Post No. 198: There Has to be Something Bigger than One's Self

© 2020, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

My last blog post was on June 4, 2016.  It has been a complex 4 years. Shortly before that date, my good friend, mentor, and Founding Member of the Institute for Applied Common Sense, Willy Hopkins (a/k/a The Laughingman), left, as he would characterize it, “…this mortal coil.”  My father, who I consider to have been a great man (and not just because he was my father), passed a couple of weeks short of his 97^th birthday. He had that indomitable spirit and positive influence on me to the end. Finally, one of the most in-depth thinkers and a calming influence in my life, Darryl Jackson (a/k/a The Optimizer of the Institute), passed far too early in life when he had so much more value to bestow on the young people who he taught.

So here I stand, the only surviving member of the Institute for Applied Common Sense (2 weeks shy of the tender age of 69 and before I start the 2^nd half of my life), trying to figure out what to say in 750 words or less, which pays tribute to these men in life, and yet encapsulates all my thoughts for the past 4 years.  In September of last year, while observing the Senate hearings on Brett Kavanaugh, I decided on the title of this piece, but did not get around to writing it until today, when the memorial service for civil rights icon, John Lewis, took place.  I listened to all of the speakers at his service, and there appeared to be a common theme, and thus the title of this piece.

Recently, I have been concerned about the extent to which many people think that, “it’s all about them, and what they want.”   My dad was a caring, humble, relatively quiet man, who did wonders for his community.  He won several community service awards from the NAACP and never mentioned them to me while I was living in California.  But then again, he never had to be concerned about being re-elected.

I first started gathering my thoughts about this life principle when Bill Clinton was facing impeachment.  It just seemed to me that the office and institution of the presidency, and the goals which he sought to accomplish, were more important than Bill Clinton, the individual, remaining in that position. He was not the only individual who could advance those goals.  Additionally, his credibility and effectiveness were severely affected by his indiscretions.  My position is that he should have immediately resigned, and allowed his vice – president, Al Gore, to carry on the mission (which Clinton did not personally own).  

I felt the same way during the hearings with respect to prospective Supreme Court Associate Justice, Brett Cavanaugh.  Even if he felt that the allegations of sexual misconduct had no validity whatsoever, I felt that he should have removed his name from consideration and fought the allegations outside of the context of the hearings.  Once again, it seemed to me that the seat and institution of the Supreme Court justice, and the goals which his party and supporters sought to accomplish, were more important than Brett Cavanagh, the individual, putting up a fight to acquire that position. He was not the only individual who could advance those goals. 

Additionally, his credibility and effectiveness, and respect for the Court would be, arguably, negatively impacted by his getting the seat.  Why would someone want that to satisfy one’s personal desires?  Interestingly, right after Mr. Kavanagh was successful in fending off the challenges, and confirmed by the Senate, President Trump congratulated Mr. Kavanagh for putting up the vigorous fight, and alluded to former Senator Al Franken, as having “folded like a wet rag.”

So, what is my message to college students, who are my target audience?  It seems to me that personal responsibility includes thinking beyond one’s self and one’s personal goals.  Though the Laughingman and the Optimizer are gone, I still reach out to others to expand my thinking about the concepts and issues about which I write.  The Laughingman introduced me to someone who often provides kernels of thought.  During an exchange with him earlier this year, he suggested that I pose two questions to the readers of this piece.

The first was, “What would your grandfather or grandmother have done confronted with your current situation?”

The second was, “While you may presently be strapped for money because of being ‘sheltered in place’, you now have a lot of free time.  What can you do with this free time to make a difference in the quality of someone else’s life?”  He suggests that thinking about improving someone else’s life can help you improve your own....

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.

Post No. 103: Why Do the Democrats Seemingly Have a Lock on African-American Votes

We recently asked our readers to submit possible topics for discussion, and we received numerous responses. We've posted five of them thus far. Here is the sixth:

"Given that African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, what advances in the African-American community can be traced to Democratic policies and initiatives, over the past 50 years?"

We believe that some other questions might be addressed at the same time:

Why haven't African-Americans looked more to the Republican Party, or even other smaller parties?

Are there some positive or negative ramifications which flow from the Democratic Party knowing that it will always acquire the vast majority of the African-American vote?

Is the African-American population so small at this point in time that their vote is increasingly taking on less significance, particularly since Hispanics and Asians are now larger minorities in the population?

Post No. 102: Why Aren't More Americans Members of the Libertarian Party?

