Post No. 162b: 27 Situations Where People We Respect Claim that "Lying" is Appropriate

Home Run King Barry Bonds is in the news again; however, this time, he may go to jail for lying about his use of steroids. For some reason, the theoretical and practical attitudes of our readers toward cheating (which arguably is a form of deceit, of which "lying" is a subset) differed dramatically from the responses we received during our prior effort to delve into the issue of honesty. Consequently, we are re-visiting our original post on the subject to see what happens when we separate the issue of honesty from the issue of steroid use.

© 2009, 2010, and 2011, 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 one would expect people to 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 male buddies have since said that all he had to do was to simply say, “Yes.” (Coincidentally, as have his female friends.) But he didn't.

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

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

The Logistician never managed to provide 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 has 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 recollection of what you previously said.”

And so it was with a great deal of consternation that the Logistician recently found himself in a heated conversation with a valued 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, and promptly supported the position of the first friend.

It made him wonder whether there are ends sufficiently important to justify out right lying. He also 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?

(Frankly, we’ve reached a point in our society where many aren’t quite sure what to believe from some purported news sources 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. But is it really? 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? (Apparently one can not lie if one is using performance enhancing drugs in a competitive athletic sport.)

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? What about the case of a patient who has terminal cancer, with only a short time to live?

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 and 2010, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Should you desire to examine the comments from our readers the first time that we broached this subject, click here.

Post No. 162a: Article of Interest: Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It's the Only Choice

The following article is taken from the electronic edition of the New York Times:


By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: March 21, 2011

"Suppose that Mark and Bill live in a deterministic universe. Everything that happens this morning — like Mark’s decision to wear a blue shirt, or Bill’s latest attempt to comb over his bald spot — is completely caused by whatever happened before it.

"If you recreated this universe starting with the Big Bang and let all events proceed exactly the same way until this same morning, then the blue shirt is as inevitable as the comb-over.

"Now for questions from experimental philosophers:

"1) In this deterministic universe, is it possible for a person to be fully morally responsible for his actions?

"2) This year, as he has often done in the past, Mark arranges to cheat on his taxes. Is he fully morally responsible for his actions?

"3) Bill falls in love with his secretary, and he decides that the only way to be with her is to murder his wife and three children. Before leaving on a trip, he arranges for them to be killed while he is away. Is Bill fully morally responsible for his actions?

"To a classic philosopher, these are just three versions of the same question about free will. But to the new breed of philosophers who test people’s responses to concepts like determinism, there are crucial differences, as Shaun Nichols explains in the current issue of Science....

To view the remainder of the article, click here.

Post No. 162: An Ass-Whupping Wuz ‘Bout da Take Place

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We’ve been spending quite a bit of time on the bus recently. Apart from saving money, being green, and finding time to read the newspaper, we have the opportunity to examine a microcosm of America. During a prior transit adventure, we gained some insight into problems encountered by children in their homes, which spill over into the public schools. Later, we learned what is wrong with the American male, or at least a large number of them, from the perspective of many women.

During our most recent trip, we saw a riot in the making, which may reflect some of the tension and stress the American public is feeling during these difficult economic times.

On certain days of the week, and at certain times of the month, there are more people using the bus system than is normally the case. With more passengers and more frequent stops come incremental delays which build up over the course of a route.

When we boarded the bus, and saw it packed with 40 plus passengers, we knew there was going to be trouble. At our stop, the bus normally has roughly 16 minutes to make it to the Central Depot, and connect with other outbound buses. But on this day, it only had 9 minutes to spare, for a trip which could take 8 minutes under ideal conditions.

Actually, the bus driver did a pretty good job of making the lights while traveling within the speed limit. Unfortunately, he arrived at the entrance to the Depot 1 minute before the other buses were scheduled to depart. Those of you unfamiliar with the bus system might think that this was good enough, and that everyone would be happy since the connections could be made.

But regular riders know, or at least they should, that if an arriving bus is not fully into the Depot 2 minutes before the scheduled departure time, it must wait at a safety line at the entrance to the Depot, until given further instructions.

The reason for the rule is fairly obvious. The operators of the system do not want passengers jumping off incoming buses, running in between other buses about to depart, and banging on windows to get the attention of departing drivers.

And thus, they made our bus wait. Fifty yards back, but with the other buses, not yet departed, within our view. To make it worse, the other buses did not take off at the scheduled time.

Things began to get testy. First a few passengers yelled, “What are we waiting for?” Then a few more bellowed, “The other buses haven’t even left!” “I’m going to miss my connection.” With each passing 10 seconds, the tension thickened. The bus began to rock as the passengers began to stand up and demand that they be let out at the safety line and be provided the opportunity to run across the paths of the departing buses in anticipation of a lucrative lawsuit.

“This is why the Transit Authority is crap!”

Some even suggested that they had been let out at the safety line on previous occasions, in obvious violation of Authority policy.

Amazingly, the African born immigrant driver sat politely in his seat, as only a citizen of a Commonwealth nation could, and said nothing at first, and later that he was only complying with Transit Authority policy. Of course, no one came to his defense.

