Post No. 115: Have We Learned Anything from Star Trek?

The following appears in the section of our blog labeled, “Its Your Turn™,” which is the program we conduct on college campuses:

“One of the goals which the “It’s Your Turn” ™ Team will achieve… will be the de-personalization of… analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. [We] believe that… analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of issues, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions.”

Earlier today, during a retreat on Sirius, we considered whether we had accomplished any of our goals set a year ago.

Being adherents of the Spock Manifesto, we originally thought that we could “objectify” the thought and decision-making process, and encourage our readers to explore as many ways of looking at issues as possible.

What surprised us was the rigidity on the part of most, and the unwillingness to even consider new ideas, or the possibility that there might be flaws in their positions.

Not that we expected everyone to change their views on every subject. However, through the civil exchange of ideas, we really expected some readers to reconsider their views, or at a minimum, acknowledge that some positions of others had merit.

Earlier, we watched a CNN Headline News piece on the new Star Trek movie. It examined why we have this continuing fascination with this science fiction franchise.

During the 60s and 70s, at any engineering school, trying to get a seat in the dining hall during Star Trek was akin to fighting an intergalactic battle.

There are many who proclaim that previously untried approaches, to our societal woes, will not work. They argue a return to the past, or staying the course.

And yet, it is the willingness to accept risk and explore worlds previously unknown, which has distinguished humankind from our less-adventuresome cousins of the fauna family. In theory, we have the ability to adapt.

And we will.

Should we pursue a course of conduct which produces positive results, we have the intelligence and capability to adjust to that situation. Should the results prove problematic, we can also deal with that.

All of us appreciate the Common Sense notion that there is a good and bad side to everything.

That we might make some bad decisions will not lead us to a Big Bang of a different variety.

During the story on Star Trek, popular astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson waxed philosophical about the series : “Practically every episode reached back into some aspect of modern life.”

We thought of some other risks taken by others during history. Copernicus, Columbus, and Henry Ford.

Should we revert to the earlier position that the Earth is the center of the universe? Or the world is what we have seen and what we know? Or fuel our automobiles with kerosene instead of gasoline?

Without a little flexibility in thinking, not one of these advancements would have been made.

Those who argue that certain risks will not be taken, nor investments made, nor innovative advances occur, do not really appreciate the mentality of risk takers. Rarely is their motivation based solely on forces outside of themselves.

Additionally, some of the greatest advances in humankind have evolved from periods of extreme discomfort. Necessity has often been the mother of invention.

Of course, not everything needs to be changed. And change in the abstract is not necessarily a good thing.

And we all realize that certain problems may require a radical and immediate approach; others not.

Either way, it’s not all one way or the other. We ought to be able to figure this stuff out.

Finally, for those in power now, who have the requisite votes to pursue your agenda, please keep the following in mind: This is just one of a series of battles during a long and protracted debate.

If there is one thing that we have learned here on Earth about one force defeating another it is that there are always negative ramifications associated with getting your way as you march through, occupy, and force your will on the conquered forces.

Winning is not always what it’s cranked up to be.

Beam me up Laughingman.

Post No. 114: Re-Visiting the Way We See the World

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We’ve operated this blog for over a year now. It’s been quite the experience. We’ve learned a lot from you.

Earlier today, in responding to a post on the blog operated by one of our regular readers, we were reminded of the importance of revisiting our views on various subjects.

His particular post had to do with our inherent biases and prejudices. He suggested that recognition and acknowledgment of them are important. We agree.

However, we commented that part of personal responsibility involves constantly questioning and challenging one’s beliefs on a regular basis. Otherwise, we become fixed in our beliefs, and too comfortable with them.

In our view, rigidity in positions on issues interferes with the collaborative spirit needed to address serious, long-term problems in society.

We often go back and review our prior posts and the responsive comments of our readers. Unfortunately, while we have access to a comprehensive list of the subjects discussed, our readers do not. Additionally, while the topic cloud widget is a nifty little gimmick, it really does not assist a new reader in locating older posts.

We decided to provide you with a few of our most recent posts so that you might have an opportunity to revisit them. It will be interesting to see if anyone’s views have changed in the interim.

African-Americans and the Democratic Party

Why Do the Democrats Seemingly Have a Lock on African-American Votes


Anger and Civil Discourse

Is There a Positive Side to Anger?

Dobermans. Surrounded by Dobermans.


Bias and Bi-Partisanship

It All Depends on the Price of Your Ticket on the Train


Criminal Justice

Following Economic Meltdown, New Calculation of Value of Human Life

When the Surfboard Hits the Wall


Economy and Economic Theory

Making Use of the Current Financial Mess

If Tin Whistles are Made of Tin, What are Credit Default Swap Derivatives Made Of?

