© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The generation of this piece took roughly fifteen minutes. It is in response to something that I saw on television yesterday, but more significantly in response to something I just saw on C-Span some twenty minutes ago. As previously indicated in our Post No. 10 (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html), I am an information junkie.
There is a saying which many of us have often heard repeated, to the effect that the more experiences that one has, and the more knowledge that one acquires, the more one realizes just how little he or she really knows. I have always felt that notion applied to me; however, it apparently does not apply to most people. It seems to me that virtually everyone else in society has certain things figured out, while I’m still sitting here looking dumbfounded, or a as buddy of mine often notes, “like a monkey with a football.”
Yesterday, I saw a television show where popular radio talk show host Laura Ingraham was filling in for the regular host. There were several talk show talking heads accompanying her, discussing the performances of our presidential candidates at the “Faith Debate,” conducted this past weekend, during which the candidates discussed their positions on a wide range of faith and religious related topics. The commentators generally agreed that Sen. McCain provided nice, crisp, succinct, and spontaneous responses to the questions, while Sen. Obama appeared to be less crisp. In fact, they noted that he appeared as though he was struggling with some of his responses. Interestingly, one head, referred to as an Obama supporter, suggested that Sen. Obama appeared to be “thinking” about his responses, which made them longer and less spontaneous in nature.
What I found most interesting was the concluding comment by Ms. Ingraham, suggesting that she would have hoped that an adult of Sen. Obama’s age, and particularly a presidential candidate, would have figured out his position on a subject as significant as the “meaning of life” prior to that debate. (God forbid that we might have a leader actually thinking about that kind of stuff.) That comment gave me pause, particularly in light of my admitted confusion with respect to religion, as reflected in our Post No. 7 (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html).
Getting back to the C-Span presentation earlier this morning, William Cohen, the former Defense Secretary in the Clinton Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cohen), was on a panel discussing race in America. He told a story about how he was watching the news one day, and viewed a video of eleven police officers surrounding a man with a hunting knife. The police officers at some point opened fire and killed the man. He gave the officers the benefit of the doubt and concluded that the officers obviously felt that they might be harmed by the knife-wielding man. However, he questioned why they could not have shot the man in the arm or leg, or disable him in some other fashion. (I should note that no mention was made as the whether the man was already convicted, if that is of significance to any of you.)
Cohen did not think about the knife incident much further until roughly two weeks later. He was watching another news broadcast about a wild moose which had created some havoc in a town. The authorities were called, and this time they used a tranquilizer to disable the moose, had a helicopter lift the drowsy moose, and return it to the wild. The combination of these two events made him ponder our handling of a human and our handling of a wild animal. I’ve been thinking about this issue the entire time that I have been typing this piece, and from an analytical perspective, I’ve haven’t been able to reconcile the disparate treatment in my mind. However, I’m just a silly boy - I’m sure that you can.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Post No. 35b: The Pakistani Issue About Which We All Should Be Concerned
The following article appeared in the August 19, 2008 electronic version of the New York Times, and is an example of what results when a nation tries to have its cake and eat it too, as discussed in Post No. 29. Tough decisions, although unpopular, should be made early, and not when your back is up against the wall:
In Musharraf’s Wake, U.S. Faces Political Disarray
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Facing imminent impeachment charges, President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation on Monday, after months of belated recognition by American officials that he had become a waning asset in the campaign against terrorism.
The decision removes from Pakistan’s political stage the leader who for nearly nine years served as one of the United States’ most important — and ultimately unreliable — allies. And it now leaves American officials to deal with a new, elected coalition that has so far proved itself to be unwilling or unable to confront an expanding Taliban insurgency determined to topple the government.
“Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the nation will lose,” Mr. Musharraf said, explaining his decision in an emotional televised speech lasting more than an hour. He will stay in Pakistan and will not be put on trial, government officials said.
The question of who will succeed Mr. Musharraf is certain to unleash intense wrangling between the rival political parties that form the governing coalition and to add a new layer of turbulence to an already unstable nuclear-armed nation of 165 million people.
“We’ve said for years that Musharraf is our best bet, and my fear is that we are about to discover how true that was,” one senior Bush administration official said, acknowledging that the United States had stuck with Mr. Musharraf for too long and developed few other relationships in Pakistan to fall back on.
Administration officials will now have to find allies within the fractious civilian government, which has so far shown scant interest in taking on militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda who have roosted in Pakistan’s badlands along the border with Afghanistan.
At the same time, suspicions between the American and Pakistani intelligence agencies and their militaries are deepening, and relations between the countries are at their lowest point since Mr. Musharraf pledged to ally Pakistan with the United States after the 9/11 attacks.
Among the greatest concerns, senior American officials say, is the durability of new controls over Pakistan’s nuclear program. Though Pakistan has been through far more abrupt political transitions than this one — through assassinations, a mysterious plane crash and coups — this is the first since it amassed a large nuclear arsenal.
Another central concern is the war in Afghanistan, which has been fueled by Taliban and Qaeda fighters who have used Pakistan as a rear base to carry out increasingly lethal and sophisticated attacks across the border.
After years in which Mr. Musharraf proved unable or unwilling to rein in militants in Pakistan, American officials say they are now more skeptical than ever that they can count on cooperation from Pakistan’s military leaders, even including Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, a former head of Pakistan’s spy agency, who replaced Mr. Musharraf as military chief last November.
The coalition government had “no comprehension” of the insurgency, said a former interior minister, Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, whose parliamentary constituency adjoins the tribal areas. “They have one policy for domestic consumption: ‘Have peace, don’t use the army,’ ” he said. “Then for the foreigners they say, ‘We will fight.’ ”
A main challenge for Washington now will be to fix the attention of the two leaders of the coalition parties, Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, on the raging Taliban insurgency that not only threatens American soldiers in Afghanistan but also threatens to destabilize Pakistan itself.
The campaign against the militants is unpopular here in Pakistan because it is seen as an American conflict foisted on the country. Washington would like the new government to explain to the public that the effort to quell the Taliban is in Pakistan’s interests as well.
So far, the coalition, distracted by internal machinations, has failed to make that case, even as the military has taken on the insurgents with new vigor in the last 10 days. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought on Monday to emphasize continuity with the new leaders of Pakistan, saying the United States would keep pressing the Pakistani government to battle extremism within its borders.
President Bush, at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., made no statement about Mr. Musharraf’s resignation. A White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, said, “President Bush appreciates President Musharraf’s efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as well as his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda and extremist groups.”
The muted reaction from American officials was partly a result of the Bush administration’s having come to terms months ago with the expectation that it would have to pursue its strategy in Pakistan without Mr. Musharraf.
Mr. Musharraf’s political demise was nearly inevitable after he shed his military role last year and since his party was soundly defeated in parliamentary elections in February.
Since then, the White House has been grappling with a new political reality, where the civilian leaders seem to have tenuous control over Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment.
Some inside the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon believe that Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency has used the democratic transition in Islamabad to strengthen its ties to militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas who are carrying out operations into Afghanistan.
Uncertainty over who is actually in charge in Pakistan has heightened concerns over the country’s nuclear arsenal, which is today variously estimated at 50 to 100 weapons.
While American officials say publicly that they are confident it is secure, in private they have long harbored worries about what would happen when Mr. Musharraf no longer stood atop the country’s nuclear command structure, which has always been a creation of Mr. Musharraf himself. How robust it will prove without him, they say, is a worrisome unknown.
Perhaps the greatest concern is what one senior Bush administration official recently termed “steadfast efforts” by the extremist groups to infiltrate Pakistan’s nuclear laboratories, the heart of a vast infrastructure that employs tens of thousands of people. Some of the efforts, officials said, are believed to have involved Pakistani scientists trained abroad.
Pakistan’s weapons themselves are considered less of a concern — thanks in part to a secret program initiated by the Bush administration, with Mr. Musharraf’s consent, to help train Pakistani security forces to keep the weapons safe.
But American officials say they do not know the details of how much money was spent, and they have been barred from reviewing crucial aspects of the security procedures.
In announcing his resignation, from his presidential office here in Islamabad at 1 p.m., Mr. Musharraf said that he was putting national interest above “personal bravado,” adding that he was not prepared to put the office of the presidency through the impeachment process.
Mr. Musharraf said the governing coalition, which was pushing for impeachment, had tried to “turn lies into truths,” and finished his speech by raising his clenched fists chest high and declaring, “Long live Pakistan!”
Mr. Musharraf decided to resign after the coalition mounted a campaign over 10 days to impeach him and said it would file charges based on gross violations of the Constitution. For the new government, elected with a big majority in February, his departure represented a vindication of democracy in a country that has been ruled for more than half its 61-year existence by the military.
By 5 p.m., Mr. Musharraf had been granted a ceremonial departure composed of a military guard of honor, and he left the presidential building for the last time. He headed to an army house in Rawalpindi, a city adjacent to Islamabad, where he has lived as president.
