often surprises people, but it really is the truth. At some point between my late teens and early twenties, I had this vague notion of having a family with six or seven children. I formulated that notion due to the fact that both of my parents came from families of ten kids. I observed the close knit nature of their relationships, and all of the fun and craziness that took place during family reunions.
To further contribute to my desire to have a large family, I observed my high school girlfriend’s large family, and the manner in which the older kids worked to support and raise the younger ones. At an early age, I admired the values of team work and cooperation, and generally believed that the interests of the group or unit always outweighed the interests of the individual. To this day, that is a fundamental principle underlying many of my decisions.
However, at some point, I came to the realization that there were several prerequisites to having a family, no matter the size, including dating, finding the appropriate spouse, and then actually following through with marriage. At this point, folks usually laugh and inquire as to why these were stumbling blocks. Often times, they suggest that I was unwilling to “commit,” whatever that means. Quite frankly, it is far more complex than that, since I’ve been fully committed to lots of teams, units, causes, and issues in my life – just not to one individual.
In my early thirties, I still thought that it was theoretically possible that I might one day have a family, albeit with a smaller number of children. However, my whole approach to life began to fundamentally change once I began to travel to foreign countries. My whole sense of values, good and bad, right and wrong, rich and poor, began to take on more complexity. I became less rigid in my thinking, and perhaps far too curious about, and tolerant, of virtually everything. I often told my friends that my entire worldview appeared to change roughly every two years based on my new travels and experiences.
By my early forties, I was beginning to recognize the more “pragmatic “ aspects of having a family and all that it involves, particularly from a professional and career perspective. Additionally, more and more of my single friends were deserting the ranks. There was another development that ultimately led me to conclude that I would never be “qualified” to be a parent, and consequently I decided to avoid that venture. By this time, I had seen children at all levels of society in many countries, in virtually every imaginable condition, and I became confused as to the “proper” way to raise a child.
What plays over and over in my mind is the picture and sound of kids under the age of ten, working the streets of Rio de Janeiro in the wee hours of the morning, selling chewing gum, or offering to shine your shoes, for a few cruzados. In one sense, you were stunned by the youth of these kids, and the fact that their parents, assuming that they had parents, allowed them to be out, unescorted, at that hour of the night. On the other hand, they were always savvy, sharp, enterprising, witty, spunky, and far wiser than their ages would suggest.
I then began to question, which situation was better for the kid. It also reminded me of the dilemma which my Mother often posed. Having grown up on a farm in rural Alabama during the Depression, she saw lots of poor families living in shotgun houses. However, after visiting many of her family members and friends who lived in the tenements and projects of Chicago and Detroit, she often wondered which version of poverty was preferable.
At some point I began to intellectualize the issue. This was aided by the fact that some close friends of mine, who were not particularly religious, explained how they planned to provide religious or spiritual guidance for their newborn daughter, despite their uncertainties about the whole faith issue. Using their model, I initially thought that I could provide my kids with some conceptual construct, outline the various competing factors for them to take into consideration, and assist them through the thought and decision process, utilizing something vaguely akin to the Socratic Method used in some academic settings.
However, I very quickly disabused myself of that notion. Parents have to establish clear parameters and define limits. There has to be, at varying points in time, and to varying degrees, specific amounts of black and white, and a continuum of grey. But it’s all a crap shoot, involving doing your best (perhaps with a little assistance from child psychologists, books, spiritual advisors, and close family members and friends), and we all know that there is no specific “how to” manual.
In my last article, I raised some issues about the qualifications necessary for one to run for elected office, particularly focusing on the highest office in the land, the presidency. With Mother’s Day approaching, I knew that I was going to hear a familiar statement. Hillary Clinton did not disappoint me. After her daughter Chelsea introduced her on the Saturday before Mother’s Day, Senator Clinton mentioned that one of her supporters had noted that being a Mother is the most difficult job on earth. She followed by noting that since she had done such a good job performing her parental responsibilities, handling the second most difficult job in the world would be a breeze.
We all recognize this type of statement for what it really is; however, it got me a thinking. We’ve spent the last year and a half examining, testing, questioning, scrutinizing, and just about every other “…ing” in connection with these candidates - why don’t we conduct a similar examination of potential parents before they are “permitted” to have children? Should society have some criteria? Should the criteria take the form of requirements or recommendations? Should parents have to participate in parenting courses before they screw it up?
When you stop to think about it, at least with respect to the presidency, he or she has all sorts of advisors and staff members. Additionally, the President has two other branches of government to keep him or her in check. His or her actions are relatively transparent and constantly subject to public scrutiny. We even have an impeachment mechanism for dealing with serious breaches of trust and inappropriate conduct, not to mention the court of public opinion and the media.
