Post No. 153: Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones (Rated “C” for “Children Only)

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Since we started writing about personal responsibility in April of 2008, many have suggested that our approach is far too simplistic and child-like.

We frequently refer to sayings by “old folks” uttered “back in the day,” or bits of parental advice, e.g., “If you can’t say something nice about someone, say nothing at all.”

Sometimes we actually have to stop and ask whether the principles suggested are (1) universally and consistently true; (2) only capable of application in certain situations; or (3) applicable simply when the person choosing to use them finds it convenient.

Some of you may recall, “Sticks and stones may break my bones; but words will never hurt me.”

Over the years, we’ve generally been members of the Sticks and Stones School of Thought (originally known as the Turn the Other Cheek School). In our view, targets of racial slurs, inappropriate jokes, sexist comments and such might justifiably be offended, but should simply ignore the offending idiots and move right along. After all, with few exceptions, the offending speech is protected speech.

To some extent, our devotion to this school of thought stems from growing up in the South during the late 1940s and 1950s as a survival technique.

We’ve felt the same regarding symbols, like the Confederate flag. All the time spent organizing an anti-flag rally, traveling to and from the offending state, and participating in the rally, might be better spent generating income – income which could be used for scholarships for poor kids. Education makes people better equipped to prove their worth and value in society, despite what others might think.

We always recognized that our view did not apply to adult – child relationships, or perhaps adult, interpersonal relationships. Constant criticism and hostility in those relationships can potentially inflict long-term, emotional damage.

Where things get a little fuzzy is when the clamor and acrimony are in the public arena, and not directed at specific individuals, or are of a political nature.

During the debate following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, we wondered about the role that, what some described as the poisonous, acrimonious state of political discourse, may have played. However, we initially felt that the acts of someone suffering from mental instability could not possibly be connected to a sufficient degree for the discussion to even continue.

That is until one of our readers, SmallFootprints, sent us a post by another blogger, whose blog is The River Wanders… but is never lost. In the article, entitled Campaign Silent, the author argues that an environment has been carefully crafted where violence is the new norm. The author goes on to note:

“Does one word, one sign, one blogged paragraph incite violence? Probably [italics in original] not. But I’m not talking about one careless word, one careless sign, one careless comment, one carelessly blogged paragraph. The sheer volume of hate-speech today is accessible and acceptable and toxic and seductive and probably does [italics in original] incite violence. The truth is this: the crazy is out there – the mentally ill who hear inappropriate sentiment as a call to action, the bitterly angry who don’t care who they hurt as long as we share their pain, and the disenfranchised coteries whose groupthink becomes their way of life. To all of us, but especially [italics in original] to these unique populations, language matters. Words matter. Images matter. Message matters.”

While we do not agree with everything the author has to say, and reading it did not convince us to pick up our toys and leave the playground, the piece forced us to re-visit our position.

There was something else we considered about the power of words and the environment in which they operate. For the past several weeks, the History Channel has been re-airing its series on The Third Reich. They chronicle the regime’s rise to power in the 1930s.

Throughout, before rolling film of the atrocities committed by Nazi troops, there appears a screen with simple words used as propaganda to urge the troops to proceed, and to justify the cruelty to the general population.

Arguably, we all have a responsibility to carefully consider the words that we spew out into the Universe, and the potential consequences when people hear them. It’s been said that, “All is fair in love and war,” and perhaps politics. That may not be the case with respect to public discourse.

And, although we, the Fellows of the Institute, may not be personally concerned about less than civil words hurled at us on an individual level (and we are not motivated to act on those words), we now appreciate that there may be others out there for whom words have a different effect.

Post No. 152: What Would Dr. King Say?

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We considered calling this piece, What Would Dr. King Do?, or What Would Dr. King Think?

Frankly, none of them would be really appropriate, since none of us has any first hand knowledge of his thought process, or even a comprehensive appreciation of his view of the world.

For example, most think that Dr. King adopted Gandhi’s non-violent philosophy on his own. Yet, many involved in the movement contend that it was actually Bayard Rustin who counseled Dr. King to adopt non-violence as his MO.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that after having his home and family threatened, Dr. King grabbed a rifle on his way to confront his attackers on the front lawn.

Rustin supposedly stopped Dr. King in mid-stride and suggested how to get the upper hand on his attackers, that being to take the higher moral ground - less subject to attack.

Per Rustin, resorting to a tactic that placed the good doctor in the same violence stratum as his attackers only served to hurt the cause, and made it less likely that others would side with him (defense of his castle be justified or not).

