Post No. 109: It All Depends on the Price of Your Ticket on the Train

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

There’s a good and bad side to everything.

Including conduct and relationships.

(Are you aware the largest source of violence against women is not strangers, against whom one might use a gun, but from their “loved ones,” who they know?)

The Logistician is the only guy we know who takes dangerous vacations.

Like walking the back streets of Rio amid warnings of “the Mafioso.” Or scurrying from Caracas just before riots resulted in 300 deaths. Then there was cruising in the Adriatic when the U.S. bombed Libya.

Some brave, macho guy? No. (Stupid is more likely.)

His problem? Curiosity.

About any and every thing. And open to all points of view.

He suspects that how one views the world, and what they value, depends on where they’ve been, what they know, and what they’re willing to experience.

As an engineer and a lawyer, he had to appreciate all sides of many issues. He had to find the facts, not just those which advanced his goals.

He learned that advocating a position, which was patently disingenuous or specious, detracted from the power of your advocacy, and made others question your motives, if not your professionalism.

Rightly or wrongly, he applied that principle to all things in the Universe, and thought that others did also.

But it now appears that we either live in a new environment, or the Logistician is just waking up to reality.

Many have figured out that drawing lines in the sand, making specious arguments, if not telling out right lies, and resisting the views of others, works. Especially while pushing emotional buttons.

For someone who learned to argue the merits of a position, and not their own belief system, this is proving to be a very troubling revelation.

Today it appears that if one does the Nikita, pounds the desk, speaks at a fever pitch, and exudes “passion,” one will attract attention. And perhaps even a lot of followers.

That may be good. May be bad.

We almost named this piece, “Both Sides Equally Wrong on Most Issues.”

Why? When Einstein was exploring “simultaneity,” or the simultaneous occurrence of events (and its relationship to relativity), he asked, “How do we know two events are simultaneous?”

He provided this mental example. Lightning strikes to one’s left, and a separate strike occurs the same distance to the right. To the person standing in the middle, the light from both strikes will be perceived as reaching the person at the same time.

The observer will consequently view the events as “simultaneous.”

Next, imagine a very, very fast moving train. Lighting strikes the front, and a separate strike hits the back, when an observer, standing beside the track, is in the middle of the span of the train.

Again, the observer would consider these “simultaneous.”

Then Einstein threw us a curve ball.

He asked us to imagine a woman sitting on the train, in the middle passenger car, when lightning strikes both the front and rear of the train.

From her perspective, they would no longer be simultaneous events. Moving in the direction of the front end of the train, she would perceive two, separate, and distinct strikes.

And so we thought, how we view the world, and the positions of others, depends on where we sit on the train.

When it comes to considering the behavior of others, or formulating solutions to problems, we should recognize that others are located in different cars on the train.

And that their perceptions are equally valid.

Bill Bernbach, founder of Doyle Dane Bernbach and Father of the last meaningful creative revolution, famously kept a scrap of paper in his wallet. Upon reaching an impasse with clients about his radical approach to advertising, he would pull it out.

On same Bill had reminded himself that, “Perhaps he’s right.”

As we speed toward that stalled R.V. straddling the track down the road, we need the input and contributions of all observers, not just those in any one car.

Like Mr. Bernbach, we need to put ideology aside in favor of pragmatism, when the logical outcome of inter-railroad employee fighting and a bad decision might be a massive train wreck.

Rigid adherence to one’s position may work on a personal level.

However, it significantly complicates collaboration, and has the potential to distract us from reaching common goals to our collective benefit.

Post No. 108a: Article of Interest re U.S. Education Status

The following article appeared in the April 22, 2009 electronic edition of the New York Times:

April 22, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist

Swimming Without a Suit
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

"Speaking of financial crises and how they can expose weak companies and weak countries, Warren Buffett once famously quipped that 'only when the tide goes out do you find out who is not wearing a bathing suit.' So true. But what’s really unnerving is that America appears to be one of those countries that has been swimming butt naked — in more ways than one.

"Credit bubbles are like the tide. They can cover up a lot of rot. In our case, the excess consumer demand and jobs created by our credit and housing bubbles have masked not only our weaknesses in manufacturing and other economic fundamentals, but something worse: how far we have fallen behind in K-12 education and how much it is now costing us. That is the conclusion I drew from a new study by the consulting firm McKinsey, entitled The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools."

* * *

To view the remainder of the article, click here.

Post No. 108: Too Few Indians; Not Enough Chiefs

Something’s bothering us.

How in the heck did so many become experts on economic theory overnight, and declare themselves competent to expound on this tactic or that?

Not only are they economic experts; they can predict the future with certainty.

Lots of us have difficulty tracking a checking account balance.

We here at the Institute aren’t sure of much, other than tequila will make you stupid, vodka will make you delusional, and hanging out with more than one woman will make you broke.

And so with amazement, we have watched talk show hosts, pundits, and just regular folks like us, draw lines in the sand describing what happened, why it happened, and what is about to occur.

Where were these people before things started heading south? And why weren’t they running things?

We’ve operated businesses. Stuff’s tricky. We don’t pass judgment on others, especially those with larger /more complex operations.

One of the Logistician’s partners used to say that business people are happy if they get it right 51% of the time. 60% will make you wealthy.

And yet people with not even lemonade stand experience call others incompetent.

That’s not to mention those who’ve cornered the market on history and claim their view is historically accurate, while others are revisionist in nature, or worse yet, lies.

A symposium on the economy was recently held at George Washington University.

There were roughly 10-13 economists, journalists, former banking officials, and business professionals.

First, the group noted that over decades, our best and brightest were diverted or “distracted.”

Instead of pursing careers in science, bio-tech, and other technological areas, they spent time creating “innovative financial instruments,” and generated huge amounts of money, mostly for themselves, through leveraging.

Second, the question arose as to how the best and brightest from our top educational institutions managed to be at the center of this whole mess. This was not a collection of dullards.

Third, there was some sense that the captains of finance had little sense of social responsibility.

Fourth, no one attributed our economic situation as primarily due to one factor, a short period of time, one party, or one administration.

Even the least sophisticated amongst us should appreciate that:

1) The world hasn’t faced a similar economic crisis in our lifetime. There is no historical precedent. No one really knows precisely what to do;

2) This crisis seems to have been precipitated by an economic situation more or less defined by the availability of more capital than good deals;

3) There is no more “them” or “us.” We can’t get along without Chinese money and China can’t get along without the American market. We need a world wide coordinated effort… which is going to be difficult;

4) The economic policies of the last 8 (or 15, or 20, or 30) years got us to this point and did not produce the desired results;

5) When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging;

6) There is no drug as addictive or powerful as easy credit and the promise of instant wealth;

Finally, we’ll pass on something from a buddy who should know. The main reason why Tim Geithner is flailing in the wind is he can’t consult the Street and the Big Banks because there are horrendous conflicts of interest. Treasury is also inadequately staffed for this reason, along with the fact that few have the guts to take on a task of this magnitude.

Much of the wailing and brow beating can largely be attributed to a few who became very rich during the last decade exploiting easy credit and nonexistent regulation.

They became hooked on the most powerful drug extant.

The rest of this public viciousness is nothing but political finger pointing.

Hunter Thompson once observed of Washington: “In a closed society, where everyone is guilty, the only crime is in getting caught, and the only sin is stupidity.”

Mark Twain, 100 years earlier, noted: “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.”

We elected this man on the promise of change. Lord knows our economy is in desperate need of something different.