But the influence or impact that a President has on the citizenry is filtered, moderated, vicarious, derivative, and relatively indirect at best. Additionally, we have an opportunity every four years to reconsider our choice. On the other hand, parents have a direct, significant, immediate impact on human lives right from the day one. Most of their conduct is in private. We can all recall points in time where various government regimes have tried to control the number of children born, or their sex, or impose other restrictions. However, from a practical perspective, the parents rule, and in the event that their rule is not in the best interests of the child, it takes quite a bit of time for society to recognize it, and then to deal with it. Furthermore, society generally only deals with the most egregious cases, not the subtle ones. So why should we subject presidential candidates to more intense scrutiny than we do for those seeking to be parents?
I’ve also thought about this parental responsibility thing from another perspective, that being the legal one. For years, I have questioned the appropriateness of allowing individuals to sue business employers for various forms of discrimination, or perceived discrimination, in the workplace. You mean to tell me that a sexist or racist person all of a sudden becomes that way once they become employed by the company? And you mean to tell me that business entities, the legal fictions that they are, have the capabilities and sophistication to prevent that type of conduct once their adult employees join the workforce? What about holding the parents responsible financially? And the churches? And the grade schools? No, you say. Too impractical. But what about fairness, or comparative fault or responsibility?
Quite frankly, we all know that it is a game and a fiction inartfully crafted to serve some societal purpose, that we just don’t seem capable of addressing, or have the political will to address, in some more direct and relevant manner. My concern is that, as a general rule, games and fictions don’t serve us well very long. Their functionality lasts for brief spurts, and then we have to pervert the construct to continue to make it work. Not only is this approach not particularly efficient or effective, it engenders disrespect, by our citizens, for the system.
Getting back to presidential candidates, perhaps we should have a presidential academy which all those individuals interested in becoming president should be required to attend. By establishing such an institution, we could ensure that all of our candidates are properly trained for the job, so that we can avoid engaging in this free-for-all during which they are dissected and demonized. Perhaps that will also make us have more respect for our elected officials.
But that’s only the second most difficult job in the universe. But what should we do about the most difficult? We’re intelligent beings. We ought to be able to come up with some approaches, and not just continue conducting business as usual. We constantly try to improve in virtually every area of technology and human endeavor. Can’t we improve on this election process, and the development of parents? Or do we just leave it up to the individual prospective candidates and parents to make the call themselves, and decide that they aren’t qualified before entering the arena? I honestly don’t know. Do you?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Being that I am 56 years of age, I am often asked whether I have ever been married and have a family. My response often surprises people, but it really is the truth. At some point between my late teens and early twenties, I had this vague notion of having a family with six or seven children. I formulated that notion due to the fact that both of my parents came from families of ten kids. I observed the close knit nature of their relationships, and all of the fun and craziness that took place during family reunions.
To further contribute to my desire to have a large family, I observed my high school girlfriend’s large family, and the manner in which the older kids worked to support and raise the younger ones. At an early age, I admired the values of team work and cooperation, and generally believed that the interests of the group or unit always outweighed the interests of the individual. To this day, that is a fundamental principle underlying many of my decisions.
However, at some point, I came to the realization that there were several prerequisites to having a family, no matter the size, including dating, finding the appropriate spouse, and then actually following through with marriage. At this point, folks usually laugh and inquire as to why these were stumbling blocks. Often times, they suggest that I was unwilling to “commit,” whatever that means. Quite frankly, it is far more complex than that, since I’ve been fully committed to lots of teams, units, causes, and issues in my life – just not to one individual.
In my early thirties, I still thought that it was theoretically possible that I might one day have a family, albeit with a smaller number of children. However, my whole approach to life began to fundamentally change once I began to travel to foreign countries. My whole sense of values, good and bad, right and wrong, rich and poor, began to take on more complexity. I became less rigid in my thinking, and perhaps far too curious about, and tolerant, of virtually everything. I often told my friends that my entire worldview appeared to change roughly every two years based on my new travels and experiences.
By my early forties, I was beginning to recognize the more “pragmatic “ aspects of having a family and all that it involves, particularly from a professional and career perspective. Additionally, more and more of my single friends were deserting the ranks. There was another development that ultimately led me to conclude that I would never be “qualified” to be a parent, and consequently I decided to avoid that venture. By this time, I had seen children at all levels of society in many countries, in virtually every imaginable condition, and I became confused as to the “proper” way to raise a child.