He will stay there for the next few days before moving elsewhere in Islamabad, perhaps to a house he is building in an exclusive enclave on the outskirts of the city.
The chairman of the Senate, Muhammad Mian Soomro, who had served as caretaker prime minister this year, was named acting president. He will keep the office until a new president is chosen by Parliament and four provincial assemblies within 30 days.
Mr. Zardari, the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and now the head of the Pakistan Peoples Party, which she led before her assassination, is known to want the job. But he remains something of a controversial figure, having faced multiple counts of corruption in the past, though he was never convicted and says the charges were politically motivated. They were dropped when Mr. Zardari returned to Pakistan this year.
A senior American official who deals with Pakistan said last week that the notion of Mr. Zardari as president was not appealing, but neither were the alternatives.
One of the other candidates mentioned is Aftab Shahban Mirani, a former defense minister and a longtime stalwart of the Pakistan Peoples Party.
Whoever emerges, the talks are likely to be long and contentious. Mr. Sharif, who has a past checkered by corruption allegations, maintains a barely civil relationship with Mr. Zardari, and is said to be strongly opposed to the elevation of Mr. Zardari.
A colleague of Mr. Sharif’s said the Pakistan Muslim League-N, the party Mr. Sharif leads, might agree to Mr. Zardari in the post if it was stripped of its current powers, including the power to dissolve Parliament and to choose the army chief.
Salman Masood contributed reporting from Islamabad, Mark Mazzetti from Washington, and David E. Sanger from Vermont.
In Musharraf’s Wake, U.S. Faces Political Disarray
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Facing imminent impeachment charges, President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation on Monday, after months of belated recognition by American officials that he had become a waning asset in the campaign against terrorism.
The decision removes from Pakistan’s political stage the leader who for nearly nine years served as one of the United States’ most important — and ultimately unreliable — allies. And it now leaves American officials to deal with a new, elected coalition that has so far proved itself to be unwilling or unable to confront an expanding Taliban insurgency determined to topple the government.
“Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the nation will lose,” Mr. Musharraf said, explaining his decision in an emotional televised speech lasting more than an hour. He will stay in Pakistan and will not be put on trial, government officials said.
The question of who will succeed Mr. Musharraf is certain to unleash intense wrangling between the rival political parties that form the governing coalition and to add a new layer of turbulence to an already unstable nuclear-armed nation of 165 million people.
“We’ve said for years that Musharraf is our best bet, and my fear is that we are about to discover how true that was,” one senior Bush administration official said, acknowledging that the United States had stuck with Mr. Musharraf for too long and developed few other relationships in Pakistan to fall back on.
Administration officials will now have to find allies within the fractious civilian government, which has so far shown scant interest in taking on militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda who have roosted in Pakistan’s badlands along the border with Afghanistan.
At the same time, suspicions between the American and Pakistani intelligence agencies and their militaries are deepening, and relations between the countries are at their lowest point since Mr. Musharraf pledged to ally Pakistan with the United States after the 9/11 attacks.
Among the greatest concerns, senior American officials say, is the durability of new controls over Pakistan’s nuclear program. Though Pakistan has been through far more abrupt political transitions than this one — through assassinations, a mysterious plane crash and coups — this is the first since it amassed a large nuclear arsenal.
Another central concern is the war in Afghanistan, which has been fueled by Taliban and Qaeda fighters who have used Pakistan as a rear base to carry out increasingly lethal and sophisticated attacks across the border.
After years in which Mr. Musharraf proved unable or unwilling to rein in militants in Pakistan, American officials say they are now more skeptical than ever that they can count on cooperation from Pakistan’s military leaders, even including Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, a former head of Pakistan’s spy agency, who replaced Mr. Musharraf as military chief last November.
The coalition government had “no comprehension” of the insurgency, said a former interior minister, Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, whose parliamentary constituency adjoins the tribal areas. “They have one policy for domestic consumption: ‘Have peace, don’t use the army,’ ” he said. “Then for the foreigners they say, ‘We will fight.’ ”
A main challenge for Washington now will be to fix the attention of the two leaders of the coalition parties, Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, on the raging Taliban insurgency that not only threatens American soldiers in Afghanistan but also threatens to destabilize Pakistan itself.
The campaign against the militants is unpopular here in Pakistan because it is seen as an American conflict foisted on the country. Washington would like the new government to explain to the public that the effort to quell the Taliban is in Pakistan’s interests as well.
So far, the coalition, distracted by internal machinations, has failed to make that case, even as the military has taken on the insurgents with new vigor in the last 10 days. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought on Monday to emphasize continuity with the new leaders of Pakistan, saying the United States would keep pressing the Pakistani government to battle extremism within its borders.
President Bush, at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., made no statement about Mr. Musharraf’s resignation. A White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, said, “President Bush appreciates President Musharraf’s efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as well as his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda and extremist groups.”
The muted reaction from American officials was partly a result of the Bush administration’s having come to terms months ago with the expectation that it would have to pursue its strategy in Pakistan without Mr. Musharraf.
Mr. Musharraf’s political demise was nearly inevitable after he shed his military role last year and since his party was soundly defeated in parliamentary elections in February.
Since then, the White House has been grappling with a new political reality, where the civilian leaders seem to have tenuous control over Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment.
Some inside the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon believe that Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency has used the democratic transition in Islamabad to strengthen its ties to militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas who are carrying out operations into Afghanistan.
Uncertainty over who is actually in charge in Pakistan has heightened concerns over the country’s nuclear arsenal, which is today variously estimated at 50 to 100 weapons.
While American officials say publicly that they are confident it is secure, in private they have long harbored worries about what would happen when Mr. Musharraf no longer stood atop the country’s nuclear command structure, which has always been a creation of Mr. Musharraf himself. How robust it will prove without him, they say, is a worrisome unknown.
Perhaps the greatest concern is what one senior Bush administration official recently termed “steadfast efforts” by the extremist groups to infiltrate Pakistan’s nuclear laboratories, the heart of a vast infrastructure that employs tens of thousands of people. Some of the efforts, officials said, are believed to have involved Pakistani scientists trained abroad.
Pakistan’s weapons themselves are considered less of a concern — thanks in part to a secret program initiated by the Bush administration, with Mr. Musharraf’s consent, to help train Pakistani security forces to keep the weapons safe.
But American officials say they do not know the details of how much money was spent, and they have been barred from reviewing crucial aspects of the security procedures.
In announcing his resignation, from his presidential office here in Islamabad at 1 p.m., Mr. Musharraf said that he was putting national interest above “personal bravado,” adding that he was not prepared to put the office of the presidency through the impeachment process.
Mr. Musharraf said the governing coalition, which was pushing for impeachment, had tried to “turn lies into truths,” and finished his speech by raising his clenched fists chest high and declaring, “Long live Pakistan!”
Mr. Musharraf decided to resign after the coalition mounted a campaign over 10 days to impeach him and said it would file charges based on gross violations of the Constitution. For the new government, elected with a big majority in February, his departure represented a vindication of democracy in a country that has been ruled for more than half its 61-year existence by the military.
By 5 p.m., Mr. Musharraf had been granted a ceremonial departure composed of a military guard of honor, and he left the presidential building for the last time. He headed to an army house in Rawalpindi, a city adjacent to Islamabad, where he has lived as president.
He will stay there for the next few days before moving elsewhere in Islamabad, perhaps to a house he is building in an exclusive enclave on the outskirts of the city.
The chairman of the Senate, Muhammad Mian Soomro, who had served as caretaker prime minister this year, was named acting president. He will keep the office until a new president is chosen by Parliament and four provincial assemblies within 30 days.
Mr. Zardari, the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and now the head of the Pakistan Peoples Party, which she led before her assassination, is known to want the job. But he remains something of a controversial figure, having faced multiple counts of corruption in the past, though he was never convicted and says the charges were politically motivated. They were dropped when Mr. Zardari returned to Pakistan this year.
A senior American official who deals with Pakistan said last week that the notion of Mr. Zardari as president was not appealing, but neither were the alternatives.
One of the other candidates mentioned is Aftab Shahban Mirani, a former defense minister and a longtime stalwart of the Pakistan Peoples Party.
Whoever emerges, the talks are likely to be long and contentious. Mr. Sharif, who has a past checkered by corruption allegations, maintains a barely civil relationship with Mr. Zardari, and is said to be strongly opposed to the elevation of Mr. Zardari.
A colleague of Mr. Sharif’s said the Pakistan Muslim League-N, the party Mr. Sharif leads, might agree to Mr. Zardari in the post if it was stripped of its current powers, including the power to dissolve Parliament and to choose the army chief.