Too Few Indians; Not Enough Chiefs

Been There; Done That


Environmental Issues

What is "Cap and Trade" and Why are So Many Saying All of those Things about It?


Humor - On the Light Side

Now That We Have a Japanese-German-African-Eskimo-American President

A Little Comic Relief before the Storm


Libertarian Party (U.S.)

Why Aren't More Americans Members of the Libertarian Party?


Local News Crime Coverage

Local News Coverage of Crime


Lying / Pursuit of the Truth

27 Situations Where People We Respect Claim that "Lying" is Appropriate


Madoff and Wall Street

Every Issue Has Two, Three, Possibly 27 Sides


Monopolies and Anti-Trust

Should Government Intervene Where Private Sector Monopolies or Near-Monopolies Exist?


Notre Dame Commencement and President Obama

Should the Pope Be Permitted to Speak at a Public School Commencement?


Personal Responsibility

Rarely Does a Man Love His True Self (or, How to Discourage Comments to a Blog Post)


Republican Party

Re-Posting of Article: What Makes People Vote Republican


Religion and Separation of Church and State

Jesus Christ and the Republicans

Jesus Christ and the Democrats

Program of Interest on C-Span2 Book TV Right Now


Socialism and Government Intervention

Should the Response to Natural Disasters be Left to the Private Sector?

Should Government Get Out of the Business of Education?


Torture

Who Cares If It's Torture?


U.S. Border Issues

At What Price Freedom to Bear Arms?

Post No. 113: When the Surfboard Hits the Wall

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

The Logistician had many quirks. He loved to channel surf. But he engaged in a different form of channel surfing. He tried to watch as many TV shows as possible.

Simultaneously.

Fascinated by everything, he’d watch a movie on TCM, The Golden Girls, C-Span, American Dad, the History Channel, Cathy Griffin, and then switch back and forth during lulls.

But occasionally he would, as he used to say, “Hit the wall.” This referred to coming across something which forced him to instantaneously focus on one program. At its end, he tried to determine what distinguished it from others.

He came up with the phrase from his surfboarding days. Well, perhaps it wasn’t really surfboarding, but rather boogey boarding. (A boogey board is a small piece of roughly rectangular hard foam, hydrodynamicallly shaped.)

One of his buddies was a professor. His students gave him a boogey board as a gift.

While hanging out with his buddy’s family, the Logistician fell in love with the sport. His buddy’s kids later gave him one as a present. Whenever he went to the beach, he packed his board.

In fact, he stopped taking women on vacations, opting to sleep with the board, since it gave him what he long sought – a hard mattress, the ability to consume a constant stream of information (uninterrupted), and a peaceful night’s sleep.

He took Boogey with him to a Club Med in Mexico once. There were two beaches. One was for patrons of the resort. The other was a far more dangerous beach. He was warned that only very experienced swimmers should attempt to ride the waves on the GO beach.

Insufficiently challenged by the smaller waves on the GM beach, he headed to the other, just he and Boogey. The waves were 3-4 times larger than on the GM beach. Yet, he thought them manageable.

After waxing his board, out he swam. He got a sense of the wave rhythm, and caught the “perfect wave.” He instantly realized that he was not as experienced as he thought, and found himself on the top of the wave, instead of inside the “tube.” He described the feeling as like God reaching down, grabbing him during an earthquake, and shaking him in the water.

All of a sudden, the wave crashed, and so did he. Disoriented, and his lungs full of sea water, he was tossed to the bottom of the surf… on his head.

As he lay there motionless, and the tide rolled out, he realized that he had “hit the wall.” The wave had his attention.

We watched a C-Span presentation recently, and “hit the wall,” Logistician style.

When we first came across it, there was a woman describing her experience with the legal system following a rape. Something was different about her tone. For a minute, we thought that she was the attorney for the victim, and a victims’ rights advocate.

However, we quickly abandoned that notion, and her intensity soon revealed that she was the victim. She described her frustration with the lengthy delays associated with sending the perpetrator to death row. The camera occasionally panned the silent audience.

She told the story of a detective, requesting DNA samples, and her subsequent discovery that she had identified the wrong black man.

The white woman went on to describe her feelings and the fact that this man had lost 10 years of his life in prison. Some suggested that he was probably a “bad person” anyway, and that she had done nothing for which she should apologize or feel guilty.

Despite this, she wanted to meet the man face-to-face, and he agreed.

While the angle of the camera slowly expanded, we next saw a young black man sitting on the dais, who appeared to us to not have one aggressive bone in his body. We said to ourselves, "This couldn't have been the rapist."