Once all of the other buses in front of us departed, and the Depot was cleared, permission was given to our driver to proceed forward, as the African-Americans taunted him and suggested that he return to the country of his origin, in not quite so polite terms. Once the bus came to a stop amongst the empty stalls, both the front and rear doors of the bus opened. The insults reached a level where we were sure that someone was going to punch the driver as the crowd exited, and when it would have been difficult to determine the assailant.

Our driver managed to avoid an altercation this time. Something tells us that might not be the case in the very near future.

As we left by the rear door, we heard someone say,” An ass-whupping wuz ‘bout da take place.”

We guess it was a good thing that the bus was full of otherwise law-abiding citizens. We can’t imagine what an irresponsible group of citizens might have done.

Post No. 161: Back in the Day When a Man was Worth Something

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

For years we thought that we learned more by talking more. However, after much pain and deliberation, we have concluded that some people learn more through listening to others, and we might be members of that group.

Despite some of the drawbacks of riding public mass transit, one has the opportunity to listen to the conversations of others; and learn something.

During a prior adventure on the bus, we learned what is wrong with the American education system. During our most recent trip, we learned what is wrong with the American male, or at least a large number of them.

We previously examined the types of friends college students should consider making in Hanging Out with the Right Crowd, and Hanging Out with the Left Crowd. We also discussed young couples getting past giddiness, tingling, and increased blood flow in There Has to be Something More. Today, we explore some Common Sense thoughts which young women should consider in evaluating their man.

There are times, when the Personal Responsibility Freaks of the Universe (including the Members of this Institute), take this responsibility notion too far. We all have to recognize that personal responsibility is a goal to which we should aspire, not a mechanical device on sale at Wal-Mart. But many environments in which we operate, frequently called “systems,” are more mechanical in nature.

The lady on the bus commenting about men of an earlier time was responding to a man alluding to the kind of relationship where the woman wakes up at 5 am to prepare breakfast for her man, before he heads to work. She suggested that she did not have a problem getting up at that hour, if the man had a job to which he planned to go.

But what if the man doesn’t? And what if the disparity between the wages paid a woman and those paid a man for the same task motivate an employer to hire women instead of men?

At one point in our nation’s history, when we were primarily an agriculture-based economy, a man and a woman might stake a piece of land, and try to make something of it. At a minimum, they generated food sufficient to put on the table, or produced enough offspring to increase that probability. Even if the crops were unsuccessful, at least the man had the opportunity to wake up every day, head to the fields, and try to generate something, along with the illusion that he was a man of some value.

But humankind’s greatest invention, cities, changed all that, initially for the better. When industry was everywhere, and jobs aplenty, men could at least fake some self-esteem, pride, and the ability to take care of their families. But as pointed out in Does Anyone in America Have a Real Job Anymore?, as we transitioned into a service economy, finding those clearly recognizable jobs became more difficult.

There used to be a day when a man with a 2nd or 3rd grade education could still respectfully provide for his family. That’s more problematic today. In many inner cities, the transportation and distribution of drugs have become the local economy, on which many young men depend.

Just last week, we saw one of the most powerful pieces ever produced by CBS’ 60 Minutes. It was the story of the dramatic increase in the number of children below the poverty line in recent years. At this point in our history, roughly 25% of children in America live in families whose incomes fall below the poverty line.

Scott Pelly interviewed the parents and their children, and it was apparent that these people enjoyed a middle class existence for years. Now they live in cheap motels in dangerous neighborhoods. You could see the anguish on Pelly’s face as he interviewed the articulate parents and their bright children.

Were the parents the slackers of the world? Drug addicts and other criminals? Entitlement seekers living off the government? Worthless minorities? Absolutely not. These folks were just like you and the Members of this Institute. Just regular, hard-working, law abiding citizens.

The children were obviously most acutely affected by their change in status. Many of them were ashamed of their fathers. “How could you have let this happen to us?”

So who or what is at fault when a woman perceives that her man, or any man, is no longer a man of value?

And has no worth?

Maybe, just maybe, finding someone with a stable job and prospects for the future might be more important than being in love. Maybe that’s the Personal Responsibility message.

But we as a nation need to figure out how to better deal with this issue, which has long-ranging ramifications.

Post No. 160a: Why God Created West Virginia

God was missing for six days. Eventually, Michael, the archangel, found him, resting on the seventh day.

He inquired, "Where have you been?"

God smiled broadly and proudly pointed downward through the clouds, "Look, Michael. Look what I've made."

Archangel Michael looked puzzled, and said, "What is it?"

"It's a planet," replied God, and I've put life on it… I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a place to test the concepts of Balance and Common Sense."

"Balance?" inquired Michael, "I'm still confused."

God explained, pointing to different parts of Earth. "For example, northern Europe will, for a period of time, be a place of great opportunity and wealth, while southern Europe is going to be poor. Over here I've placed a continent of white people, and over there is a continent of black people. Balance in all things.

God continued pointing to different countries. "This one will be extremely hot, while that one will be very cold and covered in ice."

The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to an area of land not previously mentioned by God and asked, "What's that one?"

"That's West Virginia," said God, "the most glorious place on earth. There are beautiful mountains, rivers and streams, lakes, forests, hills, and plains. The people from West Virginia are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent, and humorous, and they are going to travel the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking, high achieving, carriers of peace, and producers of good things."