What plays over and over in my mind is the picture and sound of kids under the age of ten, working the streets of Rio de Janeiro in the wee hours of the morning, selling chewing gum, or offering to shine your shoes, for a few cruzados. In one sense, you were stunned by the youth of these kids, and the fact that their parents, assuming that they had parents, allowed them to be out, unescorted, at that hour of the night. On the other hand, they were always savvy, sharp, enterprising, witty, spunky, and far wiser than their ages would suggest.
I then began to question, which situation was better for the kid. It also reminded me of the dilemma which my Mother often posed. Having grown up on a farm in rural Alabama during the Depression, she saw lots of poor families living in shotgun houses. However, after visiting many of her family members and friends who lived in the tenements and projects of Chicago and Detroit, she often wondered which version of poverty was preferable.
At some point I began to intellectualize the issue. This was aided by the fact that some close friends of mine, who were not particularly religious, explained how they planned to provide religious or spiritual guidance for their newborn daughter, despite their uncertainties about the whole faith issue. Using their model, I initially thought that I could provide my kids with some conceptual construct, outline the various competing factors for them to take into consideration, and assist them through the thought and decision process, utilizing something vaguely akin to the Socratic Method used in some academic settings.
However, I very quickly disabused myself of that notion. Parents have to establish clear parameters and define limits. There has to be, at varying points in time, and to varying degrees, specific amounts of black and white, and a continuum of grey. But it’s all a crap shoot, involving doing your best (perhaps with a little assistance from child psychologists, books, spiritual advisors, and close family members and friends), and we all know that there is no specific “how to” manual.
In my last article, I raised some issues about the qualifications necessary for one to run for elected office, particularly focusing on the highest office in the land, the presidency. With Mother’s Day approaching, I knew that I was going to hear a familiar statement. Hillary Clinton did not disappoint me. After her daughter Chelsea introduced her on the Saturday before Mother’s Day, Senator Clinton mentioned that one of her supporters had noted that being a Mother is the most difficult job on earth. She followed by noting that since she had done such a good job performing her parental responsibilities, handling the second most difficult job in the world would be a breeze.
We all recognize this type of statement for what it really is; however, it got me a thinking. We’ve spent the last year and a half examining, testing, questioning, scrutinizing, and just about every other “…ing” in connection with these candidates - why don’t we conduct a similar examination of potential parents before they are “permitted” to have children? Should society have some criteria? Should the criteria take the form of requirements or recommendations? Should parents have to participate in parenting courses before they screw it up?
When you stop to think about it, at least with respect to the presidency, he or she has all sorts of advisors and staff members. Additionally, the President has two other branches of government to keep him or her in check. His or her actions are relatively transparent and constantly subject to public scrutiny. We even have an impeachment mechanism for dealing with serious breaches of trust and inappropriate conduct, not to mention the court of public opinion and the media.
But the influence or impact that a President has on the citizenry is filtered, moderated, vicarious, derivative, and relatively indirect at best. Additionally, we have an opportunity every four years to reconsider our choice. On the other hand, parents have a direct, significant, immediate impact on human lives right from the day one. Most of their conduct is in private. We can all recall points in time where various government regimes have tried to control the number of children born, or their sex, or impose other restrictions. However, from a practical perspective, the parents rule, and in the event that their rule is not in the best interests of the child, it takes quite a bit of time for society to recognize it, and then to deal with it. Furthermore, society generally only deals with the most egregious cases, not the subtle ones. So why should we subject presidential candidates to more intense scrutiny than we do for those seeking to be parents?
I’ve also thought about this parental responsibility thing from another perspective, that being the legal one. For years, I have questioned the appropriateness of allowing individuals to sue business employers for various forms of discrimination, or perceived discrimination, in the workplace. You mean to tell me that a sexist or racist person all of a sudden becomes that way once they become employed by the company? And you mean to tell me that business entities, the legal fictions that they are, have the capabilities and sophistication to prevent that type of conduct once their adult employees join the workforce? What about holding the parents responsible financially? And the churches? And the grade schools? No, you say. Too impractical. But what about fairness, or comparative fault or responsibility?
Quite frankly, we all know that it is a game and a fiction inartfully crafted to serve some societal purpose, that we just don’t seem capable of addressing, or have the political will to address, in some more direct and relevant manner. My concern is that, as a general rule, games and fictions don’t serve us well very long. Their functionality lasts for brief spurts, and then we have to pervert the construct to continue to make it work. Not only is this approach not particularly efficient or effective, it engenders disrespect, by our citizens, for the system.