We soon realized that we had met the co-authors of the book, Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption.

After the rape victim described her immediate feeling that this could not have been the man as she observed him walking up her steps, she described him saying that he had no malice toward her, and had already forgiven her.

Cotton, the young black man and co-author, then stood up to tell his story in a very soft-spoken, deliberate manner, mentioning that the actual perpetrator was in prison with him. He also noted that he asked God what he had done to deserve this treatment.

This is story telling at its very best. It will also impress upon you the Common Sense importance of not rushing to judgment and getting all the facts. Check it out, if you interested in “hitting the wall.”

Post No. 112b: Program of Interest on C-Span2 Book TV Right Now

"How God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist"

As we type this, two authors are discussing how their studies of brain scans of memory patients, and surveys of people with various religious and spiritual experiences, has led them to believe that certain practices can ultimately change portions of the human brain and thus human behavior.

To view the summary of the program, simply click here.

Post No. 112a: Now That We Have a Japanese-German-African-Eskimo-American President

Now that we have your attention:

There are 3 good arguments that Jesus was black:
1. He called everyone brother
2. He liked Gospel
3. He didn't get a fair trial

But then there are 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He went into His Father's business
2. He lived at home until he was 33
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother was sure He was God


But then there are 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian:
1. He talked with His hands
2. He had wine with His meals
3. He used olive oil

But then there are 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian:
1. He never cut His hair
2. He walked around barefoot all the time
3. He started a new religion

But then there are 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was an American Indian:
1. He was at peace with nature
2. He ate a lot of fish
3. He talked about the Great Spirit

But then there are 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Irish:
1. He never got married
2. He was always telling stories
3. He loved green pastures

But the most compelling evidence of all - 3 items of evidence that Jesus was a woman:
1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was virtually no food
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it
3. And even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was still work to do

Post No. 112: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Last month, a postal worker here in town found a poorly hand-written envelope addressed to God, with excessive postage.

He opened it and discovered it was from an elderly lady, distressed because a thief had robbed her of $100. She anticipated being cold and hungry for the month of April, if she did not receive some divine intervention.

The worker organized a collection amongst the other postal workers, who dug deep, and came up with $96. They delivered it to the lady by special courier the same morning.

A week later, the postal worker recognized the same hand-writing on another envelope. He opened it and found the following:

"Dear God: Thank you for the $100. This month would have been so bleak without it.

“P.S. Just to let you know, it was $4 short, which I strongly suspect was taken by those slacker government employees over at the Post Office."

Most of you probably did not realize that the Logistician was a Postal Service employee when not working with us here at the Institute. He collected the money for the woman, only to have the beneficiary of his good will attribute her good fortune to a deity, instead of a government agency.

Earlier this month, he suffered from depression and was not in the best of spirits. He constantly whined about all the government had done for people for so long, delivering their mail through rain, sleet, and snow.

He felt, quite simply, unappreciated.

It was his idea to start this blog. He quickly realized that he would not be able to get his message out alone, and joined forces with the Laughingman of the Institute for Applied Common Sense. Shortly thereafter, all content generated was done so under the auspices of the Institute. (In fact, we will soon change the name of the blog to “Applied Common Sense.”)

During his year here at the Institute, he was branded a liberal, a moderate, a conservative, a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a good Christian, an atheist, an anarchist, a progressive, a moron, an imbecile, too serious, too flippant, and on many occasions, just plain stupid. None of the labels actually apply, with the possible exception of “stupid.”

Each time that he received what he considered to be “constructive criticism,’ he tried to alter his approach and dance to the music of the crowd. Each time it met with more criticism.

He was warned that the stressors connected with his Postal Service job, coupled with being the brunt of much criticism here at the Institute, might affect him psychologically.

After some frustration, especially trying to serve as referee between all of the warring factions, he decided to adopt another persona, and become a clown. He considered becoming Clarabelle or perhaps Benny Hill.

And then something else occurred to him.

You see, the Logistician has never been married. In fact, some of his friends say that scientists are still trying to determine the type of woman in whom he is interested. He has also been accused of being interested in “all women.”

His response each time was that if he wanted to dance and ride a roller-coaster on regular basis, and wonder how the people with whom he was interacting on a daily basis would respond to him, he need simply join the carnival, and get paid for it.

Additionally, he always found it odd that those ideologically oriented to yell at the top of their lungs about “individual freedom,” and the need to ensure against government infringement, are the ones most inclined to support the institution of marriage, where a substantial number of freedoms are eliminated.

However, being the Logistician, he tried to make this past year a positive, learning experience,which brings us to this point of notifying you that there are going to be a couple of changes here at the Institute.