Michael gasped in wonder and admiration, but then asked, "But what about balance, God? You said there would be balance."

God smiled, and while pointing downward said, "Right next to West Virginia is Washington, D.C. Wait till you see the idiots I intend to put there."

Post No. 160: We Finally Figured Out What’s Wrong with the American Education System

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Over the years when attending conferences, the Logistician chastised us for renting cars. He claimed that public transportation was the way to go, since one gets a real feel for the people of a region.

After hearing him rail for many years, we finally relented, and became regular public transportation users, both at, and away from, home. Earlier today, we saw an example of “getting a real feel,” in action.

After boarding our bus, since it was 28ºF outside, we headed to the rear, which although noisy, is generally warm. We sat in the side-facing seats on the right side, and noticed to our left, 3 heavily clothed and hooded kids, ages 10, 9, and 6. They seemed an energetic bunch, bursting with promise and curiosity.

Initially, we did not notice the absence of their Mother.

The middle, wide-eyed 9 year old made some eye contact, and seemed receptive to chatter. Since it was 10:15am on a weekday, our first question was whether they were in school. All three nodded affirmatively. We then posed the question, “Do you like school?”

The 6 year old, huddled up in her pink hood, did not respond. The grinning 10 year old shook his head, and the 9 year old energetically nodded her head. There was a middle-aged man seated closest to us, in the rear shotgun seat and to the left of the 10 year old, wearing sun shades and listening to his iPod. He turned toward the kids, quietly removed his earplugs, and directed his attention to our 3 interviewees, as if he wanted to hear their responses.

Next we asked the 9 year old what her favorite subject was, to which she replied, “Science.” The 10 year old identified math as the bane of his existence . The Mother returned from the front of the bus, and sat to our left and to the right of the 6 year old. She initially appeared to be pleased that we were talking to her kids about school. Speaking to the clean-cut 10 year old, who took off his hood revealing a close haircut, we suggested that he consult with his 9 year old female friend to his side, since math is an integral part of most science.

Our 9 year old forcefully threw her hood back, informed us that “she” was a “he,” and revealed a full head of beautiful, medium brown, 7 inch locks. He was clearly irritated as our misidentification. We tried to lighten up things, by “relating” to our new found 9 year friend, by revealing that in the 1970s, we had people mistake us for members of the opposite sex also.

We continued to glance over to the right toward the Mother, who by now was simply staring outside her window, absorbed by her own thoughts. She looked familiar, although we could not exactly recall the circumstances. She no longer appeared to be interested in our conversation.

We thought that we would take the risk and continue with the 10 year old, not wanting give up on him. We asked whether there was any subject which he enjoyed, to which we thought he replied, “Spanish.” Now we were making some progress, so we thought, so we posed a few Habla Espanols, which appeared to bewilder him. Not making any connection, we assumed that he probably meant geography and the nation of Spain.

Once again, we were wrong. He finally spit out, “Spinach.” “Like the food, the green, leafy vegetable?” Without even looking our way, and detecting our confusion, the Mother screamed, “Shut your mouth boy, talking that foolishness! I get a headache just listening to you.”

Our trio of young Musketeers instantly became bumps on a log. We then recognized the Mother.

Just last week, we saw her slap the 9 year old back into the 20th Century, when the munchkin made the mistake of trying to walk across the bus aisle while the bus was negotiating a curve. Shortly after the slap came a line we’ll never forget.

“Keep it up. I’ll turn you in to the authorities and you’ll soon be just a memory on my wall.” We considered writing a post right after that incident, and got sidetracked.

A couple of weeks ago, a regular reader, CorfuBob, started off a comment with the sentence, “You and I, Inspector, were born with privileges denied most people.” We asked CorfuBob to elaborate and provide us with some insight into why he thought that the Inspector was so “privileged.”

He never responded.

Apparently he felt that he didn’t need to do so.

Post No. 159: Are You Tired of Your Bathroom?

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Potential college grads do not need experts to tell them that they have some difficult choices to make this spring. We Baby Boomers have pretty much screwed up things for them. We managed to give the rich, particularly the nouveau riche, virtually all of our marbles and a bunch of our lunch money just to get safe passage to school.

Several days ago, we ran across an article where the author subscribed to the notion that either the solution to, or the root of a, problem can be found in the asking of the question.

Just minutes ago, we heard a radio commercial for a bathroom remodeling company, which may provide a practical example of the concept. (Shortly after, we heard an economist say that consumer spending in the U.S. needs a spark, since it constitutes 70% of the nation’s economy.)

When we heard, “Are you tired of your bathroom,” we laughed out loud. That consumers would seek out the services of any company (or anyone) simply because they are tired of how something feels, looks, smells, tastes, or sounds grabbed us. (Are there such companies to find new spouses?) Our parents born in the Depression were comfortable with conspicuous subsistence, while storing cash in the coffee can planted in the back yard.

It occurred to us that this change in attitude amongst the Boomers might explain much about the American consumer, or even the American psyche, at this point in our economic evolution.

Back in the late 1970s, several of our Fellows worked for a large firm. All employees received one month’s pay as a Christmas bonus. Right in the middle of the double-dipped recession of 1980 - 1982, the most ambitious partners left, carrying a bunch of business (and accompanying staff members), to form a new firm, which had different ideas about the future.