Salman Masood contributed reporting from Islamabad, Mark Mazzetti from Washington, and David E. Sanger from Vermont.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Post 35a: ADULT CONTENT WARNING - Upcoming Article re John Edwards
Within the next 12 to 24 hours, we will provide a very simplistic and realistic explanation of why men have extramarital affairs, no matter what the profession or status of the purported offenders. We are advising you ahead of time to carefully consider whether you want to read Post No. 36, which shall be posted shortly. You may choose to deny access to our site to anyone under 21. Additionally, we are deleting the e-mail addresses of those of you whose work addresses appear on our distribution list. We do not want you to suffer any negative employment law ramifications.
We’re simply sick and tired of everyone talking about this subject year, after year, after year, when they don’t have a clue about which they speak. Even Masters and Johnson knew not about which they spoke. Look for the definitive discussion on the subject. Someone has to have the guts to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Shhhhhhhhooooo… Extramarital sex, get real!
We’re simply sick and tired of everyone talking about this subject year, after year, after year, when they don’t have a clue about which they speak. Even Masters and Johnson knew not about which they spoke. Look for the definitive discussion on the subject. Someone has to have the guts to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Shhhhhhhhooooo… Extramarital sex, get real!
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Post No. 35: Why Smacking Someone Around Periodically Might Be a Good Thing
by Guest Author, The Laughingman
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Crew is a particularly interesting and Ivy League sport.
Next to the Army Forest Rangers, or the Navy Seals, there is no other activity on the planet that requires a higher level of conditioning, precision, training, or team interdependence.
The "boat" weighs just a little more than a single rower. The oars, on the other hand, weigh considerably more than the boat. For leverage, these forward motivation devices are mounted on outriggers a couple of feet from the rails of this odd racing device.
Eight human power plants, selected for their strength, endurance, and technique, power the craft... all sitting backward to the direction in which they are heading... with virtually no idea of where they are going... just a passing view of where they have just been.
Steering and speed are left in the hands of the lightest person available... and, as far as I was able to tell, weight was the only qualification.
The "function" of this light weight freeloader, or coxswain, seated at the stern (the rear end of the boat) was to call cadence for the rowers...and steer us to victory.
In practice, the "Stroke," the oarsman facing the "Coxin" and next closest to the stern, was responsible for setting the stroke rate and cadence (or rhythm)... the other rowers' job was to match his speed and power... exactly... or the boat would just wander all over the river.
(If you got out of sync with the stroke, you would eventually miss a catch, where the oar blade is placed in the water, or release, where the oar blade is removed from the water, and be tossed several yards from the boat into the water. This was not a good thing...your life depended on how quickly the coach's boat got to you... no exhausted, anti-cold weather equipped rower was going to stay above the surface more than 90 seconds.... parent-oriented pamphlets notwithstanding.)
In college competition... at least at Columbia... the training season lasts 11 months.
When it became too dangerous to send the boats out on the river... never did find out what that tipping point was... we pulled against dead water in the tanks located below Low Library. There is no human activity less enjoyable than pulling against dead water in a boat fixed to the bottom of the tank in the basement of the senior administration building; whose residents complained daily about the smell of vomit floating up through the ventilation... “Can't we cut the ventilation off down there?” one senior administrative assistant asked... weekly.
But the most...memorable...experience you could have as a member of a varsity crew team was when the "Coxin" got fancy...steered too close to one of the George Washington Bridge supports, and clipped the concrete with the port or starboard oars... tossing all four port or starboard oarsmen into the Hudson. Your feet are tied to the boat... your oar is mounted to develop the maximum mechanical leverage possible... your hands are so thoroughly cramped about your rowing device, you couldn't let go even if you knew what was about to happen.
Nobody, including the Army, and the Army's spinal training hospital, has ever frightened me as much as that five yard arc into the Hudson River.
Bill Glover, a fraternity brother and ROTC member, took this... mistake... by our Coxin, Fast Ed Rosen, personally. Bill got the stroke job because he was clearly the strongest rower... and seemed to have no sense of pain.
For the rest of the season, Bill would release his right hand between the release and the next catch, and use it to smack Ed's head mounted megaphone in a 360 degree circle around his head.
Ed quit at the end of the season... according to rumors, because he was afraid he would have no more ears left after another season coxing for Bill.
I quit half way through the nest season to go catch passes for Marty... seemed a safer sport... and Marty was more fun.
Bill went to Vietnam to command a river boat... and continued to knock the voice megaphones around his senior officers until they suggested he might be of more value to the country as a civilian.
As the Senior Fellow at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, my responsibilities include ensuring that we acknowledge history, honing perspective (aka wisdom) that comes with advancing years, and telling stories of my youth.
My point, and I do have one, is that from Wall Street to Washington, we might be better off if our best people... the ones who care about the people they are responsible for.... occasionally spun a megaphone around the ears of the people who are charged with telling us what is happening...and routinely get it wrong, or worse yet, make it up.
Half our rowers are already in the water...I don't think we can afford to clip another bridge....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Crew is a particularly interesting and Ivy League sport.
Next to the Army Forest Rangers, or the Navy Seals, there is no other activity on the planet that requires a higher level of conditioning, precision, training, or team interdependence.
The "boat" weighs just a little more than a single rower. The oars, on the other hand, weigh considerably more than the boat. For leverage, these forward motivation devices are mounted on outriggers a couple of feet from the rails of this odd racing device.
Eight human power plants, selected for their strength, endurance, and technique, power the craft... all sitting backward to the direction in which they are heading... with virtually no idea of where they are going... just a passing view of where they have just been.
Steering and speed are left in the hands of the lightest person available... and, as far as I was able to tell, weight was the only qualification.
The "function" of this light weight freeloader, or coxswain, seated at the stern (the rear end of the boat) was to call cadence for the rowers...and steer us to victory.
In practice, the "Stroke," the oarsman facing the "Coxin" and next closest to the stern, was responsible for setting the stroke rate and cadence (or rhythm)... the other rowers' job was to match his speed and power... exactly... or the boat would just wander all over the river.
(If you got out of sync with the stroke, you would eventually miss a catch, where the oar blade is placed in the water, or release, where the oar blade is removed from the water, and be tossed several yards from the boat into the water. This was not a good thing...your life depended on how quickly the coach's boat got to you... no exhausted, anti-cold weather equipped rower was going to stay above the surface more than 90 seconds.... parent-oriented pamphlets notwithstanding.)
In college competition... at least at Columbia... the training season lasts 11 months.
When it became too dangerous to send the boats out on the river... never did find out what that tipping point was... we pulled against dead water in the tanks located below Low Library. There is no human activity less enjoyable than pulling against dead water in a boat fixed to the bottom of the tank in the basement of the senior administration building; whose residents complained daily about the smell of vomit floating up through the ventilation... “Can't we cut the ventilation off down there?” one senior administrative assistant asked... weekly.
But the most...memorable...experience you could have as a member of a varsity crew team was when the "Coxin" got fancy...steered too close to one of the George Washington Bridge supports, and clipped the concrete with the port or starboard oars... tossing all four port or starboard oarsmen into the Hudson. Your feet are tied to the boat... your oar is mounted to develop the maximum mechanical leverage possible... your hands are so thoroughly cramped about your rowing device, you couldn't let go even if you knew what was about to happen.
Nobody, including the Army, and the Army's spinal training hospital, has ever frightened me as much as that five yard arc into the Hudson River.
Bill Glover, a fraternity brother and ROTC member, took this... mistake... by our Coxin, Fast Ed Rosen, personally. Bill got the stroke job because he was clearly the strongest rower... and seemed to have no sense of pain.
For the rest of the season, Bill would release his right hand between the release and the next catch, and use it to smack Ed's head mounted megaphone in a 360 degree circle around his head.
Ed quit at the end of the season... according to rumors, because he was afraid he would have no more ears left after another season coxing for Bill.
I quit half way through the nest season to go catch passes for Marty... seemed a safer sport... and Marty was more fun.
Bill went to Vietnam to command a river boat... and continued to knock the voice megaphones around his senior officers until they suggested he might be of more value to the country as a civilian.
As the Senior Fellow at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, my responsibilities include ensuring that we acknowledge history, honing perspective (aka wisdom) that comes with advancing years, and telling stories of my youth.
My point, and I do have one, is that from Wall Street to Washington, we might be better off if our best people... the ones who care about the people they are responsible for.... occasionally spun a megaphone around the ears of the people who are charged with telling us what is happening...and routinely get it wrong, or worse yet, make it up.
Half our rowers are already in the water...I don't think we can afford to clip another bridge....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Post No. 34: Opportunity to Serve as Guest Author – It’s Your Turn to Express Yourself
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Since we started this blog in April of 2008, numerous readers have asked us about the blogging experience, and how they might start their own blogs. It took us almost two years to actually do so, and we regret not having done so earlier.
A blog opens up a whole new world to you, and allows interaction with folks all over the world, about all sorts of subjects. The blogosphere is truly a global virtual community.
(For those interested, a major blogging convention is scheduled for Greensboro, NC on Thursday and Friday, October 16 and 17, 2008 (http://convergesouth.com.) On Saturday, October 18, 2008 BlogHer (http://www.blogher.com), a community for women who blog, visits the city as part of its traveling tour.)
