© 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
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Post 36a: Guess Which Country is the "Saudi Arabia of Solar Energy"
We encourage our readers to direct us to articles of interest, appearing in other publications, which prompt us to think, and stimulate us toward collaborative action. The following copyrighted article appeared in the August 22, 2008 electronic edition of Forbes.com.
Alternative Energy
William Pentland 08.22.08, 6:00 AM ET
In the wake of the first Gulf War, the U.S. Army assessed Saudi Arabia's solar energy resource potential in a classified effort to determine how oil fires had affected the region.
The results were clear and surprising. In addition to being a vast petroleum repository, the desert nation was also the heart of the most potentially productive region on the planet for harvesting power from the sun. In other words, Saudi Arabia was the Saudi Arabia of solar energy.
Sitting in the center of the so-called Sun Belt, the country is part of a vast, rainless region reaching from the western edge of North Africa to the eastern edge of Central Asia that boasts the best solar energy resources on Earth. With the cost of oil skyrocketing, this belt is attracting the attention of a growing number of European leaders, who are embracing an ambitious proposal to harvest this solar energy for their nations.
The irony is inescapable and the story a familiar one, as the developed world again turns to the less developed countries in hopes of powering their economies. More important, it highlights an unappreciated implication of a solar-powered economy: The end of the oil age will not necessarily bring an end to the ugly geopolitics, resource wars and national rivalries that oil created.
The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation, or TREC, is the brainchild of a consortium led by the controversial Club of Rome and includes influential members like the German Aerospace Bureau and several universities in Europe and the Middle East.
TREC is spearheading a political initiative to build a so-called transmission supergrid by concentrating solar thermal power plants, wind turbines and long distance power lines to supply energy to Europe. The proposed power plants would simultaneously provide energy to seawater desalination plants in the Middle East and North Africa.
While the wild-eyed scheme might seem better suited for conspiracy theories than reality, it has attracted a growing number of impressive and powerful backers. In 2007, Prince El Hassan of Jordan, who has called for implementing the plan with an Apollo-like program, presented the plan during a European Union parliamentary session. Nicolas Sarkozy, the recently elected President of France, and U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown have both publicly endorsed the supergrid project in recent weeks.
In July, Sarkozy hosted the inaugural meeting of the "Union for the Mediterranean" in Paris. The Union, which seeks to promote relations between North Africa, the Middle East and Europe, considers TREC's solar energy proposal one of its top priorities. Meanwhile, the escalating conflict in Georgia, which has exposed the extent of Europe's energy insecurity, has undoubtedly increased the TREC plan's appeal.
While TREC's plan is nowhere near becoming a reality, it seems inevitable that, in one form or another, someone will try to capitalize on the vast solar energy resources available in the sun-soaked countries of the Sun Belt.
While it is technically possible to convert sunlight into electricity anywhere, it costs far less to do so in areas that receive the most powerful forms of sunlight--sunlight that loses the least amount of radiant energy while moving from space to earth. The Sun Belt receives the lion's share of this energy-rich sunlight.
While speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, Spain, in July, Arnulf Jaeger-Walden, one of Europe's leading energy authorities, said that less than 0.4% of the solar energy that falls on the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East would satisfy all of Europe's energy needs.
The opportunity isn't lost on Sun Belt countries. In March, Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali al-Nuaimi, said the country hopes to become as expert with solar energy as it is with oil. While Saudi Arabia has long toyed with solar power for small projects, such as a 1980s "Solar Village" program to develop the use of the technology in remote regions, its aspirations appear to be growing.
"For a country like Saudi Arabia .... one of the most important sources of energy to look at and to develop is solar energy," al-Nuaimi told the French oil newsletter Petrostrategies. "One of the research efforts that we are going to undertake is to see how we make Saudi Arabia a center for solar energy research, and hopefully over the next 30 to 50 years we will be a major megawatt exporter."
In Hassi R'mel, Algeria, 260 miles south of Algiers, construction has begun on a new power plant using a combination of solar and natural gas. The hope is to generate 150 megawatts of electricity by 2010, with 25 megawatts from a solar array stretching nearly 2 million square feet. The long-term goal is to export more than 6,000 megawatts of solar-generated power to Europe by 2020.
"Our potential in thermal solar power is four times the world's energy consumption, so you can have all the ambitions you want with that," Tewfik Hasni, managing director of New Energy Algeria, or NEAL, a company created by the Algerian government in 2002 to develop renewable energy, told the Associated Press last year.
This is why, barring a major technological breakthrough, the economics of solar energy may someday look much like the economics of fossil fuels. Energy security ultimately means more than access to energy; it means access to cheap energy. And like it or not, the Sun Belt has the cheapest solar energy in the world in vast quantities.
"In the same way we are an oil exporter," said Saudi Arabia's Ali al-Nuaimi, "we can also be an exporter of power."
Alternative Energy
The Saudi Arabia Of Solar Energy
William Pentland 08.22.08, 6:00 AM ET
In the wake of the first Gulf War, the U.S. Army assessed Saudi Arabia's solar energy resource potential in a classified effort to determine how oil fires had affected the region.
The results were clear and surprising. In addition to being a vast petroleum repository, the desert nation was also the heart of the most potentially productive region on the planet for harvesting power from the sun. In other words, Saudi Arabia was the Saudi Arabia of solar energy.
Sitting in the center of the so-called Sun Belt, the country is part of a vast, rainless region reaching from the western edge of North Africa to the eastern edge of Central Asia that boasts the best solar energy resources on Earth. With the cost of oil skyrocketing, this belt is attracting the attention of a growing number of European leaders, who are embracing an ambitious proposal to harvest this solar energy for their nations.
The irony is inescapable and the story a familiar one, as the developed world again turns to the less developed countries in hopes of powering their economies. More important, it highlights an unappreciated implication of a solar-powered economy: The end of the oil age will not necessarily bring an end to the ugly geopolitics, resource wars and national rivalries that oil created.
The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation, or TREC, is the brainchild of a consortium led by the controversial Club of Rome and includes influential members like the German Aerospace Bureau and several universities in Europe and the Middle East.
TREC is spearheading a political initiative to build a so-called transmission supergrid by concentrating solar thermal power plants, wind turbines and long distance power lines to supply energy to Europe. The proposed power plants would simultaneously provide energy to seawater desalination plants in the Middle East and North Africa.
While the wild-eyed scheme might seem better suited for conspiracy theories than reality, it has attracted a growing number of impressive and powerful backers. In 2007, Prince El Hassan of Jordan, who has called for implementing the plan with an Apollo-like program, presented the plan during a European Union parliamentary session. Nicolas Sarkozy, the recently elected President of France, and U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown have both publicly endorsed the supergrid project in recent weeks.
In July, Sarkozy hosted the inaugural meeting of the "Union for the Mediterranean" in Paris. The Union, which seeks to promote relations between North Africa, the Middle East and Europe, considers TREC's solar energy proposal one of its top priorities. Meanwhile, the escalating conflict in Georgia, which has exposed the extent of Europe's energy insecurity, has undoubtedly increased the TREC plan's appeal.
While TREC's plan is nowhere near becoming a reality, it seems inevitable that, in one form or another, someone will try to capitalize on the vast solar energy resources available in the sun-soaked countries of the Sun Belt.
While it is technically possible to convert sunlight into electricity anywhere, it costs far less to do so in areas that receive the most powerful forms of sunlight--sunlight that loses the least amount of radiant energy while moving from space to earth. The Sun Belt receives the lion's share of this energy-rich sunlight.
While speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, Spain, in July, Arnulf Jaeger-Walden, one of Europe's leading energy authorities, said that less than 0.4% of the solar energy that falls on the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East would satisfy all of Europe's energy needs.
The opportunity isn't lost on Sun Belt countries. In March, Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali al-Nuaimi, said the country hopes to become as expert with solar energy as it is with oil. While Saudi Arabia has long toyed with solar power for small projects, such as a 1980s "Solar Village" program to develop the use of the technology in remote regions, its aspirations appear to be growing.
"For a country like Saudi Arabia .... one of the most important sources of energy to look at and to develop is solar energy," al-Nuaimi told the French oil newsletter Petrostrategies. "One of the research efforts that we are going to undertake is to see how we make Saudi Arabia a center for solar energy research, and hopefully over the next 30 to 50 years we will be a major megawatt exporter."
In Hassi R'mel, Algeria, 260 miles south of Algiers, construction has begun on a new power plant using a combination of solar and natural gas. The hope is to generate 150 megawatts of electricity by 2010, with 25 megawatts from a solar array stretching nearly 2 million square feet. The long-term goal is to export more than 6,000 megawatts of solar-generated power to Europe by 2020.
"Our potential in thermal solar power is four times the world's energy consumption, so you can have all the ambitions you want with that," Tewfik Hasni, managing director of New Energy Algeria, or NEAL, a company created by the Algerian government in 2002 to develop renewable energy, told the Associated Press last year.
This is why, barring a major technological breakthrough, the economics of solar energy may someday look much like the economics of fossil fuels. Energy security ultimately means more than access to energy; it means access to cheap energy. And like it or not, the Sun Belt has the cheapest solar energy in the world in vast quantities.
"In the same way we are an oil exporter," said Saudi Arabia's Ali al-Nuaimi, "we can also be an exporter of power."
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
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Post No. 35: Why Smacking Someone Around Periodically Might Be a Good Thing
by Guest Author, The Laughingman
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Crew is a particularly interesting and Ivy League sport.
Next to the Army Forest Rangers, or the Navy Seals, there is no other activity on the planet that requires a higher level of conditioning, precision, training, or team interdependence.
The "boat" weighs just a little more than a single rower. The oars, on the other hand, weigh considerably more than the boat. For leverage, these forward motivation devices are mounted on outriggers a couple of feet from the rails of this odd racing device.
Eight human power plants, selected for their strength, endurance, and technique, power the craft... all sitting backward to the direction in which they are heading... with virtually no idea of where they are going... just a passing view of where they have just been.
Steering and speed are left in the hands of the lightest person available... and, as far as I was able to tell, weight was the only qualification.
The "function" of this light weight freeloader, or coxswain, seated at the stern (the rear end of the boat) was to call cadence for the rowers...and steer us to victory.
In practice, the "Stroke," the oarsman facing the "Coxin" and next closest to the stern, was responsible for setting the stroke rate and cadence (or rhythm)... the other rowers' job was to match his speed and power... exactly... or the boat would just wander all over the river.
(If you got out of sync with the stroke, you would eventually miss a catch, where the oar blade is placed in the water, or release, where the oar blade is removed from the water, and be tossed several yards from the boat into the water. This was not a good thing...your life depended on how quickly the coach's boat got to you... no exhausted, anti-cold weather equipped rower was going to stay above the surface more than 90 seconds.... parent-oriented pamphlets notwithstanding.)
In college competition... at least at Columbia... the training season lasts 11 months.
When it became too dangerous to send the boats out on the river... never did find out what that tipping point was... we pulled against dead water in the tanks located below Low Library. There is no human activity less enjoyable than pulling against dead water in a boat fixed to the bottom of the tank in the basement of the senior administration building; whose residents complained daily about the smell of vomit floating up through the ventilation... “Can't we cut the ventilation off down there?” one senior administrative assistant asked... weekly.
But the most...memorable...experience you could have as a member of a varsity crew team was when the "Coxin" got fancy...steered too close to one of the George Washington Bridge supports, and clipped the concrete with the port or starboard oars... tossing all four port or starboard oarsmen into the Hudson. Your feet are tied to the boat... your oar is mounted to develop the maximum mechanical leverage possible... your hands are so thoroughly cramped about your rowing device, you couldn't let go even if you knew what was about to happen.
Nobody, including the Army, and the Army's spinal training hospital, has ever frightened me as much as that five yard arc into the Hudson River.