We at the Institute of Applied Common Sense ask only that those both for, and against, this change “get with the program.” If you have a better idea, let’s hear it.

If not, let’s tamp down the fervor, and give a new approach a chance.

After all, the stuff we did before obviously didn’t work.

Except, perhaps for the benefit of a few.

Post No. 107: Is There a Positive Side to Anger?

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Some weeks ago, we expressed concern about the “tone” of discourse in our forum. It never reached the level of name calling, but it came darn close.

Acrimony and invective rose to a level where many complained that they were not interested in the accompanying message, no matter how well articulated or founded.

As put by one of our visitors, “Why would anyone, at least without a lot of cash, be interested in dealing with angry people?”

(We do not consider all of those using personal attacks as angry people, but we appreciate the point.)

It was our goal to create a forum for civil discourse, and the exchange of ideas, whereby we all could learn.

Although we had the ability to screen comments, we chose not to do so.

We wanted to encourage expression and attract all points of view.

One of the things we learned is that most people maintain their ideological positions throughout, despite being presented with thought-provoking arguments from many angles from many others.

Rarely did we note someone acknowledging the merit of a position which they had not previously considered.

As the Optimizer often says, theories and positions are good for something, but not nearly as much as their proponents argue.

In an effort to get beyond what the Laughingman termed “justified” criticism by those on the left, middle, and right, that our topics reflected our bias, several weeks ago, we sought topics from you.

One of you, whose analysis, wit, appreciation of history, and tone of presentation we respect, suggested that he had a theory: There is an “upside to anger.”

He was concerned about the mischaracterization of “righteous anger” as “hatred” or “rage.”

He also felt he had “a right and obligation to speak out.”

Having long considered anger to be a wasted emotion, considering the source of the topic, we asked, “What does anger gain one,” as opposed to, “But what does anger gain one?”

For weeks we observed everything about us to locate an “upside to anger.”

We looked at sports, child rearing, scientific research, and food preparation.

We considered angry teachers, ministers, government officials, and medical professionals.

While still pondering the question, we viewed a symposium on the economy on C-Span. We were struck by several things.

There were roughly 10-13 economists, journalists, former banking officials, and other business professionals.

Notable was the absence of politicians, government officials, comedians, and talk show hosts.

What immediately struck us was the civil tone of the discussion.

It was difficult to figure out who was liberal, conservative, Democrat, or Republican.

The participants were respectful of each other’s views.

They approached the subject analytically, with little emotion, and placed our current economic woes in historical context.

There was quite a bit of discussion about whether we, as a society, had learned anything about the functioning of our economy and the societal repercussions, following repeated recessions, price and wage controls, the savings and loan debacle, the bursting of the technology bubble, Enron, and the demise of the major investment banking firms.

It seemed like a Common Sense and responsible way to approach the problem to us.

We noted the contrast between this thoughtful, non-combative event, and the anger vented on our blog, in Congress, and on the talk shows.

We asked, “In which context are we more likely to generate some fresh ideas to deal with this very complex and serious situation, and gain a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying causes?”

After giving some, if not due, consideration to the topic, and despite the respect that we have for our reader, we couldn’t find an “upside to anger.”

We view anger as a primal, instinctive, and perhaps more immediate reaction to an event or set of events. Responsible people, after acknowledging the event, set about dealing with it, and in our view, anger makes that more difficult.

Our friend may be correct that we’ve seen a mischaracterization of “righteous anger” as “hatred” or “rage” on occasion. However, we just don’t see its utility after one feels it.

Few are going to listen to your point of view while you’re “screaming” at them literally or figuratively.

Suggesting, even obliquely, that those who disagree with you are morons is probably not the way to go.

As much as it may serve some personal function, we just don’t see how anger advances any long-term, positive, societal interests.

Let’s keep that in mind going forward.

All of us.

Post No. 106: Local News Coverage of Crime

For years now, many in the media and journalism businesses have weighed in on the coverage of crime by local news outlets.

Many investigations and studies have been conducted, both in and out of academic settings.

In preparation for this post, we examined a number of them, and initially planned to provide links to some of them to probe further into the issues.

However, we chose not to do so, since we are certain that some of you would accuse us of projecting a particular bias, or advocating a particular position.

Do you feel that local news coverage of crime in your city or county, or those areas in which you previously lived, is fair and proportionate, too little, or too much?

How does one theoretically determine the amount of “fair and proportionate” coverage of crime?

Does the coverage of crime have an “effect” on the citizens who view and hear the stories of crime?

Does the coverage potentially portray certain segments of society, or parts of town, in an unfair light?

Should the decisions regarding the amount of crime coverage be left entirely to the management of the media and journalism vehicles? Should the owners participate in the process?

Should government intervene in any way?

Should someone or some agency total up all of the events occurring in a particular geographic area, determine the percentage of crime events, and present coverage equivalent to that particular percentage?

Should “ratings” based on the consuming public’s response determine the amount of coverage?

How can we in a “free society” ensure that we are receiving a “fair and balanced” coverage of local crime?

Do you believe that those in charge of certain news media outlets purposefully skew the amount of crime covered? Purposefully avoid covering crime? Why?

By the way, while we’re at it, how do you think that the national news and media outlets determine which missing young women to cover in their stories?

Post No. 105a: What is Your Favorite Easter Egg Story from Childhood?

Earlier today, we contacted one of our long-term colleagues and mentioned that we were suffering from combat fatigue and post-traumatic stress syndrome because of all of the acrimony back and forth in our forum.

This is the same colleague who expressed some concern last year about the serious nature of the topics discussed on our blog, and that we might not achieve our goal of simply encouraging our readers to appreciate the views of others.

She suggested that whenever we want to lighten up the subject matter, all we need do is to get our readers to discuss food.

This being Good Friday, with Easter rapidly approaching, we thought that we might carry our readers back to another era, when they were kids, and participated in either coloring, hiding, finding, or eating Easter eggs, or all of the preceding.

So.... What is your favorite Easter egg memory from childhood?

By the way, for those of you interested in the story behind Easter eggs, click here.

Post No. 105: Should the Pope Be Permitted to Speak at a Public School Commencement?

We chose the title appearing above to have a little fun, and also to stimulate some thought about an issue about which many appear concerned.

President Obama was invited to receive an honorary degree, and to be the commencement speaker at the University of Notre Dame. It is a private Catholic university.

Because of the President’s previously stated positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell issues, some are calling the invitation an error on the University’s part. Some have even suggested that it be withdrawn.

It has been argued that the University should be open to political engagement and encourage intellectual freedom.

Others claim that the school should not honor the Church’s most formidable opponent on these sensitive issues.

What say you and why?

Does it matter that this is a private institution instead of a public one?

Does it matter that this is a religious institution, as opposed to one which is not?

Does it matter that this is a Catholic institution as opposed to a Protestant institution?

On a broader scale, should the administrations of institutions of high learning, whether they are public or private, discourage the participation, in any manner, in school functions and activities, of individuals whose views they deem controversial or unacceptable?

Finally, although we posed the question in jest, if the University of California at Berkeley, or M.I.T. extended an invitation to the Pope to speak at its commencement, would we have the same furor, albeit for different reasons?

Post No. 104: Should Government Intervene Where Private Sector Monopolies or Near-Monopolies Exist?

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

"We have a number of anti-trust laws on the books, including the Sherman and Clayton Acts. However, quite a few private sector business monopolies or "near-monopolies" exist. In fact, some would argue that the Justice Department's enforcement of these laws changed in recent years permitting mergers of previously huge enterprises.