We’re going to provide you with an opportunity to post an article or articles on our blog, as Guest Authors, consistent with the goals and principles of the Institute for Applied Common Sense.
There is no need to repeat our philosophy here; it appears stated in the right column of the blog. However, before getting to the Guest Author opportunity, we thought that we should share with you a profile of our readership.
There are many widgets and tracking devices which can be installed on a blog, to provide information about the visiting traffic. We are particularly enthralled with http://www.sitemeter.com . Even their free service provides valuable information, as will be reflected below.
The vast majority of the readers of this blog appear to be non-bloggers. We frequently receive direct e-mails containing comments as opposed to comments on the blog. Roughly 15-20% of the readers are located in countries outside of the United States. We have regular readers from Australia, Finland, France, the Palestinian Territories in Gaza, Germany, Iceland, India, Israel, Jordan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom.
Thus far, we can not recall any readers from China. Far more newcomers (individuals not associated with any of the members of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team) read our blog than friends of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team. The newcomers also have a tendency to read more articles and to stay on the blog reading them longer.
It appears that most of our foreign readers live in smaller cities, and we have noticed that they spend more time reading more articles than any other group.
We employ the “next blog” button feature of the Navigation Bar at the top of our blog to “blog surf” and visit other blogs. The vast majority of the other blogs which we visit are based in Southeast Asia, the South Pacific, and Brazil. We are actually surprised at the large number of Brazilian blogs.
Most blogs are uniquely personal. A large number display photos taken by the blogger, chronicle the lives and experiences of children or newlyweds, or display the artistic work of artists of every imaginable variety. We tend to randomly surf to other blogs and when we find one of interest, we stop and comment.
Although we are sure that there are many blogs dealing with political or societal issues, we rarely run across them. (That may be explained by the fact that we use Google’s free blogging platform, http://www.blooger.com, and those interested in professional blogging tend to buy other software for blogging.)
We joined a number of Google Groups (or discussion groups), most with some type of political theme. The bulk of our traffic is referred to us through Google Groups, following our leaving comments on the group discussion boards. We stumble through blogs written in French, Portuguese, and Spanish, and leave comments using a combination of English and our broken language in question. Most interestingly, it is the Brazilians who most frequently respond.
The readers who consider the articles, or the ideas expressed in them, to be radical or dangerous are generally Americans. We never sense any reluctance to go to another place intellectually on the part of our foreign visitors.
We have no real sense of the age demographic of our readers. We suspect that we have far more women readers than men, based on the comments.
In the U.S., our readers have a tendency to be from the West Coast, Southwest, and the Eastern Seaboard. Mid-Western readers hail from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In the South, we get visitors from Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; there are virtually no readers from Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Tennessee. There are also very few readers from the Rocky Mountain States and the Plains States.
Our blog informs readers that the “It’s Your Turn™"Team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of college campuses to engage students in a conversation about personal responsibility and making difficult decisions. In response thereto, we have received numerous comments which generally might fall into two categories: (a) those which inquire as to where we were when they were in college; and (b) to inform them when the tour is scheduled to be in their vicinity.
The blog has evolved over time. It morphed from simply posing rhetorical questions in admittedly lengthy essays. It went through a period when we suggested theoretical constructs which might be utilized to analyze certain situations. Our original goal, which remains today, was to simply get people to think and avoid rushing to judgments and decisions.
One of our favorite stories revolves around Senator Barry Goldwater, the ultimate conservative. Just prior to his death, he was asked to identify one thing he appreciated as a senior citizen, which he did not appreciate in his youth. He replied that in his youth, he thought there were only two sides to every issue. In hindsight, he understood that there were at least three.
Our view is that there are at least 27 different ways to view everything. Not all of them are good, productive, or positive at any given particular time, and their importance definitely changes depending on the context or circumstances. However, we should be aware of them.
Another goal of this blog has always been to encourage people to “dig deeper” in trying to understand the underlying causes of problems, instead of being distracted by the superficial, and typically emotional, symptoms.
If at times you’ve been confused about the purpose and focus of this blog, you are pretty perceptive. We essentially conducted a virtual focus group during the first few months of the blog’s existence. We’re still experimenting with different approaches.
Amazingly, we have not received one, single, nasty, off the chart, emotional rant, and for that we modestly take some credit. It was not our intention to get folks worked up, but rather to get them to say, “Hmm, let me think about that.” The most frequent comment which we received was, “I hadn’t thought or looked at it that way.” We view getting folks to pause during the thought process as a good thing.
We mentioned earlier that we are inviting our readers to serve as Guest Authors. We have a few guidelines to ensure that we maintain the spirit of the blog. We’re interested in civilized, respectful discourse, between participants with open minds. We believe that reasonable people can differ about how to approach a problem. Please observe the following guidelines:
1. Please limit your article to 750 words maximum;
2. Discuss any issue in the news or societal issue that you desire;
3. Avoid just criticizing or taking a side, and instead think in terms of suggesting a solution to the issue, or at a minimum offer some reasoned alternatives;
4. Try to be as objective as possible and set aside your personal biases;
5. Pose rhetorical questions to challenge the reader to consider various options, and innovative ways to analyze the issue;
6. Avoid the use of invective and judgmental statements, which might prompt emotional responses;
7. Avoid taking sides, or the positions of the liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, etc. Your piece should cause all sides to ponder; and
8. Be sure to “dig deeper” to reach the underlying causes.
Send your articles to RDGreene27401@gmail.com with an urgent flag. As long as they are generated in good faith and generally within our guidelines, they will be published “as is,” without further editing. Be sure to tell your friends and contacts to read your articles once they are published. This should be fun.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Since we started this blog in April of 2008, numerous readers have asked us about the blogging experience, and how they might start their own blogs. It took us almost two years to actually do so, and we regret not having done so earlier.
A blog opens up a whole new world to you, and allows interaction with folks all over the world, about all sorts of subjects. The blogosphere is truly a global virtual community.
(For those interested, a major blogging convention is scheduled for Greensboro, NC on Thursday and Friday, October 16 and 17, 2008 (http://convergesouth.com.) On Saturday, October 18, 2008 BlogHer (http://www.blogher.com), a community for women who blog, visits the city as part of its traveling tour.)
We’re going to provide you with an opportunity to post an article or articles on our blog, as Guest Authors, consistent with the goals and principles of the Institute for Applied Common Sense.
There is no need to repeat our philosophy here; it appears stated in the right column of the blog. However, before getting to the Guest Author opportunity, we thought that we should share with you a profile of our readership.
There are many widgets and tracking devices which can be installed on a blog, to provide information about the visiting traffic. We are particularly enthralled with http://www.sitemeter.com . Even their free service provides valuable information, as will be reflected below.
The vast majority of the readers of this blog appear to be non-bloggers. We frequently receive direct e-mails containing comments as opposed to comments on the blog. Roughly 15-20% of the readers are located in countries outside of the United States. We have regular readers from Australia, Finland, France, the Palestinian Territories in Gaza, Germany, Iceland, India, Israel, Jordan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom.
Thus far, we can not recall any readers from China. Far more newcomers (individuals not associated with any of the members of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team) read our blog than friends of the “It’s Your Turn™” Team. The newcomers also have a tendency to read more articles and to stay on the blog reading them longer.
It appears that most of our foreign readers live in smaller cities, and we have noticed that they spend more time reading more articles than any other group.
We employ the “next blog” button feature of the Navigation Bar at the top of our blog to “blog surf” and visit other blogs. The vast majority of the other blogs which we visit are based in Southeast Asia, the South Pacific, and Brazil. We are actually surprised at the large number of Brazilian blogs.
Most blogs are uniquely personal. A large number display photos taken by the blogger, chronicle the lives and experiences of children or newlyweds, or display the artistic work of artists of every imaginable variety. We tend to randomly surf to other blogs and when we find one of interest, we stop and comment.
Although we are sure that there are many blogs dealing with political or societal issues, we rarely run across them. (That may be explained by the fact that we use Google’s free blogging platform, http://www.blooger.com, and those interested in professional blogging tend to buy other software for blogging.)
We joined a number of Google Groups (or discussion groups), most with some type of political theme. The bulk of our traffic is referred to us through Google Groups, following our leaving comments on the group discussion boards. We stumble through blogs written in French, Portuguese, and Spanish, and leave comments using a combination of English and our broken language in question. Most interestingly, it is the Brazilians who most frequently respond.
The readers who consider the articles, or the ideas expressed in them, to be radical or dangerous are generally Americans. We never sense any reluctance to go to another place intellectually on the part of our foreign visitors.
We have no real sense of the age demographic of our readers. We suspect that we have far more women readers than men, based on the comments.
In the U.S., our readers have a tendency to be from the West Coast, Southwest, and the Eastern Seaboard. Mid-Western readers hail from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In the South, we get visitors from Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; there are virtually no readers from Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Tennessee. There are also very few readers from the Rocky Mountain States and the Plains States.