Getting back to presidential candidates, perhaps we should have a presidential academy which all those individuals interested in becoming president should be required to attend. By establishing such an institution, we could ensure that all of our candidates are properly trained for the job, so that we can avoid engaging in this free-for-all during which they are dissected and demonized. Perhaps that will also make us have more respect for our elected officials.
But that’s only the second most difficult job in the universe. But what should we do about the most difficult? We’re intelligent beings. We ought to be able to come up with some approaches, and not just continue conducting business as usual. We constantly try to improve in virtually every area of technology and human endeavor. Can’t we improve on this election process, and the development of parents? Or do we just leave it up to the individual prospective candidates and parents to make the call themselves, and decide that they aren’t qualified before entering the arena? I honestly don’t know. Do you?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Post No. 36c: Re-Visiting Post No. 18 Now That The Democratic Vice-Presidential Running Mate Has Been Chosen
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following article was originally posted as No. 18 on this blog, and entitled, "How Radical Action Could be a Good Thing Right Now." Now that Sen. Obama has selected Sen. Joseph Biden as his Democratic running mate, we felt re-visiting some of the thoughts that we had prior to the selection might be generate further food for thought.
There are two primary purposes for this blog. The first is to stimulate thought, in general. Not only has our society evolved to a point where visual and audio sound bites are the norm, but also where “think bites” are far too prevalent. I, in conjunction with the other members of the It’s Your Turn™ Team, the Laughingman and the Optimizer, feel that getting people to think through issues, particularly college students, can only yield better decisions about how to address issues. If you do not recognize the underlying root causes of a problem, and only respond to emotional stimuli and superficial symptoms, you will not effectively, if at all, address the problem. We also feel that our society needs to be far more receptive to new, fresh, and creative ideas to solve our ills, and not just rely on the status quo.
Every day, the members of the It’s Your Turn™ Team collaborate to determine alternate, more effective, ways to address issues in society, through the application of our version of common sense. Common sense is always bigger than one’s personal, short-term, emotional or selfish interests. Sometimes our collaboration generates a short “write bite” of our own. In other instances, we escort you through a much longer, perhaps wandering, thought-process, occasionally traversing a complex environment, where we are not quite sure where we are going ourselves. But at least we’re thinking, and not just reacting.
The second purpose for this blog is also to stimulate thought. However, the focus is more on how our thinking about issues bears on personal responsibility. The fewer your perceived options, the less likely you will craft an appropriate, effective course of action. Less information and less consideration rarely produce a good result.
Due diligence is always preferable. The more one knows about the various competing factors, and his or her options, the less likely one is to shift blame to others. Due diligence is part of personal responsibility, and responsibility is never just personal. The decisions we make ultimately affect many others in many different ways. With respect to the election of our representatives and leaders in government, we have a responsibility to ensure that they continue to serve our interests, and not just the interests of a select few, or the most powerful. When we let our leaders get out of control, get sidetracked, or abuse power that we have bestowed upon them, we, as a people, have abdicated our responsibility.
This is the teaser e-mail that I sent out earlier concerning this article:
“Let’s assume that instead of Sen. Obama meeting in private with Sen. Clinton during the week, he had met with Sen. McCain. What course of action, although “radical” and “unconventional,” upon which the two of them could have agreed, would have sent a positive message to our country and the world, that “things are about to change?” Hint: They still can do it now – it’s not too late.”
Typically, when we think of something “radical” in our society, we have a tendency to also think of something negative. When the Jewish War Veterans tried to stamp out the American Nazi Movement, they used violence to do so. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when Mark Rudd and the Weather Underground sought changes in American society, for the benefit of the common man, and an end to the War in Vietnam, they engaged in criminal activity. There are also animal rights groups which break into laboratories and research facilities to free animals used in experiments. In each instance, the negative public reaction associated with the conduct compromises the message or cause of the group, and thus we have a tendency to reject the message and the group.
For years, I have complained that because of structural factors in our governmental systems, we only produce band-aid solutions to problems, and that the band-aids are typically applied too slowly. I have often argued that we need some radical solutions to problems which are also viewed as good for society. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs are often cited as an example, although many might argue that they resulted in an expansion of governmental intrusion in our lives. My colleague, the Laughingman, has proposed a radical move on the part of our two presidential candidates, which could send a very powerful message. According to the Laughingman:
“For the first time in my memory, we have two non-institutional candidates for President of The United States. It would be hard to see how we as a country could lose electing either of these mavericks. Should they name each other as their vice presidential preferences, the political machines would go crazy, but getting things done would all of a sudden take preference to getting the best public relations. And then maybe, just maybe, we would create a collaborative force, and stop making such far-reaching mistakes. It would be the ‘new shot heard around the world.’ It also wouldn’t hurt that Hunter Thompson and Kurt Vonnegut would be delighted.”