But times were tough, and come Christmas talk was about whether we would get paid, not whether we would receive a bonus. Instead of looking for the icing on the cake, we wondered whether we would get any beans.

Recently, we heard a comment by a caller during a C-Span program. China was the topic, and the point at which it would overtake America as the dominant economic force was the issue. (Last month, China supplanted Japan as the No. 2 global power.) “1.4 billion people seeking what we have is a powerful force.” He further suggested that it can’t be stopped.

Hunger is a powerful force. So is the resultant increase in the ranks and spending power of the Chinese middle class.

Yesterday, a taxi cab driver remarked that the area where the Institute is located was just woods 50 years ago, although there was an occasional shack with an outhouse. Those of you who have never used an outhouse might find it odd that someone might get tired of one.

According to the Wikipedia:

“In 1929, consumer spending was 75% of the nation's economy. This grew to 83% in 1932, when business spending dropped. Consumer spending dropped to about 50% during World War II due to large expenditures by the government and lack of consumer products. It has risen since 1983 to about 70%, as the result of relaxed consumer credit. Spending dropped in 2008 as the result of consumer fears about the economy. Consumers saved instead of spending.”

So all we middle-class consumers need to do is start spending.

But what’s the source of income for ordinary consumers? Many are having difficulty finding jobs, and just putting food on the table.

Then it hit us. All of a sudden we understood why some contend that tax cuts to the rich will aid the economy. Someone recently sent us an economic chart reflecting how the economic status of the middle class has not improved over the last 25 years.

It also reflected a 33% increase for wealthy Americans.

Common Sense suggests, at this point in our economic evolution, that it’s the rich folks who aren’t spending, or investing, or hiring, or much of anything else to benefit those of us at the bottom of the heap. And that’s who we Baby Boomers are going to have to wait on.

But upcoming college graduates can learn from our mistakes, and not be so foolish about their personal economies.

Just the other day, we ran across a company, Get It Together, which describes itself as a leader in independent financial and legal education. They provide workshops and mentor programs on financial and legal planning, coupled with credit management. What group is their primary target audience?

College students.

Better late than never.

Now, are you tired of your bathroom?

P.S. The Logistician always contended, while working 3,000 hour years, that he could have realized more dollars on an hourly basis being a plumber.

Post No. 158a: Re-posting of "There Has to be Something More"

© 2009 and 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

This post was originally published in 2009. Since today is Valentine's Day, we thought that we should re-visit some relationship issues.

Today, we have some Common Sense thoughts about choosing a spouse - the first, and hopefully only, time.

When we sit down at the keyboard, we’ve often just watched a series of movies on TCM, some cartoons, C-Span, and the news.

John Edwards, the Democratic presidential contender who cheated on his wife, is back in the news, due to the recent death of his wife, from cancer. So are the timeless issues of sex, power, and breach of trust.

As we watched the Edwardses, we asked, “What are people thinking when they pair up?”

Some suggest that very little thinking goes on, at least north of the equator, and that’s where the cartoons come in. We’ve long argued that transient, hard-wired blood flow and chemical (whether hormonal or self-administered) factors play far too large a role.

We're not being prudish; we've just been there; and, on far too frequent an occasion.

It’s not difficult to find some element of errant temptation in most Hollywood products. Some even suggest that Tinseltown bears some responsibility.

But history is replete with evidence that hanky-panky predated Hollywood. A recent History Channel program discussed the long trips between American colonial farms where brief “stops” were made (by members of both sexes) to, let’s say, regain one’s energy.

Modern couples are often shocked to find that sex is a reoccurring complicating factor. Last evening, we watched a program on the mythological god Zeus. It was noted that all of the ancient gods, in addition to their immense power, had human frailties.

Zeus’ flaw? An insatiable sexual appetite. (Even without Viagra.)

While we’ve never quite figured out why the male member (or even the female member) of a couple might have an interest in prolonging the event (particularly those otherwise incompatible), we do find the spate of competing commercials entertaining.

The description of the potential side effects is almost as humorous as the cartoons we watch. “Anyone experiencing an erection longer than 4 hours should consult a physician.” Add to that the warning that someone experiencing a decrease in hearing or sight should discontinue using the product, and we’re really confused. Aren’t those parts of the deal?

In an earlier piece, we suggested that people considering, or stumbling toward, infidelity recognize the early warning signs. We proposed nipping the impulse in the bud while they still had some degree of control, before “Nature” took over.

That didn’t go over very well. Many apparently feel that Nature has no role, and it is all about pure selfishness, and a lack of Personal Responsibility. When we tried to clarify our position, we made little progress, even with the assistance of another Institute Fellow.

However, let's face it: the real issue is how one wants to occupy one's time.

We saw the movie Outbreak for the first time last week. In it, members of a divorced couple, both of whom are infectious disease doctors, join forces to fight a deadly virus. Watching them place their personal differences aside, and focus on their mutual goals, prompted us to write this piece.

TCM recently aired a collection of Andy Hardy movies starring Mickey Rooney. As Rooney got older, he began to take an interest in members of the opposite sex. In some of his other movies, he was paired with Liz Taylor. In real life, Rooney and Taylor married 8 times each, and to them we dedicate this piece.