Our blog informs readers that the “It’s Your Turn™"Team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of college campuses to engage students in a conversation about personal responsibility and making difficult decisions. In response thereto, we have received numerous comments which generally might fall into two categories: (a) those which inquire as to where we were when they were in college; and (b) to inform them when the tour is scheduled to be in their vicinity.
The blog has evolved over time. It morphed from simply posing rhetorical questions in admittedly lengthy essays. It went through a period when we suggested theoretical constructs which might be utilized to analyze certain situations. Our original goal, which remains today, was to simply get people to think and avoid rushing to judgments and decisions.
One of our favorite stories revolves around Senator Barry Goldwater, the ultimate conservative. Just prior to his death, he was asked to identify one thing he appreciated as a senior citizen, which he did not appreciate in his youth. He replied that in his youth, he thought there were only two sides to every issue. In hindsight, he understood that there were at least three.
Our view is that there are at least 27 different ways to view everything. Not all of them are good, productive, or positive at any given particular time, and their importance definitely changes depending on the context or circumstances. However, we should be aware of them.
Another goal of this blog has always been to encourage people to “dig deeper” in trying to understand the underlying causes of problems, instead of being distracted by the superficial, and typically emotional, symptoms.
If at times you’ve been confused about the purpose and focus of this blog, you are pretty perceptive. We essentially conducted a virtual focus group during the first few months of the blog’s existence. We’re still experimenting with different approaches.
Amazingly, we have not received one, single, nasty, off the chart, emotional rant, and for that we modestly take some credit. It was not our intention to get folks worked up, but rather to get them to say, “Hmm, let me think about that.” The most frequent comment which we received was, “I hadn’t thought or looked at it that way.” We view getting folks to pause during the thought process as a good thing.
We mentioned earlier that we are inviting our readers to serve as Guest Authors. We have a few guidelines to ensure that we maintain the spirit of the blog. We’re interested in civilized, respectful discourse, between participants with open minds. We believe that reasonable people can differ about how to approach a problem. Please observe the following guidelines:
1. Please limit your article to 750 words maximum;
2. Discuss any issue in the news or societal issue that you desire;
3. Avoid just criticizing or taking a side, and instead think in terms of suggesting a solution to the issue, or at a minimum offer some reasoned alternatives;
4. Try to be as objective as possible and set aside your personal biases;
5. Pose rhetorical questions to challenge the reader to consider various options, and innovative ways to analyze the issue;
6. Avoid the use of invective and judgmental statements, which might prompt emotional responses;
7. Avoid taking sides, or the positions of the liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, etc. Your piece should cause all sides to ponder; and
8. Be sure to “dig deeper” to reach the underlying causes.
Send your articles to RDGreene27401@gmail.com with an urgent flag. As long as they are generated in good faith and generally within our guidelines, they will be published “as is,” without further editing. Be sure to tell your friends and contacts to read your articles once they are published. This should be fun.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Post No. 33: Are You Curious About What's Been Going on with the Iraqi Oil?
Article of Interest of Interest from the August 6, 2008 Edition of the New York Times
August 6, 2008
As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding
By JAMES GLANZ and CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.
In one comparison, the United States has spent $23.2 billion in the critical areas of security, oil, electricity and water since the 2003 invasion, the report said. But from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq has spent just $3.9 billion on similar services.
Over all, the report from the Government Accountability Office estimates, Iraqi oil revenue from 2005 through the end of this year will amount to at least $156 billion. And in an odd financial twist, a large amount of the surplus money is sitting in an American bank in New York — nearly $10 billion at the end of 2007, with more expected this year, when the accountability office estimates a skyrocketing surplus.
The report was requested by two senior senators, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and on Tuesday they were quick to express strong dissatisfaction over the contrast between American spending on reconstruction and the weak record of spending by Iraq itself.
“The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”
From the beginning of the conflict, American officials assured taxpayers and the world that Iraq would use oil money to pay for reconstruction. But that has not happened. Several senior Iraqi officials were either traveling on Tuesday or declined to comment, saying they were not familiar with the report.
Sinan al-Shabibi, governor of the Central Bank of Iraq, which the report said was holding $5.7 billion of the surplus at the end of 2007, said that while he could not speak for the government, problems with spending money often had to do with continuing security problems and a shortage of expertise in Iraqi ministries.
“Yes, there are problems, but that does not mean those problems are going to continue,” Mr. Shabibi said. “In all developing countries you put objectives, and sometimes you don’t reach them.”
“But,” he said, referring to the government, “they are determined to spend this money on development. They see it as a priority.”
Senators Levin and Warner pointed out that in 2007, for example, Iraq actually spent only 28 percent of its $12 billion reconstruction budget, according to the accountability office. But even that number could overstate the success rate in most of Iraq, because $2 billion of the spending took place in the relatively peaceful confines of the northern Kurdish region.
And in another troubling sign, the report said that from 2005 to 2007, Iraq devoted only 1 percent of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.
Like so many statistical measures from Iraq, the ones in the new report are likely to be used to support opposite positions on how much the United States should continue spending and how long it should stay in the country, said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington.
The figures could be used to argue that because the Iraqi ministries still do not have the capacity to spend their own money, further assistance from the United States is called for, Ms. Alexander said. Or the huge oil revenues could be seen as proof that Iraq has the resources to solve its own problems if it would only use the money.
But one finding that is sure to raise questions all around is the enormous pileup of cash in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as well as several Iraqi banks, Ms. Alexander said. The money in New York is a legacy of a system set up to handle Iraqi oil revenues when the country had no capacity to do so on its own.
The purpose of the money was to rebuild Iraq, not draw interest in a bank, Ms. Alexander said. “I don’t know what function that serves right now. In my mind it raises another set of questions which is, ‘Who’s minding the store?’ ” she said.
“There may have been people who said this is going to be harder than you think, this is going to take a long time, but nobody said what we should do is collect a lot of money and let it sit there,” Ms. Alexander said.
The deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank is so large that the United States has been obliged to make $435.6 million in interest payments to Iraq through the end of last year, according to the new report.
The overall estimates of Iraqi surpluses will come down somewhat if the Iraqi Parliament passes stalled legislation that includes a $22 billion supplemental budget for 2008. As of Tuesday, that bill had not been passed, since it is mired in wider negotiations over provincial elections.
Some of the Iraqi spending figures cited in the report were also a matter of dispute in the past, with the Iraqi government and American officials in Baghdad claiming that Iraq had consistently spent more money than the accountability office had given it credit for.
But the office said evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared by the Iraqi Finance Ministry — reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.
Joseph A. Christoff, director of the international affairs and trade team at the accountability office, said it was fair to say that a shortage of qualified officials in Iraq had diminished the capacity of central ministries to write contracts and carry out rebuilding.
But he said it was also true that with so much American assistance available, the Iraqi government may not have felt much urgency to increase that capacity and spend its own money.
“I think some people would contend that because we have continued to make a sizable investment, there hasn’t been a proper incentive until now for the Iraqi government to make its own investment,” Mr. Christoff said.
Reached late on Tuesday in Baghdad, the Iraqi planning minister, Ali Baban, defended his country’s commitment to spending Iraqi money on reconstruction, saying that the government was pushing as hard as it could to complete projects.
“I admit that there is some delay in spending the money on the projects in the provinces and in the ministries,” Mr. Baban said. “We have problems in this issue because there are lots of obstacles we face, because of the situation that we’re going through. We’re trying to deal with that, we’re trying to improve things, but you know the situation in Iraq.”
James Glanz reported from New York, and Campbell Robertson from Baghdad.
August 6, 2008
As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding
By JAMES GLANZ and CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.
In one comparison, the United States has spent $23.2 billion in the critical areas of security, oil, electricity and water since the 2003 invasion, the report said. But from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq has spent just $3.9 billion on similar services.
Over all, the report from the Government Accountability Office estimates, Iraqi oil revenue from 2005 through the end of this year will amount to at least $156 billion. And in an odd financial twist, a large amount of the surplus money is sitting in an American bank in New York — nearly $10 billion at the end of 2007, with more expected this year, when the accountability office estimates a skyrocketing surplus.
The report was requested by two senior senators, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and on Tuesday they were quick to express strong dissatisfaction over the contrast between American spending on reconstruction and the weak record of spending by Iraq itself.
“The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”
From the beginning of the conflict, American officials assured taxpayers and the world that Iraq would use oil money to pay for reconstruction. But that has not happened. Several senior Iraqi officials were either traveling on Tuesday or declined to comment, saying they were not familiar with the report.
Sinan al-Shabibi, governor of the Central Bank of Iraq, which the report said was holding $5.7 billion of the surplus at the end of 2007, said that while he could not speak for the government, problems with spending money often had to do with continuing security problems and a shortage of expertise in Iraqi ministries.