Although they are not exactly Beltway Boys, I am concerned about both candidates once one of them takes office. I was a big fan of Sen. McCain at earlier stages in his career. He truly struck me as an independent thinker, interested in the long term, and not beholden to any special interests. Unfortunately, here recently, he has begun to look more like a clone of our current President. My hope, gut, and optimism about life tell me that he has only morphed himself temporarily, pursuant to the instructions of his handlers, to get elected, and that he will return to the old John McCain should he succeed. My sense is that he’s not going to blow this chance to bring about some real change, particularly because it is late in his life. Remember, this guy dealt with personal torture for years. That required some mental toughness.
As for Senator Obama, I do not have as good a sense as to who he really is, due to his short time in office. However, my sense is that he is sincere and actually interested in the long term health of this Nation. I have a different concern about how he will govern should he be elected. One radio commentator said that during his first week in office, some senior advisors will sit him down and effectively say, “Now that you’ve gotten here, let us explain to you how it is really done.” Furthermore, George Will, in speaking with Charlie Rose last week, indicated that the machine, that is Washington, D.C., is huge, entrenched, and has its own inertia. However, as is the case with Sen. McCain, my hope, gut, and optimism about life tell me that he is all about something other than doing business as usual. His mere presence on the stage epitomizes change. He will not blow the opportunity. This guy was the President of Harvard Law School’s Law Review, and then worked for a public interest research group and with community organizations, when he could have gone for the big bucks.
Getting back to the Laughingman’s “radical” suggestion that both McCain and Obama name the other as their vice-presidential preferences, I can actually envision some “good,” that would flow from the move. It would tell their respective parties that they have become too rigid and inflexible, like dinosaurs. It would tell their respective parties that there are many different views in the world, and that we are not ready for “group think” just yet. It would tell their respective parties that purpose, getting things done, and vision trump inertia and the bureaucracy that is institutionalization, every time. It would tell the world that the United States is really a force to be reckoned with, and that the “smoke and mirrors show” is over.
And that’s how radical action could be a “good” thing right now. As the Laughingman has often said, “Doing the right [or good] thing is not rocket science.” Just think about it, for your sake and mine.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following article was originally posted as No. 18 on this blog, and entitled, "How Radical Action Could be a Good Thing Right Now." Now that Sen. Obama has selected Sen. Joseph Biden as his Democratic running mate, we felt re-visiting some of the thoughts that we had prior to the selection might be generate further food for thought.
There are two primary purposes for this blog. The first is to stimulate thought, in general. Not only has our society evolved to a point where visual and audio sound bites are the norm, but also where “think bites” are far too prevalent. I, in conjunction with the other members of the It’s Your Turn™ Team, the Laughingman and the Optimizer, feel that getting people to think through issues, particularly college students, can only yield better decisions about how to address issues. If you do not recognize the underlying root causes of a problem, and only respond to emotional stimuli and superficial symptoms, you will not effectively, if at all, address the problem. We also feel that our society needs to be far more receptive to new, fresh, and creative ideas to solve our ills, and not just rely on the status quo.
Every day, the members of the It’s Your Turn™ Team collaborate to determine alternate, more effective, ways to address issues in society, through the application of our version of common sense. Common sense is always bigger than one’s personal, short-term, emotional or selfish interests. Sometimes our collaboration generates a short “write bite” of our own. In other instances, we escort you through a much longer, perhaps wandering, thought-process, occasionally traversing a complex environment, where we are not quite sure where we are going ourselves. But at least we’re thinking, and not just reacting.
The second purpose for this blog is also to stimulate thought. However, the focus is more on how our thinking about issues bears on personal responsibility. The fewer your perceived options, the less likely you will craft an appropriate, effective course of action. Less information and less consideration rarely produce a good result.
Due diligence is always preferable. The more one knows about the various competing factors, and his or her options, the less likely one is to shift blame to others. Due diligence is part of personal responsibility, and responsibility is never just personal. The decisions we make ultimately affect many others in many different ways. With respect to the election of our representatives and leaders in government, we have a responsibility to ensure that they continue to serve our interests, and not just the interests of a select few, or the most powerful. When we let our leaders get out of control, get sidetracked, or abuse power that we have bestowed upon them, we, as a people, have abdicated our responsibility.
This is the teaser e-mail that I sent out earlier concerning this article:
“Let’s assume that instead of Sen. Obama meeting in private with Sen. Clinton during the week, he had met with Sen. McCain. What course of action, although “radical” and “unconventional,” upon which the two of them could have agreed, would have sent a positive message to our country and the world, that “things are about to change?” Hint: They still can do it now – it’s not too late.”