From what we’ve seen, young people considering hooking up long-term might look for something else apart from the transient. (Children are obviously not a very strong motivation to stay together these days.)

We’re neither apologizing for, nor condoning cheating. Nor are we suggesting that cheating is a minor issue to be glanced over. We’re just suggesting that marriage might have a better chance of survival, whatever the problems encountered, if there is something else going on apart from physical attraction.

The following appeared in our earlier, controversial piece:

“Probably the best line about love... is..., ‘Love is not two people staring into the eyes of one another, but rather both of them staring in the same direction together at the same time focused on the same goal.’ [I]f a relationship is primarily [physical] attraction... based, the decrease in the stimulation and intensity will occur about as quickly as the increase, if not faster.

“When men and women... realize there are issues in society larger and more significant than themselves, their children, and the physical structures in which they live (and where one places his appendage), then we will have made some progress as a society. When couples feel that their relationship is about to disintegrate, they might consider jointly volunteering their time to the AIDS Foundation, the Alzheimer’s Foundation, or a similar organization. That’ll place things into perspective.”

Earlier this week, we saw another couple in the news – the Clintons. The former Prez brought home two detained American journalists who made missteps in North Korea. His previously humiliated wife, now Secretary of State, beamed with pride. Moving on beyond his peccadilloes, they, together, pulled something off which they felt mattered.

For all the criticism their relationship received in the past, perhaps they have figured out the formula to a long-term marriage, or another type of "Stay Pow'R." (It remains to be seen whether the marriages of Gov. Mark Sanford and Sen. John Ensign will survive.)

We strongly suspect that at some point during or following the Lewinsky scandal, at least one of them said, “There’s still work to be done, which best be done by the two of us.”

Post No. 158: Does Anyone in America Have a “Real” Job Anymore?

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Maybe we exaggerate, a little.

But as we watched the coverage of the slowly evolving Egyptian Revolution, we found everyone second guessing everyone else.

The President of the U.S. should do this. President Mubarak should do X. The prior administration should have done that. The monolithic student movement is doing Y, and the older citizens - this and that.

Finally, the neighboring Arab countries should do Z, T, U, M and B.

This cacophony prompted us to surf the media outlets to identify a consensus regarding what should be done and what is going to happen.

We had some difficulty.

At last count, we found 7,493 options available to the various factions and interested parties. This gives us some appreciation of the complexity of it all.

However, something else occurred to us, just with respect to the American talking heads.

First of all, with few exceptions, few of us (the Fellows of the Institute included) have even a modicum of understanding of the culture in that part of the world, and yet so many of us have become experts over night.

Second, somehow we think that we can influence the actions of President Mubarak, despite having so much difficulty just getting Osama bin Laden to answer our phone calls.

Third, the situation in Egypt is so fluid that even the great engineering firm of da Vinci, Newton, and Bernoulli would have difficulty keeping track of it.

Just a few minutes ago, we received a breaking news e-mail from the Washington Post claiming that the Obama Administration is on the defensive because of President Mubarak’s defiance, and refusal to take a permanent trip to France.

(BTW, what’s with Baby Doc returning to Haiti? Anyone having visited Grasse, France, will tell you that it is Nirvana, not to mention close to the beaches of Cannes.)

Perhaps it would be helpful for us to realize that we do not know how to solve every problem in the Universe, and that there are some issues beyond our control as a nation.

But something else bothered us last evening. When we examined the 4,678 talking heads expressing the 7,493 different options, we noted that only 3 of them had real jobs, and they weren’t talking.

Well, maybe another exaggeration. But here’s our point.

If we had more things to do (namely, real jobs) in our country, we wouldn’t have as much time to weigh in on the problems of other countries, nor would we have what seems to be a virtual, 24 hour army of talking heads.

As soon as the great prognosticators started talking about our economy transitioning into a service economy from a manufacturing economy, we began to get concerned.

Call us Neanderthals, but in our view, servicing others only lasts as long as the people or entities we service have a desire to purchase our services, and more importantly, money to pay us.

Just take a look at all the free services provided in our economy. Many of the incredibly innovative web sites on the Internet are provided at no cost, while the owners have to beg for advertising revenue.

Our food is increasingly being grown in other countries. The Chinese are no longer leasing natural resource real estate in Third World countries, but buying the property outright. And we don’t need to talk about American manufacturing prowess.

It has gotten to the point when one asks an American what he or she does for work, after they provide their job title, one has to follow up with 27 questions to really figure out what they do – on a part-time basis.

The Logistician, still working on his doctorate at a samba school in Rio, once got in trouble while running the orientation of community college students in the Southeast. He gratuitously noted that too many black folks spend their time performing landscaping and fixing other black folks’ hair.

His point was that the segment of the population needing landscaping and hair care services was not growing, and that too many people entering the field would lead to a glut of workers. He was simply encouraging the potential students to think ahead, about jobs that might be in higher demand, and require more technical expertise.

Needless to say, there was one very vocal young lady in the room who flipped on him. He later discovered that it was her life long goal to be a cosmetologist. He now realizes that he should have encouraged her to become a news commentator on Fox News, or MSNBC.

Because that’s where the opportunities are; at least in America.

Inventing stuff, finding cures for diseases, and making stuff is way too labor intensive.

We’ve somehow figured out that we should outsource that to the Chinese.

Post No. 157: Does an Ass-Whipping Constitute Inspiration?

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

One thing we’ve learned during the past 3 years - when we suggest people are responsible for their own, individual crap, we generally receive no responses, or oblique ones.

In a recent post, we referred to the “malaise speech” made 30 years ago by President Jimmy Carter. In it, he suggested that America was experiencing a crisis in confidence, and needed to get back to basics to renew our enthusiasm.

In our view, this was just another way of saying that we were not living up to our responsibilities as citizens, which translated to our responsibilities as a nation.

One of our followers suggested that the problem with the President’s speech was that he didn’t inspire the citizens at the time. We initially thought that his response fell in the oblique sluice.

What followed was a discussion about whether all leaders should have the ability to inspire others, effectively manage the shop, or perhaps a little of both.

We must admit that we initially dismissed the possible role of inspiration in encouraging people to be responsible. We joked to ourselves that Hollywood Bad Kids, Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen, not only need to decide to participate in substance abuse programs, but also be sufficiently “inspired” by someone else to do so, so that Hollywood might be able to place confidence in them again.

It also reminded us of how many Baby Boomers, while kids growing up, had our asses whipped by our parents as part of the development of our sense of responsibility, and how it might have also constituted “inspiration.” [Of course, these “expressions of love” were inflicted prior to kids being able to threaten their parents with child abuse allegations.]

We then realized that, in some instances, motivation and inspiration might be synonymous.

We’ve been wrestling with this inspiration – responsibility tag team all week now.

Over the weekend, we saw a tweet which made us laugh. We e-mailed it to a group of friends, mentioning that it was from the “We Simply Could Not Resist File.” It read:

“What Egypt needs now is a tax break for the rich to stimulate job creation.”

Without addressing whether “inspiration” can be the equivalent of “stimulation,” one recipient responded, “I thought that such a tax break already existed, and that it was called the ‘American Foolish Dependency on Middle East Oil Act.’”

This, and our follower’s comment about inspiration, led us to rethink a few points we raised in comments to our two prior posts, whose theme was, a nation is only as responsible as its most irresponsible citizen.

Is it the responsibility of our leaders to inspire us to eat healthier foods and exercise? Save more of our income? Invent new technologies? Better educate ourselves? Or even reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

We’re going through a period of turbulence right now, and President Obama is the Captain of the Big Ship Lollypop.

Does he provide a sense of comfort amongst the citizens? Should it be a requirement of the position?

In the minds of some, the President needs to allay our current concerns. It is reasonably clear that he has not been able to do that, either domestically or internationally. [Should he be willing to lie to us to accomplish that goal?]

One thing that makes his job difficult is that there are so many people sniping at him, and second guessing his decisions. This is not a matter of whether the criticism is justified or not. It simply is what it is. A significant segment of society dislikes him intensely, which arguably bears on, or reflects, his ability or inability to inspire.

We are reminded that in the military, one can not openly criticize or question a superior officer, and there are good reasons for that. It potentially undermines the authority of the officer to accomplish the mission, and can adversely affect the morale of the troops. Is there an analogy with respect to the President, no matter who is in the office?

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, David Gregory gave us a glimpse into the soon-to-open Reagan Library. His tour guide was Peggy Noonan, one of the primary speech writers to former President Ronald Reagan.

She revealed something which the American public has never seen – the suit which President Reagan wore on the day that John Hinckley shot him, gunshot hole and all.

As the President was being wheeled into the OR, he quipped, “I hope that you all are Republicans,” referring to the surgical team.

The Chief Surgeon, reportedly a staunch Democrat, without hesitation, responded, “Today, Mr. President, we’re all Republicans.”

Maybe, just maybe, we all need to be on the same team as responsible citizens, inspired by our President or not.

Post No. 156b: Walk Naked in America Day

Don't forget to mark your calendars.

As you may already know, it is a sin for a Muslim male to see any woman other than his wife naked and if he does, he must commit suicide. So next Saturday at 1 pm Eastern Time, all American women are asked to walk out of their houses completely naked to help weed out any neighborhood terrorists.

Circling your block for one hour is recommended for this anti-terrorist effort.

All patriotic men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their houses to demonstrate their support for the women and to prove that they are not Muslim terrorist sympathizers. Since Islam also does not approve of alcohol, a cold 6-pack at your side is further proof of your patriotism.

The American government appreciates your efforts to root out terrorists and applauds your participation in this anti-terrorist activity.

God bless America !


P.S. It is your patriotic duty to inform others....

Post No. 156a: The Ridiculousness of It All

Earlier today, a study was released which found that 3/4 of all women living in America, and 2/3 of all men, are either overweight or obese. The study described the current situation as one approaching epidemic proportions. [Evidently, it's not a problem in Hollywood.]

And to think, we are arguing about how to fund the costs of health care in this country, instead of directly addressing one of the most significant reasons for the high cost.

As Dirty Harry said, "A Country Has to Know Its Limitations."

Post No. 156: Great Expectations or Low Expectations - Which Would You Prefer?

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We, here at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, don’t claim to be the sharpest knives in the drawer.

But as the Laughingman often reminds us, “Doing the right thing is not rocket science™,” which is typically followed by, “Common sense ought to be a way of life™.”

In our last post, What the U.S. Deserves, we argued that the individual citizens of any nation might consider taking more personal responsibility for the state of their nation, and place less responsibility and blame on those who they consider to be their “leaders,” elected or not.

Also, in light of the current turmoil in Egypt, we suggested that Egyptians might learn something from America’s experience with that great experiment, still ongoing, called democracy.

Apparently we did a poor job of making our points, since a number of you questioned what we thought the Egyptians might learn from us. Some even felt that it was presumptuous on our part, if not downright condescending, to suggest that a culture of more than 5,000 years could learn anything from one around less than 1/10 of that time.

But in the same way as parents can learn from their children, the current version of this ancient culture, however defined, can still learn something from Michael Jackson and the New Kids on the Block.

There are many, including some prominent historians, who consider Chicago to be the optimal American city. Although not without its warts, it is frequently said that “Chicago gets things done,” and has many things about which to be proud.

Those historians placing the Windy City at the top of their lists claim that Mrs. O’Leary’s cow should be considered one of the great Founding Fathers of this modern city.

By kicking the lantern in his owner’s barn on October 8, 1871, he provided the citizens of Chicago with an opportunity to rebuild, and start afresh. In many instances, the old, the questionable, and the undesirable were instantly destroyed (admittedly not by choice), and in their place the citizens (and many outside of the city) pursued cutting edge, idealistic projects.

These included not only physical structures embodying the latest engineering and architectural thinking, but also grand sociological and artistic experiments in pursuit of Utopian society.

And thus our first point, although poorly stated, was that this presents the Egyptian people with an opportunity to rebuild. And, in the event that the end result of this human revolution is some form of “democracy,” perhaps they can avoid some of the mistakes that America has made during its democratic life.

Democracy comes in many forms, and based on our experience, it can be quite messy. To quote David Letterman, “It is nothing if not constantly evolving.”

Our second point, also admittedly poorly stated, was that perhaps instead of 1,573 leaders emerging from the ashes of this event, the Egyptians might strive to have at least 157,300 of them.

A friend once shared with us that while in high school, he was forced to read two books which would have an impact on his view of the world. The first was Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations, a novel about growth and personal development, including the themes of class and ambition.

The second, much more modern and much less known, was Jonathan Kozol’s Death at an Early Age. As compelling as some might find the title, the subtitle is even more revealing – The Destruction of the Hearts and Minds of Negro Children in the Boston Public Schools.

Death is the story of how low expectations of the black kids, on the part of the teachers and administrators in the school system, became self-fulfilling prophesies.

When one expects little, one generally gets little.

When one expects more, one generally gets more.

It’s just as simple as that. Just plain old common sense.

And that’s not only applicable to what we expect of others, but also to what we expect of ourselves. It’s been said that one of the great problems in the Middle East is that so many of the youth, who constitute such a large percentage of the population, are not only unemployed, but have no sense of the future being better than the present.

We, the inarticulate minions here at the Institute, hope that this cauldron will result in a nation with a much higher percentage of its citizens constituting the Creative Class and taking responsibility for its fate, than has been the case here in America in recent years.

P.S. We’re not through with this subject yet.

Post No. 155: What the U.S. Deserves

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

It‘s been said, “Each country gets the leader that it deserves.”

Although we had some difficulty tracking down the original source of this saying, we suspect that the author intended to include any geographical region and leaders in general.

We thought about this over the past few weeks, first in connection with Tunisia, and most recently Egypt.

While observing the Egyptian people express their dissatisfaction, we wondered whether it was really so much about their leader’s rule, as opposed to their disillusionment regarding where they find themselves today.

The notion that a country gets the leader that it deserves suggests responsibility on the part of its citizens, each and every one of them.

A single leader may set the tone, inspire the people, or even oppress and instill fear. However, it is ultimately the masses of people who decide, and who define their nation.

There was a popular saying in the 1970s, that those radical anti-establishment types like the Laughingman used to shout - If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

Over the past several weeks, we’ve been thinking about how the citizens of so many countries “pass the buck” and abdicate their responsibility for their current state of affairs.

Take the United States for example. We have all sorts of problems here: economic, political, military, immigration, health care, business, education, technology, and simply finding a presidential candidate who was clearly not born in Africa. Despite these, we profess that we are still The Greatest Show on Earth.

In one of our very first posts in 2008, The Triangular Box in Which America Finds Itself Circumscribed, we suggested that we Americans really do not like any of the political candidates who we ultimately elect.

The problem is – quite simply – that we expect far too much of our leaders, and far too little of ourselves as citizens. Our unreasonable expectations of what our elected leaders are supposed to do stem from the fact that we pay folks who simultaneously stick their hands in our hip pockets and feed at the corporate trough.

But a society (or a people) can’t blame opportunists for being opportunistic. (We don’t elect fools. There’s a reason so many of them were snakes in their prior lives.)

While the problems and issues of the average Tunisian or Egyptian can in no way be fully appreciated by the average American, we find ourselves cheering them on to achieve what we think we have – freedom.

But freedom is nothing but having options, a right to choose, and with such rights come responsibilities.