“Yes, there are problems, but that does not mean those problems are going to continue,” Mr. Shabibi said. “In all developing countries you put objectives, and sometimes you don’t reach them.”
“But,” he said, referring to the government, “they are determined to spend this money on development. They see it as a priority.”
Senators Levin and Warner pointed out that in 2007, for example, Iraq actually spent only 28 percent of its $12 billion reconstruction budget, according to the accountability office. But even that number could overstate the success rate in most of Iraq, because $2 billion of the spending took place in the relatively peaceful confines of the northern Kurdish region.
And in another troubling sign, the report said that from 2005 to 2007, Iraq devoted only 1 percent of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.
Like so many statistical measures from Iraq, the ones in the new report are likely to be used to support opposite positions on how much the United States should continue spending and how long it should stay in the country, said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington.
The figures could be used to argue that because the Iraqi ministries still do not have the capacity to spend their own money, further assistance from the United States is called for, Ms. Alexander said. Or the huge oil revenues could be seen as proof that Iraq has the resources to solve its own problems if it would only use the money.
But one finding that is sure to raise questions all around is the enormous pileup of cash in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as well as several Iraqi banks, Ms. Alexander said. The money in New York is a legacy of a system set up to handle Iraqi oil revenues when the country had no capacity to do so on its own.
The purpose of the money was to rebuild Iraq, not draw interest in a bank, Ms. Alexander said. “I don’t know what function that serves right now. In my mind it raises another set of questions which is, ‘Who’s minding the store?’ ” she said.
“There may have been people who said this is going to be harder than you think, this is going to take a long time, but nobody said what we should do is collect a lot of money and let it sit there,” Ms. Alexander said.
The deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank is so large that the United States has been obliged to make $435.6 million in interest payments to Iraq through the end of last year, according to the new report.
The overall estimates of Iraqi surpluses will come down somewhat if the Iraqi Parliament passes stalled legislation that includes a $22 billion supplemental budget for 2008. As of Tuesday, that bill had not been passed, since it is mired in wider negotiations over provincial elections.
Some of the Iraqi spending figures cited in the report were also a matter of dispute in the past, with the Iraqi government and American officials in Baghdad claiming that Iraq had consistently spent more money than the accountability office had given it credit for.
But the office said evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared by the Iraqi Finance Ministry — reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.
Joseph A. Christoff, director of the international affairs and trade team at the accountability office, said it was fair to say that a shortage of qualified officials in Iraq had diminished the capacity of central ministries to write contracts and carry out rebuilding.
But he said it was also true that with so much American assistance available, the Iraqi government may not have felt much urgency to increase that capacity and spend its own money.
“I think some people would contend that because we have continued to make a sizable investment, there hasn’t been a proper incentive until now for the Iraqi government to make its own investment,” Mr. Christoff said.
Reached late on Tuesday in Baghdad, the Iraqi planning minister, Ali Baban, defended his country’s commitment to spending Iraqi money on reconstruction, saying that the government was pushing as hard as it could to complete projects.
“I admit that there is some delay in spending the money on the projects in the provinces and in the ministries,” Mr. Baban said. “We have problems in this issue because there are lots of obstacles we face, because of the situation that we’re going through. We’re trying to deal with that, we’re trying to improve things, but you know the situation in Iraq.”
James Glanz reported from New York, and Campbell Robertson from Baghdad.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Post No. 32: Politics and Other Such Nonsense
(Responsive Comment by Guest Author The Laughingman to Post No. 30, “The Dangers Associated with Being ‘Peculiar’”)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
[In “Peculiar,” The Logistician submits that our fear of the unknown, or that which we consider to be “peculiar,” may be hard wired to promote survival in a complex world. He also suggests that as humans, we should be able to think and reason beyond our primal fears. He further employs us to do this as we approach the upcoming presidential election, and ignore the static.]
Peculiar?
Seems we have hit a tipping point in American Politics.
Both of our presumptive candidates are roundly detested by significant minorities within their own parties.
Both campaigns have been taken over by the Political Pros...presumably to protect their money bases...while the likes of Tom Delay do their penance wandering in the wilderness.
The money people are back in charge...so Obama is linked to Paris and Brittany, and McCain is linked to Bush.
Ostensibly, all of this paid for "crap" is deemed necessary by the money boys who are scared to death they will wind up Mr. Abramoff's [(http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff)] new neighbors, should the other side win.
Jesse Jackson has similar, and significant, concerns.
So...every Sunday morning, we are treated to the posers that be, on both sides of the aisle, who drag their candidates back into the muck that we call Presidential Politics.
So, characters whose goals are subject to varying interpretations, like Carl Rove, are now advising John McCain; and the Clinton machine seems to have an unwelcome, and useless (except for the Clintons) impact on the Obama campaign message.
With all due respect to the people who have effectively run this country’s economic and social strategy for as long as this humble ad weasel can remember, why not let the boys simply debate the issues?
Why not let them do it for free, on national TV?
Why not let Obama be Obama?
Why not let McCain be McCain be McCain?
Would the country really suffer from a few delayed episodes of "Can You Survive a Japanese Game Show?"
Like it or not, Senator Obama has the hard core Democrat vote in his pocket.
Like it or not, Senator McCain has a similar lock on the Republicans, and the evangelical right wing.
They have no where else to go, other than to sit home...which might not be that bad an outcome. The current economy surely suggests so.
As a practicing ad weasel, I can assure you most of the money they have spent so far on paid media has been directed at their secured bases...and is indistinguishable from what Saturday Night Live is running as pure parody.
Again, I am but an humble ad weasel, but the first of these two, to break this time honored tradition of taking all the money guys out of the public pitch, will be the guy able to deliver at least some of what the money guys are trying to buy.
Of course, I could be wrong...but the people who are buying what I sell suggest not....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
[In “Peculiar,” The Logistician submits that our fear of the unknown, or that which we consider to be “peculiar,” may be hard wired to promote survival in a complex world. He also suggests that as humans, we should be able to think and reason beyond our primal fears. He further employs us to do this as we approach the upcoming presidential election, and ignore the static.]
Peculiar?
Seems we have hit a tipping point in American Politics.
Both of our presumptive candidates are roundly detested by significant minorities within their own parties.
Both campaigns have been taken over by the Political Pros...presumably to protect their money bases...while the likes of Tom Delay do their penance wandering in the wilderness.
The money people are back in charge...so Obama is linked to Paris and Brittany, and McCain is linked to Bush.
Ostensibly, all of this paid for "crap" is deemed necessary by the money boys who are scared to death they will wind up Mr. Abramoff's [(http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff)] new neighbors, should the other side win.
Jesse Jackson has similar, and significant, concerns.
So...every Sunday morning, we are treated to the posers that be, on both sides of the aisle, who drag their candidates back into the muck that we call Presidential Politics.
So, characters whose goals are subject to varying interpretations, like Carl Rove, are now advising John McCain; and the Clinton machine seems to have an unwelcome, and useless (except for the Clintons) impact on the Obama campaign message.
With all due respect to the people who have effectively run this country’s economic and social strategy for as long as this humble ad weasel can remember, why not let the boys simply debate the issues?
Why not let them do it for free, on national TV?
Why not let Obama be Obama?
Why not let McCain be McCain be McCain?
Would the country really suffer from a few delayed episodes of "Can You Survive a Japanese Game Show?"
Like it or not, Senator Obama has the hard core Democrat vote in his pocket.
Like it or not, Senator McCain has a similar lock on the Republicans, and the evangelical right wing.
They have no where else to go, other than to sit home...which might not be that bad an outcome. The current economy surely suggests so.
As a practicing ad weasel, I can assure you most of the money they have spent so far on paid media has been directed at their secured bases...and is indistinguishable from what Saturday Night Live is running as pure parody.
Again, I am but an humble ad weasel, but the first of these two, to break this time honored tradition of taking all the money guys out of the public pitch, will be the guy able to deliver at least some of what the money guys are trying to buy.
Of course, I could be wrong...but the people who are buying what I sell suggest not....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Monday, August 4, 2008
Post No. 31: We're Smart Enough to Think Ourselves Out of this Energy Bag
Responsive Comment by Guest Author The Laughingman to Posts Nos. 28 and 29 Regarding U.S. Energy Issues
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Excellent pieces!
The debate we are engaged in now is slowly bringing us to the awareness that the problem is not oil or water; it is the cost of energy...and food is energy too. Diverting water and organic resources from food to machine fuel production will prove counter productive...particularly when the BTUs put out by the new fuel produced amount to less than the BTUs put in to generate the new fuel.
Ethanol or C-2-H-5-OH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol) remains a fine and wonderful thing. For the first 100 years of life in this republic, it was the only way you could pack acres of corn into a reasonably transportable form, and the only currency we had on our moneyless frontiers. Currency needs to be reasonably transportable, and must hold its value over time. Booze does both nicely.
But the only way to use it to "save" energy is to park the truck, put your heels up, and open a jug.