Bill Glover, a fraternity brother and ROTC member, took this... mistake... by our Coxin, Fast Ed Rosen, personally. Bill got the stroke job because he was clearly the strongest rower... and seemed to have no sense of pain.
For the rest of the season, Bill would release his right hand between the release and the next catch, and use it to smack Ed's head mounted megaphone in a 360 degree circle around his head.
Ed quit at the end of the season... according to rumors, because he was afraid he would have no more ears left after another season coxing for Bill.
I quit half way through the nest season to go catch passes for Marty... seemed a safer sport... and Marty was more fun.
Bill went to Vietnam to command a river boat... and continued to knock the voice megaphones around his senior officers until they suggested he might be of more value to the country as a civilian.
As the Senior Fellow at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, my responsibilities include ensuring that we acknowledge history, honing perspective (aka wisdom) that comes with advancing years, and telling stories of my youth.
My point, and I do have one, is that from Wall Street to Washington, we might be better off if our best people... the ones who care about the people they are responsible for.... occasionally spun a megaphone around the ears of the people who are charged with telling us what is happening...and routinely get it wrong, or worse yet, make it up.
Half our rowers are already in the water...I don't think we can afford to clip another bridge....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Crew is a particularly interesting and Ivy League sport.
Next to the Army Forest Rangers, or the Navy Seals, there is no other activity on the planet that requires a higher level of conditioning, precision, training, or team interdependence.
The "boat" weighs just a little more than a single rower. The oars, on the other hand, weigh considerably more than the boat. For leverage, these forward motivation devices are mounted on outriggers a couple of feet from the rails of this odd racing device.
Eight human power plants, selected for their strength, endurance, and technique, power the craft... all sitting backward to the direction in which they are heading... with virtually no idea of where they are going... just a passing view of where they have just been.
Steering and speed are left in the hands of the lightest person available... and, as far as I was able to tell, weight was the only qualification.
The "function" of this light weight freeloader, or coxswain, seated at the stern (the rear end of the boat) was to call cadence for the rowers...and steer us to victory.
In practice, the "Stroke," the oarsman facing the "Coxin" and next closest to the stern, was responsible for setting the stroke rate and cadence (or rhythm)... the other rowers' job was to match his speed and power... exactly... or the boat would just wander all over the river.
(If you got out of sync with the stroke, you would eventually miss a catch, where the oar blade is placed in the water, or release, where the oar blade is removed from the water, and be tossed several yards from the boat into the water. This was not a good thing...your life depended on how quickly the coach's boat got to you... no exhausted, anti-cold weather equipped rower was going to stay above the surface more than 90 seconds.... parent-oriented pamphlets notwithstanding.)
In college competition... at least at Columbia... the training season lasts 11 months.
When it became too dangerous to send the boats out on the river... never did find out what that tipping point was... we pulled against dead water in the tanks located below Low Library. There is no human activity less enjoyable than pulling against dead water in a boat fixed to the bottom of the tank in the basement of the senior administration building; whose residents complained daily about the smell of vomit floating up through the ventilation... “Can't we cut the ventilation off down there?” one senior administrative assistant asked... weekly.
But the most...memorable...experience you could have as a member of a varsity crew team was when the "Coxin" got fancy...steered too close to one of the George Washington Bridge supports, and clipped the concrete with the port or starboard oars... tossing all four port or starboard oarsmen into the Hudson. Your feet are tied to the boat... your oar is mounted to develop the maximum mechanical leverage possible... your hands are so thoroughly cramped about your rowing device, you couldn't let go even if you knew what was about to happen.
Nobody, including the Army, and the Army's spinal training hospital, has ever frightened me as much as that five yard arc into the Hudson River.
Bill Glover, a fraternity brother and ROTC member, took this... mistake... by our Coxin, Fast Ed Rosen, personally. Bill got the stroke job because he was clearly the strongest rower... and seemed to have no sense of pain.
For the rest of the season, Bill would release his right hand between the release and the next catch, and use it to smack Ed's head mounted megaphone in a 360 degree circle around his head.
Ed quit at the end of the season... according to rumors, because he was afraid he would have no more ears left after another season coxing for Bill.
I quit half way through the nest season to go catch passes for Marty... seemed a safer sport... and Marty was more fun.
Bill went to Vietnam to command a river boat... and continued to knock the voice megaphones around his senior officers until they suggested he might be of more value to the country as a civilian.
As the Senior Fellow at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, my responsibilities include ensuring that we acknowledge history, honing perspective (aka wisdom) that comes with advancing years, and telling stories of my youth.
My point, and I do have one, is that from Wall Street to Washington, we might be better off if our best people... the ones who care about the people they are responsible for.... occasionally spun a megaphone around the ears of the people who are charged with telling us what is happening...and routinely get it wrong, or worse yet, make it up.
Half our rowers are already in the water...I don't think we can afford to clip another bridge....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Post No. 34: Opportunity to Serve as Guest Author – It’s Your Turn to Express Yourself
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Since we started this blog in April of 2008, numerous readers have asked us about the blogging experience, and how they might start their own blogs. It took us almost two years to actually do so, and we regret not having done so earlier.
A blog opens up a whole new world to you, and allows interaction with folks all over the world, about all sorts of subjects. The blogosphere is truly a global virtual community.
(For those interested, a major blogging convention is scheduled for Greensboro, NC on Thursday and Friday, October 16 and 17, 2008 (http://convergesouth.com.) On Saturday, October 18, 2008 BlogHer (http://www.blogher.com), a community for women who blog, visits the city as part of its traveling tour.)
We’re going to provide you with an opportunity to post an article or articles on our blog, as Guest Authors, consistent with the goals and principles of the Institute for Applied Common Sense.
There is no need to repeat our philosophy here; it appears stated in the right column of the blog. However, before getting to the Guest Author opportunity, we thought that we should share with you a profile of our readership.
There are many widgets and tracking devices which can be installed on a blog, to provide information about the visiting traffic. We are particularly enthralled with http://www.sitemeter.com . Even their free service provides valuable information, as will be reflected below.
The vast majority of the readers of this blog appear to be non-bloggers. We frequently receive direct e-mails containing comments as opposed to comments on the blog. Roughly 15-20% of the readers are located in countries outside of the United States. We have regular readers from Australia, Finland, France, the Palestinian Territories in Gaza, Germany, Iceland, India, Israel, Jordan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom.
Thus far, we can not recall any readers from China. Far more newcomers (individuals not associated with any of the members of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team) read our blog than friends of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team. The newcomers also have a tendency to read more articles and to stay on the blog reading them longer.
It appears that most of our foreign readers live in smaller cities, and we have noticed that they spend more time reading more articles than any other group.
We employ the “next blog” button feature of the Navigation Bar at the top of our blog to “blog surf” and visit other blogs. The vast majority of the other blogs which we visit are based in Southeast Asia, the South Pacific, and Brazil. We are actually surprised at the large number of Brazilian blogs.
Most blogs are uniquely personal. A large number display photos taken by the blogger, chronicle the lives and experiences of children or newlyweds, or display the artistic work of artists of every imaginable variety. We tend to randomly surf to other blogs and when we find one of interest, we stop and comment.
Although we are sure that there are many blogs dealing with political or societal issues, we rarely run across them. (That may be explained by the fact that we use Google’s free blogging platform, http://www.blooger.com, and those interested in professional blogging tend to buy other software for blogging.)
We joined a number of Google Groups (or discussion groups), most with some type of political theme. The bulk of our traffic is referred to us through Google Groups, following our leaving comments on the group discussion boards. We stumble through blogs written in French, Portuguese, and Spanish, and leave comments using a combination of English and our broken language in question. Most interestingly, it is the Brazilians who most frequently respond.
The readers who consider the articles, or the ideas expressed in them, to be radical or dangerous are generally Americans. We never sense any reluctance to go to another place intellectually on the part of our foreign visitors.
We have no real sense of the age demographic of our readers. We suspect that we have far more women readers than men, based on the comments.
In the U.S., our readers have a tendency to be from the West Coast, Southwest, and the Eastern Seaboard. Mid-Western readers hail from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In the South, we get visitors from Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; there are virtually no readers from Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Tennessee. There are also very few readers from the Rocky Mountain States and the Plains States.
Our blog informs readers that the “It’s Your Turn™"Team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of college campuses to engage students in a conversation about personal responsibility and making difficult decisions. In response thereto, we have received numerous comments which generally might fall into two categories: (a) those which inquire as to where we were when they were in college; and (b) to inform them when the tour is scheduled to be in their vicinity.
The blog has evolved over time. It morphed from simply posing rhetorical questions in admittedly lengthy essays. It went through a period when we suggested theoretical constructs which might be utilized to analyze certain situations. Our original goal, which remains today, was to simply get people to think and avoid rushing to judgments and decisions.
One of our favorite stories revolves around Senator Barry Goldwater, the ultimate conservative. Just prior to his death, he was asked to identify one thing he appreciated as a senior citizen, which he did not appreciate in his youth. He replied that in his youth, he thought there were only two sides to every issue. In hindsight, he understood that there were at least three.
Our view is that there are at least 27 different ways to view everything. Not all of them are good, productive, or positive at any given particular time, and their importance definitely changes depending on the context or circumstances. However, we should be aware of them.
Another goal of this blog has always been to encourage people to “dig deeper” in trying to understand the underlying causes of problems, instead of being distracted by the superficial, and typically emotional, symptoms.
If at times you’ve been confused about the purpose and focus of this blog, you are pretty perceptive. We essentially conducted a virtual focus group during the first few months of the blog’s existence. We’re still experimenting with different approaches.
Amazingly, we have not received one, single, nasty, off the chart, emotional rant, and for that we modestly take some credit. It was not our intention to get folks worked up, but rather to get them to say, “Hmm, let me think about that.” The most frequent comment which we received was, “I hadn’t thought or looked at it that way.” We view getting folks to pause during the thought process as a good thing.
We mentioned earlier that we are inviting our readers to serve as Guest Authors. We have a few guidelines to ensure that we maintain the spirit of the blog. We’re interested in civilized, respectful discourse, between participants with open minds. We believe that reasonable people can differ about how to approach a problem. Please observe the following guidelines:
1. Please limit your article to 750 words maximum;
2. Discuss any issue in the news or societal issue that you desire;
3. Avoid just criticizing or taking a side, and instead think in terms of suggesting a solution to the issue, or at a minimum offer some reasoned alternatives;
4. Try to be as objective as possible and set aside your personal biases;
5. Pose rhetorical questions to challenge the reader to consider various options, and innovative ways to analyze the issue;
6. Avoid the use of invective and judgmental statements, which might prompt emotional responses;
7. Avoid taking sides, or the positions of the liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, etc. Your piece should cause all sides to ponder; and
8. Be sure to “dig deeper” to reach the underlying causes.
Send your articles to RDGreene27401@gmail.com with an urgent flag. As long as they are generated in good faith and generally within our guidelines, they will be published “as is,” without further editing. Be sure to tell your friends and contacts to read your articles once they are published. This should be fun.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Since we started this blog in April of 2008, numerous readers have asked us about the blogging experience, and how they might start their own blogs. It took us almost two years to actually do so, and we regret not having done so earlier.
A blog opens up a whole new world to you, and allows interaction with folks all over the world, about all sorts of subjects. The blogosphere is truly a global virtual community.
(For those interested, a major blogging convention is scheduled for Greensboro, NC on Thursday and Friday, October 16 and 17, 2008 (http://convergesouth.com.) On Saturday, October 18, 2008 BlogHer (http://www.blogher.com), a community for women who blog, visits the city as part of its traveling tour.)
We’re going to provide you with an opportunity to post an article or articles on our blog, as Guest Authors, consistent with the goals and principles of the Institute for Applied Common Sense.
There is no need to repeat our philosophy here; it appears stated in the right column of the blog. However, before getting to the Guest Author opportunity, we thought that we should share with you a profile of our readership.