Typically, when we think of something “radical” in our society, we have a tendency to also think of something negative. When the Jewish War Veterans tried to stamp out the American Nazi Movement, they used violence to do so. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when Mark Rudd and the Weather Underground sought changes in American society, for the benefit of the common man, and an end to the War in Vietnam, they engaged in criminal activity. There are also animal rights groups which break into laboratories and research facilities to free animals used in experiments. In each instance, the negative public reaction associated with the conduct compromises the message or cause of the group, and thus we have a tendency to reject the message and the group.
For years, I have complained that because of structural factors in our governmental systems, we only produce band-aid solutions to problems, and that the band-aids are typically applied too slowly. I have often argued that we need some radical solutions to problems which are also viewed as good for society. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs are often cited as an example, although many might argue that they resulted in an expansion of governmental intrusion in our lives. My colleague, the Laughingman, has proposed a radical move on the part of our two presidential candidates, which could send a very powerful message. According to the Laughingman:
“For the first time in my memory, we have two non-institutional candidates for President of The United States. It would be hard to see how we as a country could lose electing either of these mavericks. Should they name each other as their vice presidential preferences, the political machines would go crazy, but getting things done would all of a sudden take preference to getting the best public relations. And then maybe, just maybe, we would create a collaborative force, and stop making such far-reaching mistakes. It would be the ‘new shot heard around the world.’ It also wouldn’t hurt that Hunter Thompson and Kurt Vonnegut would be delighted.”
Although they are not exactly Beltway Boys, I am concerned about both candidates once one of them takes office. I was a big fan of Sen. McCain at earlier stages in his career. He truly struck me as an independent thinker, interested in the long term, and not beholden to any special interests. Unfortunately, here recently, he has begun to look more like a clone of our current President. My hope, gut, and optimism about life tell me that he has only morphed himself temporarily, pursuant to the instructions of his handlers, to get elected, and that he will return to the old John McCain should he succeed. My sense is that he’s not going to blow this chance to bring about some real change, particularly because it is late in his life. Remember, this guy dealt with personal torture for years. That required some mental toughness.
As for Senator Obama, I do not have as good a sense as to who he really is, due to his short time in office. However, my sense is that he is sincere and actually interested in the long term health of this Nation. I have a different concern about how he will govern should he be elected. One radio commentator said that during his first week in office, some senior advisors will sit him down and effectively say, “Now that you’ve gotten here, let us explain to you how it is really done.” Furthermore, George Will, in speaking with Charlie Rose last week, indicated that the machine, that is Washington, D.C., is huge, entrenched, and has its own inertia. However, as is the case with Sen. McCain, my hope, gut, and optimism about life tell me that he is all about something other than doing business as usual. His mere presence on the stage epitomizes change. He will not blow the opportunity. This guy was the President of Harvard Law School’s Law Review, and then worked for a public interest research group and with community organizations, when he could have gone for the big bucks.
Getting back to the Laughingman’s “radical” suggestion that both McCain and Obama name the other as their vice-presidential preferences, I can actually envision some “good,” that would flow from the move. It would tell their respective parties that they have become too rigid and inflexible, like dinosaurs. It would tell their respective parties that there are many different views in the world, and that we are not ready for “group think” just yet. It would tell their respective parties that purpose, getting things done, and vision trump inertia and the bureaucracy that is institutionalization, every time. It would tell the world that the United States is really a force to be reckoned with, and that the “smoke and mirrors show” is over.
And that’s how radical action could be a “good” thing right now. As the Laughingman has often said, “Doing the right [or good] thing is not rocket science.” Just think about it, for your sake and mine.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Post 36b: Suggested Reading: "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
We have a tendency to read the latest books on the New York Times Best Seller List, or the classics. We sometimes forget about important works from just a few years ago. In 1987, Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (http://books.google.com/books?id=9rpmAAAAMAAJ&q=%22The+Rise+and+Fall+of+Great+Powers%22&dq=%22The+Rise+and+Fall+of+Great+Powers%22&ei=TYawSK6sG4XKzQSxuITxBg&pgis=1). For years, it was mentioned by academicians, leaders of industry, and politicians alike in discussing America’s place in the world, and its prospects. However, it appears that it is not mentioned with much frequency these days. We feel that the message contained therein needs a re-examination. Additionally, a number of you have requested that we reference this work again so that you might acquire it.
The following is taken from an earlier post, No. 9, entitled, "Recognizing the Potential of the Innovative Thought Process (We are a Better Country than We Currently Think of Ourselves)" (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html).