Perhaps “responsibilities” is not the right concept. Perhaps the more appropriate word is consequences.

There are consequences associated with not putting enough of our earnings into savings. There are consequences which flow from leading unhealthy lifestyles. There are consequences which stem from not having enough inventors or scientists amongst our neighbors, and too many entertainers.

And there are consequences associated with trying to work a 40 hour week, or even less, so that we have time to play with all of our recreational toys and gadgets piled in that McMansion large enough to house 4 families.

And a failure to accept or face the consequences essentially amounts to irresponsibility, on a national level.

Quite frankly, the health, vitality, and future of our nation should not depend on the acts of socialist, government types nor should it depend on private enterprise, as the free market folks argue.

It should depend on each individual citizen.

Back during the reign of King Jimmy Carter some 30 years ago, he made a speech which many derisively referred to as his “malaise speech.” In it, he suggested that America was experiencing a crisis in confidence. He suggested that we needed to get back to some basics, and renew our enthusiasm.

What he was really saying, in a political way, was that we were not living up to our responsibilities as citizens, which translated to our responsibilities as a nation.

As we approach this Super Bowl weekend, any member of either team will tell you that, there is no more effective and efficient way for a team to get its ass kicked, than for individual players to abdicate responsibility for their individual jobs.

The criticism heaped on President Carter when he told us the truth suggests a fundamental problem with our political system. Perhaps, as Col. Jessup said, “[We] can’t handle the truth.” Instead of embracing what our President had to say, we effectively told him that he couldn’t hack it as our leader.

Here’s hoping that the Tunisians, and the Egyptians, and the Sudanese, and the ________ can handle the truth, and learn from our example.

P.S. Who woudda thunk that this “revolution” would take place in Africa?

Post No. 154a: Article of Interest: "Most High School Biology Teachers Do Not Endorse Evolution"

We came across this article earlier today in the electronic edition of The Washington Post.

Posted at 1:07 PM ET, 01/29/2011

By Valerie Strauss

"The central theme of biology is evolution, yet a new study shows that most high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse it in class.

In the same week we learned that most American students did not do well in science on a test known as 'the nation's report card,' a study about biology teachers in public high schools was published that said...."


To read the entire article, click here.

Post No. 154: The Anticipation

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

It is now 7:59 pm EST, as we begin to type this piece. President Obama delivers his State of the Union message in just 61 minutes, and it is our intention to have this article posted long before the broadcast begins.

In addition, Turner Classic Movies will air, at 8:00 pm EST, what some consider the best Laurel & Hardy movie ever made, Sons of the Desert.

Suffice it to say that we are ”under the gun.” But not nearly as much as our President, following what many have termed the shellacking he took during the mid-term elections. As he walks to the podium, he will be subject to intense scrutiny, and before the night is over, he might wish that he had walked across the Sahara under the glaring light of the equatorial sun.

This piece is not about how he will perform or be received, at least not in an objective sense, but rather how so many have already peeped into their crystal balls, and know how he will perform. For the past three days, the talking heads have told us what they expect of him this evening.

Part of the responsibility for this attitude can be laid at the foot of the President and his staff themselves. In preparation for the speech, the White House has leaked its intentions, put out press releases, and employed all manner of preemptive and public relations vehicles to gain the upper hand and capitalize on the moment.

His detractors have exerted an equal, if not greater, amount of energy preparing to do the Tonya Harding, and test his knee caps with their version of Obamacare, a lead pipe.

As ridiculous as it may seem, somehow we yearn for an era (if ever one existed), where all of us wait in anticipation to listen to what our President has to say, hoping that it will somehow inspire us, and lift us out of our doldrums.

In a recent documentary on Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, and the final days of the Civil War, a noted historian quipped, “One of the great ironies about American democracy is that we claim that control is within the power of the people, and yet we yearn for a savior to deliver us from our problems.

[Those of you reading this before the President’s speech might switch over to the Laurel & Hardy movie right now. It’s a beauty.]

A couple of posts ago, in Where Our Heads Take Us, we spoke of pre-conceived ideas and their power. At the end of the evening, we strongly suspect that the Democrats will give the President an “A,” and the Republicans will provide a grade of C-, noting that the President is a gifted orator, although he is wedded to the teleprompter.

And that can’t be good.

For any of us, and definitely not for the Nation.

And so we must confess that we are guilty of having pre-conceived notions also, because we anticipate that nothing will change, and the politicians will all return to business as usual, and all the talk about the potential for a change in tone in Washington following the Arizona shootings will be for naught.

Is that sad? Yes, especially because we consider ourselves to be idealistic optimists. We are also pragmatists.

But there’s hope out there even amongst some of our most cynical followers. Take for example Douglas, who has been with us from the very beginning. In response to our last post, Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones, he commented:

“I would argue that each of us, if we are concerned about violent speech, not engage in it. Who knows? It might catch on.”

Douglas is also the guy who from experience told us that when he decided to not argue with his wife and agree with her, it didn’t work, and she continued to argue.

We’ve often told friends of the Institute that this experience (operating this blog) has been simultaneously one of the most rewarding during our lifetimes (in that we have learned so much about how others think), and one of the most frustrating (wondering whether they read the same article that we wrote).

S___ has to got to get better than this. It just has to….

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?