Electricity is a fine and dandy thing too, but we haven't figured out how to transport it efficiently, let alone store it. The electricity producers are looking at the batteries in electric vehicles as another source of cheap electrons. While these wondermobiles are plugged into the grid, supposedly "charging" themselves, Con-Ed is already planning to use the energy stored in their batteries to get the utility over "peak demand" humps without having to buy expensive electrons on the spot market to meet above average demand. This is a fine deal for Con-Ed stock holders. The utilities sell electric car owners ten volts overnight, and buy back the remaining eight, after transportation and storage losses, in the afternoon.
The car hasn't moved an inch, but utility costs have been reduced by better than 20%...all collected from a now stationary consumer's pocket.
The problem is that people will not give up random access transportation to save somebody else money. That's not green; that's stupid.
So, this dog will not hunt.
To your question of "What's next?" I submit the concept of elimination of waste.
70% of the energy we develop by burning fuel in an internal combustion engine currently goes out the tail pipe or radiator...unused. 50% of what we do use gets pissed away as heat through the brakes. Anybody see any opportunities for improved efficiency? (By the way, at the turn of the 19th Century, when kerosene was king, gasoline was a waste byproduct, which the producers burned to dispose of it [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570078/Kerosene.html].)
Electricity is about the same.
Alcohol is worse.
The answer is "Education."
Always was.
Always will be.
Thanks for the most excellent kick in the cranium...
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Excellent pieces!
The debate we are engaged in now is slowly bringing us to the awareness that the problem is not oil or water; it is the cost of energy...and food is energy too. Diverting water and organic resources from food to machine fuel production will prove counter productive...particularly when the BTUs put out by the new fuel produced amount to less than the BTUs put in to generate the new fuel.
Ethanol or C-2-H-5-OH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol) remains a fine and wonderful thing. For the first 100 years of life in this republic, it was the only way you could pack acres of corn into a reasonably transportable form, and the only currency we had on our moneyless frontiers. Currency needs to be reasonably transportable, and must hold its value over time. Booze does both nicely.
But the only way to use it to "save" energy is to park the truck, put your heels up, and open a jug.
Electricity is a fine and dandy thing too, but we haven't figured out how to transport it efficiently, let alone store it. The electricity producers are looking at the batteries in electric vehicles as another source of cheap electrons. While these wondermobiles are plugged into the grid, supposedly "charging" themselves, Con-Ed is already planning to use the energy stored in their batteries to get the utility over "peak demand" humps without having to buy expensive electrons on the spot market to meet above average demand. This is a fine deal for Con-Ed stock holders. The utilities sell electric car owners ten volts overnight, and buy back the remaining eight, after transportation and storage losses, in the afternoon.
The car hasn't moved an inch, but utility costs have been reduced by better than 20%...all collected from a now stationary consumer's pocket.
The problem is that people will not give up random access transportation to save somebody else money. That's not green; that's stupid.
So, this dog will not hunt.
To your question of "What's next?" I submit the concept of elimination of waste.
70% of the energy we develop by burning fuel in an internal combustion engine currently goes out the tail pipe or radiator...unused. 50% of what we do use gets pissed away as heat through the brakes. Anybody see any opportunities for improved efficiency? (By the way, at the turn of the 19th Century, when kerosene was king, gasoline was a waste byproduct, which the producers burned to dispose of it [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570078/Kerosene.html].)
Electricity is about the same.
Alcohol is worse.
The answer is "Education."
Always was.
Always will be.
Thanks for the most excellent kick in the cranium...
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Post No. 29b: Are You Aware of Solar Ovens?
In Post Nos. 28 and 29, we discussed various energy issues which the United States now faces, including our dependence on foreign oil. This blog is nothing, if not exploratory, curiosity driven, and dedicated to the proposition that we could all benefit from learning something new multiple times throughout each day. Well, we came across something of which we were not previously aware - solar ovens. Check out the dishes that a fellow blogger concocts using such an appliance at http://suddenlysolar.blogspot.com/. Human ingenuity, resulting in technological advances, can respond to many of our societal issues, if we apply ourselves.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Post No. 30: The Dangers Associated with Being “Peculiar”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Several years ago, I attended a conference sponsored by a professional association at a high end resort in Florida. An incredible buffet dinner was scheduled for one evening, to which everyone was looking forward.
I arrived just as the food was being taken away.
Upon my arrival, everyone inquired as to why I was so late. When I informed them that I felt compelled to watch two episodes of the Andy Griffith Show, they all howled with laughter.
Their laughter grew even louder when I mentioned that, in my opinion, one could learn more about life from that show than perhaps any other show on television. (Interestingly, my Father tells me that it was also the favorite show of my Mother, who passed away at a relatively early age.)
I saw an episode of the show yesterday, which reminded me of the manner in which this simple show, about life in small town America, has provoked many a thought throughout my lifetime.
It was the story of Ed Sawyer, a clean-cut, well-groomed stranger who arrives in Mayberry. Throughout the episode, Ed is always dressed in a conservative business suit, articulate, respectful, polite, and there is nothing visually alarming about him. In fact, he could be the poster boy for virtually any All-American organization or movement.
The first scene in the episode unfolds as Ed enters Floyd’s barbershop, where Barney Fife is in the chair getting a shave. Several other citizens, including Andy, are also present.
Ed engages them all in a pleasant, upbeat conversation, calls them each by name, and exhibits a degree of familiarity which causes the shop’s occupants to become uncomfortable. As he leaves the shop, all heads turn to follow him down the street, and they all exit to watch his next move. Almost immediately, there is a suggestion by Barney that Andy commence an investigation of this suspicious and “peculiar” stranger.
As Ed proceeds down the sidewalk, he encounters a double baby stroller parked in front of a store, where the mother is looking through the shop window. Ed greets the two twins, their mother, and then poses questions which suggest that he can distinguish between the two boys at this early stage in their development. The suspicions grow.
Ed next proceeds to the local rooming house, and when offered one room, he declines because of an incident which had occurred in the room, arguably about which few would have known. Although he has never stayed at the rooming house, he then proceeds to request a specific room, by number, which although green in color, has a cheerier décor.
At this point, Barney is beside himself, and inquires whether Ed speaks German. Fortunately, Andy, the voice of reason, intervenes and initiates a conversation more normally associated with welcoming a visitor to one’s town. At the same time, Andy poses a number of questions in an effort to get to know this fellow better, since he is also experiencing some degree of discomfort, although unarticulated.
Later that afternoon, Ed approaches Andy and seeks his advice and assistance. It appears that the local gas station is up for sale, and Ed is considering buying it. Andy suggests that perhaps Ed might be moving a tad too quickly, and that he should take the time to get to know the townspeople a little better.
He further suggests that the town’s citizens might regard Ed’s sudden emergence on the scene as “peculiar,” without some “warming up.” (By the way, I learned the word “peculiar” from this show, which was used with some frequency on episodes airing in the 1960’s.)
Ed then segues into how much in love he is with Lucy Matthews, who he has never seen. However, he is familiar with all of her physical attributes, and he inquires of Andy as to why she does not answer his calls and knocks on her door. Lucy soon walks in to lodge a complaint, to which Ed responds that she is just as pretty as he suspected. It is at this point that Andy feels, as the town’s sheriff, he must get to the bottom of this behavior, since it threatens to disturb the town’s peace.
Ed admits that his behavior might strike some as odd, but provides a very plausible, if not immediately obvious, explanation. Ed explains that Joe Larson, a long-time resident of Mayberry, was an Army buddy. While serving together, Joe received the local Mayberry newspaper, and Ed found himself reading the paper on a daily basis.
As time moved on, he began to feel that he “knew” the citizens about whom the articles were written. He further explains that over time, he began to envy Joe, because Joe was from Mayberry, a place that Ed admired, and Ed was from, well, “Nowhere.”
Ed further explains that over time, he began to wish that Mayberry was his hometown, and he eventually convinced himself that it was. When he saw the ad in the paper that the service station was up for sale, he regarded it as an opportunity to fulfill a dream.
After Ed leaves the courthouse / jail, Barney rushes in and proclaims that Ed has finally “overplayed his hand.” When Andy inquires as to what Barney is referring, Barney states that Ed has been hanging around Lucy Matthews’ house and actually crossed the line by ringing her bell.
Andy suggests that insufficient grounds exist to justify an arrest, to which Barney replies that he pulled in three 12 year olds the preceding Halloween for ringing doorbells unnecessarily.
He further exclaims that Ed doesn’t even have the excuse of being out for trick or treat. Deputy Fife then inquires as to whether Ed speaks Spanish.
Of course, Ed’s efforts to integrate himself into the community go terribly wrong. That’s even after Andy makes everyone feel pretty small and provincial after facetiously suggesting that they all were justified in their prejudicial attitudes toward this stranger, just because he was an unknown, peculiar, and somewhat different.