On this past MLK Day, those of you fortunate enough not to have become infected with that virus commonly known as Twitter [which should be changed to “Twitcher”], would have been amazed at the volume of thought-provoking MLK quotes posted by “kids” of every imaginable color, age, country, and station in life.

But two situations or events, both featuring the NAACP, kept bothering us.

Why the NAACP? [That’s exactly what we asked.] Because, in theory, one might think that their positions and the interests advocated by Dr. King would bear some resemblance to one another. In both instances, we’re just not sure what was going on. [Plus, we recognize that only certain racial groups are monolithic.]

The first involved something seemingly innocuous as school snow make-up days.

In many districts around the country, schools are required to end their year by a certain date. Most states also require that a school year consist of a certain number of days. Because of severe snow storms, many districts found themselves trying to discover make-up days on the calendar.

Some announced that they were “considering” having their charges attend school on MLK Day. The NAACP, in virtually every region where such a plan was “considered,” shifted into Sharpton-Jackson mode. [Where is a Michael Steele or an Alan Keyes when you need one?]

We need not even explore the substance of their arguments. Many prominent in the black community even suggested that parents keep their kids home. [That’ll show them.]

But it occurred to us, what better day to spend the time in school, reflecting on all that Dr. King represented, and all that he valued?

What better opportunity for black folks to consider the importance of, or show the outside world how much they value, that education thang?

What better day to suggest and support the extension of the school week to Saturdays, or the school year into the summer?

What would Dr. King have said, or done?

The second situation involved the Governor of Maine. This maverick of a politician was invited to participate in an NAACP celebration in memory of Dr. King, and he declined. [Uh, oh…!]

When questioned further about it, he simply said that there are only so many special interest events that one man can attend in a 24 hour day.

He further suggested that if someone thought that his declination was racially motivated, they could “kiss his butt.” [At least he has the balls to tell some group to kiss his rear end.] He finally alluded to the fact that all one needed to do was examine his family portrait, and they would find that he has a black [adopted] son.

Once again, the local NAACP went ballistic, and suggested that whether he had a black son was irrelevant. [Any of those NAACP folks have any white sons?]

Once again, we asked what would Dr. King have said, or done?

Of course, we don’t know. But we have a guess.

As great as all of the quotes posted on Twitter were, there was one missing that may reflect how he might have reacted.

On Monday night, we watched a tape of one of Dr. King’s speeches at the close of an MSNBC segment. During it, he said:

“We must conduct our struggle on the high plain of dignity and discipline.”

Did the NAACP heed his word?

You be the judge.

P.S. Yeah, we know. This was not a very dignified post.

Post No. 151: Where Our Heads Take Us

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Earlier today, while twittering around in Twitter, we saw a tweet from a rather attractive woman who asked:

“Who intimidates a man more, a beautiful woman, or an intelligent woman?”

Depending on one’s definition of “man,” one could arguably respond, “Neither.”

Additionally, the question as posed suggests an either / or proposition. For the purposes of this post, our legal staff instructed us to inform you that the official position of the Institute is that ALL women are both beautiful AND intelligent, and patients experiencing an erection lasting more than 4 hours should immediately consult a physician.

One of the Laughingman’s favorite Mark Twain quotes goes something along the line of, “The heart goes where it wants to.” The Logistician frequently uses this as a justification for falling in love with ugly women.

With this in mind, we answered that, assuming one could somehow find a woman who is not both beautiful and intelligent, and considering the time limitations on an ordinary man, the beautiful woman was more problematic.

Our participation in this exercise made us think further about the role of pre-conceived ideas in dealing with others. A pre-conceived idea often takes on a passionate, heart felt patina.

People often ask us how we come up with the subject matter for our articles. Over each weekend, we watch the various new outlets, Tom and Jerry cartoons, C-Span, Turner Classic Movies, and The Andy Griffith Show, and give extra weight to Tom and Jerry.

We come across enough material to generate several articles per week; but we really look for recurrent themes in the shows we watch. Today, it was pre-conceived ideas.

That notion really hit home, courtesy of Ted Turner, through a little known William “Wild Bill” Wellman film, which was a box office flop in 1956, but which has since developed a cult following, Good-bye, My Lady. It is the story of 13 year old Skeeter, an orphan being raised in the back swamps of Georgia by his poor and toothless Uncle Jesse, played by Walter Brennan, of The Real McCoys fame.

The story is one of coming of age for the teenager, who learns a few things about life and responsibility through his brief relationship with a lost dog, which he and his uncle named My Lady. Throughout the film, there are frequent negative references to “Yankees.”