“In his significant work, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000… Yale professor Paul Kennedy discusses and analyzes patterns that exist during the ascent to power, and those associated with the power’s subsequent decline. Originally published in 1987, and after receiving rave reviews at the time, I am simply amazed that so little reference is made to it in the current discussion of where we are as a Nation. Anyone examining the book will immediately note that Kennedy did his homework, in that it is replete with economic data, which actually makes it somewhat difficult to digest. Be that as it may, he concludes that there are three main factors that appear to repeatedly contribute to the decline of a world power. Two of them are of relevance to the United States at this point in time.
Kennedy submits that one factor is that the power is overextended militarily throughout the world, which leads to a depletion of its coffers, and a drain on its economy and energy. The second involves technology. As a general proposition, the country which possesses the highest level of technology, which also translates to the most sophisticated and effective weapons, stays in power. It generally has spent a considerable period of time, and a significant component of its resources, on research and development associated with that technology. When such a power exports its technology and that technology is easily and quickly duplicated by others without the attendant investment in its development, other emerging economic powers can then adopt it and overtake the inventing country. Not only is the technology exported in such a transition, but the scientific knowledge base is also adversely affected, along with the technology workforce.”
Here’s hoping that the United States does not have to experience the decline during our lifetimes, or that of our children, or their children, or their….
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
We have a tendency to read the latest books on the New York Times Best Seller List, or the classics. We sometimes forget about important works from just a few years ago. In 1987, Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (http://books.google.com/books?id=9rpmAAAAMAAJ&q=%22The+Rise+and+Fall+of+Great+Powers%22&dq=%22The+Rise+and+Fall+of+Great+Powers%22&ei=TYawSK6sG4XKzQSxuITxBg&pgis=1). For years, it was mentioned by academicians, leaders of industry, and politicians alike in discussing America’s place in the world, and its prospects. However, it appears that it is not mentioned with much frequency these days. We feel that the message contained therein needs a re-examination. Additionally, a number of you have requested that we reference this work again so that you might acquire it.
The following is taken from an earlier post, No. 9, entitled, "Recognizing the Potential of the Innovative Thought Process (We are a Better Country than We Currently Think of Ourselves)" (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html).
“In his significant work, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000… Yale professor Paul Kennedy discusses and analyzes patterns that exist during the ascent to power, and those associated with the power’s subsequent decline. Originally published in 1987, and after receiving rave reviews at the time, I am simply amazed that so little reference is made to it in the current discussion of where we are as a Nation. Anyone examining the book will immediately note that Kennedy did his homework, in that it is replete with economic data, which actually makes it somewhat difficult to digest. Be that as it may, he concludes that there are three main factors that appear to repeatedly contribute to the decline of a world power. Two of them are of relevance to the United States at this point in time.
Kennedy submits that one factor is that the power is overextended militarily throughout the world, which leads to a depletion of its coffers, and a drain on its economy and energy. The second involves technology. As a general proposition, the country which possesses the highest level of technology, which also translates to the most sophisticated and effective weapons, stays in power. It generally has spent a considerable period of time, and a significant component of its resources, on research and development associated with that technology. When such a power exports its technology and that technology is easily and quickly duplicated by others without the attendant investment in its development, other emerging economic powers can then adopt it and overtake the inventing country. Not only is the technology exported in such a transition, but the scientific knowledge base is also adversely affected, along with the technology workforce.”
Here’s hoping that the United States does not have to experience the decline during our lifetimes, or that of our children, or their children, or their….
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Post No. 36: Silly Me – How So Little About the World I Really Understand
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The generation of this piece took roughly fifteen minutes. It is in response to something that I saw on television yesterday, but more significantly in response to something I just saw on C-Span some twenty minutes ago. As previously indicated in our Post No. 10 (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html), I am an information junkie.
There is a saying which many of us have often heard repeated, to the effect that the more experiences that one has, and the more knowledge that one acquires, the more one realizes just how little he or she really knows. I have always felt that notion applied to me; however, it apparently does not apply to most people. It seems to me that virtually everyone else in society has certain things figured out, while I’m still sitting here looking dumbfounded, or a as buddy of mine often notes, “like a monkey with a football.”
Yesterday, I saw a television show where popular radio talk show host Laura Ingraham was filling in for the regular host. There were several talk show talking heads accompanying her, discussing the performances of our presidential candidates at the “Faith Debate,” conducted this past weekend, during which the candidates discussed their positions on a wide range of faith and religious related topics. The commentators generally agreed that Sen. McCain provided nice, crisp, succinct, and spontaneous responses to the questions, while Sen. Obama appeared to be less crisp. In fact, they noted that he appeared as though he was struggling with some of his responses. Interestingly, one head, referred to as an Obama supporter, suggested that Sen. Obama appeared to be “thinking” about his responses, which made them longer and less spontaneous in nature.