There are many widgets and tracking devices which can be installed on a blog, to provide information about the visiting traffic. We are particularly enthralled with http://www.sitemeter.com . Even their free service provides valuable information, as will be reflected below.
The vast majority of the readers of this blog appear to be non-bloggers. We frequently receive direct e-mails containing comments as opposed to comments on the blog. Roughly 15-20% of the readers are located in countries outside of the United States. We have regular readers from Australia, Finland, France, the Palestinian Territories in Gaza, Germany, Iceland, India, Israel, Jordan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom.
Thus far, we can not recall any readers from China. Far more newcomers (individuals not associated with any of the members of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team) read our blog than friends of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team. The newcomers also have a tendency to read more articles and to stay on the blog reading them longer.
It appears that most of our foreign readers live in smaller cities, and we have noticed that they spend more time reading more articles than any other group.
We employ the “next blog” button feature of the Navigation Bar at the top of our blog to “blog surf” and visit other blogs. The vast majority of the other blogs which we visit are based in Southeast Asia, the South Pacific, and Brazil. We are actually surprised at the large number of Brazilian blogs.
Most blogs are uniquely personal. A large number display photos taken by the blogger, chronicle the lives and experiences of children or newlyweds, or display the artistic work of artists of every imaginable variety. We tend to randomly surf to other blogs and when we find one of interest, we stop and comment.
Although we are sure that there are many blogs dealing with political or societal issues, we rarely run across them. (That may be explained by the fact that we use Google’s free blogging platform, http://www.blooger.com, and those interested in professional blogging tend to buy other software for blogging.)
We joined a number of Google Groups (or discussion groups), most with some type of political theme. The bulk of our traffic is referred to us through Google Groups, following our leaving comments on the group discussion boards. We stumble through blogs written in French, Portuguese, and Spanish, and leave comments using a combination of English and our broken language in question. Most interestingly, it is the Brazilians who most frequently respond.
The readers who consider the articles, or the ideas expressed in them, to be radical or dangerous are generally Americans. We never sense any reluctance to go to another place intellectually on the part of our foreign visitors.
We have no real sense of the age demographic of our readers. We suspect that we have far more women readers than men, based on the comments.
In the U.S., our readers have a tendency to be from the West Coast, Southwest, and the Eastern Seaboard. Mid-Western readers hail from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In the South, we get visitors from Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; there are virtually no readers from Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Tennessee. There are also very few readers from the Rocky Mountain States and the Plains States.
Our blog informs readers that the “It’s Your Turn™"Team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of college campuses to engage students in a conversation about personal responsibility and making difficult decisions. In response thereto, we have received numerous comments which generally might fall into two categories: (a) those which inquire as to where we were when they were in college; and (b) to inform them when the tour is scheduled to be in their vicinity.
The blog has evolved over time. It morphed from simply posing rhetorical questions in admittedly lengthy essays. It went through a period when we suggested theoretical constructs which might be utilized to analyze certain situations. Our original goal, which remains today, was to simply get people to think and avoid rushing to judgments and decisions.
One of our favorite stories revolves around Senator Barry Goldwater, the ultimate conservative. Just prior to his death, he was asked to identify one thing he appreciated as a senior citizen, which he did not appreciate in his youth. He replied that in his youth, he thought there were only two sides to every issue. In hindsight, he understood that there were at least three.
Our view is that there are at least 27 different ways to view everything. Not all of them are good, productive, or positive at any given particular time, and their importance definitely changes depending on the context or circumstances. However, we should be aware of them.
Another goal of this blog has always been to encourage people to “dig deeper” in trying to understand the underlying causes of problems, instead of being distracted by the superficial, and typically emotional, symptoms.
If at times you’ve been confused about the purpose and focus of this blog, you are pretty perceptive. We essentially conducted a virtual focus group during the first few months of the blog’s existence. We’re still experimenting with different approaches.
Amazingly, we have not received one, single, nasty, off the chart, emotional rant, and for that we modestly take some credit. It was not our intention to get folks worked up, but rather to get them to say, “Hmm, let me think about that.” The most frequent comment which we received was, “I hadn’t thought or looked at it that way.” We view getting folks to pause during the thought process as a good thing.
We mentioned earlier that we are inviting our readers to serve as Guest Authors. We have a few guidelines to ensure that we maintain the spirit of the blog. We’re interested in civilized, respectful discourse, between participants with open minds. We believe that reasonable people can differ about how to approach a problem. Please observe the following guidelines:
1. Please limit your article to 750 words maximum;
2. Discuss any issue in the news or societal issue that you desire;
3. Avoid just criticizing or taking a side, and instead think in terms of suggesting a solution to the issue, or at a minimum offer some reasoned alternatives;
4. Try to be as objective as possible and set aside your personal biases;
5. Pose rhetorical questions to challenge the reader to consider various options, and innovative ways to analyze the issue;
6. Avoid the use of invective and judgmental statements, which might prompt emotional responses;
7. Avoid taking sides, or the positions of the liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, etc. Your piece should cause all sides to ponder; and
8. Be sure to “dig deeper” to reach the underlying causes.
Send your articles to RDGreene27401@gmail.com with an urgent flag. As long as they are generated in good faith and generally within our guidelines, they will be published “as is,” without further editing. Be sure to tell your friends and contacts to read your articles once they are published. This should be fun.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Post No. 33: Are You Curious About What's Been Going on with the Iraqi Oil?
Article of Interest of Interest from the August 6, 2008 Edition of the New York Times
August 6, 2008
As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding
By JAMES GLANZ and CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.
In one comparison, the United States has spent $23.2 billion in the critical areas of security, oil, electricity and water since the 2003 invasion, the report said. But from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq has spent just $3.9 billion on similar services.
Over all, the report from the Government Accountability Office estimates, Iraqi oil revenue from 2005 through the end of this year will amount to at least $156 billion. And in an odd financial twist, a large amount of the surplus money is sitting in an American bank in New York — nearly $10 billion at the end of 2007, with more expected this year, when the accountability office estimates a skyrocketing surplus.
The report was requested by two senior senators, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and on Tuesday they were quick to express strong dissatisfaction over the contrast between American spending on reconstruction and the weak record of spending by Iraq itself.
“The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”
From the beginning of the conflict, American officials assured taxpayers and the world that Iraq would use oil money to pay for reconstruction. But that has not happened. Several senior Iraqi officials were either traveling on Tuesday or declined to comment, saying they were not familiar with the report.
Sinan al-Shabibi, governor of the Central Bank of Iraq, which the report said was holding $5.7 billion of the surplus at the end of 2007, said that while he could not speak for the government, problems with spending money often had to do with continuing security problems and a shortage of expertise in Iraqi ministries.
“Yes, there are problems, but that does not mean those problems are going to continue,” Mr. Shabibi said. “In all developing countries you put objectives, and sometimes you don’t reach them.”
“But,” he said, referring to the government, “they are determined to spend this money on development. They see it as a priority.”
Senators Levin and Warner pointed out that in 2007, for example, Iraq actually spent only 28 percent of its $12 billion reconstruction budget, according to the accountability office. But even that number could overstate the success rate in most of Iraq, because $2 billion of the spending took place in the relatively peaceful confines of the northern Kurdish region.
And in another troubling sign, the report said that from 2005 to 2007, Iraq devoted only 1 percent of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.
Like so many statistical measures from Iraq, the ones in the new report are likely to be used to support opposite positions on how much the United States should continue spending and how long it should stay in the country, said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington.
The figures could be used to argue that because the Iraqi ministries still do not have the capacity to spend their own money, further assistance from the United States is called for, Ms. Alexander said. Or the huge oil revenues could be seen as proof that Iraq has the resources to solve its own problems if it would only use the money.
But one finding that is sure to raise questions all around is the enormous pileup of cash in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as well as several Iraqi banks, Ms. Alexander said. The money in New York is a legacy of a system set up to handle Iraqi oil revenues when the country had no capacity to do so on its own.
The purpose of the money was to rebuild Iraq, not draw interest in a bank, Ms. Alexander said. “I don’t know what function that serves right now. In my mind it raises another set of questions which is, ‘Who’s minding the store?’ ” she said.
“There may have been people who said this is going to be harder than you think, this is going to take a long time, but nobody said what we should do is collect a lot of money and let it sit there,” Ms. Alexander said.
The deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank is so large that the United States has been obliged to make $435.6 million in interest payments to Iraq through the end of last year, according to the new report.
The overall estimates of Iraqi surpluses will come down somewhat if the Iraqi Parliament passes stalled legislation that includes a $22 billion supplemental budget for 2008. As of Tuesday, that bill had not been passed, since it is mired in wider negotiations over provincial elections.
Some of the Iraqi spending figures cited in the report were also a matter of dispute in the past, with the Iraqi government and American officials in Baghdad claiming that Iraq had consistently spent more money than the accountability office had given it credit for.
But the office said evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared by the Iraqi Finance Ministry — reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.
Joseph A. Christoff, director of the international affairs and trade team at the accountability office, said it was fair to say that a shortage of qualified officials in Iraq had diminished the capacity of central ministries to write contracts and carry out rebuilding.
But he said it was also true that with so much American assistance available, the Iraqi government may not have felt much urgency to increase that capacity and spend its own money.
“I think some people would contend that because we have continued to make a sizable investment, there hasn’t been a proper incentive until now for the Iraqi government to make its own investment,” Mr. Christoff said.
Reached late on Tuesday in Baghdad, the Iraqi planning minister, Ali Baban, defended his country’s commitment to spending Iraqi money on reconstruction, saying that the government was pushing as hard as it could to complete projects.
“I admit that there is some delay in spending the money on the projects in the provinces and in the ministries,” Mr. Baban said. “We have problems in this issue because there are lots of obstacles we face, because of the situation that we’re going through. We’re trying to deal with that, we’re trying to improve things, but you know the situation in Iraq.”
James Glanz reported from New York, and Campbell Robertson from Baghdad.
August 6, 2008
As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding
By JAMES GLANZ and CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.
In one comparison, the United States has spent $23.2 billion in the critical areas of security, oil, electricity and water since the 2003 invasion, the report said. But from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq has spent just $3.9 billion on similar services.
Over all, the report from the Government Accountability Office estimates, Iraqi oil revenue from 2005 through the end of this year will amount to at least $156 billion. And in an odd financial twist, a large amount of the surplus money is sitting in an American bank in New York — nearly $10 billion at the end of 2007, with more expected this year, when the accountability office estimates a skyrocketing surplus.
The report was requested by two senior senators, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and on Tuesday they were quick to express strong dissatisfaction over the contrast between American spending on reconstruction and the weak record of spending by Iraq itself.
“The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”
From the beginning of the conflict, American officials assured taxpayers and the world that Iraq would use oil money to pay for reconstruction. But that has not happened. Several senior Iraqi officials were either traveling on Tuesday or declined to comment, saying they were not familiar with the report.
Sinan al-Shabibi, governor of the Central Bank of Iraq, which the report said was holding $5.7 billion of the surplus at the end of 2007, said that while he could not speak for the government, problems with spending money often had to do with continuing security problems and a shortage of expertise in Iraqi ministries.
“Yes, there are problems, but that does not mean those problems are going to continue,” Mr. Shabibi said. “In all developing countries you put objectives, and sometimes you don’t reach them.”
“But,” he said, referring to the government, “they are determined to spend this money on development. They see it as a priority.”
Senators Levin and Warner pointed out that in 2007, for example, Iraq actually spent only 28 percent of its $12 billion reconstruction budget, according to the accountability office. But even that number could overstate the success rate in most of Iraq, because $2 billion of the spending took place in the relatively peaceful confines of the northern Kurdish region.
And in another troubling sign, the report said that from 2005 to 2007, Iraq devoted only 1 percent of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.
Like so many statistical measures from Iraq, the ones in the new report are likely to be used to support opposite positions on how much the United States should continue spending and how long it should stay in the country, said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington.
The figures could be used to argue that because the Iraqi ministries still do not have the capacity to spend their own money, further assistance from the United States is called for, Ms. Alexander said. Or the huge oil revenues could be seen as proof that Iraq has the resources to solve its own problems if it would only use the money.
But one finding that is sure to raise questions all around is the enormous pileup of cash in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as well as several Iraqi banks, Ms. Alexander said. The money in New York is a legacy of a system set up to handle Iraqi oil revenues when the country had no capacity to do so on its own.
The purpose of the money was to rebuild Iraq, not draw interest in a bank, Ms. Alexander said. “I don’t know what function that serves right now. In my mind it raises another set of questions which is, ‘Who’s minding the store?’ ” she said.
“There may have been people who said this is going to be harder than you think, this is going to take a long time, but nobody said what we should do is collect a lot of money and let it sit there,” Ms. Alexander said.
The deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank is so large that the United States has been obliged to make $435.6 million in interest payments to Iraq through the end of last year, according to the new report.
The overall estimates of Iraqi surpluses will come down somewhat if the Iraqi Parliament passes stalled legislation that includes a $22 billion supplemental budget for 2008. As of Tuesday, that bill had not been passed, since it is mired in wider negotiations over provincial elections.
Some of the Iraqi spending figures cited in the report were also a matter of dispute in the past, with the Iraqi government and American officials in Baghdad claiming that Iraq had consistently spent more money than the accountability office had given it credit for.
But the office said evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared by the Iraqi Finance Ministry — reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.
Joseph A. Christoff, director of the international affairs and trade team at the accountability office, said it was fair to say that a shortage of qualified officials in Iraq had diminished the capacity of central ministries to write contracts and carry out rebuilding.
But he said it was also true that with so much American assistance available, the Iraqi government may not have felt much urgency to increase that capacity and spend its own money.
“I think some people would contend that because we have continued to make a sizable investment, there hasn’t been a proper incentive until now for the Iraqi government to make its own investment,” Mr. Christoff said.
Reached late on Tuesday in Baghdad, the Iraqi planning minister, Ali Baban, defended his country’s commitment to spending Iraqi money on reconstruction, saying that the government was pushing as hard as it could to complete projects.
“I admit that there is some delay in spending the money on the projects in the provinces and in the ministries,” Mr. Baban said. “We have problems in this issue because there are lots of obstacles we face, because of the situation that we’re going through. We’re trying to deal with that, we’re trying to improve things, but you know the situation in Iraq.”
James Glanz reported from New York, and Campbell Robertson from Baghdad.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Post No. 32: Politics and Other Such Nonsense
(Responsive Comment by Guest Author The Laughingman to Post No. 30, “The Dangers Associated with Being ‘Peculiar’”)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
[In “Peculiar,” The Logistician submits that our fear of the unknown, or that which we consider to be “peculiar,” may be hard wired to promote survival in a complex world. He also suggests that as humans, we should be able to think and reason beyond our primal fears. He further employs us to do this as we approach the upcoming presidential election, and ignore the static.]
Peculiar?
Seems we have hit a tipping point in American Politics.
Both of our presumptive candidates are roundly detested by significant minorities within their own parties.
Both campaigns have been taken over by the Political Pros...presumably to protect their money bases...while the likes of Tom Delay do their penance wandering in the wilderness.
The money people are back in charge...so Obama is linked to Paris and Brittany, and McCain is linked to Bush.
Ostensibly, all of this paid for "crap" is deemed necessary by the money boys who are scared to death they will wind up Mr. Abramoff's [(http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff)] new neighbors, should the other side win.
Jesse Jackson has similar, and significant, concerns.
So...every Sunday morning, we are treated to the posers that be, on both sides of the aisle, who drag their candidates back into the muck that we call Presidential Politics.
So, characters whose goals are subject to varying interpretations, like Carl Rove, are now advising John McCain; and the Clinton machine seems to have an unwelcome, and useless (except for the Clintons) impact on the Obama campaign message.
With all due respect to the people who have effectively run this country’s economic and social strategy for as long as this humble ad weasel can remember, why not let the boys simply debate the issues?
Why not let them do it for free, on national TV?
Why not let Obama be Obama?
Why not let McCain be McCain be McCain?
Would the country really suffer from a few delayed episodes of "Can You Survive a Japanese Game Show?"
Like it or not, Senator Obama has the hard core Democrat vote in his pocket.
Like it or not, Senator McCain has a similar lock on the Republicans, and the evangelical right wing.
They have no where else to go, other than to sit home...which might not be that bad an outcome. The current economy surely suggests so.
As a practicing ad weasel, I can assure you most of the money they have spent so far on paid media has been directed at their secured bases...and is indistinguishable from what Saturday Night Live is running as pure parody.
Again, I am but an humble ad weasel, but the first of these two, to break this time honored tradition of taking all the money guys out of the public pitch, will be the guy able to deliver at least some of what the money guys are trying to buy.
Of course, I could be wrong...but the people who are buying what I sell suggest not....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
[In “Peculiar,” The Logistician submits that our fear of the unknown, or that which we consider to be “peculiar,” may be hard wired to promote survival in a complex world. He also suggests that as humans, we should be able to think and reason beyond our primal fears. He further employs us to do this as we approach the upcoming presidential election, and ignore the static.]
Peculiar?
Seems we have hit a tipping point in American Politics.
Both of our presumptive candidates are roundly detested by significant minorities within their own parties.
Both campaigns have been taken over by the Political Pros...presumably to protect their money bases...while the likes of Tom Delay do their penance wandering in the wilderness.
The money people are back in charge...so Obama is linked to Paris and Brittany, and McCain is linked to Bush.
Ostensibly, all of this paid for "crap" is deemed necessary by the money boys who are scared to death they will wind up Mr. Abramoff's [(http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff)] new neighbors, should the other side win.
Jesse Jackson has similar, and significant, concerns.
So...every Sunday morning, we are treated to the posers that be, on both sides of the aisle, who drag their candidates back into the muck that we call Presidential Politics.
So, characters whose goals are subject to varying interpretations, like Carl Rove, are now advising John McCain; and the Clinton machine seems to have an unwelcome, and useless (except for the Clintons) impact on the Obama campaign message.
With all due respect to the people who have effectively run this country’s economic and social strategy for as long as this humble ad weasel can remember, why not let the boys simply debate the issues?
Why not let them do it for free, on national TV?
Why not let Obama be Obama?
Why not let McCain be McCain be McCain?
Would the country really suffer from a few delayed episodes of "Can You Survive a Japanese Game Show?"
Like it or not, Senator Obama has the hard core Democrat vote in his pocket.
Like it or not, Senator McCain has a similar lock on the Republicans, and the evangelical right wing.
They have no where else to go, other than to sit home...which might not be that bad an outcome. The current economy surely suggests so.
As a practicing ad weasel, I can assure you most of the money they have spent so far on paid media has been directed at their secured bases...and is indistinguishable from what Saturday Night Live is running as pure parody.
Again, I am but an humble ad weasel, but the first of these two, to break this time honored tradition of taking all the money guys out of the public pitch, will be the guy able to deliver at least some of what the money guys are trying to buy.
Of course, I could be wrong...but the people who are buying what I sell suggest not....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, July 11, 2008
Post No. 27: The Inability of our Leaders to Please (or Lead?) Us
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
As simple as we like to make things for comprehension and managerial purposes, we all recognize the complexities associated with anything that involves human emotion. Such is the case with respect to those with whom we at least partially identify, and in whom we place our hopes.
Politicians are unusual animals. The circumstances surrounding their ascension to power virtually require that they be something less than straightforward and transparent. They are the personification of the Transformers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_%28toy_line%29) toy line. They simply have far too many different individuals and groups, not to mention interests, to please, other than their own. As the old 70’s song indicated, “Everybody wants me to be what they want me to be.”
Several months ago, this notion was brought home to me while conducting one of my regular bookstore walk-throughs. Roughly two or three times a week, I travel to the nearest Border’s or Barnes & Noble, and aimlessly walk through the various stacks. I came across a book about Hillary Clinton. It was actually a collection of roughly thirty articles written by thirty different female writers, about their perceptions of Senator Clinton, since she was catapulted on the national scene. As I thumbed through the pages, the thing that struck me was how virtually every writer did not like something about her, and suggested that she had failed to perform or behave in the manner desired by the writer, or the group which the writer felt she represented. (I conducted a Google Book Search to locate the book, and could not find it. However, take a look at the number of books written about her, and just scan the summaries to get a sense of the tone. (http://books.google.com/books?q=%22hillary+clinton%22&lr=&sa=N&start=0)
It appears that Senator Obama faces the same dilemma. Certain segments of the African-American population, which is clearly not monolithic, have certain expectations of him. Various groups within the Democratic Party have other expectations. The poor and the disenfranchised, along with the disillusioned, probably feel that he represents certain of their interests. The academic, intellectual types have different thoughts.
That we had two potential Democratic candidates, who would have been the first within their respective large subsets of our population, presented all sorts of problems for the voting public. Lots of folks, including former Clinton supporters, and perhaps even some moderate Republicans and Independents, now expect Senator Obama to champion their cause. It will not happen, and it is unrealistic to expect it to happen. Yet, we keep pressing them, meaning all politicians, as if they can represent the interests and desires of us all. John McCain has been criticized for seemingly backing away from his straight talking, maverick image, into a clone of the current President. Quite frankly, it would be great if the candidates could just be themselves. Those of us serving as parents to multiple children recognize the ridiculousness of such a concept.
What also happens is that when the various groups supporting a particular candidate have far too many expectations of their candidate, it opens the door for the opponents of that candidate to attack another aspect of the candidate’s platform. Every issue becomes an easy target. Of course, we all realize that all of these issues do not have equal weight and significance. If somehow, we as citizens could reduce what we expect out of a candidate to perhaps five or six primary positions, we might be able to reduce all of this irrational slicing and dicing that is the political campaign. A candidate focusing on those five or six primary positions might also do the voting public a service, in that he or she would remind us to focus on what is most important, and to avoid sweating the small stuff.
In the very first article which appeared on this blog, we discussed this issue in another context. In his overlooked work, The Disuniting of America, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v44/ai_12122328), legendary Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556940/Schlesinger_Arthur_Meier_Jr_.html) wrote of how the pursuit of individual self-interests by special interest groups has lead to America’s inability to unify its efforts. He wrote of the continuing disintegration of our society driven by the pursuit of individual goals, not collective goals. He wrote of how the first Gulf War was an aberration in terms of recent events which caused us to rally together, and also resulted in the first President Bush’s 82% approval rating at the time. Unfortunately, the current war in Iraq has had the opposite effect. Be that as it may, continuing in the direction of further dissection of our candidates does not bode well for either party. Perhaps, that is why an independent, third party may hold the most promise for America’s future.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
As simple as we like to make things for comprehension and managerial purposes, we all recognize the complexities associated with anything that involves human emotion. Such is the case with respect to those with whom we at least partially identify, and in whom we place our hopes.
Politicians are unusual animals. The circumstances surrounding their ascension to power virtually require that they be something less than straightforward and transparent. They are the personification of the Transformers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_%28toy_line%29) toy line. They simply have far too many different individuals and groups, not to mention interests, to please, other than their own. As the old 70’s song indicated, “Everybody wants me to be what they want me to be.”
Several months ago, this notion was brought home to me while conducting one of my regular bookstore walk-throughs. Roughly two or three times a week, I travel to the nearest Border’s or Barnes & Noble, and aimlessly walk through the various stacks. I came across a book about Hillary Clinton. It was actually a collection of roughly thirty articles written by thirty different female writers, about their perceptions of Senator Clinton, since she was catapulted on the national scene. As I thumbed through the pages, the thing that struck me was how virtually every writer did not like something about her, and suggested that she had failed to perform or behave in the manner desired by the writer, or the group which the writer felt she represented. (I conducted a Google Book Search to locate the book, and could not find it. However, take a look at the number of books written about her, and just scan the summaries to get a sense of the tone. (http://books.google.com/books?q=%22hillary+clinton%22&lr=&sa=N&start=0)
It appears that Senator Obama faces the same dilemma. Certain segments of the African-American population, which is clearly not monolithic, have certain expectations of him. Various groups within the Democratic Party have other expectations. The poor and the disenfranchised, along with the disillusioned, probably feel that he represents certain of their interests. The academic, intellectual types have different thoughts.
That we had two potential Democratic candidates, who would have been the first within their respective large subsets of our population, presented all sorts of problems for the voting public. Lots of folks, including former Clinton supporters, and perhaps even some moderate Republicans and Independents, now expect Senator Obama to champion their cause. It will not happen, and it is unrealistic to expect it to happen. Yet, we keep pressing them, meaning all politicians, as if they can represent the interests and desires of us all. John McCain has been criticized for seemingly backing away from his straight talking, maverick image, into a clone of the current President. Quite frankly, it would be great if the candidates could just be themselves. Those of us serving as parents to multiple children recognize the ridiculousness of such a concept.
What also happens is that when the various groups supporting a particular candidate have far too many expectations of their candidate, it opens the door for the opponents of that candidate to attack another aspect of the candidate’s platform. Every issue becomes an easy target. Of course, we all realize that all of these issues do not have equal weight and significance. If somehow, we as citizens could reduce what we expect out of a candidate to perhaps five or six primary positions, we might be able to reduce all of this irrational slicing and dicing that is the political campaign. A candidate focusing on those five or six primary positions might also do the voting public a service, in that he or she would remind us to focus on what is most important, and to avoid sweating the small stuff.
In the very first article which appeared on this blog, we discussed this issue in another context. In his overlooked work, The Disuniting of America, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v44/ai_12122328), legendary Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556940/Schlesinger_Arthur_Meier_Jr_.html) wrote of how the pursuit of individual self-interests by special interest groups has lead to America’s inability to unify its efforts. He wrote of the continuing disintegration of our society driven by the pursuit of individual goals, not collective goals. He wrote of how the first Gulf War was an aberration in terms of recent events which caused us to rally together, and also resulted in the first President Bush’s 82% approval rating at the time. Unfortunately, the current war in Iraq has had the opposite effect. Be that as it may, continuing in the direction of further dissection of our candidates does not bode well for either party. Perhaps, that is why an independent, third party may hold the most promise for America’s future.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Post No. 26: Did I Miss Something Here – So to Speak?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m neither particularly bright nor sophisticated. I often miss things that others consider obvious. Presumptive Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama suggested yesterday that American parents encourage their children to study Spanish as a second language. For our purposes at this point, let’s assume that you read nothing further in the paper or online, or that you listened no further to any news broadcasts, as to the circumstances surrounding his statement, or the context in which it was uttered. What would you have reasonably thought was the underlying motivation for his statement?
During the 1960’s, the study of a second language was a requirement in many secondary schools. By the time that I completed my first two years of college, I had six years of French under my belt. French made the transition to Spanish far easier when I lived in California. During the 1990s, various businesspeople, out of a desire to acquire business from Japanese firms, took Japanese immersion courses. Before traveling to Brazil and Italy, I studied conversational Portuguese and Italian in preparation for the trips. Probably of most relevance to this discussion is the fact that while teaching adult students seeking their GEDs at a local community college, I frequently recommended that they encourage their children to study Mandarin Chinese in light of the rising importance of China in the world.
Consequently, when I first heard of Senator Obama’s suggestion that parents encourage their children to study Spanish, I assumed that it was a positive suggestion, and perhaps benign at worst. Silly me. I naively thought that learning to communicate, with a significant segment of our Nation’s citizens and a major segment of the people living in this hemisphere, was a good thing. Silly me, again. By the end of yesterday, the media outlets were full of talking heads framing the Senator’s comments as those of an individual who supported illegal immigration, and necessarily opposed the effort to make English the official language of the United States.
Somebody please explain to me how any responsible, self-respecting commentator, or elected representative, could make such an argument. Is denigrating this man that important? Are the stakes that high? What message is conveyed to the youth of our Nation? We most certainly have an immigration problem. We most certainly need to figure out a way to ensure the assimilation and integration of other cultures into our “melting pot.” However, quite frankly, this appears to be the wrong vehicle to highlight our legitimate concerns about these issues. Do they regard us, the listening and voting public, as fools willing to accept any framed argument asserted against any candidate? Let’s hope that those of us listening to this crap maintain the ability to apply a little common sense.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m neither particularly bright nor sophisticated. I often miss things that others consider obvious. Presumptive Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama suggested yesterday that American parents encourage their children to study Spanish as a second language. For our purposes at this point, let’s assume that you read nothing further in the paper or online, or that you listened no further to any news broadcasts, as to the circumstances surrounding his statement, or the context in which it was uttered. What would you have reasonably thought was the underlying motivation for his statement?
During the 1960’s, the study of a second language was a requirement in many secondary schools. By the time that I completed my first two years of college, I had six years of French under my belt. French made the transition to Spanish far easier when I lived in California. During the 1990s, various businesspeople, out of a desire to acquire business from Japanese firms, took Japanese immersion courses. Before traveling to Brazil and Italy, I studied conversational Portuguese and Italian in preparation for the trips. Probably of most relevance to this discussion is the fact that while teaching adult students seeking their GEDs at a local community college, I frequently recommended that they encourage their children to study Mandarin Chinese in light of the rising importance of China in the world.
Consequently, when I first heard of Senator Obama’s suggestion that parents encourage their children to study Spanish, I assumed that it was a positive suggestion, and perhaps benign at worst. Silly me. I naively thought that learning to communicate, with a significant segment of our Nation’s citizens and a major segment of the people living in this hemisphere, was a good thing. Silly me, again. By the end of yesterday, the media outlets were full of talking heads framing the Senator’s comments as those of an individual who supported illegal immigration, and necessarily opposed the effort to make English the official language of the United States.
Somebody please explain to me how any responsible, self-respecting commentator, or elected representative, could make such an argument. Is denigrating this man that important? Are the stakes that high? What message is conveyed to the youth of our Nation? We most certainly have an immigration problem. We most certainly need to figure out a way to ensure the assimilation and integration of other cultures into our “melting pot.” However, quite frankly, this appears to be the wrong vehicle to highlight our legitimate concerns about these issues. Do they regard us, the listening and voting public, as fools willing to accept any framed argument asserted against any candidate? Let’s hope that those of us listening to this crap maintain the ability to apply a little common sense.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Post No. 25: Does Everyone Necessarily Have a Point of View?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring President Johnson’s inheritance of the Vietnam War, and the manner in which he dealt with the conflict. I mentioned to a buddy that, despite the fact that I was in the Army during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, I did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time, and that the documentary provided me with a better understanding. My buddy immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the documentary film maker. At the time, it really had not occurred to me. It was simply “information.” While I recognized that it theoretically might have been produced with a particular slant, or a particular political purpose in mind, those factors did not loom large in my appreciation of the piece.
There are two types of people who I generally hold in high regard. Those without an “agenda,” and those who recognize that everything is bigger than their pedestrian concerns. My particular definition of those individuals with an “agenda” includes folks who are always proselytizing, disseminating dogma, or passing extreme judgment on others. (Is judgment being passed on them now through this process?) Like those individuals who recognize that the world is bigger than their concerns, those without an “agenda” seemingly have a tendency to listen more, acquire information, and be slow to judge. Those rushing to judgment have always concerned me, and arguably, should concern us all.
We encountered this reactionary phenomenon recently while observing various discussions about our presidential candidates, and reviewing some comments in response to some of our recent posts. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the candidate who they do not support. Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s candidate a fatal thing to do in an elective contest? The number of times that we have heard commentators mention that neither Obama nor McCain has done anything worthwhile in life is absolutely fascinating. (Of course, many talk radio hosts behave as if they have made tremendous contributions to science and humankind, and the advancement of society’s long term interests.)
In one of our recent posts, we presented the views of a particular citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for a particular political party. One of the positions expressed was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to protect and defend our nation, and consequently those freedoms which we all enjoy. We simply 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. Interestingly, some readers felt that we were advocating treating citizens as slaves, 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. Some frequently assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position. To borrow a phrase, “Au contraire, mon frere.”
One thing which we have learned during the publishing of this blog is that when you raise theoretical questions and issues, you run the risk of people assuming that you have taken a position along one particular line regarding the issue. Why is that? They obviously have not read the piece from an unbiased perspective. Some have even suggested that no writer can achieve objectivity and put aside their personal biases. I wonder how judges do it, or do they? (Interestingly, it often seems that those individuals who are most offended by the posing of rhetorical questions are those who have hard and fast, unyielding positions themselves.) Our experience also highlighted something said by another writer, that being that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side, but rather 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. Let’s all rally around groupspeak.
There is so much negative, outlandish, and critical information disseminated daily about virtually every candidate in virtually every election in this nation. The reason is that negative information, particularly bearing on emotional, hot button issues, works. Does anyone really think that McCain plans to open up the border in Arizona and permit all undocumented workers to enter the country, as some of his detractors have argued? Does anyone really believe that should Obama be elected President, more Islamic mosques than Christian churches will be built during his tenure?
This junk is just that; however, it appears to work, at least for a significant segment of our population. We should all be concerned that the innermost “fears” of many may have an influence on the outcome of this election. (Maybe it always has. You will recall that there was a concern that by electing a Catholic, i.e. John Kennedy, the Pope would have too much of an influence in American politics.) What’s more troubling is that the manipulation of our fears is being orchestrated by heretofore, somewhat respected, well educated folks, on both sides of the aisle, who are more concerned about winning, than appealing to our good sense, logic, and fairness. Of course, America loves a winner, but are lies and misinformation any different than steroids in the quest to win?
It’s amazing that these “public servants” have any interest in running for office. The mere fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their families to this abuse suggests that something is a tad different about them. However, it may also keep prospective leaders, who could actually accomplish something of value, from coming up to the plate. Is this the environment in which we want to conduct the selection of our leaders? A totally objective viewer might conclude that none of the candidates in any election is worthy of being elected. What kind of “transformers” and actors are these folks, along with their handlers and consultants? Perhaps we deserve the lies and false promises fed to us so that they can get elected. Perhaps this can be viewed as a necessary evil and simply a means to an end, so that they can actually do something of value once they win the position. Hmmmh, is truth still the better choice, even if you do not win? Is there some value to being a noble loser who took the high ground?
One of my best friends was a college and professional level coach for many years. The phrase which I recall him repeating most frequently is, “Don’t judge.” What he was really saying was to listen, acquire and be open to more information, and do not rush to judgment. 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.
The next time that you read or hear something, 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. 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. As the old song during the 1970’s used to say, “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring President Johnson’s inheritance of the Vietnam War, and the manner in which he dealt with the conflict. I mentioned to a buddy that, despite the fact that I was in the Army during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, I did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time, and that the documentary provided me with a better understanding. My buddy immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the documentary film maker. At the time, it really had not occurred to me. It was simply “information.” While I recognized that it theoretically might have been produced with a particular slant, or a particular political purpose in mind, those factors did not loom large in my appreciation of the piece.
There are two types of people who I generally hold in high regard. Those without an “agenda,” and those who recognize that everything is bigger than their pedestrian concerns. My particular definition of those individuals with an “agenda” includes folks who are always proselytizing, disseminating dogma, or passing extreme judgment on others. (Is judgment being passed on them now through this process?) Like those individuals who recognize that the world is bigger than their concerns, those without an “agenda” seemingly have a tendency to listen more, acquire information, and be slow to judge. Those rushing to judgment have always concerned me, and arguably, should concern us all.
We encountered this reactionary phenomenon recently while observing various discussions about our presidential candidates, and reviewing some comments in response to some of our recent posts. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the candidate who they do not support. Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s candidate a fatal thing to do in an elective contest? The number of times that we have heard commentators mention that neither Obama nor McCain has done anything worthwhile in life is absolutely fascinating. (Of course, many talk radio hosts behave as if they have made tremendous contributions to science and humankind, and the advancement of society’s long term interests.)
In one of our recent posts, we presented the views of a particular citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for a particular political party. One of the positions expressed was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to protect and defend our nation, and consequently those freedoms which we all enjoy. We simply 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. Interestingly, some readers felt that we were advocating treating citizens as slaves, 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. Some frequently assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position. To borrow a phrase, “Au contraire, mon frere.”
One thing which we have learned during the publishing of this blog is that when you raise theoretical questions and issues, you run the risk of people assuming that you have taken a position along one particular line regarding the issue. Why is that? They obviously have not read the piece from an unbiased perspective. Some have even suggested that no writer can achieve objectivity and put aside their personal biases. I wonder how judges do it, or do they? (Interestingly, it often seems that those individuals who are most offended by the posing of rhetorical questions are those who have hard and fast, unyielding positions themselves.) Our experience also highlighted something said by another writer, that being that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side, but rather 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. Let’s all rally around groupspeak.
There is so much negative, outlandish, and critical information disseminated daily about virtually every candidate in virtually every election in this nation. The reason is that negative information, particularly bearing on emotional, hot button issues, works. Does anyone really think that McCain plans to open up the border in Arizona and permit all undocumented workers to enter the country, as some of his detractors have argued? Does anyone really believe that should Obama be elected President, more Islamic mosques than Christian churches will be built during his tenure?
This junk is just that; however, it appears to work, at least for a significant segment of our population. We should all be concerned that the innermost “fears” of many may have an influence on the outcome of this election. (Maybe it always has. You will recall that there was a concern that by electing a Catholic, i.e. John Kennedy, the Pope would have too much of an influence in American politics.) What’s more troubling is that the manipulation of our fears is being orchestrated by heretofore, somewhat respected, well educated folks, on both sides of the aisle, who are more concerned about winning, than appealing to our good sense, logic, and fairness. Of course, America loves a winner, but are lies and misinformation any different than steroids in the quest to win?
It’s amazing that these “public servants” have any interest in running for office. The mere fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their families to this abuse suggests that something is a tad different about them. However, it may also keep prospective leaders, who could actually accomplish something of value, from coming up to the plate. Is this the environment in which we want to conduct the selection of our leaders? A totally objective viewer might conclude that none of the candidates in any election is worthy of being elected. What kind of “transformers” and actors are these folks, along with their handlers and consultants? Perhaps we deserve the lies and false promises fed to us so that they can get elected. Perhaps this can be viewed as a necessary evil and simply a means to an end, so that they can actually do something of value once they win the position. Hmmmh, is truth still the better choice, even if you do not win? Is there some value to being a noble loser who took the high ground?
One of my best friends was a college and professional level coach for many years. The phrase which I recall him repeating most frequently is, “Don’t judge.” What he was really saying was to listen, acquire and be open to more information, and do not rush to judgment. 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.
The next time that you read or hear something, 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. 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. As the old song during the 1970’s used to say, “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Post 23: What Views Would the Members of a Truly Independent American Political Party Hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Post No. 22: Do We Have Something to Fear Other Than Fear Itself?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Radio and television talk show host Don Imus drew attention to himself again last week. Upon hearing his latest controversial statement, one’s response might have been that Imus could not have avoided criticism under any circumstances. (Disregard, for the time being, whether we truly know him intimately enough to enable us to judge the motives underlying the statement.)
In the future, he might avoid making any statements, which include any race-related words, since various negative assumptions will be made regarding his motives, even if his intent is to make a positive statement.
More disconcerting was the statement by the NFL player whose frequent run-ins with the law were at the center of Imus’ unfortunate expression. Arguably, Imus’ comment could have been viewed as a statement condemning the frequent stopping of African-Americans by law enforcement officials, or justifying it. However, “Pacman” Jones fairly quickly concluded that Imus “obviously has a problem with African-Americans.”
One can only assume that Jones has some direct link to Imus’ brain and heart, to permit him to make such an unequivocal assessment. Along a similar vein, an argument might be made that Jones “obviously has a problem with the law,” or that he “obviously has a problem disassociating himself from the criminal element.”
George Carlin, considered by some to be an iconic comedian, died last week. It is generally agreed that he expressed the views of the counter-culture element of our society. However, what stood out most significantly was the frequent reference, by those who remembered him, to the “fearless” nature of his comedy.
What did Carlin potentially have to fear? What did he say that posed so significant a potential danger that we needed to be leery of him? Was there a concern that what he said, or might say, could damage or harm a certain segment of our society?
So here we are considering whether it is good for members of society to avoid making certain comments, or discussing certain subjects, in a public setting. (Ignore for now that the statements could be true, and honestly uttered.)
Just to carry our discussion a little further, images are also a form of expression. Some of you may recall the controversy surrounding the pairing of O.J. Simpson and Elizabeth Montgomery, over twenty years ago, in a television murder mystery movie, and the backlash that befell the sponsors. But that was long ago, right?
Recently, while I was listening to, but not watching television, a commercial aired for Cascade, the dishwasher detergent. The voice-over contained an African-American accent. At first, I couldn’t figure out why that struck me odd. Then, for some unexplained reason, I turned around to see if an African-American face or image would also appear in the commercial.
Let me ask you. When was the last time that you can recall seeing an African-American woman in a commercial associated with cleaning anything – whether it be laundry detergent, floor wax, window cleaner, or garbage bags? How many years have sponsors avoided projecting certain images to play it safe? The corollary reality is that many of us avoid making certain statements to play it safe, out of concern for offending others.
In light of the risks associated with making certain statements, we obviously have to carefully evaluate the consequences, or perhaps some might say, the “potential punishment,” associated with making statements, though honest they may be.
Furthermore, if we are not entirely clear as to the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech/expression, most of us will steer far wide of the danger zone.
During the course of the development and evolution of this blog, we’ve been surprised at a number of things, particularly in the expression of speech arena. A number of regular readers have suggested that the content makes many uncomfortable.
Many have indicated that although they would like to respond honestly to some of the posts, they feel reluctant to do so. There is a concern that, even using a pseudonym, once their true thoughts are revealed to the public, they might suffer negative consequences.
There is a scene in one of the classic Hollywood movies where the local, irresponsible, rich kid, who is attending medical school, is confronted by a childhood friend. She questions his flippant attitude, and lack of sense of responsibility, considering the talent which she considers him to have.
She notes that he could do so much of a positive nature for so many. She then goes on to say, “Most of us have no choice but to live useless lives.”
This leads one to wonder, “What is a person if not his or her expression?” Is freedom of expression the essence of freedom?
What we should appreciate is that when any talk show host, religious leader, celebrity, politician, or other public figure, manages to generate a following or an audience, they run the risk of saying something controversial. However, that ought to be a good thing, because it causes us to periodically stop and think.
Imagine a world where everything said in the media is uttered within certain prescribed boundaries, where no one is offended, surprised, intrigued, inspired, or in some manner affected. Imagine where we would be as a society if every utterance was something that we already knew, or accepted, or with which the “expression police” were comfortable.
There is an argument to be made that in this competitive, free market environment that is America, the speech expressed by its citizens ought to be evaluated by the same competitive, free market forces.
A speaker should fail or succeed based on the quality of his content, and whether the citizens are willing to “buy” his or her expression.
We ultimately discard and ignore products of little or no value. Are we afraid to let the market place decide the fate of those making offensive comments, in the same way that we let the market place decide the fate of poor products?
We might discourage someone from expressing a new idea or concept, in the same way that we might discourage someone from developing a new product or service, if we discourage expression on the front end.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently accuse the other of failing to acknowledge the intelligence of the American people. If we are intelligent enough to assess and evaluate other issues and their value, why do we not possess enough intelligence to assess and evaluate (and thus accept or repudiate) personal expression, in whatever form it manifests itself?
There is something else that comes to mind. When we hear the rantings and ravings of callers as they express themselves on talk radio shows, we gain some insight into, and provide a forum for, a segment of our society that otherwise might go unnoticed and unheard.
Some would suggest that we might be a better society if they went unnoticed and unheard. However, isn’t it better for us to know with whom we are really dealing, and have a better appreciation of the issues and concerns of every segment of our society? Or is that something which certain forces do not want?
We are once again reminded of the words of the Laughingman:
“The worst conceivable way to silence one with whom we disagree is to stop him from talking. By doing so, you create a martyr to his similarly warped followers, and take him off the radar screen of the rest of the public. Had we, as a society, a bit thicker skins, we would broadcast these lunacies far and wide, with an appropriate apology to the more sensitive among us, demonstrate a little common sense for our fellow man, and let the fringe element drown in the laughter and public ridicule generated by their own thinking or lack thereof. Along with the right to free speech comes the right to make a public fool of oneself; and like the naked, fools have little or no influence on society.”
That is, of course, unless you are Lady Godiva or Angelina Jolie.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Radio and television talk show host Don Imus drew attention to himself again last week. Upon hearing his latest controversial statement, one’s response might have been that Imus could not have avoided criticism under any circumstances. (Disregard, for the time being, whether we truly know him intimately enough to enable us to judge the motives underlying the statement.)
In the future, he might avoid making any statements, which include any race-related words, since various negative assumptions will be made regarding his motives, even if his intent is to make a positive statement.
More disconcerting was the statement by the NFL player whose frequent run-ins with the law were at the center of Imus’ unfortunate expression. Arguably, Imus’ comment could have been viewed as a statement condemning the frequent stopping of African-Americans by law enforcement officials, or justifying it. However, “Pacman” Jones fairly quickly concluded that Imus “obviously has a problem with African-Americans.”
One can only assume that Jones has some direct link to Imus’ brain and heart, to permit him to make such an unequivocal assessment. Along a similar vein, an argument might be made that Jones “obviously has a problem with the law,” or that he “obviously has a problem disassociating himself from the criminal element.”
George Carlin, considered by some to be an iconic comedian, died last week. It is generally agreed that he expressed the views of the counter-culture element of our society. However, what stood out most significantly was the frequent reference, by those who remembered him, to the “fearless” nature of his comedy.
What did Carlin potentially have to fear? What did he say that posed so significant a potential danger that we needed to be leery of him? Was there a concern that what he said, or might say, could damage or harm a certain segment of our society?
So here we are considering whether it is good for members of society to avoid making certain comments, or discussing certain subjects, in a public setting. (Ignore for now that the statements could be true, and honestly uttered.)
Just to carry our discussion a little further, images are also a form of expression. Some of you may recall the controversy surrounding the pairing of O.J. Simpson and Elizabeth Montgomery, over twenty years ago, in a television murder mystery movie, and the backlash that befell the sponsors. But that was long ago, right?
Recently, while I was listening to, but not watching television, a commercial aired for Cascade, the dishwasher detergent. The voice-over contained an African-American accent. At first, I couldn’t figure out why that struck me odd. Then, for some unexplained reason, I turned around to see if an African-American face or image would also appear in the commercial.
Let me ask you. When was the last time that you can recall seeing an African-American woman in a commercial associated with cleaning anything – whether it be laundry detergent, floor wax, window cleaner, or garbage bags? How many years have sponsors avoided projecting certain images to play it safe? The corollary reality is that many of us avoid making certain statements to play it safe, out of concern for offending others.
In light of the risks associated with making certain statements, we obviously have to carefully evaluate the consequences, or perhaps some might say, the “potential punishment,” associated with making statements, though honest they may be.
Furthermore, if we are not entirely clear as to the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech/expression, most of us will steer far wide of the danger zone.
During the course of the development and evolution of this blog, we’ve been surprised at a number of things, particularly in the expression of speech arena. A number of regular readers have suggested that the content makes many uncomfortable.
Many have indicated that although they would like to respond honestly to some of the posts, they feel reluctant to do so. There is a concern that, even using a pseudonym, once their true thoughts are revealed to the public, they might suffer negative consequences.
There is a scene in one of the classic Hollywood movies where the local, irresponsible, rich kid, who is attending medical school, is confronted by a childhood friend. She questions his flippant attitude, and lack of sense of responsibility, considering the talent which she considers him to have.
She notes that he could do so much of a positive nature for so many. She then goes on to say, “Most of us have no choice but to live useless lives.”
This leads one to wonder, “What is a person if not his or her expression?” Is freedom of expression the essence of freedom?
What we should appreciate is that when any talk show host, religious leader, celebrity, politician, or other public figure, manages to generate a following or an audience, they run the risk of saying something controversial. However, that ought to be a good thing, because it causes us to periodically stop and think.
Imagine a world where everything said in the media is uttered within certain prescribed boundaries, where no one is offended, surprised, intrigued, inspired, or in some manner affected. Imagine where we would be as a society if every utterance was something that we already knew, or accepted, or with which the “expression police” were comfortable.
There is an argument to be made that in this competitive, free market environment that is America, the speech expressed by its citizens ought to be evaluated by the same competitive, free market forces.
A speaker should fail or succeed based on the quality of his content, and whether the citizens are willing to “buy” his or her expression.
We ultimately discard and ignore products of little or no value. Are we afraid to let the market place decide the fate of those making offensive comments, in the same way that we let the market place decide the fate of poor products?
We might discourage someone from expressing a new idea or concept, in the same way that we might discourage someone from developing a new product or service, if we discourage expression on the front end.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently accuse the other of failing to acknowledge the intelligence of the American people. If we are intelligent enough to assess and evaluate other issues and their value, why do we not possess enough intelligence to assess and evaluate (and thus accept or repudiate) personal expression, in whatever form it manifests itself?
There is something else that comes to mind. When we hear the rantings and ravings of callers as they express themselves on talk radio shows, we gain some insight into, and provide a forum for, a segment of our society that otherwise might go unnoticed and unheard.
Some would suggest that we might be a better society if they went unnoticed and unheard. However, isn’t it better for us to know with whom we are really dealing, and have a better appreciation of the issues and concerns of every segment of our society? Or is that something which certain forces do not want?
We are once again reminded of the words of the Laughingman:
“The worst conceivable way to silence one with whom we disagree is to stop him from talking. By doing so, you create a martyr to his similarly warped followers, and take him off the radar screen of the rest of the public. Had we, as a society, a bit thicker skins, we would broadcast these lunacies far and wide, with an appropriate apology to the more sensitive among us, demonstrate a little common sense for our fellow man, and let the fringe element drown in the laughter and public ridicule generated by their own thinking or lack thereof. Along with the right to free speech comes the right to make a public fool of oneself; and like the naked, fools have little or no influence on society.”
That is, of course, unless you are Lady Godiva or Angelina Jolie.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Post No. 21: The Solution to All of Our Fuel and Energy Issues
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
If you haven’t picked up on it by now, we strongly believe that most of us are far too quick to judge and take rigid positions on issues, without really “digging deep” to truly understand the numerous and complex factors underlying most issues. Most people have a tendency to entertain those positions consistent with their own, and vigorously oppose those positions with which they disagree. Why regular folks have to take such hard positions, on so many subjects, has often puzzled us. This rigidity limits our creativity as a people, and further limits our ability to craft new solutions to problems.
People who manage, and people who run things, have to take positions and proceed to get things done. They can not sit around indefinitely gathering information, since time and resources are limited. However, the rest of us might better spend our time gathering information leading to us being better informed, and not just entertain information that supports our point of view. As a result, we might develop a more informed electorate capable of sifting through the spin, sound bites, disinformation, and cryptic commentary disseminated by our leaders, be they corporate, religious, educational, parental, media and entertainment related, or political.
If you haven’t picked up on it by now, the primary purpose of this blog is to stimulate thought, not to take a position. If we remove but one shackle from your mind, then we’ve accomplished our goal. More knowledge reduces that probability that one will be manipulated by those disseminating their particular message. More information makes the body politic more responsible in the selection of its leaders. We don’t care which position you ultimately take; we just want to encourage you to consider information from all sources, and not just two or three of them, but perhaps fifteen or twenty of them (at a minimum). We’re more concerned about the thought process of examining and weighing all of the competing considerations, since we firmly believe that society can then craft better solutions to problems, and perform its responsibility.
We are amongst the unsophisticated of our society, and thus believe that there are no simplistic solutions to our energy situation. However, we strongly believe that America must “do something.” We also suspect that the average American citizen does not have a decent appreciation of all of the various conflicting factors, particularly those scientific, engineering, and historical in nature, which might be considered in developing practical solutions. Earlier today, on C-Span2 Book TV, a presentation was made by Robert Zubrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin), author of Energy Victory - Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil (http://books.google.com/books?id=KysvGQAACAAJ&dq=%22energy+victory%22&ei=f0xmSLzEC4KejgGgk8T9BQ). For those of you, who like us, are confused about all of this energy discussion, you might try to catch his presentation the next time that it is aired (http://www.booktv.org/schedule.aspx), or consider the purchase of his book.
He discusses numerous factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) percentages of oil production by country at different points in time during the last century; (b) ethanol; (c) methanol; (d) various other alcohols; (e) costs associated with producing different types of fuels; (f) cost differentials associated with producing oil by the current major oil producers; (g) environmental issues associated with various fuels; (h) effects on crops; (i) effects on food supply; (j) various materials out of which fuels can be made and their relative costs; (k) the status of diesel; (l) the technological and engineering issues associated with automobile manufacturer re-tooling; (m) the energy, power, or miles per gallon produced per unit cost for different types of fuels; (m) the technological and economic status of hybrid vehicles; (n) flex-fuel vehicles; (o) the geo-political ramifications of oil being in the hands of authoritarian regimes; and perhaps most interesting, (p) his position that the Allies won WWII because they had access to, or controlled, oil, and destroyed the German synthetic oil production facilities. (He also tells the story of how the Japanese produced thousands of Zeros during the last year of the war, but did not have the fuel for them to intercept the bombers that dropped the atomic bombs.)
For our purposes, his presentation was about the most comprehensive discussion about this whole issue which one could have in a very short period of time. Additionally, he presented the information in a manner in which the average citizen could understand it. Although there is no in-depth discussion of every single factor (although Zubrin packs in a lot of information by speaking very rapidly and with great passion), he definitely makes one appreciate the big picture. No matter the side of the aisle on which you sit on any of these issues, we would suggest at least taking the time to examine his itemization of the issues. It is a thought-provoking analysis.
Oh, by the way, Zubrin founded a group devoted to the manned exploration and development of Mars.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
If you haven’t picked up on it by now, we strongly believe that most of us are far too quick to judge and take rigid positions on issues, without really “digging deep” to truly understand the numerous and complex factors underlying most issues. Most people have a tendency to entertain those positions consistent with their own, and vigorously oppose those positions with which they disagree. Why regular folks have to take such hard positions, on so many subjects, has often puzzled us. This rigidity limits our creativity as a people, and further limits our ability to craft new solutions to problems.
People who manage, and people who run things, have to take positions and proceed to get things done. They can not sit around indefinitely gathering information, since time and resources are limited. However, the rest of us might better spend our time gathering information leading to us being better informed, and not just entertain information that supports our point of view. As a result, we might develop a more informed electorate capable of sifting through the spin, sound bites, disinformation, and cryptic commentary disseminated by our leaders, be they corporate, religious, educational, parental, media and entertainment related, or political.
If you haven’t picked up on it by now, the primary purpose of this blog is to stimulate thought, not to take a position. If we remove but one shackle from your mind, then we’ve accomplished our goal. More knowledge reduces that probability that one will be manipulated by those disseminating their particular message. More information makes the body politic more responsible in the selection of its leaders. We don’t care which position you ultimately take; we just want to encourage you to consider information from all sources, and not just two or three of them, but perhaps fifteen or twenty of them (at a minimum). We’re more concerned about the thought process of examining and weighing all of the competing considerations, since we firmly believe that society can then craft better solutions to problems, and perform its responsibility.
We are amongst the unsophisticated of our society, and thus believe that there are no simplistic solutions to our energy situation. However, we strongly believe that America must “do something.” We also suspect that the average American citizen does not have a decent appreciation of all of the various conflicting factors, particularly those scientific, engineering, and historical in nature, which might be considered in developing practical solutions. Earlier today, on C-Span2 Book TV, a presentation was made by Robert Zubrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin), author of Energy Victory - Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil (http://books.google.com/books?id=KysvGQAACAAJ&dq=%22energy+victory%22&ei=f0xmSLzEC4KejgGgk8T9BQ). For those of you, who like us, are confused about all of this energy discussion, you might try to catch his presentation the next time that it is aired (http://www.booktv.org/schedule.aspx), or consider the purchase of his book.
He discusses numerous factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) percentages of oil production by country at different points in time during the last century; (b) ethanol; (c) methanol; (d) various other alcohols; (e) costs associated with producing different types of fuels; (f) cost differentials associated with producing oil by the current major oil producers; (g) environmental issues associated with various fuels; (h) effects on crops; (i) effects on food supply; (j) various materials out of which fuels can be made and their relative costs; (k) the status of diesel; (l) the technological and engineering issues associated with automobile manufacturer re-tooling; (m) the energy, power, or miles per gallon produced per unit cost for different types of fuels; (m) the technological and economic status of hybrid vehicles; (n) flex-fuel vehicles; (o) the geo-political ramifications of oil being in the hands of authoritarian regimes; and perhaps most interesting, (p) his position that the Allies won WWII because they had access to, or controlled, oil, and destroyed the German synthetic oil production facilities. (He also tells the story of how the Japanese produced thousands of Zeros during the last year of the war, but did not have the fuel for them to intercept the bombers that dropped the atomic bombs.)
For our purposes, his presentation was about the most comprehensive discussion about this whole issue which one could have in a very short period of time. Additionally, he presented the information in a manner in which the average citizen could understand it. Although there is no in-depth discussion of every single factor (although Zubrin packs in a lot of information by speaking very rapidly and with great passion), he definitely makes one appreciate the big picture. No matter the side of the aisle on which you sit on any of these issues, we would suggest at least taking the time to examine his itemization of the issues. It is a thought-provoking analysis.
Oh, by the way, Zubrin founded a group devoted to the manned exploration and development of Mars.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Post No. 20: Water is Water, Isn't It?
Water is Water, Isn’t It?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
All of us recall, in some manner unique to each of us, the tragedy that was, and continues to be, Katrina. We all watched hours of news coverage, with reporters riding in boats and helicopters, and observed many a rescue from a roof top. That was three years ago this August, and we still have media and political commentators mentioning it frequently.
During the past couple of weeks, we watched the citizens of Iowa and Missouri deal with epic flooding. In fact, just this past week a nationally recognized meteorologist explained why this event was termed “the 500 year flood,” and summarized the evidence and records from the past that permitted us to characterize this event as such.
In Post No. 19, entitled Katrina, Iowa Style, after noting that President Bush, during his visit to Iowa last week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina, the following questions were posed on this blog about the federal government’s response to the Iowa flooding:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
All of us, before formulating judgments about anything in the world of current events, should probably take the time to gather our facts, conduct a little research, and even check our history books to ensure that our judgments are well founded and not tainted by bias. Despite an effort to be objective, something still seemed different about Katrina versus Iowa. Was it due to the media coverage, or lack thereof? Did the differences in population density have a different effect on us? Perhaps the different topography, or the rescue methods employed, provided a difference sense of tragedy.
Should you switch to CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC right now, you probably will not find coverage of the Iowa and Missouri flooding. Did we somehow become emotionally numb in light of the coverage of the intervening South Pacific tsunami and the Chinese earthquake? Why hasn’t there been as much discussion about class distinctions, and why haven’t the politicians attacked the local parties and elected officials in control with the same zeal as we saw three years ago? Has anyone tallied up the number of levees that have failed during the past two weeks, as contrasted to those that failed during Katrina?
Did Katrina occur during a slow news week? Why have we talked more about the flip flops by the presumptive presidential candidates for each party? Are the flip flops more important to us as a society than the impact of Mother Nature on the lives of the citizens of the two states? Who decides what is more important to be covered, and thus shapes our view of “current events?” Did New Orleans’ moral complexity contribute to our fascination with the events there? Have any ministers suggested that the citizens of Iowa and Missouri are being punished by God for their immoral behavior?
This is complex stuff, as are all news events. Are you at as much as much of a loss as I am with respect to trying to compare these two “Acts of God?”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
All of us recall, in some manner unique to each of us, the tragedy that was, and continues to be, Katrina. We all watched hours of news coverage, with reporters riding in boats and helicopters, and observed many a rescue from a roof top. That was three years ago this August, and we still have media and political commentators mentioning it frequently.
During the past couple of weeks, we watched the citizens of Iowa and Missouri deal with epic flooding. In fact, just this past week a nationally recognized meteorologist explained why this event was termed “the 500 year flood,” and summarized the evidence and records from the past that permitted us to characterize this event as such.
In Post No. 19, entitled Katrina, Iowa Style, after noting that President Bush, during his visit to Iowa last week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina, the following questions were posed on this blog about the federal government’s response to the Iowa flooding:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
All of us, before formulating judgments about anything in the world of current events, should probably take the time to gather our facts, conduct a little research, and even check our history books to ensure that our judgments are well founded and not tainted by bias. Despite an effort to be objective, something still seemed different about Katrina versus Iowa. Was it due to the media coverage, or lack thereof? Did the differences in population density have a different effect on us? Perhaps the different topography, or the rescue methods employed, provided a difference sense of tragedy.
Should you switch to CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC right now, you probably will not find coverage of the Iowa and Missouri flooding. Did we somehow become emotionally numb in light of the coverage of the intervening South Pacific tsunami and the Chinese earthquake? Why hasn’t there been as much discussion about class distinctions, and why haven’t the politicians attacked the local parties and elected officials in control with the same zeal as we saw three years ago? Has anyone tallied up the number of levees that have failed during the past two weeks, as contrasted to those that failed during Katrina?
Did Katrina occur during a slow news week? Why have we talked more about the flip flops by the presumptive presidential candidates for each party? Are the flip flops more important to us as a society than the impact of Mother Nature on the lives of the citizens of the two states? Who decides what is more important to be covered, and thus shapes our view of “current events?” Did New Orleans’ moral complexity contribute to our fascination with the events there? Have any ministers suggested that the citizens of Iowa and Missouri are being punished by God for their immoral behavior?
This is complex stuff, as are all news events. Are you at as much as much of a loss as I am with respect to trying to compare these two “Acts of God?”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, June 20, 2008
Post No. 19: Katrina, Iowa Style
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In late August of this year, it will have been three full years since Hurricane Katrina unleashed her fury on the Gulf Coast, with significant damage to the State of Louisiana. Additionally, we’ve all seen reports of what still remains to be done, and the manner in which the lives of many have been disrupted and have not yet returned to normal. In Post No. 8, the following questions were posed regarding the then current earthquake in China:
1. Three years from now, do you think that China will have done a better job of responding to its earthquake than America did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences in our cultures and governments that will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will China have repaired all of the physical damage within three years?
6. Will China have reconstructed the lives of all of the affected people within three years?
Over the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed epic flooding in the State of Iowa. President Bush, during his visit there earlier this week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina. The following questions are now posed with respect to the Iowa flooding, and the potential federal response:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
Please be sure to provide the basis for your positions. This, like the series of questions posed regarding the Chinese earthquake, should be interesting.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In late August of this year, it will have been three full years since Hurricane Katrina unleashed her fury on the Gulf Coast, with significant damage to the State of Louisiana. Additionally, we’ve all seen reports of what still remains to be done, and the manner in which the lives of many have been disrupted and have not yet returned to normal. In Post No. 8, the following questions were posed regarding the then current earthquake in China:
1. Three years from now, do you think that China will have done a better job of responding to its earthquake than America did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences in our cultures and governments that will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will China have repaired all of the physical damage within three years?
6. Will China have reconstructed the lives of all of the affected people within three years?
Over the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed epic flooding in the State of Iowa. President Bush, during his visit there earlier this week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina. The following questions are now posed with respect to the Iowa flooding, and the potential federal response:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
Please be sure to provide the basis for your positions. This, like the series of questions posed regarding the Chinese earthquake, should be interesting.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Monday, June 9, 2008
Post No. 18: How Radical Action Could Be a Good Thing Right Now.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
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
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
Monday, June 2, 2008
Post No. 15: Hmmm, Respect - That's a Novel Concept.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There is a childhood story that I often tell that illustrates the point which I would like for you to entertain. I was in the third grade. I had just finished using the boy’s bathroom, when someone sprayed some water about as I was about to leave. I instinctively placed my hands near my eyes, but kept walking out of the entrance, which was right next to the entrance to the girl's bathroom.
Unfortunately, while my vision was obscured, I bumped into another young girl, who I did not know, and hit her in the face. Somehow the event morphed into a premeditated, conscious assault on this young lady, for whom I had some unspecified ill will. I was taken to Mr. Cundiff’s room, and he promptly (since corporal punishment was condoned in those days) abused my rear end, while saying that I should never hit another female.
Perhaps it was simply an opportunity which he seized to teach me one of life’s lessons. However, I realized at that point that truth, honesty, and doing the right thing do not always work for you every single time. The preconceptions of others can be powerful. However, I always believed that in the long term, those principles would place one in good stead. It’s simply the right thing to do.
Perhaps it is because of my third grade experience that I have always tried to withhold judgment about certain events, until I considered the facts. I also appreciate that, lacking personal knowledge, and without first hand information from witnesses, one runs the risk of making a bad call. Additionally, we all must keep in mind that there are many other factors which potentially come into play, with the two most obvious being bias and motivation.
A friend of mine in corporate America reminded me that in the corporate setting, someone “speaking up” is frequently just looking to torpedo their career. That led me to query, “Why do people think that an employee who is uncomfortable with what is going on around him or her, would be motivated to, and should, bring up a controversial subject, or challenge his superiors, during the course of his employment?” I mean think about it. What would you do? To not take that factor into consideration is just plain crazy. It’s science fiction.
Most folks are financially dependent on their jobs. Questioning the appropriateness of the conduct of one’s superiors is problematic, to say the least. Most observers of large, bureaucratic organizations will attest to the fact that as the size of the organization grows, and the importance of the issue increases, the likelihood of the truth becoming an afterthought, if not irrelevant, increases accordingly. I don’t care how much spin you try to put on it.
This was hammered home last night as I watched a relative of Pat Tillman (who entered military service, deferred a potentially lucrative pro football career, and was deployed to Iraq) discuss, on C-Span 2, Book TV, how the Pentagon and Secretary Rumsfeld handled the friendly fire death of Tillman. She made a comment which hit home with me. Paraphrasing, she said that this democratic concept is supposed to be a pretty good system, closer to perfection than most. She continued that Tillman believed in, and fought and died for, this system. She just wants to see the system work to the best of its capability. She lamented that when we have less than straightforward and candid interaction with those in power, it adversely affects the system, and further erodes our faith in the system. She concluded that the enlistees, who bought into the program, along with their families, deserve to be treated with respect. (And that is separate and apart from the intellectual honesty that we also expect from our leaders.)
We need whistleblowers in our society, regardless of whether they are telling the truth. They force us to periodically revisit the internal, behind the scenes operations of our governmental agencies, and keep them honest. Just the act of conducting an investigation serves a useful function.
You tell me, did Scott McClellan do the right thing? I don’t know. Obviously you folks with hard positions, either way, are privy to first hand and credible information which has not been made available to the consuming public. Please share it with the rest of us. I’m sure that there are many others who would appreciate being equally well-informed....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There is a childhood story that I often tell that illustrates the point which I would like for you to entertain. I was in the third grade. I had just finished using the boy’s bathroom, when someone sprayed some water about as I was about to leave. I instinctively placed my hands near my eyes, but kept walking out of the entrance, which was right next to the entrance to the girl's bathroom.
Unfortunately, while my vision was obscured, I bumped into another young girl, who I did not know, and hit her in the face. Somehow the event morphed into a premeditated, conscious assault on this young lady, for whom I had some unspecified ill will. I was taken to Mr. Cundiff’s room, and he promptly (since corporal punishment was condoned in those days) abused my rear end, while saying that I should never hit another female.
Perhaps it was simply an opportunity which he seized to teach me one of life’s lessons. However, I realized at that point that truth, honesty, and doing the right thing do not always work for you every single time. The preconceptions of others can be powerful. However, I always believed that in the long term, those principles would place one in good stead. It’s simply the right thing to do.
Perhaps it is because of my third grade experience that I have always tried to withhold judgment about certain events, until I considered the facts. I also appreciate that, lacking personal knowledge, and without first hand information from witnesses, one runs the risk of making a bad call. Additionally, we all must keep in mind that there are many other factors which potentially come into play, with the two most obvious being bias and motivation.
A friend of mine in corporate America reminded me that in the corporate setting, someone “speaking up” is frequently just looking to torpedo their career. That led me to query, “Why do people think that an employee who is uncomfortable with what is going on around him or her, would be motivated to, and should, bring up a controversial subject, or challenge his superiors, during the course of his employment?” I mean think about it. What would you do? To not take that factor into consideration is just plain crazy. It’s science fiction.
Most folks are financially dependent on their jobs. Questioning the appropriateness of the conduct of one’s superiors is problematic, to say the least. Most observers of large, bureaucratic organizations will attest to the fact that as the size of the organization grows, and the importance of the issue increases, the likelihood of the truth becoming an afterthought, if not irrelevant, increases accordingly. I don’t care how much spin you try to put on it.
This was hammered home last night as I watched a relative of Pat Tillman (who entered military service, deferred a potentially lucrative pro football career, and was deployed to Iraq) discuss, on C-Span 2, Book TV, how the Pentagon and Secretary Rumsfeld handled the friendly fire death of Tillman. She made a comment which hit home with me. Paraphrasing, she said that this democratic concept is supposed to be a pretty good system, closer to perfection than most. She continued that Tillman believed in, and fought and died for, this system. She just wants to see the system work to the best of its capability. She lamented that when we have less than straightforward and candid interaction with those in power, it adversely affects the system, and further erodes our faith in the system. She concluded that the enlistees, who bought into the program, along with their families, deserve to be treated with respect. (And that is separate and apart from the intellectual honesty that we also expect from our leaders.)
We need whistleblowers in our society, regardless of whether they are telling the truth. They force us to periodically revisit the internal, behind the scenes operations of our governmental agencies, and keep them honest. Just the act of conducting an investigation serves a useful function.
You tell me, did Scott McClellan do the right thing? I don’t know. Obviously you folks with hard positions, either way, are privy to first hand and credible information which has not been made available to the consuming public. Please share it with the rest of us. I’m sure that there are many others who would appreciate being equally well-informed....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)