We recently asked our readers to submit possible topics for discussion, and we received numerous responses. We've posted four of them thus far. Here is the fifth:

"There are many citizens who contend that our newly-elected President is, in actuality, a 'Socialist.' Many critics of the current Administration are conducting 'tea parties' around the country to protest and prevent the country's purported slide into socialism. If there is so much concern about centralized, government control of our lives, why don't more citizens join the Libertarian Party?"

We went to Wikipedia, and looked up the term, "United States Libertarian Party." An excerpt of the article appears below:

“The Libertarian Party is a United States political party…. More than 200,000 voters are registered with the party, making it one of the largest of America's alternative political parties. Hundreds of Libertarian candidates have been elected or appointed to public office, and thousands have run for office under the Libertarian banner.

“The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects that group's particular brand of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries.”

To access the complete article, simply click here.

So, tell us. Why doesn't the Libertarian Party appeal to more citizens?

Post 96b: Re-Posting of Article: 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.

Post No. 92: Dobermans. Surrounded by Dobermans.

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We have a colleague, a nice guy, who loves Doberman Pinschers. He loves them so much he’s raising 29 of them at his place.

When we visit him, the dogs do what Dobermans always do.

They bark. They snarl. They attack.

They do so not because they know who or what we are. They’re just in attack mode; in that mode by virtue of the way our colleague raises them.

(About dogs: You can’t make a Doberman behave like a Cocker Spaniel anymore than you can stop a Labrador from curling up on your lap and slobbering all over your sofa. Dogs are simply what they are. So be careful when you fall in love with a puppy, okay?)

Our colleague’s Dobermans got us thinking.

All of us have stress in our lives, and we all react to it differently.

Even though we, individually and collectively, are facing what any reasonable person would call dire circumstances, it seems to us that more and more people these days are firmly set in a default mode on the “attack” side of the register, and as a result, civilized discourse may well have become as extinct as the poor dodo bird.

With fear, well-founded fear at that, running rampant through the land, our recent attention has been directed to a radio commentator whose new book, “The Audacity of Failure,” is expected out soon.

However, for several years now, we’ve been subjected to a constant stream of “something,” which does not have the most pleasant aroma.

How odd, we’ve thought, that so many would resort to the slinging of this “hash.”

Don’t they realize that failure - on the part of any of our institutions at this stage in the game – would amount to a Pyrrhic victory? That incessant ideological chatter will take us nowhere?

Are the slingers, on both sides of the debate, so completely devoid of common sense that they fail to recognize that their slinging might negatively impact the personal empires which they’ve built?

Derail their ability to collect dollars from their advertisers, not to mention dampen their listeners’ interest in spending money for the things their advertisers hope to sell?

Try a little enlightened self-interest on for size, we say. Your own. Your country’s.

Our country’s.

Last week, we ran across an article entitled, “Running Scared? Fear Isn’t Good For The Economy Or Your Health.” We could only say, “No hash, Sherlock.”

Feeling a little exhausted, we sent an email to a friend: “… people claim that politics has always been nasty. However, there is something different going on now. Nasty has gotten real nasty, and personal. All the attacks, the name-calling, the questioning of people’s intelligence, the constant dissection of every word and move, with all of it designed to make people look bad. Is getting one’s way that important? It’s as if much of society has had this pent up anger and frustration, which they previously chose not to express, and that the political campaigns gave them license to say what they really felt. What thinking person would want to enter public service?”

We’ve obviously chosen our friends wisely, because she responded with a new insight.

“Anger and negativity have become synonymous today,” our friend wrote, “when in truth they’re two different emotions.”

“Negativity in the national discourse,” she noted, “has become purely intellectual.”

“None of us are born [negative],” she said. “In fact, I dare you to stop by any grade school playground and find one child who would qualify as negative by nature.”

Fear. We’ve felt it a couple of times. The night before taking the bar exam was the first time we remember. And we’re feeling it again.

Earlier today we sat in front of the computer, fearful, unsure, stomach churning. Probably like a lot of people.

The thing about people, it dawned on us, is that all of us, some to a greater degree than others, were born with the genetic coding necessary to think through the obstacles we encounter.

Paraphrasing our friend’s comment about the lack of negativity of children, it also struck us that, unlike our colleague’s Dobermans, none of us are genetically coded to bark, snarl and attack only.

Common sense says we must be guided, in Lincoln’s words, “by the better angels of our nature.”

There has to be something bigger than this ideological dispute.

Do we still have those angels?


© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 88: Does Everyone Necessarily Have a Point of View? - Revisited

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

In July of last year, we generated a piece which asked, “Does everyone necessarily have a point of view?” At that time, we were so tired of hearing everyone take a rigid stand, on one side or the other in the presidential candidate debate, that we were about to scream.

We’ve since concluded that the question need not be directly answered, because the point of view need not always be expressed. Additionally, in a group setting, it need not dictate your effort to contribute to a common goal through collaboration.

How did the discussion of where we are headed as a nation become so acrimonious? Although many say that political campaigns have always been down, dirty, and nasty, for some reason, we feel that more sewage has recently overflowed into our drinking water.

Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring LBJ’s inheritance of the Vietnam War. We mentioned to a colleague that, despite the fact that several of us had served in the Army during that period, we did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time.

Our colleague immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the film maker.

Since then, we’ve been asking ourselves whether everyone necessarily has a point of view.

We observed this reactionary phenomenon most recently during the debate about the economic stimulus package. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the positions of the other party.

We initially thought of entitling this piece, “The Dangers Associated with Defining Something by Its Least Liked Component,” Or “Let Me Introduce You to My Ugly Wife.”

Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s position such a fatal thing to do in drafting legislation?

In a previous piece, we presented the views of a fictional citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for either political party.

We raised some rhetorical questions regarding one’s identification with certain political parties, and examined potential positions that might be taken by a third independent party.

One of the positions was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to defend our nation. Some readers felt that we were advocating a return to slavery, and branded us totalitarian pigs. Some others assumed that we had taken a position in line with Osama bin Laden and that we were not patriotic.

It is not unusual for some of our readers to assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position.

That experience also highlighted something said by another writer. He noted that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side. Rather, one has to fend off attacks from both.

Perhaps that’s why we get so little accomplished in the political arena these days, and why partisanship appears to rule.

Every day, negative and outlandish allegations are put out there about virtually every move by every elected official.

This junk is just that; even if it does appeal to our emotional side. We should all be concerned when our innermost “fears” so strongly invade the national discourse, and begin to define who we are.

We have to get beyond our personal issues. We here at the Institute have often said that we do not care where people come out, as long as they engage in a reasoned thought process.

Reason and common sense, not to mention the seriousness of the issue, dictate that all of us be able to find something acceptable in a proposal of this size.

As the professor noted to Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, there are issues bigger than those which we now face, and which have a longer term impact.

So the next time that you read or hear a proposal from someone across the aisle, try to avoid processing it from your point of view. Try to avoid assuming that the writer has a particular point of view.

Simply view it as information.

The next time that you hear something with which you disagree, assume for a short period of time that you misheard it, or that there is a reasonable explanation for the position taken by the speaker. Try to make sense out of it.

Consider the prospect of your brain functioning like a hard disk on a computer. Just take in the information, store it there, and process it later when you have additional information and time to reflect.

When you decide to take action, or express your view, be sure to also ask this question of yourself, “Will what I have to say advance any societal interests in a positive way?”

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

Post No. 45: CEO America by Guest Author "Mark Twain"

CEO America

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

Shortly after the election of George W. Bush to the presidency, someone commented that for the first time in American history, we might see a president who would run the country like a corporate CEO.

Few of us appreciated, at the time, the prescience of that statement.

We are now at a tipping point.

We have two, very, very good guys... individuals who make their own party finance people squirm and sit up nights worrying about their own futures... running for president... and, ladies and gentlemen, the game has changed.

When Congress gets done, we, the American taxpayers, will be on the hook for about $1 trillion, to guarantee that the derivatives, sub prime mortgage bundles, and a host of other questionable financial vehicles, we were repeatedly told we were "not sophisticated enough to understand."

(Tell me if I am alone; however, I know very few regular, working class people, who would have tried to pull this B.S. off, at least not in good conscience.)

What this means is that neither candidate will get to do any spending on behalf of his financial backers.

There is not enough difference between these two guys, with respect to the leadership qualities which really matter, to overload a mosquito in flight.

We are forty something days away from an election that will decide the future of our country... and we are being inundated with paid for advertisements debating the meaning of putting lipstick on a pig.Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.

What is more interesting is how the talking heads and spokespeople who engage in this ridiculous banter generate more in annual income than the average American family.

The first question I want to hear answered in the upcoming debates is: "Where would you put your opponent in your cabinet?"

And the second is, "Who would you put in charge of the economy?"

In 1975, car sales fell 50% below 1974 levels.

Sure the Arabs had something to do with it...but the bigger problem was our own federal government's "Seat Belt Interlock Law."