Ed realizes that this really isn’t the place for him, and leaves. And the town lost a potentially energizing and illuminating individual.
This 40 plus year old episode of the Andy Griffith Show made me think of several things this weekend. First, the power of the visual media came to mind, along with its potential to expand the minds of its viewers, particularly young viewers, as well as its power to narrow.
Second, it reminded me of the 30 year period when I lived in Southern California, and I interacted with all sorts of people of different races from different parts of the world. Virtually everyone was a stranger. Upon returning to North Carolina, despite the fact that North Carolina is the number one state in terms of percentage increase of Hispanics, I noticed the lack of interaction between whites and blacks on the one hand, and Hispanics on the other. Asians operate many mom and pop businesses in the black parts of town, but the social interaction ends there.
At several public meetings in my hometown, I have mentioned that despite what one may think of our immigration policies, many immigrants are here, and we need to engage them and integrate them into our society, with the goal of deriving the best that we can from their involvement. Each time I have broached the subject, many citizens in the room have lowered their heads and looked at the floor without responding.
In recent months, I have tried something different. Every time I have encountered Hispanics, I have taken the initiative to walk up to them and start a conversation. Each time, without fail, they have been pleasant folks and almost ecstatic that someone outside of their group took the risk to engage them. It has always been a rewarding experience, although guarded it may have started.
Third, this episode also struck a chord when I learned of Senator’s Obama’s reference earlier this week to the efforts of his opponents to label him as different, and thus necessarily something that we should fear.
Our fear of the unknown, caution, and prejudice, even that racially based, appear to be hard wired to ensure survival and ease of negotiation in a complex world. But we also have a bigger brain which should enable us to think and reason beyond our biggest primal fears.
Some criticism has been leveled against the Andy Griffith Show over the years because of its conspicuous absence of blacks in a show based in a southern city. However, Andy Griffith himself sure made up for that during the airing of his Matlock series.
Be that as it may, my hat is off to the Andy Griffith Show, and particularly its writers, particularly considering the era in which the show was first viewed. Perhaps more of you will have the opportunity to view the Ed Sawyer episode before the upcoming presidential election.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Several years ago, I attended a conference sponsored by a professional association at a high end resort in Florida. An incredible buffet dinner was scheduled for one evening, to which everyone was looking forward.
I arrived just as the food was being taken away.
Upon my arrival, everyone inquired as to why I was so late. When I informed them that I felt compelled to watch two episodes of the Andy Griffith Show, they all howled with laughter.
Their laughter grew even louder when I mentioned that, in my opinion, one could learn more about life from that show than perhaps any other show on television. (Interestingly, my Father tells me that it was also the favorite show of my Mother, who passed away at a relatively early age.)
I saw an episode of the show yesterday, which reminded me of the manner in which this simple show, about life in small town America, has provoked many a thought throughout my lifetime.
It was the story of Ed Sawyer, a clean-cut, well-groomed stranger who arrives in Mayberry. Throughout the episode, Ed is always dressed in a conservative business suit, articulate, respectful, polite, and there is nothing visually alarming about him. In fact, he could be the poster boy for virtually any All-American organization or movement.
The first scene in the episode unfolds as Ed enters Floyd’s barbershop, where Barney Fife is in the chair getting a shave. Several other citizens, including Andy, are also present.
Ed engages them all in a pleasant, upbeat conversation, calls them each by name, and exhibits a degree of familiarity which causes the shop’s occupants to become uncomfortable. As he leaves the shop, all heads turn to follow him down the street, and they all exit to watch his next move. Almost immediately, there is a suggestion by Barney that Andy commence an investigation of this suspicious and “peculiar” stranger.
As Ed proceeds down the sidewalk, he encounters a double baby stroller parked in front of a store, where the mother is looking through the shop window. Ed greets the two twins, their mother, and then poses questions which suggest that he can distinguish between the two boys at this early stage in their development. The suspicions grow.
Ed next proceeds to the local rooming house, and when offered one room, he declines because of an incident which had occurred in the room, arguably about which few would have known. Although he has never stayed at the rooming house, he then proceeds to request a specific room, by number, which although green in color, has a cheerier décor.
At this point, Barney is beside himself, and inquires whether Ed speaks German. Fortunately, Andy, the voice of reason, intervenes and initiates a conversation more normally associated with welcoming a visitor to one’s town. At the same time, Andy poses a number of questions in an effort to get to know this fellow better, since he is also experiencing some degree of discomfort, although unarticulated.
Later that afternoon, Ed approaches Andy and seeks his advice and assistance. It appears that the local gas station is up for sale, and Ed is considering buying it. Andy suggests that perhaps Ed might be moving a tad too quickly, and that he should take the time to get to know the townspeople a little better.
He further suggests that the town’s citizens might regard Ed’s sudden emergence on the scene as “peculiar,” without some “warming up.” (By the way, I learned the word “peculiar” from this show, which was used with some frequency on episodes airing in the 1960’s.)
Ed then segues into how much in love he is with Lucy Matthews, who he has never seen. However, he is familiar with all of her physical attributes, and he inquires of Andy as to why she does not answer his calls and knocks on her door. Lucy soon walks in to lodge a complaint, to which Ed responds that she is just as pretty as he suspected. It is at this point that Andy feels, as the town’s sheriff, he must get to the bottom of this behavior, since it threatens to disturb the town’s peace.
Ed admits that his behavior might strike some as odd, but provides a very plausible, if not immediately obvious, explanation. Ed explains that Joe Larson, a long-time resident of Mayberry, was an Army buddy. While serving together, Joe received the local Mayberry newspaper, and Ed found himself reading the paper on a daily basis.
As time moved on, he began to feel that he “knew” the citizens about whom the articles were written. He further explains that over time, he began to envy Joe, because Joe was from Mayberry, a place that Ed admired, and Ed was from, well, “Nowhere.”
Ed further explains that over time, he began to wish that Mayberry was his hometown, and he eventually convinced himself that it was. When he saw the ad in the paper that the service station was up for sale, he regarded it as an opportunity to fulfill a dream.
After Ed leaves the courthouse / jail, Barney rushes in and proclaims that Ed has finally “overplayed his hand.” When Andy inquires as to what Barney is referring, Barney states that Ed has been hanging around Lucy Matthews’ house and actually crossed the line by ringing her bell.
Andy suggests that insufficient grounds exist to justify an arrest, to which Barney replies that he pulled in three 12 year olds the preceding Halloween for ringing doorbells unnecessarily.
He further exclaims that Ed doesn’t even have the excuse of being out for trick or treat. Deputy Fife then inquires as to whether Ed speaks Spanish.
Of course, Ed’s efforts to integrate himself into the community go terribly wrong. That’s even after Andy makes everyone feel pretty small and provincial after facetiously suggesting that they all were justified in their prejudicial attitudes toward this stranger, just because he was an unknown, peculiar, and somewhat different.
Ed realizes that this really isn’t the place for him, and leaves. And the town lost a potentially energizing and illuminating individual.
This 40 plus year old episode of the Andy Griffith Show made me think of several things this weekend. First, the power of the visual media came to mind, along with its potential to expand the minds of its viewers, particularly young viewers, as well as its power to narrow.
Second, it reminded me of the 30 year period when I lived in Southern California, and I interacted with all sorts of people of different races from different parts of the world. Virtually everyone was a stranger. Upon returning to North Carolina, despite the fact that North Carolina is the number one state in terms of percentage increase of Hispanics, I noticed the lack of interaction between whites and blacks on the one hand, and Hispanics on the other. Asians operate many mom and pop businesses in the black parts of town, but the social interaction ends there.
At several public meetings in my hometown, I have mentioned that despite what one may think of our immigration policies, many immigrants are here, and we need to engage them and integrate them into our society, with the goal of deriving the best that we can from their involvement. Each time I have broached the subject, many citizens in the room have lowered their heads and looked at the floor without responding.
In recent months, I have tried something different. Every time I have encountered Hispanics, I have taken the initiative to walk up to them and start a conversation. Each time, without fail, they have been pleasant folks and almost ecstatic that someone outside of their group took the risk to engage them. It has always been a rewarding experience, although guarded it may have started.
Third, this episode also struck a chord when I learned of Senator’s Obama’s reference earlier this week to the efforts of his opponents to label him as different, and thus necessarily something that we should fear.
Our fear of the unknown, caution, and prejudice, even that racially based, appear to be hard wired to ensure survival and ease of negotiation in a complex world. But we also have a bigger brain which should enable us to think and reason beyond our biggest primal fears.
Some criticism has been leveled against the Andy Griffith Show over the years because of its conspicuous absence of blacks in a show based in a southern city. However, Andy Griffith himself sure made up for that during the airing of his Matlock series.
Be that as it may, my hat is off to the Andy Griffith Show, and particularly its writers, particularly considering the era in which the show was first viewed. Perhaps more of you will have the opportunity to view the Ed Sawyer episode before the upcoming presidential election.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)