It turns out that the dog has been lost by its owner, and that it is a very rare and valuable dog. The owner posts an ad offering $50 for the return of the dog. Several people in the area know Skeeter has found the dog, but feel that the relationship is too intense to separate the two.

Skeeter ultimately, upon finding out about the ad, does the responsible thing and contacts the owner and returns My Lady. In a very touching closing scene, the owner and Skeeter face one another with stilted formality, and draw out the exchange.

It is clear that the owner appreciates the emotional bond established between the boy and his temporary charge. To cut the cord cleanly, he steps up the pace of the transaction, shakes off the emotion, and hands Skeeter $100.

As the Yankee owner drives off with My Lady in its cage, Skeeter, his Uncle, and the local store owner discuss how surprised they are at the courteous and understanding manner in which the Yankee handled the whole matter. They learned that Yankees are people too, and have hearts.

We all have prejudices. They are built into our being, even into our DNA. They serve a very pragmatic function.

But problems develop when those prejudices get in the way of engaging others, be they Republicans, Democrats, homosexuals, Mexicans, or Yankees, because of our prejudices, and we do not permit them an opportunity to share their humanity.

Let’s hope that more of us use our heads in assessing the values and motives of others with whom we disagree, or who we dislike. We may not fall in love, but we’re far more likely to respect one another. Then at some point thereafter, the heart might have a chance to come into play.

In a letter from Twain to Alvert Sonnichsen in 1901, he wrote, “Civilizations proceed from the heart rather from the head.”

It’s the commonality of interests which draws up together ultimately.

Post No. 150: God, Obama, the Baltimore Ravens, and the Green Party

© 2011 and 2013, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We previously posted this piece in connection with past sports world championship battles. Since the Super Bowl is about to start, we thought that we would re-visit some of the issues addressed. Enjoy.

Last evening, during his comments at the memorial service for the victims of the Arizona shootings, and after visiting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, President Obama shared that Ms. Giffords had, shortly after his departure, opened her eyes.

There followed some confusion regarding an earlier statement, several days prior, by her doctors regarding the opening of her eyes (in response to stimuli) and her opening her eyes on Wednesday (on her own).

Today, all over the Internet, articles flew back and forth bearing titles describing the President as, “the Miracle Worker,” “the Great Healer,” and “the Savior.”

Of course, his detractors characterized the media attention as another example of Obama having been designated as “The Anointed One,” which further complicates his reputation as a detached leader.

However, it reminded us of a conversation that we had two weeks ago in a men’s restroom in a “home style” restaurant here in the Southeast.

All of us have perhaps reflected on comments of players winning championships in their respective games, stopping to thank their God for their victories on their way to Disney World. Obviously Satan was in the locker room of the losing team.

(Hmmm. Does that mean that God sanctions the activities at Disney World and its owners?)

We’ve all witnessed the Democrats and the Republicans claim to be the party of “the People,” sanctioned by God. Somehow, we’ve always felt that some party, other than the traditional parties, might be the party sanctioned by our God; but then again, we suspect that reasonable people could take issue with that assessment. That may be the beauty of Pentecostalism.

Returning to our restaurant, we observed the fellow diner standing at the urinal in the restroom wearing a baseball style cap, which had a donkey on its side, with the top half of the donkey colored red, and the bottom half colored blue.

Our first inclination was to inquire as to which sports team had the donkey as its mascot or symbol, but when he turned to respond to our greeting, we noticed that it was an Obama campaign cap.

More than 2 years ago, the Logistician wrote a piece entitled, Why I Am Concerned that Obama Might Win. He suggested that the economic problems facing the nation and the world at the time of the article (the Fall of 2008) were 25 – 30 years in the making, contributed to by both political parties, and that we were in store for a long period of economic pain with anemic improvement.

He implied that because of the anticipated slow economic recovery, Obama would be a one-term president, and that the masses, both within and outside of his party, would call for his head at mid-term. From a philosophical perspective, he hoped that the first of any minority group, which historically had not occupied the Oval Office, not be viewed as a failure, due to factors far larger and more complex than those capable of being addressed by a mere mortal, no matter how well connected to God.

Since the diner in the restroom was obviously an Obama supporter, we asked him whether he thought that President Obama would be re-elected. Without hesitation, he exclaimed, “Yes. God is on Obama’s side, and Obama has a few tricks up his sleeve for his detractors.”