What I found most interesting was the concluding comment by Ms. Ingraham, suggesting that she would have hoped that an adult of Sen. Obama’s age, and particularly a presidential candidate, would have figured out his position on a subject as significant as the “meaning of life” prior to that debate. (God forbid that we might have a leader actually thinking about that kind of stuff.) That comment gave me pause, particularly in light of my admitted confusion with respect to religion, as reflected in our Post No. 7 (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html).
Getting back to the C-Span presentation earlier this morning, William Cohen, the former Defense Secretary in the Clinton Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cohen), was on a panel discussing race in America. He told a story about how he was watching the news one day, and viewed a video of eleven police officers surrounding a man with a hunting knife. The police officers at some point opened fire and killed the man. He gave the officers the benefit of the doubt and concluded that the officers obviously felt that they might be harmed by the knife-wielding man. However, he questioned why they could not have shot the man in the arm or leg, or disable him in some other fashion. (I should note that no mention was made as the whether the man was already convicted, if that is of significance to any of you.)
Cohen did not think about the knife incident much further until roughly two weeks later. He was watching another news broadcast about a wild moose which had created some havoc in a town. The authorities were called, and this time they used a tranquilizer to disable the moose, had a helicopter lift the drowsy moose, and return it to the wild. The combination of these two events made him ponder our handling of a human and our handling of a wild animal. I’ve been thinking about this issue the entire time that I have been typing this piece, and from an analytical perspective, I’ve haven’t been able to reconcile the disparate treatment in my mind. However, I’m just a silly boy - I’m sure that you can.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The generation of this piece took roughly fifteen minutes. It is in response to something that I saw on television yesterday, but more significantly in response to something I just saw on C-Span some twenty minutes ago. As previously indicated in our Post No. 10 (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html), I am an information junkie.
There is a saying which many of us have often heard repeated, to the effect that the more experiences that one has, and the more knowledge that one acquires, the more one realizes just how little he or she really knows. I have always felt that notion applied to me; however, it apparently does not apply to most people. It seems to me that virtually everyone else in society has certain things figured out, while I’m still sitting here looking dumbfounded, or a as buddy of mine often notes, “like a monkey with a football.”
Yesterday, I saw a television show where popular radio talk show host Laura Ingraham was filling in for the regular host. There were several talk show talking heads accompanying her, discussing the performances of our presidential candidates at the “Faith Debate,” conducted this past weekend, during which the candidates discussed their positions on a wide range of faith and religious related topics. The commentators generally agreed that Sen. McCain provided nice, crisp, succinct, and spontaneous responses to the questions, while Sen. Obama appeared to be less crisp. In fact, they noted that he appeared as though he was struggling with some of his responses. Interestingly, one head, referred to as an Obama supporter, suggested that Sen. Obama appeared to be “thinking” about his responses, which made them longer and less spontaneous in nature.
What I found most interesting was the concluding comment by Ms. Ingraham, suggesting that she would have hoped that an adult of Sen. Obama’s age, and particularly a presidential candidate, would have figured out his position on a subject as significant as the “meaning of life” prior to that debate. (God forbid that we might have a leader actually thinking about that kind of stuff.) That comment gave me pause, particularly in light of my admitted confusion with respect to religion, as reflected in our Post No. 7 (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html).
Getting back to the C-Span presentation earlier this morning, William Cohen, the former Defense Secretary in the Clinton Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cohen), was on a panel discussing race in America. He told a story about how he was watching the news one day, and viewed a video of eleven police officers surrounding a man with a hunting knife. The police officers at some point opened fire and killed the man. He gave the officers the benefit of the doubt and concluded that the officers obviously felt that they might be harmed by the knife-wielding man. However, he questioned why they could not have shot the man in the arm or leg, or disable him in some other fashion. (I should note that no mention was made as the whether the man was already convicted, if that is of significance to any of you.)
Cohen did not think about the knife incident much further until roughly two weeks later. He was watching another news broadcast about a wild moose which had created some havoc in a town. The authorities were called, and this time they used a tranquilizer to disable the moose, had a helicopter lift the drowsy moose, and return it to the wild. The combination of these two events made him ponder our handling of a human and our handling of a wild animal. I’ve been thinking about this issue the entire time that I have been typing this piece, and from an analytical perspective, I’ve haven’t been able to reconcile the disparate treatment in my mind. However, I’m just a silly boy - I’m sure that you can.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)