First of all, the Logistician is no longer with us.

He has begun a 3 year sabbatical in Brazil, focusing on the marital institution. More specifically, his research will delve into whether arranged, traditional marriages, orchestrated by family or tribal members, is preferable to those serendipitous relationships marked by that nebulous concept called “lust.”

He will conclude his research and travels with a marital ceremony in the Amazonian port city of Manaus, once he has selected a female research partner, who is interested in working with us here at the Institute.

Until further notice, we, Punch and Judy, will be taking the Logistician’s place. His shoes will be difficult to fill. However, we have extensive experience in stirring things up and “manhandling” difficult subjects.

We look forward to receiving your comments responsive to our thoughts. Just don’t try to “jerk our strings.”

Post No. 111: Been There; Done That

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We frequently suggest that in tackling problems, we examine history, starting with a minimum of 5,000 years, and as far back as 13,000.

However, we’ve come to the conclusion that history alone may not always be able to help us out of jams.

Alan Greenspan recently lamented that those principles he relied on for 40 years no longer apply.

An historian once noted that we should always proceed with caution when we think that the policies of the past can be reapplied, and will generate similar results.

We might do well to consult physics, and better understand the laws of static and dynamic forces. (These are older than humankind and history.)

In order to assess or address anything within a dynamic system, one must freeze or suspend all movement or change, of as many variables as possible, or otherwise isolate the component at issue.

We also know that slight tweaks (no, not tweets) of a variable can result in dramatically different results.

Logic dictates that the larger and more complex the system, the more difficult it is to manage or affect any part of it.

As comforting as it may be psychologically, to resort to playing marbles and pick-up-sticks, it is of questionable value to return to many practices of the past.

Imagine trying to reconstruct that romance which you had with that guy or gal back in school (altered state of consciousness or not), and hope that those old moves lead to the same results.

As a nation, we can never re-create the circumstances extant when prior practices and policies were implemented and applied.

The world may have changed every year back then, but it now changes every nanosecond. We need to recognize this, and conduct ourselves accordingly.

It’s actually lazy and simplistic to merely repeat the practices of the past, even if they were successful. It requires far more energy, commitment, focus, and innovation to craft appropriate approaches to new conditions, everyday.

Sitting on the sidelines and simply watching changes occur without responding also may not be the best tactic.

To suggest that our enemies or competitors have been sitting still, or that the conditions in our country have been in suspension, is just plain science fiction.

For years, Corporate America used large, 100 year old silk-stocking firms to perform its outside legal work. The Logistician and his partners sought that same work, somewhat successfully, by offering a lower rate. They were smaller, more nimble, had lower overheard, and more importantly, hungrier.

Yet, many corporations were reluctant to make such a change. If things went awry, someone would undoubtedly question why the referring counsel did something out of the ordinary, and did not stick with the tried and tested firms.

Hollywood’s like that. It’s far easier to explain why “Men in Black 12” did not generate record box office numbers, than a new concept.

But consider this.

If you‘re surprised about a development over a span of 30 years, like the demise of our educational and industrial systems here in the U.S., you probably were asleep at the switch, and not paying close attention to changes on an annual, much less a monthly, basis.

We all have a tendency to go through repetitive motions. They’re safe, familiar, less subject to scrutiny, and require less effort.

UPS had a marketing campaign which referred to “moving at the speed of business.” Hong Kong is a 24 hour business city. Imagine what happens to others when their business communities are asleep.

It’s the nature of competition, and the nature of change.

There’s been much noise about returning to the policies of Clinton, or Reagan, or Kennedy, or FDR. Quite frankly, returning to those dated tactics, no matter which side of the ideological line they may fall, may not be particularly helpful.

Those circumstances no longer exist, and will never exist again. And that doesn’t take into consideration the efforts to revise history.

We can’t duplicate the economic variables. We certainly can not re-create the psychological and social variables.

Going forward, we need to craft new procedures, new principles, new tactics. Ones that fit our current conditions, which have never existed before.

So to all of our politicians and policy makers out there, please detach yourselves from your ideological goals and preferences, and repeating that mantra about what you think worked in the past.

Try to figure out what’s most likely to work, TODAY, going forward, based on current conditions, and those we anticipate.

The world is far flatter than we once thought.

Post No. 110: Who Cares If It's Torture?

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

On most news issues, we don’t have an opinion.

At least, not immediately. We like to think stuff through.

In the case of this “torture” or “enhanced interrogation” debate, we definitely do not have an opinion.

Yet.

We don’t have enough concrete, credible evidence to competently form an opinion.

More importantly, we do not have first hand information.