A law that fixed no problem I know of... and I fear without some serious discussion of what has got us into this financial hole, we will see another such idiotic piece of legislation promoted to the public as the solution to the rape Congress is currently debating.

Of course, I could always be wrong... but I am part of the emergency medical staff the local politicians are bragging about... and as best I can tell, they have no intention of paying me for my services... but I’ve got a few creditors out there who want some serious bucks from me... and want them right now... for services rendered to me and my family which were far more pressing and necessary than padding the wallets of some greedy business types.

Go figure....

Yeah, you business types may consider me unsophisticated, but I’m mad at hell… and, for good reason.

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post 44b: Anxious in America by Thomas Friedman

This is a reprint of an op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman originally published on June 29, 2008

Copyright 2008, The New York Times

June 29, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Anxious in America

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Just a few months ago, the consensus view was that Barack Obama would need to choose a hard-core national-security type as his vice presidential running mate to compensate for his lack of foreign policy experience and that John McCain would need a running mate who was young and sprightly to compensate for his age. Come August, though, I predict both men will be looking for a financial wizard as their running mates to help them steer America out of what could become a serious economic tailspin.

I do not believe nation-building in Iraq is going to be the issue come November — whether things get better there or worse. If they get better, we’ll ignore Iraq more; if they get worse, the next president will be under pressure to get out quicker. I think nation-building in America is going to be the issue.

It’s the state of America now that is the most gripping source of anxiety for Americans, not Al Qaeda or Iraq. Anyone who thinks they are going to win this election playing the Iraq or the terrorism card — one way or another — is, in my view, seriously deluded. Things have changed.

Up to now, the economic crisis we’ve been in has been largely a credit crisis in the capital markets, while consumer spending has kept reasonably steady, as have manufacturing and exports. But with banks still reluctant to lend even to healthy businesses, fuel and food prices soaring and home prices declining, this is starting to affect consumers, shrinking their wallets and crimping spending. Unemployment is already creeping up and manufacturing creeping down.

The straws in the wind are hard to ignore: If you visit any car dealership in America today you will see row after row of unsold S.U.V.’s. And if you own a gas guzzler already, good luck. On Thursday, The Palm Beach Post ran an article on your S.U.V. options: “Continue to spend upward of $100 for a fill-up. Sell or trade in the vehicle for a fraction of the original cost. Or hold out and park the truck in the driveway for occasional use in hopes the market will turn around.” Just be glad you don’t own a bus. Montgomery County, Md., where I live, just announced that more children were going to have to walk to school next year to save money on bus fuel.

On top of it all, our bank crisis is not over. Two weeks ago, Goldman Sachs analysts said that U.S. banks may need another $65 billion to cover more write-downs of bad mortgage-related instruments and potential new losses if consumer loans start to buckle. Since President Bush came to office, our national savings have gone from 6 percent of gross domestic product to 1 percent, and consumer debt has climbed from $8 trillion to $14 trillion.

My fellow Americans: We are a country in debt and in decline — not terminal, not irreversible, but in decline. Our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities. We are the ones who need a better-functioning democracy — more than the Iraqis and Afghans. We are the ones in need of nation-building. It is our political system that is not working.

I continue to be appalled at the gap between what is clearly going to be the next great global industry — renewable energy and clean power — and the inability of Congress and the administration to put in place the bold policies we need to ensure that America leads that industry.

“America and its political leaders, after two decades of failing to come together to solve big problems, seem to have lost faith in their ability to do so,” Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib noted last week. “A political system that expects failure doesn’t try very hard to produce anything else.”

We used to try harder and do better. After Sputnik, we came together as a nation and responded with a technology, infrastructure and education surge, notes Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. After the 1973 oil crisis, we came together and made dramatic improvements in energy efficiency. After Social Security became imperiled in the early 1980s, we came together and fixed it for that moment. “But today,” added Hormats, “the political system seems incapable of producing a critical mass to support any kind of serious long-term reform.”

If the old saying — that “as General Motors goes, so goes America” — is true, then folks, we’re in a lot of trouble. General Motors’s stock-market value now stands at just $6.47 billion, compared with Toyota’s $162.6 billion. On top of it, G.M. shares sank to a 34-year low last week.

That’s us. We’re at a 34-year low. And digging out of this hole is what the next election has to be about and is going to be about — even if it is interrupted by a terrorist attack or an outbreak of war or peace in Iraq. We need nation-building at home, and we cannot wait another year to get started. Vote for the candidate who you think will do that best. Nothing else matters.

Copyright 2008, The New York Times

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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

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