"Consider such things as local cable service; Microsoft's virtual monopoly on computer operating systems; and Monsanto's influence with respect to seed used for food (the article about which you can view in the comments to Post No. 96a). There is also some concern today about the few companies which control our media outlets, and the growing size of Google.

"Some have argued that by de-regulating certain industries, we allowed them to grow so large, and become so interwoven with the general economy, that they became "too big to fail' considering the potential impact on the US and world economies.

"Here's the question. Should government intervene at any point into the business dealings of private industry, and if so, at what point and to what extent?"


It must be kept in mind that there are some economic systemic arguments for monopolies.

We'd also appreciate an itemization of some other monopolies and "near-monopolies."

We'd also be curious to know whether your views on this subject have changed in the past year in light of what happened with AIG, our investment banks, and other financial institutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To access the complete article, simply click here.

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

Post No. 101: What is "Cap and Trade" and Why are So Many Saying All of those Things about It?

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

"I would like to read what the people who visit your blog have to say about cap and trade."

We indicated to the reader that although we had heard the term used, we were not very familiar with the details of the issue, other than the fact that people seem to be arguing about it. Consequently, we went to Wikipedia, and looked up the term. We were re-directed to "emissions trading," and an excerpt of the article appears below:


"Emissions trading (or emission trading) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. It is sometimes called cap and trade.

"A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

"There are active trading programs in several pollutants. For greenhouse gases the largest is the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. In the United States there is a national market to reduce acid rain and several regional markets in nitrogen oxides Markets for other pollutants tend to be smaller and more localized.

"According to some, cap and trade "is inefficient and prone to market failure", and only a carbon tax 'allows you to make an international agreement globally effective in a short period of time.' However, a cap and trade system can be politically preferable for existing industries because the initial allocation of allowances is often allocated with a grandfathering provision where rights are issued in proportion to historical emissions. Most of the money from trading is spent on environmental activities, and the investment directed at sustainable projects that earn credits in the developing world which contribute to the Millennium Development Goals. Critics of emissions trading also point to problems of complexity, cost, monitoring, enforcement, and sometimes dispute the initial allocation methods and cap."

To see the entire article, simply click here.
So what's your position on all of this?

Post No. 100: If Tin Whistles are Made of Tin, What are Credit Default Swap Derivatives Made Of?

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

There’s a reason the Logistician likes the Laughingman. He can reduce crap to its irreducible essence.

We try to avoid taking sides in our discussions. It just doesn’t get us anywhere. No party or ideologue can legitimately lay claim to the concepts Common Sense and Personal Responsibility. We try our best to weave the concepts into each original article posted.

Our goal is to get 95% of the heads nodding. Sometimes we get close. Others times, it’s a reach.

We recently sought topics from you, with the hope that we would all learn something new through the exchange, and take away something of value. Exasperated by all the barking about our economic situation, the Logistician posted the following comment on a number of blogs he frequents. His thoughts jived with the topic suggested by the Laughingman, and thus the title of this piece.

“We as a society have to take responsibility for where we find ourselves today. By doing so, we might be able to turn this thing around.

“We have a tendency to forget the basic, big picture stuff, and complain when things deteriorate.

“Things on planet Earth are actually quite simple. (Gore Vidal once referred to us as the ‘United States of Amnesia.’ Perhaps we’re such a young nation, we haven’t fully learned to appreciate history.) Consider the following:

“1. Innovation and technology, leading to building and creating 'things,' determines EVERYTHING in a civilized society. (If you don't personally know a scientist or inventor in your neighborhood advancing society's interests, or some kid who WANTS TO DO SO, you have a long term problem.

“2. New technology, followed by the production of things using the technology, generates JOBS. The tax revenues derived from those technological enterprises determine what government ultimately can do. No innovation and no production of things - no tax revenues.

“3. The more hours that one works, the more one produces. (Up to a point, of course. We do not want people collapsing from exhaustion.) Exhaustion occurs way beyond 40, or even 60 hours a week for that matter. Take a break, and you run the risk of falling behind your competition.

“4. When the vast majority of a substantial segment of your society's time is spent trying to cover the essentials, that segment isn’t particularly useful. It’s no different than the role played by mass agriculture in history. Food production has to be relegated to a few, so that the others can engage in the advancement of innovation and technology, and the trade and exchange of the products produced.

“5. The simplest way to reduce rising health care costs? Stop eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, smoking Camels, drinking Colt 45, and hit the treadmill. You'll see a dramatic improvement in health, and at a pretty low cost.

“6. Retirement (when workers still have talent and the ability to contribute) kills your society and generates other problems, especially when you shift tax revenue to people who sit on their asses for years. Capable people who work until the day they die are more productive members of society, physically and mentally. And, they feel that they have some value in society.

“7. War is not a revenue generating enterprise. There are few positive ramifications. It’s a resource drain. It kills productive members of society (who could be inventing some stuff), and gets people pissed off at you.

“8. When you treat any segment of society unfairly, for whatever reason, they become less motivated, and less capable, to work in concert with you to pursue long-term societal interests. It makes more sense to have them voluntarily and emotionally 'buy into' your societal goals. They'll be more motivated .”

If one looks back in history, it’s clear that this is simply Common Sense.

A society which rationalizes its poor choices for too long a period of time is ultimately doomed. It might ride its success for a short period of time, but not for very long.

We, as a society, are ignoring all of the stuff that really matters. We're fooling ourselves while we engage in meaningless debates.

And wasting time.

It's like a boat sinking because of a leak, and the sailors are all arguing, while blowing tin whistles, about who’s responsible for the leak, and what mechanism to use to get the water out of the vessel.

If tin whistles are made of tin, what are credit default swap derivatives made of?

We’d like to know.

Post No. 99: Should the Response to Natural Disasters be Left to the Private Sector?

We recently asked our readers to submit possible topics for discussion, and we received numerous responses. We've posted two of them thus far. Here is the third, which actually consists of three separate questions:

"The State of North Dakota is experiencing record flood levels. It appears that many ordinary citizens are pitching in to help, and that's admirable. However, in light of all of the discussion these days about the role of government, and what government can and should do, and what it does and does not do well, I ask the following three questions:

"Should the free market forces of capitalism be allowed to operate in connection with this event?

"Why should the citizens of other states have to foot the bill if a federal emergency declaration is sought, and have their tax dollars used to address this situation, when it does not directly affect them?

"What's the difference between bailing out people who made poor decisions regarding their mortgages, and people who decided to live near a river, which had the potential to overflow?"

Post No. 98: Jesus Christ and the Democrats

We recently asked our readers to submit possible topics for discussion, and we received numerous responses. We posted one of them earlier today entitled, "Jesus Christ and the Republicans."

One of our regular readers felt that it might be interesting to examine this issue from another perspective. The following is the question presented by this reader:

"Taking into account the liberal social values of the Democrats, are they consistent with the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ?"

Post No. 97: Jesus Christ and the Republicans

In our last post, we invited our readers to examine an article by a university professor entitled, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”

Although the title may have suggested that it was about Republican Party members, by examining their views, the author distinguished and articulated the views of members of the Democratic Party, or at least as he sees them.

We recently asked our readers to submit possible topics for discussion, and we received a very good response. Thank you. We had to choose one for our first topic, and we will present the others later, down the road.

You will recall that in a post last year, we examined whether Jesus Christ would have discriminated against people who engaged in activities which might have been deemed inappropriate or unacceptable by the Church.

One of our regular readers presented us with a topic for discussion which raises similar issues. The following is the question:

“In recent times, conservative Christians, particularly evangelicals, have played a significant role in formulating and articulating the core values of conservative/Republican politics in this country. Taking into consideration the conservative economic values, and the conservative geo-political agenda, are they consistent with the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ?”

We have purposefully chosen not to delineate or define the "economic values" and "geo-political agenda" to which the reader refers. We'll leave that up to you.

Post 96b: Re-Posting of Article: What Makes People Vote Republican

We previously provided a link to this article, by Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. He conducts research on morality and emotion and how they vary across cultures. We found this article to be particularly thought-provoking.

The following is an excerpt from the article:

“What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress.

“[Paragraph break added.] But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world. “


We are providing the link once again before delving into some other topics.

Post No. 96a: Send Us Your Suggestions for Topics for Discussion

As you know, we shy away from nothing in the way of discussions. This is clearly not a "politically correct" blog.

Tell us what you would like to have discussed for our next topic. It might be a topic about which you have not formed an opinion, have a well-founded position, or you simply might be interested in entertaining the views of others.

Post No. 96: Should Government Get Out of the Business of Education?

It is our goal to examine every imaginable issue in society about which reasonable people may differ. We’re nothing if not eclectic.

For some time now, it has been our intention to delve into the subject of education. We tangentially touched on it in a prior post, “Recognizing the Potential of the Innovative Thought Process,” but never approached the subject directly.

Today, we seek your thoughts about a very specific issue: whether government should be involved, in any way, in the education of American citizens.

Earlier today, C-Span2 Book TV aired a book discussion program featuring author John Taylor Gatto. Mr. Gatto was a teacher in the New York Public School system for almost 30 years. He discussed his latest book, Weapons of Mass Instruction: A Schoolteacher’s Journey through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling.

Mr. Gatto contends that compulsory schooling cripples the imagination and discourages critical thinking. The entire time that we listened to his presentation, we thought about the current debate about the government’s involvement in our lives, and the suggestions that many of the policies of the current administration are socialist in nature.

Many have argued that the only things that government does well are the maintenance of the armed forces and law enforcement. We occasionally hear from those who contend that private schools are of higher quality of than public schools. (At this point, we do not wish to discuss school vouchers.)

However, we have never heard anyone suggest that government remove itself entirely from the field of education. We all know the arguments which prompted government involvement years ago.

However, many argue today that the “free market” is a far better mechanism for driving progress and innovation in society than the government. Should we just let everyone in society decide for themselves how their children should be educated, and leave them to fend for themselves?

Should we let competitive forces decide who gets an education and its quality? Sort of an educational Darwinism?

We believe that any responsible organization should revisit its underlying assumptions on a daily basis, and constantly question whether there is a better way to achieve its goals. Otherwise, it will become stagnant, fall behind in relation to its international competition, and ultimately lose sight of its reason for being.

Tell us – should government get out of the business of education? At the elementary school level? High school level? Collegiate and graduate school level?

Post No. 95: 27 Situations Where People We Respect Claim that "Lying" is Appropriate

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

The Laughingman and the Logistician have been friends for years. The Laughingman has laughed out of loud at some of the Logistician’s antics.

He has also expressed bewilderment following comments by the Logistician, when there were highly desirable women in the room.

He would shake his head, and ask, “What in the world made you say that?” The Logistician would reply, “It’s the truth – which people respect.”

In case you haven’t figured out who is the more practical of the two, and who usually got the gal, there’s another Logistician story of note.

He once had this girlfriend, who was stunning in every aspect imaginable. One day, she asked him whether he loved her. He replied in a perfunctory fashion, “Why yes, dear.”

But then she followed by asking, “But do you love me?”

*

*

*

All of his buddies have since said that all he had to do was to simply say, “Yes.” But noooooooooo…. Not the Logistician.

His response, after pausing no less, was, “What’s the definition of the second love which distinguishes it from the first?”

Aphrodite replied, “You know. Do you love me?”

The Logistician never provided a satisfactory answer.

To all who later questioned the wisdom of his choice, he calmly stated, “I was placed in a situation where I was asked to respond to something I did not understand. For me to have said ‘yes’ would have been a lie, without a definition being provided.”

There is a logical explanation for this madness. You see, he was screwed up way early in life. Not only did he have traditional societal, familial, and religious forces suggesting that he always tell the truth, but he also attended West Point. The Honor Code there prescribed that he, “not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those that do.”

He tried to apply that principle (minus the toleration part) to his life, albeit not always successfully. However, he’s tried.

One of his favorite quotes is from former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura: “When you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good memory of what you said.”

And so it was with a great deal of discomfort that the Logistician recently found himself in a heated conversation with a friend of 35 years, as to the responses one should provide to senior citizen relatives whose mental faculties are declining.

The friend argued that “a game” should be played with the relative, since that provides comfort, and the truth need not be told. He said that it was “unnecessary.”

The friend also extended this reasoning to raising young children.

The next day, the Logistician shared this exchange with another mutual friend of 35 years. She suggested that the truth can shatter someone’s delicate perception of the world.

It made him wonder whether there are ends sufficiently important to justify out right lying. He wondered whether there are dangers, so “clear and present,” to support such action?

He thought about this a lot during the recent presidential campaigns: Is winning more important than telling the truth?

(Candidly, we’ve reached a point where we aren’t sure what to believe from the news media anymore.)

Back to the Logistician, he has always contended that when asked a specific question, he is required to provide a truthful response.

On occasion, he has recognized the value of silence, or momentary evasiveness, by posing, “Do you really want to ask that question?”

Many would argue that in cases of national security, it is appropriate to lie.

Some others would also argue that when you have a confidential relationship with someone, it is appropriate to lie, to those outside of that relationship.

And then there was our former President who only lied about sex.

If there are so many instances where it is appropriate, then when is it inappropriate to lie?

Back to kids, is suggesting to a child that there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunnie, or the Tooth Fairy, a lie?

And what about that dying parent? Are lies appropriate at the death bed?

If Congress poses a question to a member of the CIA, is the operative required to always provide the truth? Was Oliver North justified in lying to Congress about Iran-Contra?

Or was Jack Nicholson correct in A Few Good Men, when he said that, "[We] can’t handle the truth?”

P.S. By the way, you’re right. The Logistician is not very bright, and he lied. He did not provide 27 situations.

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post 94b: We're Going to Do Something A Little Different This Time

We indicated, in Post No. 94a, that we were providing you with a little comic relief in anticipation of the intense comments which we expect to receive in response to Post No. 95.

A number of you have already asked for a hint as to the subject matter of the impending post.

We also suggested that very few of you would be able to find someone with whom you agree on this issue in its entirety.

We're going to do something a little different this time, and provide you with the title so that you can think about the issue ahead of time:

"27 Situations Where Seemingly Responsible People Claim that 'Lying' is Appropriate"

This should be interesting.

Post No. 94a: A Little Comic Relief before the Storm

We suspect that our next post may generate some fairly intense comments. So, we decided to insert a little humor at this juncture. We can not vouch for the accuracy of the attributions for each one of these, but it is all just in fun.

Sometimes, when I look at my children, I say to myself, 'Lillian, you should have remained a virgin.'
- Lillian Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter)

I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: - 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall.'
- Eleanor Roosevelt

Last week, I stated this woman was the ugliest woman I had ever seen. I have since been visited by her sister, and now wish to withdraw that statement.
- Mark Twain

The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible.
- George Burns

Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year.
- Victor Borge

Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.
- Mark Twain

By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
- Socrates

I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.
- Groucho Marx

My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. Every now and then she stops to breathe.
- Jimmy Durante

I have never hated a man enough to give his diamonds back.
- Zsa Zsa Gabor

Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat.
- Alex Levine

My luck is so bad that if I bought a cemetery, people would stop dying.
- Rodney Dangerfield

Money can't buy you happiness .. But it does bring you a more pleasant form of misery.
- Spike Milligan

Until I was thirteen, I thought my name was SHUT UP.
- Joe Namath

I don't feel old. I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.
- Bob Hope

I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it.
- W. C. Fields

We could certainly slow the aging process down if it had to work its way through Congress.
- Will Rogers

Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill

Maybe it's true that life begins at fifty .. But everything else starts to wear out, fall out, or spread out.
- Phyllis Diller

By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go anywhere.
- Billy Crystal

And the cardiologist's diet:
- If it tastes good spit it out.

Post No. 94: Rarely Does a Man Love His True Self (or, How to Discourage Comments to a Blog Post)

© 2009, the Institute of Applied Common Sense

The Laughingman was first amongst us at the Institute to blog - and suffer the accompanying abuse.

When the Logistician entered the blogosphere, he noticed some of the Laughingman’s posts generated tons of comments and others zip. He asked the Laughingman, “Why the difference?”

In characteristic fashion, the Laughingman replied, “I have no idea.”

What the Logistician took that to mean was, “Figure it out for yourself, idiot; it’s better that you do it that way.”

(The Logistician asked him what would drive more traffic to the blog, even if no comments were left. The Laughingman replied, “A picture of Jessica Alba; preferentially naked.” This, the Logistician understood.)

Having engaged in this adventure since April, the Logistician, in response to a recent similar inquiry from a new blogger about increasing comments, remarked, “I have absolutely no idea.”

For the Logistician, unless the topic is abortion, gay marriage, stem cells, welfare, drugs, illegal immigration, government bailouts, or Obama, this was the truth.

Additionally, we learned early on that taking a position down the middle of the road, and citing the good and bad points made on both sides of the debate, simply yields attacks from both sides, and praise from neither.

On the other hand, when responding to the suggestion of a fellow blogger that a lack of comments reflects a lack of interest on the part of the readers, we questioned that assumption. In fact, we felt that when we posted our best written work, we actually received the fewest responses. Regardless of the subject.

Nirvana in the world of writing is attained when you strike a chord with 95% of readers. The Logistician, who conducts motivational workshops, refers to this as the “room head nodding response.” He knows he’s reached his audience when at least 95% of the participants all nod, as if on cue, at the same time.

Still we wondered how one gets there. How one identifies that “it.” We think we may have stumbled upon it.

We noted the paucity of comments to our last post, which piggybacked on Pablo Neruda’s “You’re the Result of Yourself.” We suggested that everyone dissatisfied with life, if they were truly honest, would admit that their condition is due to their decisions made during their lives.

The notion first began to take shape when we referenced a quote from a classic movie about most humans living inconsequential lives.

It took on more shape yesterday, when a colleague quipped about our discomfort viewing what we see in the mirror when we look at ourselves.

Finally this morning, things crystallized when we heard a historian quote the phrase, which serves as our title to this article, “Rarely does a man love his true self.”

On the right side of our blog, under the heading, “Who is encouraged to participate,” appears the following:

“Solution-oriented individuals… who, unrestrained by political correctness, are willing to ‘dig deep’ in an effort to understand and explore the underlying root causes of problems, rather than merely focus on the symptoms.”

A further explanation of the goals of the Institute suggests that “…by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches… the analysis will improve …. [We seek to avoid] being distracted and sidelined by symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions.”

There is no easier place to start addressing any problem than one’s self.

We think that this is a principle which can be applied to our nation.

In order to address this very uncomfortable place in which we find ourselves, and about which we hear so much barking today, we need to pick up a huge mirror and check ourselves out.

There’s lot of talk about the dangers of centralized governance, which has been renamed “socialism.” That may be the case. At the same time, we need to recognize the limitations of the “let the market determine” or “herding cats” governance model.

That doesn’t mean that we need to relinquish freedoms. It’s just means we need to recognize that with freedom comes responsibilities, on the part of us all.

Simply put, we need to remake our true selves so that we can love ourselves again. (If we ever did.)

As one of our regular readers commented, “One of my favorite lyrics is, ’He’s a walking contradiction, partly truth, partly fiction.’

It’s never too late for us to be what we might have been.

© 2009, the Institute of Applied Common Sense

Post No. 93: “Every Issue Has Two, Three, Possibly 27 Sides”

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

The Logistician often just stops people on the street, and starts a conversation.

He asks them to visit our blog, and they always respond with laughter when he says, “We believe that there are more than two or three ways to look at any issue; on occasion we've seen as many as 27.”

In an earlier post, we spoke of the propensity, because of their genetic coding, of a colleague’s 29 Dobermans to bark, snarl, and attack whenever we approach his house.

We focused on the tone of social discourse today, and our concerns about the negative effects of unadulterated nastiness.

We suggested that humans are blessed with the ability to think and reason, and to learn and practice Common Sense, and that we must be guided, in Lincoln’s words, “by the better angels of our nature.”

The 27 points of view which greeted the Doberman piece were wide-ranging. We won't revisit the comments posted, other than to say that the piece revolved entirely around the concept of Personal Responsibility.

Here's a small example.

Earlier today, someone on our staff agreed to go to a local fried chicken franchise restaurant, to pick up “breakfast biscuits,” with fried eggs, smoked sausage, bacon, and such.

When he returned with the bounty, it occurred to us that there was nothing but slow death spread on the table. We wondered, “Who wants to consume these artery clogging products?”

As the aroma of the food drew those in our office to the table - man, did it smell good! - we thought of how much finger-pointing goes on these days, and how little responsibility is taken for our choices.

We later heard a news report about Bernard Madoff, and his alleged 50 billion dollar Ponzi scheme, and for which he pled guilty in federal court. He was promptly sent off to jail and will be sentenced for his crimes in mid-June.

One of our colleagues asked, “What does it say about us as a society, other than that some of us are tremendously gullible and greedy? I mean, not doing due diligence? Shouldn’t those investing in his fund have been at least a little suspicious of Madoff's claims about his fund's steady growth?”

(Some - die-hard conservatives, we think - have even suggested that Madoff has not done anything different than what our federal government has done with its administration of Social Security funds, and yet no government official will serve any time for the government's sleight of hand.)

As we prepare to throw Bernie into the Dobermans’ den of another sort, we should ask ourselves, “Why are we so quick to point the finger at others for our own failings?”

One possible explanation: we’re uncomfortable with the image we see when we look in a mirror. Not the image itself, of course, but of what we know has resulted from the decisions we've made in our lives.

There’s a story which the Logistician often tells during his motivational workshops.

It’s Riverside, California several years ago. The clubs are closed and two teenage girls have been partying. One of the girls has difficulty rousing her cousin, and ultimately calls 911.

The authorities arrive to find the other teenager slumped in a stupor behind the wheel of the car after 2 a.m. In her lap is a weapon.

At some point, there is some movement which makes the officers think their lives may be at risk. In excess of 42 bullets are spent.

Civil rights advocates immediately start screaming about the use of “excessive force,” and “police brutality.”

We viewed the situation differently. We asked, “What was the girl doing there in that condition in the first place?”

One committing an irresponsible act can’t control the response of others, or expect the response to be one acceptable to the actor. What we need to do, as Barney Fife would say, is “nip it in the bud” early on in the sequence of events.

Be diligent. Be pro-active.

There is a poem, “You’re the Result of Yourself,” by Pablo Neruda which we posted some months ago. At the time, we noted that the poem embodies many of the principles central to the concepts we discuss, and promoted by the Institute for Applied Common Sense.

It’s appropriate to revisit it at this time. After all, “You’re the Result of Yourself.”

The next time that you bitch about your health, think about all of those breakfast biscuits you’ve consumed over the years.

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 92a: Following Economic Meltdown, New Calculation of Value of Human Life

In yesterday’s edition of our local newspaper appeared an Associated Press article entitled, “Cost May Put End to Executions.” The article started:

“After decades of moral arguments reaching biblical proportions, after long twisted journeys to the nation’s highest court and back, the death penalty may be abandoned by several states for a reason having nothing to do with right or wrong:

“Money.”

You can view the entire article by clicking here.

We’re interested in your thoughts.

Post No. 92: Dobermans. Surrounded by Dobermans.

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

They bark. They snarl. They attack.

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

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

Our colleague’s Dobermans got us thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our country’s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There has to be something bigger than this ideological dispute.

Do we still have those angels?


© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post 91c: At What Price Freedom to Bear Arms?

For several years now, some commentators have complained that while the US has fought the war against terror both here and abroad, it has devoted less than sufficient resources to the war taking place along our border with Mexico.

US border mayors, governors, and law enforcement officials have complained to federal officials that Mexican drug cartels are becoming more brazen, and assembling tons of cash and weapons, in a manner reminiscent of the drug cartels in Columbia. There has been fear that this violent activity would eventually spill over into the United States.

Click on these links to read further about the effect on US families, and commentary about the effect on the US generally.

There are obviously many aspects of this border war which we could examine, including the demand for drugs in the US, the potential use of our armed forces to protect our borders, whether the battles in foreign lands should take priority over our border situation, and our relationship with Mexico. (Some contend that Mexico is on the road to becoming a “failed state,” and losing the battle against the cartels.)

However, in this article, we wish to discuss one issue. Earlier this morning, CNN reported that over the last several years, US law enforcement officials have traced at least 60,000 weapons trafficked from the US to Mexican drug cartels. Arguably, it is an example of “free trade” uninterrupted.

The relative ease with which weapons can be purchased here in the US has made it a prime supplier of weaponry in this battle.

Any thoughts?

Post No. 91b: What Do You Think of the Octuplets Mom?

Earlier this month, June suggested that we pose some questions to you on a subject, and allow you to tell us what you think. Have we got a doozy for you. Feel free to post anonymously should you feel the need.

The Mother who recently had the premature octuplets is taking quite a bit of heat these days. In addition to Dr. Phil, her own Mother has questioned the propriety of what she did. She has been branded as the poster child for irresponsible parenthood.

However, we are certain that many of you are aware of families which had 10 - 15 kids, and still managed to survive and not become a burden on society, even when one of the parents was absent or otherwise "not engaged."

Why are people so worked up about this situation?

Do you think that people would have been similarly worked up, let's say 5 years ago? 15 years ago? 30 years ago? 60 years ago?

Do you think that the adverse publicity poses a risk to the upbringing and development of the children?

Do you feel that the children should be taken away from the Mother?

Do you feel that the media coverage has been fair, balanced, excessive, or what?

How do Catholics, and others who do not use birth control, deal with this issue?

Let us have your thoughts.

P.S. For those of you with a little "extra time" on your hands, we previously expressed some of our thoughts on parenthood in an earlier post. That was before we began limiting our posts to 750 words.

Post No. 91a: The Logistician's Second Favorite "Short Story"

A man walks up to the bar with an ostrich behind him, and as he sits, the bartender asks for their order.

The man says, "I'll have a beer" and turns to the ostrich. "What's your order?"

"I'll have a beer too," says the ostrich.

The bartender pours the beer and says "That will be $3.40 please," and the man reaches into his pocket and pays with the exact change.

The next day, the man and the ostrich come again, and the man says, "I'll have a beer."

The ostrich says, "I'll have the same."

Once again the man reaches into his pocket and pays with exact change.

This became a routine until late one evening, the two enter again. "The usual?" asks the bartender.

"Well, it's close to last orders, so I'll have a large Scotch" says the man.

"Same for me" says the ostrich.

"That will be $7.20" says the bartender.

Once again, the man pulls the exact change out of his pocket and places it on the bar.

The bartender simply can't hold back his curiosity any longer. "Excuse me, sir. How do you manage to always come up with the exact change out of your pocket every time?"

"Well," says the man, "several years ago I was cleaning the attic and I found this old lamp. When I rubbed it a Genie appeared and offered me two wishes. My first wish was that if I ever needed to pay for anything, I would just put my hand in my pocket and the right amount of money would be there."

"That's brilliant!" says the bartender. "Most people would wish for a million dollars or something, but you'll always be as rich as you want for as long as you live!"

"That's right! Whether it's a gallon of milk, or a Rolls Royce, the exact money is always there," says the man.

"That's fantastic!" says the bartender. "You are a genius! Oh, one other thing sir, what's with the ostrich?"

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

The man replies, "Oh, my second wish was for a chick with long legs."


The Logistician refers to this type of joke as a “church joke,” namely one which can be told in church, or to grade school children. Knowing this, his friend Gail in Milwaukee regularly feeds him this Pablum. Now it’s your turn. Share with us your latest “short story” or “church joke.”

Post No. 91: Tell Us What You Thought

Last evening, we all watched as President Obama delivered a speech to the world. The “talking heads” have had much to say during this relatively brief Obama Administration.

We here at the Institute for Applied Common Sense have no political agenda.

We simply believe that, by encouraging the exchange of ideas in a civil forum, where the views of each person are equally respected and valued, we will ultimately arrive at better solutions through consensus. Through this process, a Common Sense approach will emerge.

We have several questions of you, the American citizen:

1. What did you think of the President’s speech?

2. What are your thoughts about the first 30 days of the Administration?

3. Did the President’s speech make you feel better or worse about the Economic Stimulus Bill which he recently signed?

Go for it.

Post No. 90b: The Stranger

Someone sent this to us earlier this year. We do not know the origin of this piece, and we do not claim any intellectual property rights to it. In light of some of the comments responsive to our post about interracial couples on television, we thought that you might find it interesting.


A few years after I was born, my Dad met a stranger who was new to our small Texas town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around from then on.

As I grew up, I never questioned his place in my family. In my young mind, he had a special niche. My parents were complementary instructors: Mom taught me good from evil, and Dad taught me to obey.
But the stranger... he was our storyteller. He would keep us spellbound for hours on end with adventures, mysteries, and comedies.

If I wanted to know anything about politics, history or science, he always knew the answers about the past, understood the present, and even seemed able to predict the future! He took my family to the first major league ball game. He made me laugh, and he made me cry.
The stranger never stopped talking, but Dad didn't seem to mind.

Sometimes, Mom would get up quietly while the rest of us were shushing each other to listen to what he had to say, and she would go to the kitchen for peace and quiet. (I wonder now if she ever prayed for the stranger to leave.)

Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions, but the stranger never felt obligated to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our home... Not from us, our friends or any visitors.
Our longtime visitor, however, got away with four-letter words that burned my ears and made my dad squirm and my mother blush. My Dad didn't permit the liberal use of alcohol. But the stranger encouraged us to try it on a regular basis. He made cigarettes look cool, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished.
He talked freely (much too freely!) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing.

I now know that my early concepts about relationships were influenced strongly by the stranger. Time after time, he opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked... And NEVER asked to leave.

More than fifty years have passed since the stranger moved in with our family. He has blended right in and is not nearly as fascinating as he was at first. Still, if you could walk into my parents' den today, you will still find him sitting over in his corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures.
His name?

We just called him 'TV.'

Post No. 90a: Articles of Interest: When Consumers Cut Back: A Lesson from Japan

Much has been made recently about the contraction of credit and the reluctance of consumers to part with their hard earned dollars because of their uncertainty about our economic future. The following article appeared in the February 22, 2009 electronic edition of the New York Times. It is most definitely food for thought. To view it, you need simply click here.


Since the original posting of this article, we came across another article expressing similar concerns about the reluctance on the part of the consumer to spend, albeit with respect to the automotive industry. To review Dave Leggett's article on his blog, Just - Auto, click here.

Post No. 90: Making Use of the Current Financial Mess

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Mark Twain observed that if a cat sits on a hot stove, she will never do it again. Unfortunately, she'll probably never sit on a cold stove either.

Everyone has their favorite villain for the current economic collapse. The Logistician sent me a list of 10 ways in which he felt consumers were responsible.

I told him that I did not buy into his premise, but in thinking about it further, I realized that if we only point the finger at the fat cats, we will have learned little. We all bear some responsibility.

We are behaving much like Mr. Twain’s cat. Despite our efforts to revive our financial system, we have little to show for it… yet. We definitely can’t sit at the starting line waiting for the next guy to say, “Go.”

We simply need to use some Common Sense, on which the left and right should be able to agree.

According to the Scientific Method, bad ideas and experiments that don’t work are as valuable as those that do, provided we learn from the experience, and use that knowledge productively.

So, with 2/3rds of our economic well-being based on our own behavior, we would like to suggest a few topics for discussion, the results of which may assist us in finding our way out of this financial wilderness.

1. If a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

You don’t need a Ph.D. in economics to realize that markets don’t always go up. The observation that a few people are making great sacks of money, and violating the rules of Common Sense, does not relieve us of the obligation of doing our own home work.

If you can’t make the numbers work within your current income, don’t bet on massive increases in the value of your investment to bail you out.

You have a better chance in Vegas than in a financial commodity you do not understand. (And the truth be told, few of us really understand them.)

2. Don’t bet your home on things you don’t need.

Contrary to the Logistician’s mantra, there is nothing wrong with wanting a better, more luxurious life, but not at twenty percent interest. Here there are demons…like bankruptcy…and acid rain falling on your childrens' heads.

Save the money 1st; then buy the Lexus. It’s only Common Sense.

3. Ignore herd instinct.

When everybody agrees on the direction of a market, guess what…?

4. Be careful when building and buying things which are more than you need.

Advertising not withstanding, buying an Escalade won’t make you an NBA star. There is a reason why the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord are the 2 best selling cars in the country.

5. Particularly avoid using credit or going into debt to build or buy things which are more than you need.

We went into debt, both individually and collectively, based on the assumption that the party would never stop.

Pick up any book on history…it always does. And, you don’t want to be the guy playing musical chairs when….

6. Remember that gluttony and greed are 2 of the 7 deadly sins.

Really want to make a 20% return on your income? Pay off your credit cards.

7. Carefully weigh the impact of retirement on an individual and societal level.

The Logistician and I differ on this point. The Logistician feels we got lazy and retired too early. My take is that we took the money and ignored our inherent desire for a more worthwhile job… and after 30 years we couldn’t wait to get out.

With our most experienced workers, although still productive, leaving the workforce early, all of this experience went to waste… and it is experience we can ill afford to waste.

8. Avoid being seduced by the short-term Sirens.

There was a time when we bought things to last. Next time you are in the park, look at the number of people taking pictures with manual focus SLR cameras.

This desire to last drove a subsequent demand for quality… producing a pride of workmanship that represents the essence of “Quality of Life.”

9. Don’t leave the education of your kids to the entertainment industry.

Not wanting to engage them, we abdicated our responsibility to the likes of Nintendo, Disney, and MTV, as long as they didn’t interfere with our pursuit of the “good life.”

If you don’t want children, don’t have them. You can not experience the sense of wonder children project, as they learn about the world via remote control.

You have to be there… and evolution suggests that this is one of the few primal pleasures we have inherited undiminished.

10. Lend a helping hand.

If you know someone in need of a job, through no fault of his own, ask around. Do what you can to help him get re-employed.

Want to raise the “quality of your life,” watch the face of a man or woman you have helped put back to work. Government can’t do that.

You see, we do most of the spending. No income, no spending. No jobs, no income.

Is there anything on this list which defies Common Sense?

After all, we should be smarter than Mr. Twain’s cat.

© 2009, by the Laughingman for the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post 89a: On the Dead Chimp and Freedom of the Media

Much has been made in the last 24 hours concerning a cartoon depicting the shooting of a chimp, and relating it to the stimulus bill recently enacted by Congress. We recalled a similar furor which erupted following the comments of a radio talk show host not long ago. We thought that we would re-visit our thoughts at that time, since they are equally applicable here. The original post was Post No. 22, "Do We Have Something to Fear Other Than Fear Itself?"


© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

Radio and television talk show host Don Imus drew attention to himself again last week. Upon hearing his latest controversial statement, one’s response might have been that Imus could not have avoided criticism under any circumstances.

(Disregard, for the time being, whether we truly know him intimately enough to enable us to judge the motives underlying the statement.)

In the future, he might avoid making any statements, which include any race-related words, since various negative assumptions will be made regarding his motives, even if his intent is to make a positive statement.

More disconcerting was the statement by the NFL player whose frequent run-ins with the law were at the center of Imus’ unfortunate expression. Arguably, Imus’ comment could have been viewed as a statement condemning the frequent stopping of African-Americans by law enforcement officials, or justifying it.

However, “Pacman” Jones fairly quickly concluded that Imus “obviously has a problem with African-Americans.”

One can only assume that Jones has some direct link to Imus’ brain and heart, to permit him to make such an unequivocal assessment. Along a similar vein, an argument might be made that Jones “obviously has a problem with the law,” or that he “obviously has a problem disassociating himself from the criminal element.”

George Carlin, considered by some to be an iconic comedian, died last week. It is generally agreed that he expressed the views of the counter-culture element of our society. However, what stood out most significantly was the frequent reference, by those who remembered him, to the “fearless” nature of his comedy.

What did Carlin potentially have to fear? What did he say that posed so significant a potential danger that we needed to be leery of him? Was there a concern that what he said, or might say, could damage or harm a certain segment of our society?

So here we are considering whether it is good for members of society to avoid making certain comments, or discussing certain subjects, in a public setting. (Ignore for now that the statements could be true, and honestly uttered.)

Just to carry our discussion a little further, images are also a form of expression. Some of you may recall the controversy surrounding the pairing of O.J. Simpson and Elizabeth Montgomery, over twenty years ago, in a television murder mystery movie, and the backlash that befell the sponsors. But that was long ago, right?

Recently, while I was listening to, but not watching television, a commercial aired for Cascade, the dishwasher detergent. The voice-over contained an African-American accent.

At first, I couldn’t figure out why that struck me odd. Then, for some unexplained reason, I turned around to see if an African-American face or image would also appear in the commercial.

Let me ask you. When was the last time that you can recall seeing an African-American woman in a commercial associated with cleaning anything – whether it be laundry detergent, floor wax, window cleaner, or garbage bags?

How many years have sponsors avoided projecting certain images to play it safe? The corollary reality is that many of us avoid making certain statements to play it safe, out of concern for offending others.

In light of the risks associated with making certain statements, we obviously have to carefully evaluate the consequences, or perhaps some might say, the “potential punishment,” associated with making statements, though honest they may be.

Furthermore, if we are not entirely clear as to the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech/expression, most of us will steer far wide of the danger zone.

During the course of the development and evolution of this blog, we’ve been surprised at a number of things, particularly in the expression of speech arena. A number of regular readers have suggested that the content makes many uncomfortable.

Many have indicated that although they would like to respond honestly to some of the posts, they feel reluctant to do so. There is a concern that, even using a pseudonym, once their true thoughts are revealed to the public, they might suffer negative consequences.

There is a scene in one of the classic Hollywood movies where the local, irresponsible, rich kid, who is attending medical school, is confronted by a childhood friend. She questions his flippant attitude, and lack of sense of responsibility, considering the talent which she considers him to have.

She notes that he could do so much of a positive nature for so many. She then goes on to say, “Most of us have no choice but to live useless lives.”

This leads one to wonder, “What is a person if not his or her expression?” Is freedom of expression the essence of freedom?

What we should appreciate is that when any talk show host, religious leader, celebrity, politician, or other public figure, manages to generate a following or an audience, they run the risk of saying something controversial. However, that ought to be a good thing, because it causes us to periodically stop and think.

Imagine a world where everything said in the media is uttered within certain prescribed boundaries, where no one is offended, surprised, intrigued, inspired, or in some manner affected.

Imagine where we would be as a society if every utterance was something that we already knew, or accepted, or with which the “expression police” were comfortable.

There is an argument to be made that in this competitive, free market environment that is America, the speech expressed by its citizens ought to be evaluated by the same competitive, free market forces.

A speaker should fail or succeed based on the quality of his content, and whether the citizens are willing to “buy” his or her expression.

We ultimately discard and ignore products of little or no value. Are we afraid to let the market place decide the fate of those making offensive comments, in the same way that we let the market place decide the fate of poor products?

We might discourage someone from expressing a new idea or concept, in the same way that we might discourage someone from developing a new product or service, if we discourage expression on the front end.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently accuse the other of failing to acknowledge the intelligence of the American people. If we are intelligent enough to assess and evaluate other issues and their value, why do we not possess enough intelligence to assess and evaluate (and thus accept or repudiate) personal expression, in whatever form it manifests itself?

There is something else that comes to mind. When we hear the rantings and ravings of callers as they express themselves on talk radio shows, we gain some insight into, and provide a forum for, a segment of our society that otherwise might go unnoticed and unheard.

Some would suggest that we might be a better society if they went unnoticed and unheard. However, isn’t it better for us to know with whom we are really dealing, and have a better appreciation of the issues and concerns of every segment of our society? Or is that something which certain forces do not want?

We are once again reminded of the words of the Laughingman:

“The worst conceivable way to silence one with whom we disagree is to stop him from talking. By doing so, you create a martyr to his similarly warped followers, and take him off the radar screen of the rest of the public. Had we, as a society, a bit thicker skins, we would broadcast these lunacies far and wide, with an appropriate apology to the more sensitive among us, demonstrate a little common sense for our fellow man, and let the fringe element drown in the laughter and public ridicule generated by their own thinking or lack thereof. Along with the right to free speech comes the right to make a public fool of oneself; and like the naked, fools have little or no influence on society.”

That is, of course, unless you are Lady Godiva or Angelina Jolie.

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 89: The High Price of Stubbing Your Toe

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Owning up to one’s mistakes seems to be one of mortal man’s most difficult acts.

In January 1998, for example, Bill Clinton famously said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” though months later, after surviving the ordeal of impeachment, he admitted that his relationship with the young woman had been “wrong” and “not appropriate.”

A cloud of presidential hanky-panky has hung over him ever since, likely diminishing his legacy, though it’s possible that his efforts around the world will offer some degree of redemption.

Lately, a new parade of politicians, celebrities, business people and athletes has come forward to face the white-hot glare of public scrutiny.

The former governor of Illinois, for example, a man seemingly caught red-handed in blatantly illegal activities, stonewalled and attempted to make the case for his innocence on America’s talk shows, at the same time the impeachment machine moved forward unimpeded.

Earlier this month, we saw Michael Phelps admit, without hesitation, that he made a mistake. Despite this, lucrative sponsorship deals that resulted from his eight Olympic gold medals were immediately withdrawn, and law enforcement conducted an investigation to determine whether criminal charges should be filed.

Not long ago, another athlete, Alex Rodriguez, arguably the best baseball player of all time, admitted to using performance-enhancement drugs, sullying his past accomplishments and calling into question whether any records he may break in the future will be legitimate achievements.

In Washington, a respected former Senator, Tom Daschle, up for a key cabinet post in the new administration, ran into a buzz saw when it was revealed that he hadn’t paid taxes on benefits he had received in the position he had held prior to his nomination.

Daschle’s mea culpa was “too little, too late,” according to his critics, though the same comments were not levied against Timothy Geithner, now Secretary of the Treasury and head of the IRS, when his nomination was questioned over his back taxes owed.

Later, Geithner, in a pro-active sleight of hand, said that mistakes would be made in the Administration’s effort to stimulate the economy.

Watching all these large and small melodramas unfold – believe us, Michael Phelps’ mistake was a small one in the big picture – it occurred to us that immediate benefits ought to accrue to those who admit fault and accept responsibility.

We admire our new president’s forthright response to the Daschle incident.

“I screwed up,” he said.

And take note. He said, “I,” not “we” or “my people in charge of vetting cabinet nominees.” Like the small placard that sat on Harry Truman’s desk, the one that read “The buck stops here,” he took ownership of the problem.

Unfortunately, public reaction to admissions of culpability suggests that we, as a society, may be at risk of making it more and more difficult for people, as the expression goes, to fess up.

We have become a society that, in many ways, salivates for red meat from the mouths of talk show pundits and late night comedians.

As children, our parents and teachers encouraged us to tell the truth, even if it meant punishment.

As we matured, we appreciated that doing the right thing, while not always rewarded at the time, would ultimately prove to be in our long-term interests.

Somehow, society must create an environment in which citizens, particularly our elected officials, are permitted, even encouraged, to stand up and admit mistakes, with society viewing such admissions, not as signs of weakness but instead, as individual strength.

At some point, we have to change the culture of denial. Revisiting the potential legal liability associated with acknowledging mistakes might be a start.

We applaud the Obama administration for initiating the climate change, however underappreciated the effort may seem.

While the costs to our pride and social standing in the short term may appear to be high, the failure to pay that price up front may have a far greater cost over the long haul.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is just plain Common Sense.

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 88a: Television Show of Interest: American Revolution Compared to Iraqi Resistance

We've been waiting for this one.

Often times, governments and religions have difficulty (or perhaps too much ease), distinguishing their wars, their executions, their human rights activities, and many other practices, from the conduct of others (which might appear to be the same to the casual observer).

We've often wondered whether some one had tried to compare the fight by certain Iraqis against "coalition" forces, to the fight by American revolutionaries against Great Britain. (Apart from the obvious differences which anyone can see.)

Tonight at 10:00 pm EST on C-Span2 Book TV, a retired general will do just that.

The book is Washington's War: The American War of Independence to the Iraqi Insurgency.

We'd be curious as to your thoughts on the subject, BEFORE viewing the broadcast.

This should be interesting.