Plus, it’s become difficult to decipher the “truth” from the media outlets.

At this point, affixing a label, to the purported conduct, may actually be little more than an academic exercise.

However, we do have some “observations.”

Many of our citizens feel that the methods employed were appropriate.

There is also a substantial segment which feels that they were not, at least for a civilized society.

Some apparently feel that the tactics worked, fulfilled a valuable function, and thus were “necessary,” whereas others disagree.

Yet, despite all of the dissection, few have really focused on the crux of the matter: Whether we are willing to embrace a “by any means necessary” philosophy to address a perceived threat.

This obviously is one amorphous, value-laden, context-driven, ball of Play Doh, moving like a Slinky down the Capitol steps.

There is nothing more unsettling to humans than the thought that we are capable of going to a place we consider unthinkable, although perhaps necessary. (Practice and frequency change all of that.)

It’s mentally akin to shooting a human for the 1st time, whether an intruder, or enemy soldier.

The reality is that at some point on the continuum, we’d all be willing to commit the ultimate act, or darn close to it, if we thought it “necessary,” and that the interests protected were significant enough.

Part of the problem is that it doesn’t matter whether something is actually a threat, but rather whether people think it is a threat, and reasonable people will differ on that.

All three Institute Fellows, the Optimizer, the Laughingman, and the Logistician, served in the armed forces during the Vietnam Conflict Era. Each learned to use weapons which kill, if necessary.

And efficiently.

We appreciate the concept of evil, and the concept of the “enemy.’

And yet, we’d all probably be far less likely to use torture, however defined, than 98% of you who have never served.

On the other hand, if we decided that it was necessary, we’d be at the front of the line, in the first 2%, to do it, efficiently, like Arnold, and move the freak on, with little yapping….

The History Channel and PBS recently aired programs documenting the inhuman treatment of Allied POWs in the South Pacific by the Japanese during WWII. Subsequently, we saw a discussion of the psychology of revenge.

Once it was clear that the Americans had won, and began to take Japanese POWs, our forces did some pretty despicable things. A U.S. journalist captured some of this on film. It was suppressed for years, and only recently disclosed.

We didn’t want the world to know that Americans could “go there.”

We need occasional reminding that fear can bring out the absolute freak in us.

And anger is frequently intertwined with fear.

Today, we witnessed the baptism of a young infant. Observing the congregation, we noted the serenity associated with that event.

All of us take on that glazed look when dealing with infants. We’re reminded of an era of innocence, when worries are nonexistent, and someone else has the responsibility of caring for us.

It’s a space to which many yearn to return - unrealistically.

Jack Nicholson reminded us, in “A Few Good Men,” that some force ensures that those of us on the home front, including that infant, sleep in peace and comfort through the night. (Funny that film should have taken place at Guantanamo.)

When we perceive a threat (especially one difficult to define and frame) is about to invade our zone of serenity, our willingness to “go there” becomes less objectionable.

We’re all located in different cars on the train that is the continuum as we approach that point.

That being said, perhaps we can do without labeling it torture or some other euphemism.

Perhaps no prosecutions, bloodletting, or rolling of heads.

We well understand the PR issues, and this desire to convey that America is the Mt. Everest of “high moral ground.”

However, that we live in a society capable of public introspection may be just good enough, for now, especially with other issues on our plate.

It’s what helps form the “collective conscience” that all societies need, but do not have.

The reality is that at the end of the day, all of us care.

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

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

There’s a good and bad side to everything.

Including conduct and relationships.

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

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

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

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

His problem? Curiosity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That may be good. May be bad.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, the observer would consider these “simultaneous.”

Then Einstein threw us a curve ball.

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

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

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

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

And that their perceptions are equally valid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 22, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist

Swimming Without a Suit
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

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

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

* * *

To view the remainder of the article, click here.

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

Something’s bothering us.

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

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

Lots of us have difficulty tracking a checking account balance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even the least sophisticated amongst us should appreciate that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They became hooked on the most powerful drug extant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except, perhaps for the benefit of a few.

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

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The participants were respectful of each other’s views.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s keep that in mind going forward.

All of us.

Post No. 106: Local News Coverage of Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should government intervene in any way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say you and why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To access the complete article, simply click here.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And wasting time.

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

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

We’d like to know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post No. 98: Jesus Christ and the Democrats

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

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

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

Post No. 97: Jesus Christ and the Republicans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following is an excerpt from the article:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

*

*

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

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

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

The Logistician never provided a satisfactory answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The friend also extended this reasoning to raising young children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

This should be interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2009, the Institute of Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2009, the Institute of Applied Common Sense

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

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a small example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be diligent. Be pro-active.

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

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

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

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense