© 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
Friday, June 20, 2008
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
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Post No. 17: Why Hope Matters.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The dictionary defines “hope” as a “feeling that what is wanted will actually happen or occur.” Another definition is “a desire accompanied by expectation or anticipation.”
When I first started teaching community college adults seeking their GEDs, I immediately informed them that they needed to temper the clichéd message that they “could be anything that they wanted to be,” with the reality of the geographic and economic marketplace, in conjunction with a realistic appraisal of their skill set.
So how did a guy like me manage to go from a position that hope is a bunch of malarkey, to a position that it matters? It actually occurred in phases.
When I first moved back to the Southeast, after living in Southern California for thirty years, I noticed how many kids of grade school age walked aimlessly with no apparent direction, with their chins in their chests. Their eyes, more than anything, told me what was going on in their hearts and minds.
During my interaction with GED students at a local community college, I observed their frustrations and insecurities associated with improving their lives and the lives of their children. At some point, through a program called “Preparing for Success,” designed by Christina Gibson at the local community college, I noted a glimmer of enthusiasm.
Shortly thereafter, one of the instructors, the Optimizer, who is a part of our “It’s Your Turn ™” Team, indicated that he saw a dramatic and qualitative difference between those new students who had gone through the “Preparing for Success” program, and those who had not. I asked him what was different. He responded, “Hope. They had hope.”
The next step was when Bill Cosby and a Harvard professor appeared on the Sunday news talk show circuit, several months ago, to speak about ways in which people can take charge and improve their lives.
I was so impressed with their message that I uncharacteristically attended my Father’s church, and spoke to the kids about the difference between “faith,” and “hope.” I told them that hope requires some sense that the action taken will at least possibly yield some positive results flowing from one’s efforts. If one feels that nothing will be accomplished, one will not expend the effort. As I have often said, people change when they are sufficiently motivated to change.
The final step occurred when Caroline Kennedy endorsed candidate Obama. Kennedy crystallized a nebulous uncertainty in my mind. Those few, carefully delivered words did the trick for me. Paraphrasing, she essentially said that in her youth, she did not appreciate or comprehend what her Father meant to others. However, listening to the expression of feelings by others who were around when she was a youth, Obama instilled in her the same type of inspiration that those folks claimed her Father did for them.
It was at this point that I realized that hope matters. On a recent History Channel program regarding the year 1968, during which Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were both assassinated, the narrator also made the point that hope can be dashed.
You could call this an epiphany.
When you stop to think about it, hope is about efficiency. We essentially ask whether it’s worth one’s time, and we assess whether there is sufficient motivation to justify an expenditure of one’s energy.
I’m a changed man. Having always had hope (without actually calling it that), some modicum of confidence, and a sense of choices or options, I never really valued the concept of hope. Having now encountered folks without a similar view of the world, I now appreciate the importance and power of the concept.
In these uncertain times, such a sense looms large in importance. No matter what you may think of Obama’s policies and positions, you must admit that he moves millions of people. Perhaps he has reinvigorated hope in many previously disillusioned citizens. It will have all been worth it, if, as a result of his mere participation, that concept is revived for a larger segment of our citizenry, even if he doesn’t win.
Hope is the difference between what you have to do and what you want to do. It is what gets us up before the alarm goes off and sends us to bed early with tomorrow’s reading. Hope is the difference between spending an hour in the gym and an hour in a gin mill. Hope is the difference between anticipation and avoidance. Hope matters.
Apparently a significant segment of our population is having difficulty sensing this concept within the operating philosophy of our current administration. And thus is my explanation for the groundswell of enthusiasm surrounding his candidacy….
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The dictionary defines “hope” as a “feeling that what is wanted will actually happen or occur.” Another definition is “a desire accompanied by expectation or anticipation.”
When I first started teaching community college adults seeking their GEDs, I immediately informed them that they needed to temper the clichéd message that they “could be anything that they wanted to be,” with the reality of the geographic and economic marketplace, in conjunction with a realistic appraisal of their skill set.
So how did a guy like me manage to go from a position that hope is a bunch of malarkey, to a position that it matters? It actually occurred in phases.
When I first moved back to the Southeast, after living in Southern California for thirty years, I noticed how many kids of grade school age walked aimlessly with no apparent direction, with their chins in their chests. Their eyes, more than anything, told me what was going on in their hearts and minds.
During my interaction with GED students at a local community college, I observed their frustrations and insecurities associated with improving their lives and the lives of their children. At some point, through a program called “Preparing for Success,” designed by Christina Gibson at the local community college, I noted a glimmer of enthusiasm.
Shortly thereafter, one of the instructors, the Optimizer, who is a part of our “It’s Your Turn ™” Team, indicated that he saw a dramatic and qualitative difference between those new students who had gone through the “Preparing for Success” program, and those who had not. I asked him what was different. He responded, “Hope. They had hope.”
The next step was when Bill Cosby and a Harvard professor appeared on the Sunday news talk show circuit, several months ago, to speak about ways in which people can take charge and improve their lives.
I was so impressed with their message that I uncharacteristically attended my Father’s church, and spoke to the kids about the difference between “faith,” and “hope.” I told them that hope requires some sense that the action taken will at least possibly yield some positive results flowing from one’s efforts. If one feels that nothing will be accomplished, one will not expend the effort. As I have often said, people change when they are sufficiently motivated to change.
The final step occurred when Caroline Kennedy endorsed candidate Obama. Kennedy crystallized a nebulous uncertainty in my mind. Those few, carefully delivered words did the trick for me. Paraphrasing, she essentially said that in her youth, she did not appreciate or comprehend what her Father meant to others. However, listening to the expression of feelings by others who were around when she was a youth, Obama instilled in her the same type of inspiration that those folks claimed her Father did for them.
It was at this point that I realized that hope matters. On a recent History Channel program regarding the year 1968, during which Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were both assassinated, the narrator also made the point that hope can be dashed.
You could call this an epiphany.
When you stop to think about it, hope is about efficiency. We essentially ask whether it’s worth one’s time, and we assess whether there is sufficient motivation to justify an expenditure of one’s energy.
I’m a changed man. Having always had hope (without actually calling it that), some modicum of confidence, and a sense of choices or options, I never really valued the concept of hope. Having now encountered folks without a similar view of the world, I now appreciate the importance and power of the concept.
In these uncertain times, such a sense looms large in importance. No matter what you may think of Obama’s policies and positions, you must admit that he moves millions of people. Perhaps he has reinvigorated hope in many previously disillusioned citizens. It will have all been worth it, if, as a result of his mere participation, that concept is revived for a larger segment of our citizenry, even if he doesn’t win.
Hope is the difference between what you have to do and what you want to do. It is what gets us up before the alarm goes off and sends us to bed early with tomorrow’s reading. Hope is the difference between spending an hour in the gym and an hour in a gin mill. Hope is the difference between anticipation and avoidance. Hope matters.
Apparently a significant segment of our population is having difficulty sensing this concept within the operating philosophy of our current administration. And thus is my explanation for the groundswell of enthusiasm surrounding his candidacy….
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, June 6, 2008
Post No. 16: Never Underestimate the Power of Laughter.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
We are all aware of the numerous instances, during the past year, where prominent individuals were severely criticized for comments that some termed “offensive,” or “inappropriate.” (One of the most widely covered was the comment by Don Imus regarding the predominantly black female basketball team which won the National Collegiate Athletic Association championship.
Ironically, in that instance, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who typically argues that there are numerous ways to view situations, recommended one of the harshest forms of response, thus suggesting that there was only one “right thing to do.”)
Many commentators suggested various responses to deal with the offending speakers, essentially saying that we as a society need to make a statement and ensure that folks do not regularly engage in such speech.
The ladies in question were the essence of grace. They had, after all, just brought home a national basketball championship to an academic institution that invests precious little in sports championships of any sort. Their composure and compassion under attack shamed Shock Jock Imus into a rarely observed heart felt apology.
Virtually all of us would agree that there was virtually no explanation, or justification, for his statement that would have made sense to us.
Following the revelations about the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. John Hagee, the talkingheads had much to say about how the respective candidates should have responded.
However, no one suggested that their churches be “taken away.” It is my understanding that Wright is retired, and thus there is nothing to take away, and Hagee is far too integral to remove him from the church which he built.
However, following the mocking, by a Catholic priest, of candidate Clinton in Chicago recently, not only did the local Archbishop chastise the priest, but so did a representative of a group of Catholic women. She said, in essence, that the priest’s comments did not reflect the Catholic faith, did not reflect the Catholic Church, scandalized them, and that he should have his church taken away from him.
Ever since she reacted in that fashion, I thought of this issue in free speech, legalistic terms. Of course, my colleague, the Laughingman, brought me back to reality, and provided instant clarity to the whole situation.
I called him up and asked him how should we, as a society, deal with this type of situation, so that we ultimately do the right thing. His response, which follows, was instructive:
“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.”
Laughingman is a tad more of an activist than I; however, he is essentially correct. Let me show you how.
Yesterday, I heard a news report regarding some Minnesota high school kids who took a Confederate flag to school. The kids were banned from their graduation exercises because of their conduct. One of them, as he sat on the back of a pick up truck, said that he was about as far away from being a racist as one could get. However, they both said that they wanted to make a statement about independence, and the freedom of one to express oneself.
Appearing on CNN yesterday morning, I’m sure that they now have a following consisting of hundreds of thousands of sympathizers. It probably would have been better to simply let them attend their graduation ceremonies, assuming that no further conduct was involved which might have lead to violence or some other disruptive behavior.
I considered entitling this article, “Ignoring People – A Novel Thought,” and then I remembered that as Americans, we always have to make sure that we punish folks with whom we disagree. It, unfortunately, is built into who we are as a people. Perhaps once we learn to ignore those making statements which we consider offensive or inappropriate, they’ll flog themselves, and we as a public will find no need to punish them.
In the immortal words of the famous Forrest Gump; “Stupid is as stupid does.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
We are all aware of the numerous instances, during the past year, where prominent individuals were severely criticized for comments that some termed “offensive,” or “inappropriate.” (One of the most widely covered was the comment by Don Imus regarding the predominantly black female basketball team which won the National Collegiate Athletic Association championship.
Ironically, in that instance, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who typically argues that there are numerous ways to view situations, recommended one of the harshest forms of response, thus suggesting that there was only one “right thing to do.”)
Many commentators suggested various responses to deal with the offending speakers, essentially saying that we as a society need to make a statement and ensure that folks do not regularly engage in such speech.
The ladies in question were the essence of grace. They had, after all, just brought home a national basketball championship to an academic institution that invests precious little in sports championships of any sort. Their composure and compassion under attack shamed Shock Jock Imus into a rarely observed heart felt apology.
Virtually all of us would agree that there was virtually no explanation, or justification, for his statement that would have made sense to us.
Following the revelations about the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. John Hagee, the talkingheads had much to say about how the respective candidates should have responded.
However, no one suggested that their churches be “taken away.” It is my understanding that Wright is retired, and thus there is nothing to take away, and Hagee is far too integral to remove him from the church which he built.
However, following the mocking, by a Catholic priest, of candidate Clinton in Chicago recently, not only did the local Archbishop chastise the priest, but so did a representative of a group of Catholic women. She said, in essence, that the priest’s comments did not reflect the Catholic faith, did not reflect the Catholic Church, scandalized them, and that he should have his church taken away from him.
Ever since she reacted in that fashion, I thought of this issue in free speech, legalistic terms. Of course, my colleague, the Laughingman, brought me back to reality, and provided instant clarity to the whole situation.
I called him up and asked him how should we, as a society, deal with this type of situation, so that we ultimately do the right thing. His response, which follows, was instructive:
“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.”
Laughingman is a tad more of an activist than I; however, he is essentially correct. Let me show you how.
Yesterday, I heard a news report regarding some Minnesota high school kids who took a Confederate flag to school. The kids were banned from their graduation exercises because of their conduct. One of them, as he sat on the back of a pick up truck, said that he was about as far away from being a racist as one could get. However, they both said that they wanted to make a statement about independence, and the freedom of one to express oneself.
Appearing on CNN yesterday morning, I’m sure that they now have a following consisting of hundreds of thousands of sympathizers. It probably would have been better to simply let them attend their graduation ceremonies, assuming that no further conduct was involved which might have lead to violence or some other disruptive behavior.
I considered entitling this article, “Ignoring People – A Novel Thought,” and then I remembered that as Americans, we always have to make sure that we punish folks with whom we disagree. It, unfortunately, is built into who we are as a people. Perhaps once we learn to ignore those making statements which we consider offensive or inappropriate, they’ll flog themselves, and we as a public will find no need to punish them.
In the immortal words of the famous Forrest Gump; “Stupid is as stupid does.”
© 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
Post No. 14: A Tribute to Mel's Mother
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In my Article No. 6, entitled A Few Thoughts on the Qualifications for Parenthood, I raised some theoretical issues which a prospective parent, or a governmental entity regulating the conduct of parents, might consider in a carefully orchestrated, Utopian world. Of course, it was simply an intellectual exercise designed to stimulate thought.
However, during the course of writing the piece, I was reminded of an article written by Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times some years ago in the vicinity of Father’s Day. Morrison recounted a number of newsworthy stories about failures in parenting, and their unfortunate consequences. She then went on to thank her parents for being “normal.” Of course, she did not define normal, other than to say that whatever they did worked, and resulted in Morrison being a positive and productive member of society.
At the time that I read Morrison’s article, I thought about the various ways in which parents confront parenting issues. Parents can take affirmative action in certain regards, thus encouraging their children to explore the world outside the family. They can also take affirmative steps by placing restrictions on the conduct, or engage in protective or punitive conduct. They can also choose not to take action, or not respond to certain conduct on the part of their kids.
Morrison spoke of how we hear so much of the parents who fail, and so little about the successful ones. I thought of that Saturday when I received word from Mel, my friend of thirty years, that his 93 year old Mother had passed. In his brief, but eloquently worded message regarding his Mother, he noted, “Throughout her life the one attitude I never saw her manifest in anyway was "Why me?" Even during her darkest hours she was only able to see the many blessings God had given her.” That’s a pretty powerful statement for one to choose to describe the essence of one’s Mother.
I never met Mel’s Mother. However, I tried to envision who she was by thinking about Mel, and how his Mother’s influence must have had a significant and positive effect, on Mel, and who he is as a human being. In my workshops, I often describe the antithesis of Mel’s Mother’s attitude as the “victim mentality.” Lots of things come with thinking of oneself as a victim. Blame is inappropriately directed to others. One’s own responsibility is typically difficult to recognize. One’s functioning as an adult become problematic. Mel is none of these things. He’s just about one of the most responsible guys that you would ever want to meet. And there are some other positive attributes which Mel’s Mother obviously passed on to Mel, consisting of Mel’s irrepressible positive energy, his ability to laugh, his ability to appreciate the world outside of himself, his internal consistency, and his refusal to think negatively of others. I always felt that Mel was genuinely surprised at the dark side of humans, when he witnessed it.
By simply reflecting on this one brief statement by Mel, I realized the power that a parent can exert on a child, in a positive sense. Stop and think about that each time that you engage your children, or the children of others, and you are in the midst of anger, condemnation, jealousy, spite, or you feel that you have been treated unfairly or discriminated against. Take the higher ground, like Mel’s Mother. It will have far more positive, long term ramifications.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In my Article No. 6, entitled A Few Thoughts on the Qualifications for Parenthood, I raised some theoretical issues which a prospective parent, or a governmental entity regulating the conduct of parents, might consider in a carefully orchestrated, Utopian world. Of course, it was simply an intellectual exercise designed to stimulate thought.
However, during the course of writing the piece, I was reminded of an article written by Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times some years ago in the vicinity of Father’s Day. Morrison recounted a number of newsworthy stories about failures in parenting, and their unfortunate consequences. She then went on to thank her parents for being “normal.” Of course, she did not define normal, other than to say that whatever they did worked, and resulted in Morrison being a positive and productive member of society.
At the time that I read Morrison’s article, I thought about the various ways in which parents confront parenting issues. Parents can take affirmative action in certain regards, thus encouraging their children to explore the world outside the family. They can also take affirmative steps by placing restrictions on the conduct, or engage in protective or punitive conduct. They can also choose not to take action, or not respond to certain conduct on the part of their kids.
Morrison spoke of how we hear so much of the parents who fail, and so little about the successful ones. I thought of that Saturday when I received word from Mel, my friend of thirty years, that his 93 year old Mother had passed. In his brief, but eloquently worded message regarding his Mother, he noted, “Throughout her life the one attitude I never saw her manifest in anyway was "Why me?" Even during her darkest hours she was only able to see the many blessings God had given her.” That’s a pretty powerful statement for one to choose to describe the essence of one’s Mother.
I never met Mel’s Mother. However, I tried to envision who she was by thinking about Mel, and how his Mother’s influence must have had a significant and positive effect, on Mel, and who he is as a human being. In my workshops, I often describe the antithesis of Mel’s Mother’s attitude as the “victim mentality.” Lots of things come with thinking of oneself as a victim. Blame is inappropriately directed to others. One’s own responsibility is typically difficult to recognize. One’s functioning as an adult become problematic. Mel is none of these things. He’s just about one of the most responsible guys that you would ever want to meet. And there are some other positive attributes which Mel’s Mother obviously passed on to Mel, consisting of Mel’s irrepressible positive energy, his ability to laugh, his ability to appreciate the world outside of himself, his internal consistency, and his refusal to think negatively of others. I always felt that Mel was genuinely surprised at the dark side of humans, when he witnessed it.
By simply reflecting on this one brief statement by Mel, I realized the power that a parent can exert on a child, in a positive sense. Stop and think about that each time that you engage your children, or the children of others, and you are in the midst of anger, condemnation, jealousy, spite, or you feel that you have been treated unfairly or discriminated against. Take the higher ground, like Mel’s Mother. It will have far more positive, long term ramifications.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Post No.13: No More Smoke and Mirrors, Please
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Truth be Told. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, I wrote a piece which I shared with some friends, but did not publish or otherwise make available to the public. In that piece, I spoke of how the citizens, most severely affected by Katrina, would soon be forgotten, and ultimately dismissed. Why? They are, for the most part, a class of people who do not “matter” or have much influence in our society. Let me chat for a minute about what “matter" means.
The reality is that in America, we have neither the political will nor the motivation to ensure that everyone maintains at least some subsistence level of existence. Recognizing that practical reality, we as a society take whatever steps to ignore, sweep aside, or cover the sore that is poverty, with no real intention of addressing it.
This segment of the population, on a practical level, does not matter. It is not a battle worth fighting from the perspective of the power structure. It’s not cost-effective. There are other ways, perhaps not particularly pleasant, but at least effective, to deal with it.
But this is nothing new. What’s new or different about now? It is actually reflected in the brave young men and women who make up our military. I’ve had the opportunity to meet many a soldier in airports over the last couple of years. Virtually all of them served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The story is the same every time. Initially, they saw themselves as patriots, performing a valuable service. They envisioned that the probable rewards were worth the personal risks. As time went on however, their purpose and mission became less clear. The service drilled into them that they should not question authority, nor speak derisively about their leaders, and therefore they did not do so.
This is a volunteer force – they stepped up and answered the call, and we still dismiss them. The vast majority of them are from the same type of families and situations that comprised the vast majority of those most severely affected by Katrina – the poor and disenfranchised. (I guarantee you that if we still had the draft, drawing from a far wider cross-section of society, this whole situation would be treated very differently.)
John Kerry actually got it right when he flubbed the “joke.” It wasn’t a joke. It would have been helpful if he had the guts to acknowledge that.
I am sure that last week most of you missed that the Pentagon and the Administration opposed a proposal that an education bill, similar to the G.I. Bill enacted after World War II, be extended to our Iraq War vets. On what grounds you ask? They were concerned about how such a “benefit” might discourage continued service in the military. God forbid these folks come back to the States, get an education, and truly enter the ranks of the middle class.
Being the optimist, I actually see a positive side to this. Virtually nothing that this Administration promised the American people, during it campaign, has come to fruition. Eight years of confusion and misdirection have paved the path for the re-emergence of that rare, but powerful, force in politics – the Truth, which translates into credibility. We’re at the point where we can not take it any more, and do it with a straight face. That translates into abysmal approval ratings. We’re spending money on maintaining order in some foreign land, and can not maintain order in the streets of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Detroit. We’re building an infrastructure in a foreign land, while ours crumbles. We’re investing capital in some other nation’s long term interests, while we ignore ours. This is not to mention that we’re letting others in our borders, while many of our citizens hunt for jobs on a daily basis. I wish that someone would explain this situation to me with a straight face.
Fortunately, the young folks fighting over there are pretty sharp, and they see through the spin and magic. One has to be on high alert, and not asleep at the switch, in order to simply survive. They also have friends and relatives, and the hearts of the American public. As my friend Laughingman recently noted, “We taught these youngsters to live their lives so that they would have no regrets for past actions, or remorse for lost opportunities. They took us at our word, but they are now holding up our record of performance, or lack thereof, to an unforgiving light. Do not be surprised if they come out en masse to beat the drums for a man whose very presence on the political platform epitomizes change.”
Our children are mad as hell, and they aren't willing to take it anymore. They know that doing the right thing is not rocket science, and that it is not that difficult a concept to appreciate. As legendary ad man Bill Bernback once suggested, "I've got a neat gimmick - let’s tell the truth."
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Truth be Told. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, I wrote a piece which I shared with some friends, but did not publish or otherwise make available to the public. In that piece, I spoke of how the citizens, most severely affected by Katrina, would soon be forgotten, and ultimately dismissed. Why? They are, for the most part, a class of people who do not “matter” or have much influence in our society. Let me chat for a minute about what “matter" means.
The reality is that in America, we have neither the political will nor the motivation to ensure that everyone maintains at least some subsistence level of existence. Recognizing that practical reality, we as a society take whatever steps to ignore, sweep aside, or cover the sore that is poverty, with no real intention of addressing it.
This segment of the population, on a practical level, does not matter. It is not a battle worth fighting from the perspective of the power structure. It’s not cost-effective. There are other ways, perhaps not particularly pleasant, but at least effective, to deal with it.
But this is nothing new. What’s new or different about now? It is actually reflected in the brave young men and women who make up our military. I’ve had the opportunity to meet many a soldier in airports over the last couple of years. Virtually all of them served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The story is the same every time. Initially, they saw themselves as patriots, performing a valuable service. They envisioned that the probable rewards were worth the personal risks. As time went on however, their purpose and mission became less clear. The service drilled into them that they should not question authority, nor speak derisively about their leaders, and therefore they did not do so.
This is a volunteer force – they stepped up and answered the call, and we still dismiss them. The vast majority of them are from the same type of families and situations that comprised the vast majority of those most severely affected by Katrina – the poor and disenfranchised. (I guarantee you that if we still had the draft, drawing from a far wider cross-section of society, this whole situation would be treated very differently.)
John Kerry actually got it right when he flubbed the “joke.” It wasn’t a joke. It would have been helpful if he had the guts to acknowledge that.
I am sure that last week most of you missed that the Pentagon and the Administration opposed a proposal that an education bill, similar to the G.I. Bill enacted after World War II, be extended to our Iraq War vets. On what grounds you ask? They were concerned about how such a “benefit” might discourage continued service in the military. God forbid these folks come back to the States, get an education, and truly enter the ranks of the middle class.
Being the optimist, I actually see a positive side to this. Virtually nothing that this Administration promised the American people, during it campaign, has come to fruition. Eight years of confusion and misdirection have paved the path for the re-emergence of that rare, but powerful, force in politics – the Truth, which translates into credibility. We’re at the point where we can not take it any more, and do it with a straight face. That translates into abysmal approval ratings. We’re spending money on maintaining order in some foreign land, and can not maintain order in the streets of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Detroit. We’re building an infrastructure in a foreign land, while ours crumbles. We’re investing capital in some other nation’s long term interests, while we ignore ours. This is not to mention that we’re letting others in our borders, while many of our citizens hunt for jobs on a daily basis. I wish that someone would explain this situation to me with a straight face.
Fortunately, the young folks fighting over there are pretty sharp, and they see through the spin and magic. One has to be on high alert, and not asleep at the switch, in order to simply survive. They also have friends and relatives, and the hearts of the American public. As my friend Laughingman recently noted, “We taught these youngsters to live their lives so that they would have no regrets for past actions, or remorse for lost opportunities. They took us at our word, but they are now holding up our record of performance, or lack thereof, to an unforgiving light. Do not be surprised if they come out en masse to beat the drums for a man whose very presence on the political platform epitomizes change.”
Our children are mad as hell, and they aren't willing to take it anymore. They know that doing the right thing is not rocket science, and that it is not that difficult a concept to appreciate. As legendary ad man Bill Bernback once suggested, "I've got a neat gimmick - let’s tell the truth."
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, May 30, 2008
Post No. 12: What I Hope We Learn from Scott McClellan
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
“Doing the right thing is not rocket science.”
This is the mantra that my good friend Laughingman has been pounding in my head for going on thirteen or more years, and with more frequency since I started this blog. Laughingman is the Senior Fellow and Founder of the Institute for Applied Common Sense. When I first met him and he handed me his card, I was immediately taken with the concept, although I did not quite understand what it meant.
Being a linear thinker and not particularly bright, it’s taken me a while to develop some appreciation of the application of common sense. This “event” involving Scott McClellan, and his experiences while serving as the White House Press Secretary in President Bush’s administration, has served to further develop my appreciation of the concept. Work with me for a while.
After practicing law and providing business management consulting services for a total of over 25 years, which were followed by a major personal failure, I decided to re-invent myself and become a motivational speaker. I teamed up with Laughingman, and other baby boomers around the country, and developed a number of products. Our team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and universities to engage students in a discussion about personal responsibility.
We will utilize adults, like me, who have encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision theory. Our goals are the following: (a) to provoke thought; (b) to encourage students to consider their choices in life; (c) to assist students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the consequences; and (d) to have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices. Our ultimate goal is to come up with some fresh, new ways to address their personal and societal issues.
One of the goals which we will achieve, during our discussion of issues, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of the problems that we encounter, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by the symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions. The articles appearing on our site reflect the type of thought process and critical thinking through which we will navigate students in our sessions. These articles are precursors to the content that will be delivered during our workshops and other projects.
Getting back to doing the “right thing,” I first misunderstood the concept in that I felt that by suggesting that there is a “right way” to do something, one implicitly suggests that there is no other way to do something and still have it be “right.” And then I thought about it. I recalled that there were many times during law firm partnership meetings, that we had to deal with some uncomfortable issue or event. What always amazed me was the fact that you could have ten different attorneys in the room evaluating the situation, and have every, single one of them say, “Why didn’t they do X?” I realized that when you have a unanimous appreciation of the appropriate or “right” course of action to take, it is a powerful force.
In thinking about Scott McClellan, I kept saying to myself that I did not want to judge either side, and take a position, if for no other reason than I did not have any first hand information. So how was I supposed to deal with this? It was really bothering me, and then it came to me. For purposes of this analysis, I decided to assume that both sides were telling the truth, as I had during the case of the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill hearings. (By the way, in that situation, I really did feel that they were both telling the truth; here, it is a fiction created for analytical purposes.) By doing so, it allowed me to immediately go to the next place, and ask, “How did this happen?”
The answer? It came about simply as a result of people in the Administration not being straight with us. It doesn’t matter who it was. It does matter when it was. Shakespeare got it “right” by noting, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.”
This ain’t rocket science. You know that we’ve been deceived about numerous issues on various occasions. It does not matter which ones. It also does not matter the political party or President in office. Bill Clinton was no better; he was just smoother. It is interesting that perhaps the straightest shooter, Jimmy Carter, did not fare well. Unfortunately, being less than straight in political office has become the norm. There’s too much spin; and too many attacks on messengers and those who dare question suspicious conduct. You see how this is not rocket science? If the members of the Administration had been straight with the American public on a regular basis, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s the first example of how they could have done the right thing.
Let’s move on to the second. You will recall that many people came to Bill Clinton’s defense when the Monica Lewinsky allegations first surfaced. Madeline Albright and others hit the talk show circuit and the pavement, and passionately defended their president, and took heat for him. When he finally fessed up, they all looked like fools. To put his friends and loyal staff out there to later be embarrassed was, in my opinion, far worse than any impeachable offense. It was simply wrong. Encouraging your friends to extend their necks on your behalf based on a lie, is simply wrong, no two ways about it. Clinton could have done the right thing in the first instance by simply telling the truth, and not placing his friends in that situation. This is not a moral judgment, but rather a common sense judgment. I can almost guarantee you that Scott feels that he was misled and hung out to dry on something. Once again, it does not matter the issue.
Former President Clinton provides me with material to discuss a third example of what potentially could have been a right thing to do. Once he was caught up in his web, he should have realized that the work that he tried to accomplish on behalf of the Democratic Party was bigger than the man. He should have simply resigned, and let his Vice President, Al Gore, take over, and continue the policies of his Administration. Instead, Clinton made himself the issue, and not the causes and policies supported by his supporters. Example number three - we should all be reminded that everything is bigger than we are. When what we do hurts the bigger cause, we should re-evaluate our involvement, and consider changing course.
I am somewhat concerned that we have reached a point in our political evolution where an elected official can not admit fault, and still stay in office. We automatically demand that they resign. However, I would suggest that we remember that there is more to a person than the worse thing that he or she has ever done. We allow the leaders who blame their indiscretions on drugs or alcohol, and seek rehabilitation, to stay in office on the premise that they were not actually responsible. We also allow those who deny any responsibility to stay in office, unless the proof against them is overwhelming, or they are subsequently voted out. And yet, the politician who stands up and says that he was wrong is immediately forced to resign.
Example number four: one can’t solve a problem without admitting there is a problem, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. It’s simple as that. This Bush Administration is unbelievable. (By the way, this is not coming from some die hard Democrat. When I was making some “real money,” I was a full on Republican in practice and in heart, if not per registration.) It’s almost as if they do whatever they want to do, with impunity, and don’t care what we think or feel, or the consequences. “These guys are absolutely wild!” And I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I can not recall these folks ever really providing us with an unqualified, “We’re sorry. We made a mistake.”
Is such an admission still possible in American politics, or is it the immediate kiss of death? Folks, you can’t muck up, and then pass blame to others for your muck up! Take this gas situation for example. It’s absolutely incredible that we sit on so much oil and natural gas within our reach, protect it for our various reasons (some of which may be valid), use gas like there is no end in sight without developing alternative sources of energy, and then blame OPEC or the Saudis for our current increase in price. Get real! It’s unbelievable! All we have to do is just apply some common sense. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
So there you have it. Right thinking; doing the right thing. It’s not that difficult after all, is it? Thank you Scott, for helping me see clearly.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
This is the mantra that my good friend Laughingman has been pounding in my head for going on thirteen or more years, and with more frequency since I started this blog. Laughingman is the Senior Fellow and Founder of the Institute for Applied Common Sense. When I first met him and he handed me his card, I was immediately taken with the concept, although I did not quite understand what it meant.
Being a linear thinker and not particularly bright, it’s taken me a while to develop some appreciation of the application of common sense. This “event” involving Scott McClellan, and his experiences while serving as the White House Press Secretary in President Bush’s administration, has served to further develop my appreciation of the concept. Work with me for a while.
After practicing law and providing business management consulting services for a total of over 25 years, which were followed by a major personal failure, I decided to re-invent myself and become a motivational speaker. I teamed up with Laughingman, and other baby boomers around the country, and developed a number of products. Our team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and universities to engage students in a discussion about personal responsibility.
We will utilize adults, like me, who have encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision theory. Our goals are the following: (a) to provoke thought; (b) to encourage students to consider their choices in life; (c) to assist students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the consequences; and (d) to have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices. Our ultimate goal is to come up with some fresh, new ways to address their personal and societal issues.
One of the goals which we will achieve, during our discussion of issues, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of the problems that we encounter, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by the symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions. The articles appearing on our site reflect the type of thought process and critical thinking through which we will navigate students in our sessions. These articles are precursors to the content that will be delivered during our workshops and other projects.
Getting back to doing the “right thing,” I first misunderstood the concept in that I felt that by suggesting that there is a “right way” to do something, one implicitly suggests that there is no other way to do something and still have it be “right.” And then I thought about it. I recalled that there were many times during law firm partnership meetings, that we had to deal with some uncomfortable issue or event. What always amazed me was the fact that you could have ten different attorneys in the room evaluating the situation, and have every, single one of them say, “Why didn’t they do X?” I realized that when you have a unanimous appreciation of the appropriate or “right” course of action to take, it is a powerful force.
In thinking about Scott McClellan, I kept saying to myself that I did not want to judge either side, and take a position, if for no other reason than I did not have any first hand information. So how was I supposed to deal with this? It was really bothering me, and then it came to me. For purposes of this analysis, I decided to assume that both sides were telling the truth, as I had during the case of the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill hearings. (By the way, in that situation, I really did feel that they were both telling the truth; here, it is a fiction created for analytical purposes.) By doing so, it allowed me to immediately go to the next place, and ask, “How did this happen?”
The answer? It came about simply as a result of people in the Administration not being straight with us. It doesn’t matter who it was. It does matter when it was. Shakespeare got it “right” by noting, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.”
This ain’t rocket science. You know that we’ve been deceived about numerous issues on various occasions. It does not matter which ones. It also does not matter the political party or President in office. Bill Clinton was no better; he was just smoother. It is interesting that perhaps the straightest shooter, Jimmy Carter, did not fare well. Unfortunately, being less than straight in political office has become the norm. There’s too much spin; and too many attacks on messengers and those who dare question suspicious conduct. You see how this is not rocket science? If the members of the Administration had been straight with the American public on a regular basis, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s the first example of how they could have done the right thing.
Let’s move on to the second. You will recall that many people came to Bill Clinton’s defense when the Monica Lewinsky allegations first surfaced. Madeline Albright and others hit the talk show circuit and the pavement, and passionately defended their president, and took heat for him. When he finally fessed up, they all looked like fools. To put his friends and loyal staff out there to later be embarrassed was, in my opinion, far worse than any impeachable offense. It was simply wrong. Encouraging your friends to extend their necks on your behalf based on a lie, is simply wrong, no two ways about it. Clinton could have done the right thing in the first instance by simply telling the truth, and not placing his friends in that situation. This is not a moral judgment, but rather a common sense judgment. I can almost guarantee you that Scott feels that he was misled and hung out to dry on something. Once again, it does not matter the issue.
Former President Clinton provides me with material to discuss a third example of what potentially could have been a right thing to do. Once he was caught up in his web, he should have realized that the work that he tried to accomplish on behalf of the Democratic Party was bigger than the man. He should have simply resigned, and let his Vice President, Al Gore, take over, and continue the policies of his Administration. Instead, Clinton made himself the issue, and not the causes and policies supported by his supporters. Example number three - we should all be reminded that everything is bigger than we are. When what we do hurts the bigger cause, we should re-evaluate our involvement, and consider changing course.
I am somewhat concerned that we have reached a point in our political evolution where an elected official can not admit fault, and still stay in office. We automatically demand that they resign. However, I would suggest that we remember that there is more to a person than the worse thing that he or she has ever done. We allow the leaders who blame their indiscretions on drugs or alcohol, and seek rehabilitation, to stay in office on the premise that they were not actually responsible. We also allow those who deny any responsibility to stay in office, unless the proof against them is overwhelming, or they are subsequently voted out. And yet, the politician who stands up and says that he was wrong is immediately forced to resign.
Example number four: one can’t solve a problem without admitting there is a problem, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. It’s simple as that. This Bush Administration is unbelievable. (By the way, this is not coming from some die hard Democrat. When I was making some “real money,” I was a full on Republican in practice and in heart, if not per registration.) It’s almost as if they do whatever they want to do, with impunity, and don’t care what we think or feel, or the consequences. “These guys are absolutely wild!” And I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I can not recall these folks ever really providing us with an unqualified, “We’re sorry. We made a mistake.”
Is such an admission still possible in American politics, or is it the immediate kiss of death? Folks, you can’t muck up, and then pass blame to others for your muck up! Take this gas situation for example. It’s absolutely incredible that we sit on so much oil and natural gas within our reach, protect it for our various reasons (some of which may be valid), use gas like there is no end in sight without developing alternative sources of energy, and then blame OPEC or the Saudis for our current increase in price. Get real! It’s unbelievable! All we have to do is just apply some common sense. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
So there you have it. Right thinking; doing the right thing. It’s not that difficult after all, is it? Thank you Scott, for helping me see clearly.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Post No. 11: The Human Hard Wiring Conundrum (Are We Truly a Higher Form of Animal?)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Roughly six years ago, I began to ask a different set of questions about human existence. I started looking for patterns in behavior, and I attempted to identify what might be termed as the “internal consistency.”
With respect to virtually all human conduct, instead of responding or interpreting it from a personal, emotional, or experiential perspective, I tried to first pose other questions, which would bear on my ultimate conclusion, if any, as to the observed conduct.
Although you wouldn’t know it from my articles published thus far, I tried to become cognizant of each time that I used the word, “I,” and I also challenged myself by questioning whether my preconceptions were affecting my ability to fully observe and appreciate all that appeared before me.
I remember thinking that it would be just great to find one book that explained everything. Interestingly enough, I found such a book (or at least its title so indicated), by pure happenstance, on either a table or a park bench, where it had been left in the rain. The book was Ken Wilbur’s A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality. (http://books.google.com/books?id=PYBKcyEBEZQC&q=%22a+theory+of+everything%22&dq=%22a+theory+of+everything%22&ei=Kh87SIDvNaDsygSy8qHqDw&pgis=1.) Unfortunately, as soon as I came into possession of it, I loaned it to someone and it was never returned. However, it did help to know that others had actually done some work along this line.
Upon returning to my home town in 2002, I managed to re-read another book that helped formulate some of my thoughts in this regard, Vere Gordon Childe’s What Happened in History. (http://books.google.com/books?id=JWsYAAAAMAAJ&q=%22what+happened+in+history%22&dq=%22what+happened+in+history%22&ei=0SU7SJTdEo-KzQSjnoDMCA&pgis=1.) It was a small, Penguin (http://books.google.com/books?q=inpublisher:%22Penguin+books%22&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0) paperback, with torn and yellow pages, which I had obviously acquired between 1969 and 1971, while I was in college. (The book was originally published in 1950, with a second edition released in 1964. I read the 1964 edition.)
It was so thin that I could not imagine it providing any real insight into the human condition, but I was still fascinated by its ambitious goal, as reflected in its title. I also questioned whether the material in the book was still relevant in 2002, given its 1964 publication date. I quickly established that it was. After all, having covered human conduct for a period spanning thousands of years, the passage of a mere thirty years should not have made that much of a difference. Here was someone trying to explain what had occurred since the beginning of humankind, in a few, short pages. It was after reading this piece that I started truly looking for the “internal consistency” with respect to all human conduct and activity.
After completing Childe’s book, I moved to another textbook from my college days, the two volume set of Technology in Western Civilization. (http://books.google.com/books?id=05IFAAAAMAAJ&q=%22technology+in+western+civilization%22&dq=%22technology+in+western+civilization%22&ei=tDo7SNjhBKDsygSy8qHqDw&pgis=1.) When I was an undergraduate engineering student, my school brought in Harvard educated Dr. Melvin Kranzberg to start teaching several courses. Dr. Kranzberg, who was known as the “Father of the History of Technology,” and edited the work, became one of my mentors. The pages of Technology were also yellow and worn, although in hardback form. Additionally, quite frankly, although it contained lots of yellow highlighting on the pages, suggesting that I read it during the early 1970s, I did not recall much of substance from my first reading. However, on the second reading, it made far more sense, and provided me with a more comprehensive appreciation of the technological forces operating on humankind. It was, as a practical matter, What Happened in History, annotated.
There was one, perhaps less serious volume, which also made an impression on me, provided by my friend Annie, who found it in her storage locker. I had casually mentioned to her that I had been reading a number of books on the theory of everything, and she presented this piece to me as a gift. It was The Straight Dope: A Compendium of Human Knowledge by Cecil Adams. (http://books.google.com/books?id=WpYYAAAAIAAJ&q=%22the+straight+dope%22&dq=%22the+straight+dope%22&ei=5D87SJOyCoe0yQTN75jMDw&pgis=1.)
For years, Adams wrote a newspaper column for the Chicago Reader, a weekly alternative newspaper. On the cover, it revealed that it contained “answers to the questions that torment everyone!” Although I initially thought that it was not something that would aid me in my quest for the grail of internal consistency, not only did I find the sarcastic wit of Adams to be thoroughly entertaining, but it contributed to my theory that to truly understand anything, one must always “dig deeper.” It is at the deeper levels that one begins to observe certain long term patterns. Additionally, unless we’re careful, we can become distracted by symptoms, which can impede our efforts to craft solutions.
The Straight Dope contained the answers to such significant life questions as, “Is it true what they say about Catherine the Great and the horses?” “How do they measure snow?” “Whatever happened to Channel One?” “Why does hair turn gray?” “How do they get the get the stripes into toothpaste?” It also provided further insight into my belief that virtually everything ever done by humans has been done for reasons deemed logical and appropriate at the time, but which may not have involved a lot of research, investigation, or objectivity for that matter.
There is another area of human conduct which I have always found baffling, that being interpersonal relations between males and females. Over the years, I frequently joked with friends that I would ultimately write a book about male – female relations, and that one chapter of the book would be entitled, “Lions, Tigers, and Bears.” During the last twenty years or so of my life, I developed this sense that differences between men and women were more a result of hard wiring of their brains, and that cultural and environmental factors had less influence than perhaps we previously thought. I recall hearing the results of a study in roughly 1993, to the effect that the pattern of brain wave activity was different for men and women when presented with the same mathematical problem, and that this at least partly explained the differences between the two in terms of interest in math and science. The electrochemical paths were along totally different routes.
Frequently in life, one comes up with his or own theories based on their observations, and later determines that there is some element of scientific evidence to support their suspicions. I recall being on a floor in my office building at least thirty-three stories high. I looked out of my window and down the street a couple of blocks, and I was surprised at the sharp detail with which I could see a female figure approaching. I then switched my sight to a male nearby, and the level of detail was not nearly as good. I questioned whether this was a result of evolutionary survival hard wiring.
I had often heard people remark about the frequency with which men “think about sex” and because my personal thoughts did not even nearly approach the suggested level of frequency, I simply thought the comment to be untrue. However, I later began to appreciate that for a man, sex and thoughts of sex, are essentially momentary distractions, and that man’s focus is primarily on “taking care of stuff.” As I walked down the street one day, I came upon a bus stop shelter, which had full length movie posters on each side. As a result, my view of bus riders sitting on the bench was obscured. However, I recall being surprised when I passed the panel, and my “attention” was instantaneously drawn to an attractive, young woman sitting on the bench, to a far greater extent that I would have expected. I was fully distracted. In subsequent conversations with female friends of mine about dealing with their seventeen and eighteen year old sons, I would simply advise them to learn to appreciate the concept of “involuntary blood flow.”
At this point, all of my experiences were personal and anecdotal in nature, without any scientific corroboration. Getting back to the chapter to be entitled, “Lions, Tigers, and Bears,” it just seemed to me that the primary roles and functions of male and female humans were determined by environmental forces that existed for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years. I always said that the skills and capabilities of men and women were designed evolutionarily to complement one another, not to be in conflict with each other. If we were to have a nuclear holocaust on earth, and there were only two people left, we would want neither two men, nor two women, but rather one man and one woman, and not necessarily just for purposes of propagation. I began to suspect that men and women had different capabilities for a reason – survival. The combination of their skills and capabilities, in my view, achieved exponential gain, not arithmetic. Living in such harsh, hostile environments as jungles, deserts, and mountains for thousands of years without modern conveniences, I suspected that men and women had to divide up their various survival responsibilities based on what they were both best suited to perform with less strain and adaptation. Thus, given a jungle, and a man, woman, and children, and adding approaching or roaming lions, tigers, and bears, you can envision how various tasks may have been divided.
There’s something additional that accompanies the environmental situation. I suspect that most of us would agree that the most important things in life are food, clothing, shelter, and health, and after that perhaps education. One of the most important things that I learned in What Happened in History was significance of the mass cultivation of food. If you were an ancient human and spent all day, and perhaps some portion of the night either picking or hunting food, it probably would not have allowed for much time for a wife to complain about her husband looking at another woman, because he probably would not have had very many opportunities or much energy. If everyone in your tribe was either gathering or hunting for food, that activity minimized the prospect of other activities. It was only after tribes began to join forces, cooperate, and find conditions where food could be cultivated on a much larger scale, could ten people generate food for one hundred, thus allowing the other ninety to pursue other pursuits. This, out of necessity, required collaboration. I would also imagine that if a drought or other calamity came along, the members would resort to hoarding, and more selfish, less collaborative conduct to survive.
Now, as I’ve told you before, I’ve never been married. (Quite frankly, many consider it to be an outdated anthropological institution, with limited societal functions at this in point in the evolution of modern, technological society. However, that is a subject for another day.) I’ve never considered myself qualified for marriage, because my views as to the roles of men and women in society are so radically different from those typically held by others. I believe that the pairing is primarily about function and survival, and not about love and who has a great bod. Some would even argue that it's not even currently about comfort and security, since those features can be provided through other means, if one has sufficient financial resources.
Each time that one of my friends indicated that they had separated from their spouse, I would make the same suggestion. I would suggest that the underlying purpose of their pairing was no longer based on anything of importance or primary significance, or that they had lost sight of it. I would follow by suggesting that if they had to survive in the jungle, they would have a very different view of the importance of their pairing. I frequently suggested that they both volunteer their services to the AIDS Foundation or the American Cancer Society, and after doing so, they would better appreciate how relatively insignificant their personal differences were. (I am sure that no one ever followed my advice.) After all, having had sex with someone else may be a serious violation and breach of trust, but it does not rank up there with the other survival factors. Additionally, I strongly suspect that if an earthquake or tornado struck your home immediately after you found out about your spouse’s indiscretion, the two of you would work your butts off, in a collaborative fashion, to survive, and chat about the infidelity later, if at all. It’s the nature of the beast.
Today, there is quite a bit of research on the differences between the brains of men and women. We now have the capability to conduct brain scans and compare the different ways in which male and female brains function. If we know that so much about our behavior is hard wired, why do men and women continually waste their time arguing about biological determinant issues? It’s because we as humans have the ability to think in ways far differently from animals, which is both good and bad. Very few of us, despite having the capacity, stop to think about the scientific or biological explanations for human conduct. We have the capability to sit back and think through events, and conduct our own research and investigation, before responding. In many instances, we are just lazy. In other instances we are unsophisticated. In still others, we proceed with emotional responses, because it “works” and it is efficient.
Yesterday, I had an extensive conversation with a very good friend of mine, who has one child who is a senior in high school, and another who is a senior in college. I explained that I was part of a team of motivational speakers, and that we would soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and universities to engage students in a discussion about personal responsibility. I further informed her that we planned to utilize adults, like me, who had encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision theory. Our primary goal is to provoke thought, encourage students to consider their choices in life, analyze the decisions that they make along with the consequences, and have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices. Our secondary goal is to come up with some fresh, new approaches to addressing their personal and societal problems.
During the course of our discussion, my friend inquired as to whether the students would even be interested in the latest research and science regarding the brain and decision theory. Although I did not provide this response, I feel that they should be interested because it matters. The brain is a significant factor in our human activity. To exclude its role in our conduct, and to fail to factor it in the equation, results in only a partial ability to address aberrant or inappropriate human conduct. We might as well use all of our information and available resources to address problems. It also requires “digging deeper” than the apparent symptoms. Digging only one level to address a problem, frequently results in not addressing it at all, or applying a short term band-aid.
Prior to the generation of this article, I asked a large number of you what the following things had in common:
Your most recent argument or disagreement with your spouse, significant other, or friend;
Your view as to whether America is still the greatest nation on earth;
Your view of the propriety of the criminal jury verdict in the OJ case; and
Your view as to whether we should be in Iraq?
They are all issues about which we had preconceived notions prior to the issue developing or occurring. They are also all issues about which you could feel and respond differently, provided that you received additional information, which might contribute to a better understanding of the issue, prior to passing judgment or criticizing others.
The purpose of all of my articles is to provoke thought. I do not have a position about many things in life. In many ways, that is problematic. I‘ve never had the rigid, dogmatic views which serve as stabilizing forces and parameters in many lives. I wish that I were so cock sure about as many things that others are. I am continually amazed at how readers of my articles respond, either telephonically, via e-mail, or in the form of a comment, and I ask, “Did they read my article?” I posed this question to a friend about the response of a mutual friend, and he indicated that the mutual friend had responded based on the mutual friend’s view of the issue, not what I had actually written. He also suggested that the mutual friend may have made some assumptions about the views and values typically associated with someone fitting my profile.
One of the goals which we will achieve, during my discussion of issues and during our college tour in discussing personal responsibility with students, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (if that can really be achieved) and creativity, and that we can thereafter craft better solutions. The articles appearing on our site below reflect the type of thought process and critical thinking through which we will navigate students in our sessions.
The following is taken from an earlier article, Recognizing the Potential of the Innovative Thought Process:
“Jeffrey Sachs is generally recognized as one of the most influential thinkers of our time. He is the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sections/view/9). He recently published a new book, Common Wealth (http://books.google.com/books?id=t6HDAAAACAAJ&dq=%22Jeffrey+sachs%22&ei=HAU2SLzXDYu4yQTxm8zLDw). During a recent presentation, Sachs argued that we the people of the world are biologically hard-wired and poorly led to always think in terms of us versus them. He advocates a paradigm shift consisting of intellectual collaboration. Simply put, we are capable of thinking our way out of the problems which we are surely about to face, be they global warming or food scarcities. According to Sachs, if we propose a potential solution to a problem, there will always be negative ramifications associated with that solution. However, we as humans have to capability to address those problems and try to minimize the negative impact through thinking. We can not risk being paralyzed by failing to utilize our problem solving capabilities and continuing to conduct business as usual.”
In Henry Hobhouse’s Forces of Change – An Unorthodox View of History (http://books.google.com/books?id=7Bd61vvaI7MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22forces+of+change%22&ei=ZZY9SPyPE6SMygTPiLXzAg&sig=CVGKHVm_gASmSdzXCT_N8csMPLE), he submits that modern history has been shaped, not so much by human conduct, but rather natural forces consisting of disease, population growth, and food supply. Hobhouse argues that they form a triangle which balances itself. As one changes or alters the dimension on one side of the triangle, there must be commensurate in one or both of the other two sides. To address these natural forces also requires a different type of thinking, more collaborative in nature.
We, as individuals and institutions should be constantly re-examining our conduct and assumptions in a never-ending quest to improve on what we’ve done in the past. Isn’t that, theoretically, one of the things that separates humans from animals – our ability to consciously improve our status and the things around us? So why rely on old methods? Why maintain the status quo? Does the fact that some advocate change in a society mean that they want to destroy it? Isn’t any organization or entity interested in maintaining a high standard, and avoiding complacency, constantly reinventing itself by changing those things that don’t work well, and continuing those practices that do? The mere mention that we can do better does not necessarily imply that where we are is a bad place.
We, as a society, have to do a better job of focusing on shared interests, and collaborating with one another. How about a little more energy on the front end taking the time to listen, conduct research, consider the historical and scientific explanations for events and positions, and other explanations, before instituting responsive conduct. To listen to, or view, someone only through your worldview lens and filter, may mean that you’ve never really listened to or seen them at all. Remember that line from the old song from the 1970s? “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
I’m done - way done. This one required way too much work.
Roughly six years ago, I began to ask a different set of questions about human existence. I started looking for patterns in behavior, and I attempted to identify what might be termed as the “internal consistency.”
With respect to virtually all human conduct, instead of responding or interpreting it from a personal, emotional, or experiential perspective, I tried to first pose other questions, which would bear on my ultimate conclusion, if any, as to the observed conduct.
Although you wouldn’t know it from my articles published thus far, I tried to become cognizant of each time that I used the word, “I,” and I also challenged myself by questioning whether my preconceptions were affecting my ability to fully observe and appreciate all that appeared before me.
I remember thinking that it would be just great to find one book that explained everything. Interestingly enough, I found such a book (or at least its title so indicated), by pure happenstance, on either a table or a park bench, where it had been left in the rain. The book was Ken Wilbur’s A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality. (http://books.google.com/books?id=PYBKcyEBEZQC&q=%22a+theory+of+everything%22&dq=%22a+theory+of+everything%22&ei=Kh87SIDvNaDsygSy8qHqDw&pgis=1.) Unfortunately, as soon as I came into possession of it, I loaned it to someone and it was never returned. However, it did help to know that others had actually done some work along this line.
Upon returning to my home town in 2002, I managed to re-read another book that helped formulate some of my thoughts in this regard, Vere Gordon Childe’s What Happened in History. (http://books.google.com/books?id=JWsYAAAAMAAJ&q=%22what+happened+in+history%22&dq=%22what+happened+in+history%22&ei=0SU7SJTdEo-KzQSjnoDMCA&pgis=1.) It was a small, Penguin (http://books.google.com/books?q=inpublisher:%22Penguin+books%22&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0) paperback, with torn and yellow pages, which I had obviously acquired between 1969 and 1971, while I was in college. (The book was originally published in 1950, with a second edition released in 1964. I read the 1964 edition.)
It was so thin that I could not imagine it providing any real insight into the human condition, but I was still fascinated by its ambitious goal, as reflected in its title. I also questioned whether the material in the book was still relevant in 2002, given its 1964 publication date. I quickly established that it was. After all, having covered human conduct for a period spanning thousands of years, the passage of a mere thirty years should not have made that much of a difference. Here was someone trying to explain what had occurred since the beginning of humankind, in a few, short pages. It was after reading this piece that I started truly looking for the “internal consistency” with respect to all human conduct and activity.
After completing Childe’s book, I moved to another textbook from my college days, the two volume set of Technology in Western Civilization. (http://books.google.com/books?id=05IFAAAAMAAJ&q=%22technology+in+western+civilization%22&dq=%22technology+in+western+civilization%22&ei=tDo7SNjhBKDsygSy8qHqDw&pgis=1.) When I was an undergraduate engineering student, my school brought in Harvard educated Dr. Melvin Kranzberg to start teaching several courses. Dr. Kranzberg, who was known as the “Father of the History of Technology,” and edited the work, became one of my mentors. The pages of Technology were also yellow and worn, although in hardback form. Additionally, quite frankly, although it contained lots of yellow highlighting on the pages, suggesting that I read it during the early 1970s, I did not recall much of substance from my first reading. However, on the second reading, it made far more sense, and provided me with a more comprehensive appreciation of the technological forces operating on humankind. It was, as a practical matter, What Happened in History, annotated.
There was one, perhaps less serious volume, which also made an impression on me, provided by my friend Annie, who found it in her storage locker. I had casually mentioned to her that I had been reading a number of books on the theory of everything, and she presented this piece to me as a gift. It was The Straight Dope: A Compendium of Human Knowledge by Cecil Adams. (http://books.google.com/books?id=WpYYAAAAIAAJ&q=%22the+straight+dope%22&dq=%22the+straight+dope%22&ei=5D87SJOyCoe0yQTN75jMDw&pgis=1.)
For years, Adams wrote a newspaper column for the Chicago Reader, a weekly alternative newspaper. On the cover, it revealed that it contained “answers to the questions that torment everyone!” Although I initially thought that it was not something that would aid me in my quest for the grail of internal consistency, not only did I find the sarcastic wit of Adams to be thoroughly entertaining, but it contributed to my theory that to truly understand anything, one must always “dig deeper.” It is at the deeper levels that one begins to observe certain long term patterns. Additionally, unless we’re careful, we can become distracted by symptoms, which can impede our efforts to craft solutions.
The Straight Dope contained the answers to such significant life questions as, “Is it true what they say about Catherine the Great and the horses?” “How do they measure snow?” “Whatever happened to Channel One?” “Why does hair turn gray?” “How do they get the get the stripes into toothpaste?” It also provided further insight into my belief that virtually everything ever done by humans has been done for reasons deemed logical and appropriate at the time, but which may not have involved a lot of research, investigation, or objectivity for that matter.
There is another area of human conduct which I have always found baffling, that being interpersonal relations between males and females. Over the years, I frequently joked with friends that I would ultimately write a book about male – female relations, and that one chapter of the book would be entitled, “Lions, Tigers, and Bears.” During the last twenty years or so of my life, I developed this sense that differences between men and women were more a result of hard wiring of their brains, and that cultural and environmental factors had less influence than perhaps we previously thought. I recall hearing the results of a study in roughly 1993, to the effect that the pattern of brain wave activity was different for men and women when presented with the same mathematical problem, and that this at least partly explained the differences between the two in terms of interest in math and science. The electrochemical paths were along totally different routes.
Frequently in life, one comes up with his or own theories based on their observations, and later determines that there is some element of scientific evidence to support their suspicions. I recall being on a floor in my office building at least thirty-three stories high. I looked out of my window and down the street a couple of blocks, and I was surprised at the sharp detail with which I could see a female figure approaching. I then switched my sight to a male nearby, and the level of detail was not nearly as good. I questioned whether this was a result of evolutionary survival hard wiring.
I had often heard people remark about the frequency with which men “think about sex” and because my personal thoughts did not even nearly approach the suggested level of frequency, I simply thought the comment to be untrue. However, I later began to appreciate that for a man, sex and thoughts of sex, are essentially momentary distractions, and that man’s focus is primarily on “taking care of stuff.” As I walked down the street one day, I came upon a bus stop shelter, which had full length movie posters on each side. As a result, my view of bus riders sitting on the bench was obscured. However, I recall being surprised when I passed the panel, and my “attention” was instantaneously drawn to an attractive, young woman sitting on the bench, to a far greater extent that I would have expected. I was fully distracted. In subsequent conversations with female friends of mine about dealing with their seventeen and eighteen year old sons, I would simply advise them to learn to appreciate the concept of “involuntary blood flow.”
At this point, all of my experiences were personal and anecdotal in nature, without any scientific corroboration. Getting back to the chapter to be entitled, “Lions, Tigers, and Bears,” it just seemed to me that the primary roles and functions of male and female humans were determined by environmental forces that existed for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years. I always said that the skills and capabilities of men and women were designed evolutionarily to complement one another, not to be in conflict with each other. If we were to have a nuclear holocaust on earth, and there were only two people left, we would want neither two men, nor two women, but rather one man and one woman, and not necessarily just for purposes of propagation. I began to suspect that men and women had different capabilities for a reason – survival. The combination of their skills and capabilities, in my view, achieved exponential gain, not arithmetic. Living in such harsh, hostile environments as jungles, deserts, and mountains for thousands of years without modern conveniences, I suspected that men and women had to divide up their various survival responsibilities based on what they were both best suited to perform with less strain and adaptation. Thus, given a jungle, and a man, woman, and children, and adding approaching or roaming lions, tigers, and bears, you can envision how various tasks may have been divided.
There’s something additional that accompanies the environmental situation. I suspect that most of us would agree that the most important things in life are food, clothing, shelter, and health, and after that perhaps education. One of the most important things that I learned in What Happened in History was significance of the mass cultivation of food. If you were an ancient human and spent all day, and perhaps some portion of the night either picking or hunting food, it probably would not have allowed for much time for a wife to complain about her husband looking at another woman, because he probably would not have had very many opportunities or much energy. If everyone in your tribe was either gathering or hunting for food, that activity minimized the prospect of other activities. It was only after tribes began to join forces, cooperate, and find conditions where food could be cultivated on a much larger scale, could ten people generate food for one hundred, thus allowing the other ninety to pursue other pursuits. This, out of necessity, required collaboration. I would also imagine that if a drought or other calamity came along, the members would resort to hoarding, and more selfish, less collaborative conduct to survive.
Now, as I’ve told you before, I’ve never been married. (Quite frankly, many consider it to be an outdated anthropological institution, with limited societal functions at this in point in the evolution of modern, technological society. However, that is a subject for another day.) I’ve never considered myself qualified for marriage, because my views as to the roles of men and women in society are so radically different from those typically held by others. I believe that the pairing is primarily about function and survival, and not about love and who has a great bod. Some would even argue that it's not even currently about comfort and security, since those features can be provided through other means, if one has sufficient financial resources.
Each time that one of my friends indicated that they had separated from their spouse, I would make the same suggestion. I would suggest that the underlying purpose of their pairing was no longer based on anything of importance or primary significance, or that they had lost sight of it. I would follow by suggesting that if they had to survive in the jungle, they would have a very different view of the importance of their pairing. I frequently suggested that they both volunteer their services to the AIDS Foundation or the American Cancer Society, and after doing so, they would better appreciate how relatively insignificant their personal differences were. (I am sure that no one ever followed my advice.) After all, having had sex with someone else may be a serious violation and breach of trust, but it does not rank up there with the other survival factors. Additionally, I strongly suspect that if an earthquake or tornado struck your home immediately after you found out about your spouse’s indiscretion, the two of you would work your butts off, in a collaborative fashion, to survive, and chat about the infidelity later, if at all. It’s the nature of the beast.
Today, there is quite a bit of research on the differences between the brains of men and women. We now have the capability to conduct brain scans and compare the different ways in which male and female brains function. If we know that so much about our behavior is hard wired, why do men and women continually waste their time arguing about biological determinant issues? It’s because we as humans have the ability to think in ways far differently from animals, which is both good and bad. Very few of us, despite having the capacity, stop to think about the scientific or biological explanations for human conduct. We have the capability to sit back and think through events, and conduct our own research and investigation, before responding. In many instances, we are just lazy. In other instances we are unsophisticated. In still others, we proceed with emotional responses, because it “works” and it is efficient.
Yesterday, I had an extensive conversation with a very good friend of mine, who has one child who is a senior in high school, and another who is a senior in college. I explained that I was part of a team of motivational speakers, and that we would soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and universities to engage students in a discussion about personal responsibility. I further informed her that we planned to utilize adults, like me, who had encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision theory. Our primary goal is to provoke thought, encourage students to consider their choices in life, analyze the decisions that they make along with the consequences, and have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices. Our secondary goal is to come up with some fresh, new approaches to addressing their personal and societal problems.
During the course of our discussion, my friend inquired as to whether the students would even be interested in the latest research and science regarding the brain and decision theory. Although I did not provide this response, I feel that they should be interested because it matters. The brain is a significant factor in our human activity. To exclude its role in our conduct, and to fail to factor it in the equation, results in only a partial ability to address aberrant or inappropriate human conduct. We might as well use all of our information and available resources to address problems. It also requires “digging deeper” than the apparent symptoms. Digging only one level to address a problem, frequently results in not addressing it at all, or applying a short term band-aid.
Prior to the generation of this article, I asked a large number of you what the following things had in common:
Your most recent argument or disagreement with your spouse, significant other, or friend;
Your view as to whether America is still the greatest nation on earth;
Your view of the propriety of the criminal jury verdict in the OJ case; and
Your view as to whether we should be in Iraq?
They are all issues about which we had preconceived notions prior to the issue developing or occurring. They are also all issues about which you could feel and respond differently, provided that you received additional information, which might contribute to a better understanding of the issue, prior to passing judgment or criticizing others.
The purpose of all of my articles is to provoke thought. I do not have a position about many things in life. In many ways, that is problematic. I‘ve never had the rigid, dogmatic views which serve as stabilizing forces and parameters in many lives. I wish that I were so cock sure about as many things that others are. I am continually amazed at how readers of my articles respond, either telephonically, via e-mail, or in the form of a comment, and I ask, “Did they read my article?” I posed this question to a friend about the response of a mutual friend, and he indicated that the mutual friend had responded based on the mutual friend’s view of the issue, not what I had actually written. He also suggested that the mutual friend may have made some assumptions about the views and values typically associated with someone fitting my profile.
One of the goals which we will achieve, during my discussion of issues and during our college tour in discussing personal responsibility with students, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (if that can really be achieved) and creativity, and that we can thereafter craft better solutions. The articles appearing on our site below reflect the type of thought process and critical thinking through which we will navigate students in our sessions.
The following is taken from an earlier article, Recognizing the Potential of the Innovative Thought Process:
“Jeffrey Sachs is generally recognized as one of the most influential thinkers of our time. He is the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sections/view/9). He recently published a new book, Common Wealth (http://books.google.com/books?id=t6HDAAAACAAJ&dq=%22Jeffrey+sachs%22&ei=HAU2SLzXDYu4yQTxm8zLDw). During a recent presentation, Sachs argued that we the people of the world are biologically hard-wired and poorly led to always think in terms of us versus them. He advocates a paradigm shift consisting of intellectual collaboration. Simply put, we are capable of thinking our way out of the problems which we are surely about to face, be they global warming or food scarcities. According to Sachs, if we propose a potential solution to a problem, there will always be negative ramifications associated with that solution. However, we as humans have to capability to address those problems and try to minimize the negative impact through thinking. We can not risk being paralyzed by failing to utilize our problem solving capabilities and continuing to conduct business as usual.”
In Henry Hobhouse’s Forces of Change – An Unorthodox View of History (http://books.google.com/books?id=7Bd61vvaI7MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22forces+of+change%22&ei=ZZY9SPyPE6SMygTPiLXzAg&sig=CVGKHVm_gASmSdzXCT_N8csMPLE), he submits that modern history has been shaped, not so much by human conduct, but rather natural forces consisting of disease, population growth, and food supply. Hobhouse argues that they form a triangle which balances itself. As one changes or alters the dimension on one side of the triangle, there must be commensurate in one or both of the other two sides. To address these natural forces also requires a different type of thinking, more collaborative in nature.
We, as individuals and institutions should be constantly re-examining our conduct and assumptions in a never-ending quest to improve on what we’ve done in the past. Isn’t that, theoretically, one of the things that separates humans from animals – our ability to consciously improve our status and the things around us? So why rely on old methods? Why maintain the status quo? Does the fact that some advocate change in a society mean that they want to destroy it? Isn’t any organization or entity interested in maintaining a high standard, and avoiding complacency, constantly reinventing itself by changing those things that don’t work well, and continuing those practices that do? The mere mention that we can do better does not necessarily imply that where we are is a bad place.
We, as a society, have to do a better job of focusing on shared interests, and collaborating with one another. How about a little more energy on the front end taking the time to listen, conduct research, consider the historical and scientific explanations for events and positions, and other explanations, before instituting responsive conduct. To listen to, or view, someone only through your worldview lens and filter, may mean that you’ve never really listened to or seen them at all. Remember that line from the old song from the 1970s? “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
I’m done - way done. This one required way too much work.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Post No. 10:How Rev. John Hagee’s Comments Reminded Me of Better Times (The Perils of Being an Information Junkie)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
John Hagee – interesting guy. However, before I address the controversy surrounding his recent comments (and being politically incorrect might be a good thing), I must reveal a character flaw, with which I have wrestled all of my life. In fact, my Mother, a junior high school teacher and former librarian, is responsible for my condition. You see, I’m an information junkie. It is absolutely essential that I receive new information all throughout the day. My Mother contributed to my affliction in that she actively encouraged me to read anything and everything.
You wouldn’t believe some of the things that I have read. The identity of the writer does not matter. The message does not matter. Offensive materials? Sure, I’ll read them. I am always fascinated with how everyone with whom I come into contact has a position, and a point of view, with respect to virtually every written publication. If I mention a particular book, paper, author, or website, they immediately launch into why they admire or hate the work. Just the mere mention of a work evokes all sorts of emotions, and by simply mentioning it, people naturally assume that I found the work compelling and agree with the content. It appears that similar principles also apply to the spoken word.
In the late fall of 1977, I was watching an episode of 60 Minutes. Someone mentioned that virtually all people could be “defined” or perhaps more accurately, “consumed,” by one of three words, those being identity, stimulation, and security. For some of us, finding ourselves consumes us. For others, nothing is more important than a sense of security. And there are those who seek constant stimulation.
I wrote them down at the time in the front of my Day-Timer, and was therefore forced to revisit the concept on a daily basis for years. Of course, I asked myself repeatedly whether any of the categories applied to me. At least from my perspective, identity and security were of no interest to me. I entertained the possibility that stimulation was applicable to me, and yet I repeatedly dismissed the notion. You tell me.
Some people like music, and others visual images. Me? Give me radio. I love the auditory. Give me Gunsmoke or The Lone Ranger on radio, and I’m in heaven. I learned the game of hockey while attending the University of Michigan, by listening to the radio broadcasts on Saturday nights, just before I went out. Radio commercials occupy a special place in my heart. Even when the Lakers were in the playoffs, those many years, on their way to world championships, I preferred to listen to Chick Hearn do the simult-cast on the radio. For some reason, the spoken word gets my attention. I’m more engaged, and the message is more effectively communicated, from my perspective.
My favorite radio stations of all time? KFWB and KNX-FM, both of which are twenty-four hour, all news stations operating in Los Angeles, with the occasional exception of a radio drama and a game. I woke up to one or the other of the two stations for almost thirty years, and went to sleep the same way. Quiet at bedtime just never worked for me.
What I’ve figured out is that I’m basically an observer, and a loner, who loves to be in a crowd. Interestingly, because of some aspects of my personality, perhaps my unending curiosity and tolerance, I always had lots of folks around me during the day time. But radio time was my time. My time to reflect. Have to drive for four or five hours? Nothing better than a news station. “All news, all the time. You give us twenty-two minutes; we’ll give you the world.”
Now that I am no longer in Los Angeles on a regular basis, there is probably nothing that I miss more about the city than those radio stations. Talk radio is just not the same. Too many opinions and too much spin. Too many personal agendas. Too much anger and tension. But news, coming at you in a steady stream, takes one to a different place.
It forces one to ultimately process and focus. But while it’s coming at you, it forces you to simply absorb. You don’t’ encounter opinions or attitudes which turn you off, causing you to turn off the stream of information. I can’t imagine anything worse in life than tuning out. Isn’t that one of the benefits of higher intelligence, our ability to think for ourselves?
I’ll even admit that news took precedence over, and complicated my relationships with, most of my girlfriends. In fact, if a woman was able to distract me away from the news, it was probably an indication that she was not long for the relationship.
First thing in the morning, I wanted to hear the news. None of that hugging and cuddling stuff. Same thing at night. In fact, I never wanted to be at home until just before I retired. Walk in, brush my teeth, wash my face, and turn on the news station. Don’t cut off my circulation; don’t mention the concept of spooning, and keep the decibel level down so that we can hear the news. Obviously, I had to have some pretty good-natured gals in my life, who also loved the news, or rather information.
So here I’m traveling in the car the other night, and I hear that presidential candidate John McCain has finally severed his “ties” to the good Rev. John Hagee. This guy is interesting, and requires a little introduction. Rev. Hagee is the Founder and Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. The church has 19,000 active members. No, that not a typo, 19,000. He is also the CEO of a non-profit corporation, GETV (Global Evangelism Television), which disseminates his message around the world. He has power with a capital “P.”
Candidate McCain, out of concern that he was not the favored candidate amongst religious conservatives, actively sought the endorsement of Rev. Hagee. This is a guy who, after Hurricane Katrina, interpreted it as an Act of God, designed to punish the people of New Orleans, for committing a “level of sin offensive to God.” That was before the current presidential race. Several weeks ago, McCain had to somewhat distance himself from his endorser, when it was revealed that Rev. Hagee had referred to the Catholic Church as the “Great Whore.” However, the axe did not fall.
So I’m driving down the street listening to this talk radio station, and the news segment comes on. This is the closest thing to “all news all the time” that I can get in the Southeast, and I hear this story. McCain had to formally, and completely, sever his connection to Rev. Hagee.
Why? Because the good Reverend, during a series of sermons in the 1990s, indicated that God sent Hitler to Europe and orchestrated the Holocaust, to force the Jews to return to the Holy Land. (In fairness, it should be noted that Rev. Hagee is pro-Israel, and that is one of the factors that motivated McCain to seek his endorsement. If you want to understand the reason for his statement, and how the return of the Jews to Israel purportedly benefits humankind, I would suggest that you conduct a little research on your own. I just want you to appreciate that a simplistic conclusion, that Rev. Hagee is a racist, may not be particularly appropriate in this instance. It goes deeper than that. After all, we should always dig deeper.)
Actually, upon hearing this, the first thing that came to mind was not revulsion, condemnation, or surprise, but rather the pleasant memories of my old news radio stations. I recalled how I could experience any emotion, travel to any place, go anywhere intellectually, when I was engaged with the radio broadcast.
There’s something about that constant stream of information that just works for me. (Of course, there is spin associated with all media, and someone obviously selected the topics to be covered. However, it is about as close as one can get to pure information in the media. ) What I later realized is that I was simply storing information on my cranial hard drive, and not processing it until much later, when I then compared certain bits of information to others.
So here I’m listening to this Holocaust story, and because it was only a five minute news segment, I had the opportunity to gradually process the story shortly thereafter. The first thing that I did was to start chuckling, somewhat out of disbelief. The quasi-chuckle went on for about five minutes, then ten, and then twenty.
Plus, I kept remembering how I found myself over the years listening to hard news, with the same reaction. So now I’m saying to myself, this guy Rev. Hagee is wild; but he at least says what he actually feels. In my view, this was not a slip of the tongue. This was a carefully thought out position. I was also convinced, after a few minutes, that he really believes this, and that it represents truth for him, and perhaps many others.
So here I am reliving the joys of radio consumption, when I had the steady stream of news pumped into my brain, and I could always find out instantly what was going on in the world. There was a bit of nostalgia. Then something else came to mind. I recalled one of the first books that I ever read that most folks might deem “offensive.” It was a book written in the 1950’s by a southern segregationist, explaining why Negroes should be subject to Jim Crow laws.
I recalled reading it with as much relish as Don Quixote. (Well, may be not quite.) Remember, my Mom taught me to read everything. The value judgments came much later.
It always amazed me that black folks would choose to remain in the South and be subject to discrimination, even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, in discussions with many of my black friends, they said that they would rather know that someone was a racist, than live amongst people who called themselves progressives, or functioned with all of the trappings, but really were just closet racists.
In processing Rev. Hagee’s comments, I immediately asked myself, “Why should he have to explain or apologize for such a statement? “ This, once again, was not a slip. It is pretty clear that he feels that way, and I am absolutely certain that there are thousands, if not millions, who feel similarly. That’s when the concept of political correctness came to mind. (One of my buddies simply called him an “idiot,” although he did not consider Rev. Jeremiah Wright to be of the same “lodge.”)
Over the years, I heard various friends of mine complain about political correctness, but I really hadn’t given it much thought. Being a lawyer, I realized that the law prohibited certain types of conduct in certain situations and that part of the whole political correctness concept was derivatively related to some of our social engineering goals. I also recognized the possibility that we, as a society, might not want our children exposed to certain language or symbols. However, in the grand scheme of things, it just never seemed to me to be that important that someone address me a particular way, or refrain from using certain words. (I have sometimes wondered whether we spend so much time and energy fighting the symbolic battles, because of our insecurities, as a society, about our ability to really wage battle on the real, substantive issues.)
I also did not quite get it when some of my friends also spoke of political correctness as potentially bringing on the death of America. Well, in my mind, this seemed a bit much. But as I drove down the street, I began to think about the reverend’s comments and the concept of political correctness. He clearly has a right to make the comments. I learned long ago, through my international travels, that the concept of reality is situational. I also learned that belief systems are what they are – belief systems, and the last time I checked, no one currently serves as the belief police. You couple that with the fact that there are probably millions who agree with Reverend Hagee, and we have a dilemma.
If we agree that we can not regulate the belief or the thought process, then our concerns must lie with the expression and its form. Are we better off simply letting people speak their minds, and letting the chips fall as they may? Who gets to say what’s too far? Who gets to say what is appropriate? Who can prove that Hagee’s comments aren’t true? Aren’t we better off knowing what people really feel? Aren’t we more likely to be able to effectively “deal” with them? Isn’t there a value to transparency, instead of hiding behind a mask or a robe? Doesn’t the truth set you free?
As a buddy of mine once said, imagery is king in Los Angeles. I often watched buddies of mine try to date actresses, or professional “babes,” and I would remark, “You’re a better man than I.” Wouldn’t you want to know, in dealing with someone with whom you are pursuing an interpersonal relationship, that you’re really dealing with them, and not a script which they were instructed to read, or chose to read to accomplish an objective? Hey, I’ve got a solution. Maybe we should give people a choice. Maybe we should divide our schools, places of employment, governmental offices, and other institutions, into those for individuals desirous of adhering to politically correct principles, and those not. Quite frankly, being politically correct occupies too much of my time, and perhaps that of others. Just seems to me like the time would be better spent on addressing some serious problems, and once we address them to our satisfaction, then we could return to the symbol, word, and image battles.
I don’t know. Once again, I’m confused. It just seems to me that being straightforward and direct can’t be anything but a good thing in the long run. My partner, Laughingman, keeps saying that “doing the right thing is not rocket science.” Maybe being straightforward and direct is what he really means. I guess that’s Rev. Hagee personified. At least you know what you’re dealing with. Quite a few of us are a little tired of the dance.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)