Although, because of the nature of our training and the mission of the Institute, we were tempted to explore God’s relationship with Obama further, we let the diner’s comment slide. However, it did cause us to remember a comment made by Professor Jonathan Haidt, which he noted in his article, What Makes People Vote Republican?, which we shared with you previously.

Paraphrasing, Haidt claims is that what Democrats have recently failed to appreciate, and upon which Republicans have learned to capitalize, is that politics is more like religion, and less like shopping, which seems to dominate their approach.

And so we watched our fellow diner leave the restroom, content in his mind that God was going to guide President Obama through the remainder of his term, and that he would be re-elected. We also wondered whether more Democrats might choose to attend places of worship during the upcoming year, and spend less time at Wal-Mart.

This just in from our Washington Office: President Obama will take the First Lady and the kids, Aaron Rodgers, and Ralph Nader to “Disney World” shortly after the next presidential election.

Post No. 149: And Now for Some Motherly Advice

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

The Mother of one of our Fellows used to say, “If you can’t say something nice about someone, say nothing at all.”

During our Institute position policy meetings, much to the irritation of some, he frequently brings up this childhood notion, as if it advances some important adult interest.

Some of us argue that the public is drawn to content with an edge, and that to draw readers, we should adopt a clear position, or at a minimum, enter the fray.

But our “Mr. Nice Guy” always reminds us that our primary goal is not to take sides, but rather to encourage our readers to view issues differently. After all, “There are more than 2 or 3 ways to view any issue; there are at least 27.™”

For two years, we had a tenant neighbor on our floor in our building. The two partners operating the business, one male and one female, frequently engaged in shouting matches resembling those found at heavyweight boxing championship pre-match weigh-ins.

In fact, there were times when we could have sworn that we heard some punches thrown. Visitors to our suite were justifiably uncomfortable while sitting in our lobby.

On several occasions, prior to contacting building management, we gingerly approached the pair, in an effort to diffuse the clamor, only to have the anger directed toward us, for having dared to “interfere.”

The expletives hurled toward us were comparable to, if not worse than, those which they spewed at each other. They accused us of infringing on their freedom of expression.

Our office lease came up for renewal in early December, and during one of our meetings, we discussed whether we could further tolerate our feuding neighbors. Mr. Nice Guy made several interesting observations.

He said that both the male and the female had to have the last word. He further noted that neither party ever conceded anything or suggested a compromise position, and thus neither learned anything from the other.

To address the situation, he suggested that we invoke what his Mother referred to as the “Doctrine of Unnecessary.” His Mother would have asked the question, “Is it really necessary for us to stay in this space and endure the blood-letting?”

Back in early 2009, out of concern about the incendiary nature of public and political discourse, we posted two articles on anger, the first being Is There a Positive Side to Anger, and the second, That Positive Side of Anger Which So Many of You See.

This past weekend, the world focused its attention on the State of Arizona trying its best to comprehend the attempted assassination of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and the murder of numerous others, including a child. The event prompted us to re-visit the articles.

One of our loyal readers, WSteffie (who is from Germany by the way), offered the following comment:

“If everybody would hold their breath, count to [10], think about what exactly the anger is about and then speak, the world would be less violent. I'm just saying that because the problem is not always somebody else. Since we do have the choice of expressing, repressing, or calming our anger, it [might] be wise to first calm our anger.”

Earlier in the day, we wondered why so many talking heads, politicians, and pundits found it “necessary” to immediately weigh in on Arizona’s recent immigration and education battles, gun control and the 2nd Amendment, the Tea Party or Parties, the liberals, the conservatives, and a country run amok - all without anyone really being able to explain the actions of the young man, and armed only with a paucity of the facts.

We imagine that the affected families did not have sufficient time to sort out the events and their emotions, and yet the experts did.

It just seems to us that the responsible pursuit of an explanation is inconsistent with a rush to judgment as to the cause, assuming that a direct cause and effect relationship can even theoretically be established.

And thus we agree with WSteffie, at least to some extent, about counting to 10, and perhaps even 20. But why not consider the application of the Doctrine of Unnecessary?

Those of us not in the business of boosting media ratings, selling sexual lubricants, or getting ourselves or party members elected, might do well to follow a little motherly advice on occasion, and simply say nothing.

To quote the Laughingman, “We don’t have a dog in every fight.”

Post No. 148d: Re-Posting of "That Positive Side of Anger Which So Many of You See...."

Back in late April of 2009, we generated a post entitled, “Is There a Positive Side to Anger?”

Many of you responded that there is a positive side, and perhaps more interestingly, many simply responded that anger is a positive and necessary force, without explicitly addressing whether it should be used judiciously, or whether there are negative ramifications.

One of our readers sent the following story to us a few days ago, and it caused us to re-visit our thoughts on anger. We generally try to avoid posting articles which simply confirm positions which we have previously taken. We do not think that advances anything in the realm of public discourse.

However, this little piece made us re-examine our views on anger, and still arrive at the same conclusion.

“There once was a little boy who had a bad temper. His Father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he had to hammer a nail into the back of the fence.

“The first day the boy had driven 27 nails into the fence. Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down. He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence.

“Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all.

“He told his father about it and the Father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper.

“The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone. The father took his Son by the hand and led him to the fence.

“He said, 'You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one.

“You can put a knife in a man and draw it out. But it won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry; the wound will still be there. A verbal wound is as bad as a physical one.

“Remember that anyone with whom you come into contact is a human and all humans have value.

“Anger has a deleterious effect on us all. Including our kids who observe their parents and others."

This made us think further about anger. This little piece might apply to our children, or perhaps our most intimate friends and family. However, does it also apply to our co-workers, people with whom we come into contact throughout the day, and strangers in general?

What about people more distantly removed, government workers, our politicians and leaders?

What about our institutions, or certain professions, or industries, which are not animate beings, but are composed of them?

Let’s assume that you agree that the use of anger against individuals (of course, those who you claim don’t deserve it) is inappropriate. What is the theoretical or principled position that justifies the use of anger against your broken down car, a business, a profession, a government or a governmental official?

Don’t we have the intelligence as human beings to articulate the substance of our frustration, disappointment, dissatisfaction, etc. in words, even well chosen forceful words, without accompanying them with invective and making the points personal?

What say yee you morons, imbeciles, idiots, and vermin?

Post No. 148c: Re-posting of "Why the Bigots and the Narrow-Minded Should Form their own Party"

© 2008 and 2010, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

This is another Logistician post from our archives, published in October 2008, prior to the Presidential Election, and prior to the Logistician leaving for his sabbatical. It is interesting to look back on it now.


People keep telling me that race relations have improved immensely over the past 40 years. They also point to advances in terms of how America treats women, the disabled, gays, and many other groups in society.

They are quick to pull up statistics to support their positions, and produce polls where the respondents express this new-found enlightened thinking.

However, I’ve never bought it.

In my view, we just suppressed the views of the bigots and the narrow-minded, and made it unpopular and impolite for them to truly express themselves. What I submit has occurred is simply a shift in which groups are encouraged or allowed to express themselves.

Stop to think about it. There were many interracial couples who wanted to marry at an earlier time in our history, and were prevented, through miscegenation laws, from doing so. Gays had sex, which was prohibited by law, and were afraid to reveal themselves and their behavior.

In the mid-1970s, one of my Caucasian graduate school classmates fell in love with an African-American man, and she did not disclose the relationship to her very liberal parents. They had only recently admonished her against going on a camping trip with another African-American friend, out of concern that “kooks” might attack them.

So you see, the suppression of expression comes in many forms. I submit that it is really all about economics, social positioning, and timing. (Religion also obviously has a role, although a complex one.) Much of what Hitler had to offer to the German masses had to do with convincing them that they deserved better than their pre-war status suggested.

Much has been made in recent days of the comments made by supporters of the McCain-Palin ticket at various campaign gatherings around the country. Some have dismissed the comments as those made by a “few kooks.” However, those kooks happen to be the brave or sick ones, and although unquantifiable, I suspect that their numbers are much larger than we are willing to admit.

Of course, the number of those willing to express themselves could quickly change. For those of you who consider yourselves students of recent history, check out France’s experience with Jean-Marie Le Pen during the late 1990s into the early 2000s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_marie_le_pen.) Some of the same issues that were central to his emergence are also present here in America at the current time.

Earlier today, in the syndicated column, “Annie’s Mailbox,” formerly known as “Anne Landers,” and currently operated by her two former editors, a couple wrote in to seek advice about their adoption desires. The couple has two girls, ages 5 and 6, and they are interested in adopting a boy. They are also willing to adopt a child of any race. Interestingly, the step-father of the husband has already let it be known that if they adopt an African-American boy, he will not be allowed in the home of his grandparents.

Quite frankly, I think that it is better that the parents know the step-grandfather’s position now, rather than permit him to spew his hatred after the fact. It is far preferable for us to create the conditions to allow the bigots and the narrow-minded to truly express their feelings and expose them. They will, of course, suffer, or benefit from, the consequences of their expression.

In my view, one of the biggest mistakes that our country has made with respect to the goals of civil rights and equal treatment has been its use of the strong arm of the law. The Warren court of the 1950s, in particular, failed to behave as a part of the judicial branch of our government, and took on a legislative role.

That America did not have the political will, until some years after Brown v. Board of Education, to legislatively pursue the goals of equality tells you that the hearts and minds of American were not ready for it. Same with the Equal Rights Amendment. It is the legislature that has the responsibility for promulgating laws, not the judiciary.

That a relatively small number of “concerned citizens,” no matter how well-intentioned their motivations, should be able to impose their value system on the many, will always be a problem.

You see, the ultimate goal of any group in society seeking equal treatment is respect, and the appreciation by others of your true, core, basic, value based on your merit. People may be forced to respect someone out of fear or intimidation; however, their minds and hearts will never respect you. Furthermore, aren’t bigots and the narrow-minded entitled to be so?

People need to learn, individually and collectively, how to love, respect, and appreciate others on their own terms. To develop artificial contrivances, particularly those imposed by governmental or legal force, only serves to pervert the system and diminish the goal by perverting the principle of fairness.

Furthermore, it provides the bigots and the narrow-minded with further arrows in their quivers to continue the ridiculous debate about equality. There simply shouldn’t be any debate.

Additionally, we need to come to the realization that no decision in the world is fair. The best that we can hope is that we devise systems to treat people processed through it fairly to the best of our ability, and recognize that it still is not going to be perfect.

We, here at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, previously delved into this subject matter. In one of our very earliest articles, we spoke of “How Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html.) In our Post No. 42, entitled “If You Really want to do Some Thinking,” we referred to an article in Edge (http://www.edge.org/) by Jonathan Haidt, entitled “What Makes People Vote Republican.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/09/post-no-42-if-you-really-want-to-do.html.) In the introduction to that article appeared the following:
I saw George Will on Charlie Rose a couple of months ago. He essentially said that conservatism has the “upper hand” because it is “pure.” The problem with liberalism, according to Will, is that it comes off as elitist, in that it essentially says that “we can do a better job of thinking about your interests than you can.”

In his article, Haidt suggests that, “Most democrats don’t understand that politics is more like a religion than it is like shopping.” Bigotry and narrow-mindedness are also like a religion. You can’t just stamp out or suppress what people feel and believe. Additionally, those individuals who hold those views are offended by those who tell them that something is wrong with them for holding them.

I submit that they need to live [I purposefully avoided using “suffer”] the consequences of being bigoted and narrow-minded, whether good or bad, on their own terms. I have always felt that in the long run, it would have been far better for African-Americans to have quietly taken their business around the corner to Caucasian merchants willing to provide them public accommodations and services, than for the law to have forced all merchants and service providers to do so. Take a guess as to the financial impact of such action. By forcing a condition on the unwilling, we as a society only made them angrier and perhaps more bigoted.

Force also further delays the creation of circumstances where one can personally recognize the value of another human being.

Let me tell you this: more and more bigotry and narrow-mindedness will come to the surface as the economic status of the average citizen further deteriorates over the next couple of years. We need an outlet valve – the creation of a prominent third political party, The American Bigot Party.

Just think about it. All of the closet bigots will join, and they’ll be happy to once again speak their minds in public, without recrimination. All of the old racists, who were Dixiecrats and voted for George Wallace before switching allegiance when Ronald Reagan came along, will march down the street in solidarity parades. The Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazis will also have a political outlet. Imagine the platform of that party.


If society truly considers the bigoted and narrow-minded to be a cancer on our society, then in order to deal with it, we need to know where and how it exists, not hide it. Common sense dictates as much. Come on out, let us see and hear you, lawyers, judges, politicians, doctors, accountants, farmers, bankers, and all….

The Republicans also have a major problem right now, with which they apparently have not figured out how to deal. They are the default party for the nuts and kooks of America, as least as far as discrimination is concerned. (The Democrats have a different set of nuts and kooks.)

It would be far easier for both the Democratic and Republican parties to join forces, contribute an equal amount from their coffers, and form the American Bigot Party, to sequester the problematic elements of both parties.

Let them be heard. Let them have their say. Then perhaps the candidates of both current major parties would be not have to distance themselves from the John Hagees and Jeremiah Wrights of the world, and if they had to do so, could do so with a straight face.

One final comment. Shortly after 9-11, I attended a seminar conducted by a constitutional law professor and scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky (http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/chemerinsky/), about the importance of not allowing our government to engage in unconstitutional activity.

He noted that during times of crisis and fear, there is a tendency to ignore the Constitution and suppress individual rights. However, he further noted that the Constitution serves as a rudder to keep us on our “right path” and prevent the pendulum of public sentiment from swinging too far in either direction.

Let the concept work its magic. Just don’t pervert or distort its operation and thus encourage people to disrespect it.

Free the bigots! Let them speak and express themselves! Let them organize! We’ll be a better country for having done so, and hopefully, at the end of the day, they’ll just fade away.

© 2008 and 2010, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

EDITORIAL NOTE: We are NOT suggesting, in any way, that the Tea Party Movement is that party. Not at all. Keep in mind that this post was written in October 2008.

Post No. 148b: As Is the Case with the Truth, Personal Responsibility is Rarely Plain, and It’s Never Simple

There has been a news story floating around for the past couple of weeks, which is so troubling that, although covered in various media vehicles, few have had anything of real substance to say about it, apparently needing additional time to digest it.

It is the story of a highly-regarded photographer who covered the civil rights movement during the 1960s. In fact, he was with Martin Luther King and his entourage on the day that Dr. King was shot in Memphis.

When we first encountered the story, it seemed so… let us say, implausible, that we questioned its authenticity.

And then we noticed that it was a Yahoo! News Blog article, which provided some credibility.

It told the story of how famed photographer Ernest Withers had another profession, namely that of FBI informant, advising the FBI of the activities and tactics of many of those in the civil rights movement, including Dr. King.

After reading the story, we were so… stunned, that we could do little other than simply pass it on to some friends of the Institute, without comment.

One of them noted that the story originally appeared in a Memphis area newspaper, the Commercial Appeal.

Upon reading the original piece, we were even more stunned. Maybe you will, like one of our readers, think that it was no big deal and not find it surprising that someone would rat out Dr. King to J. Edgar Hoover.

But something still bothers us about this story. We’re just not quite sure what to say.

Please take the time to digest both articles. It’s a….

To whom did Withers owe responsibility, if at all, to anyone or any entity?

To his nation, to the FBI, to his family, to Dr. King and others in the civil rights movement, to the movement itself, to his race….

You tell us. We’d like to hear.

Post No. 148a: Sometimes We Wonder Why He Went to Brazil

Prior to his departure to Brazil to commence his sabbatical, the Logistician generated this post on October 25, 2008, roughly two years ago. It outlined his concerns on the off chance that candidate Obama won the presidential election.

Looking back on it, we sometimes wonder whether he headed to Brazil for a reason other than getting some much needed rest and relaxation.

Check it out.

© 2008 and 2010, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Earlier this evening, I had a conversation with a friend, Lawrence, about the prospect that Obama might actually pull this thing off. Lawrence, an Obama supporter, participated in a neighborhood campaign drive several weeks ago.

He turned and looked at me with a slight tinge of amazement, when I said that I hoped that Obama did not win this election.

You see, it’s not that I have anything of real substance against Obama. However, I just do not honestly think that America is ready for a black president. Plain and simple.

We’re not there yet.

Same goes for a woman president. Does that mean that I feel that the battle should not be fought? Of course not.

This has nothing to do with my personal views – just my thoughts watching the battle and the soldiers on both sides. Certain more optimistic or lofty-ideal commentators have spoken about how far our country has come, and the message which it will send to the world.

Let me provide an analogy which might better explain my concern.

There are many legal organizations, which advocate certain positions, and wait for years to pursue the appropriate “test case” to advance their positions. Timing is very important. The mood of the country, the facts of the case, the strength of the plaintiff, the financial resources available, and the judges on the bench, are all factors.

Such cases are not prosecuted carelessly, without considering the big picture / long term effects.

As much of an optimist as I portray myself, there are some practical issues about which I am very concerned.

First, I think that we are in for some very difficult economic times for several years to come.

Second, to the extent that any purported damage done by the current folks in power can be addressed, it will take a long time to perform any corrective action.

Third, this war thing is not going to be resolved as quickly and easily as we might argue, no matter which side is telling it.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, we don’t have the financial resources to do much of anything.

We all know, on a practical level, that when times are bad, fault and blame are placed on the executive in charge, and the party in control of Congress.

Imagine the discourse while Obama presides over all of these complications. I can tell you how soon the criticism of his policies is going to start.

I have a fear that should he win, within 2 years, the electorate will be calling for his head. And his opponents will undoubtedly demonize him and say, “I told you so.”

Economic hardship and pain have a way of quickly erasing all memory about the good times associated with the successful candidate’s election, and the good times that he anticipates down the road.

The patience of the electorate will get short. Real short.

And it is not just Obama about whom I am theoretically concerned. I would be just as concerned about the first woman to occupy the office. Or the first Hispanic.

Quite frankly, the first of any group, after years of conspicuous absence of similar individuals, should not be remembered for bad times. I’d almost have him lose this one and win the next one, when the economy is on the upswing. But then again, there may not be another time.

And so I told Lawrence, there is only so much that a president can do, and that the problems are global and deep rooted in nature. Lawrence looked at me and said, despite that, he wanted a president who inspired hope around the world. Is that a good enough reason to want to see Obama win?

You tell me.

P.S. In the end, Hillary may have been the victor.

© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 148: Sorry Mr. Thoreau, but that Hermit Crap is for the Birds

© 2010, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

We recently contacted the Logistician (an Institute Fellow), still on sabbatical in Brazil, just to check up on him. We asked him what he considered to be the most significant difference between Brazil and the United States.

“There is almost a total lack of fear here in Brazil," he said. "The folks will do virtually anything and engage virtually anyone.”

Interestingly, we have been thinking a lot about the concept of fear over the past few months, with all of the yelling and screaming going on about where this country is headed. We’ve come to recognize it as a very powerful and potentially destructive force.

Prior to moving to the East Coast, the Institute was based in Los Angeles, just a few blocks from UCLA. During the late 1980’s, a dramatic shift, in the ethnic make-up of the student body at UCLA, began to take place.

The number of first generation immigrant students, whose education was financed by parents in another part of the world, began to grow. It was not unusual to see them walking down the streets of Westwood wearing facial masks to deal with the air pollution and whatever other airborne “diseases.”

They walked in groups of 4, 5, or 6. On occasion, upon encountering a native-born American, the group members would shift 3 or 4 feet off the sidewalk, and turn their heads 90° as if to avoid being contaminated by the approaching figure.

When we first encountered this, we were puzzled, particularly since many cities in their native countries were far more densely populated, with lots of pushing and shoving and bodies touching. Thus, we wondered about the basis for the reaction.

We also knew plenty of native born American citizens of the same ethnic origin, who did not behave similarly, and who were truly integrated and engaged members of California society.

We entertained the possibility that it was fear of strangers and the unknown, and we became concerned, since a fear of any group of people, concept, or person results in a lack of engagement.

Many are familiar with the Seven Deadly Sins. According to Wikipedia, they constitute “…a classification of the most objectionable vices that has been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct followers concerning (immoral) fallen humanity’s tendency to sin." The final version of the list consists of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Although we here at the Institute do not claim to be learned theologians, or duly appointed disciples of Jesus, there is an argument to be made that fear, particularly the fear of engagement, should be added as the eighth deadly sin.

(Arguably, if one really has faith in God, follows the dictates of his or her religion, and legitimately considers oneself a child of God, then one should not fear anything or anyone but God.)

Tangentially, a failure to engage stemming from fear, can also lead to a failure to understand, which can lead to anger – one of the more unproductive activities in which one can engage, about which we previously expressed our thoughts.

In the view of the Logistician, there is a pragmatic, socio-technological reason to eliminate fear of others, leading to engagement – a society efficiently and effectively gets the best out of the highest proportion of its people.

The Roman Empire contributed significantly to the development of western civilization, which some consider to be the greatest contributor to humankind thus far. Through its assembly (admittedly by force in many instances) and assimilation of divergent cultures, the cross-cultural benefits were exponential in nature.

When those using a particular type of plow used in Country X, engaged those from Country Y, and then those from Country Z, the resultant plow was better at performing the task of tilling the soil, than any of the previous individual plows.

When the Institute moved to the southeast region of the country, the influences of the traditional Caucasian and African-American cultures were observable and palpable. However, the people in the region almost seemed to be in denial about the rapidly increasing Hispanic and Asian communities.

To constructively deny the existence, through lack of engagement, of a significant segment of your community, is a waste of human resources, and a missed opportunity.

And what does this have to do with Personal Responsibility about which we harp so frequently?

It seems to us that if one considers oneself to be a positive, upstanding, responsible contributor to the community, and a citizen of God’s Universe, (regardless of what Stephen Hawking might say), then part of Personal Responsibility requires us to affirmatively engage those who we do not know, do not understand, and those with whom we have philosophical, cultural, ethnic, social, and other differences.

It just seems like the responsible thing to do….

[Editorial Note: We obviously used some "artistic license" in referring to Henry David Thoreau.]