Post No. 202: On Whose Team (or Side) Are You; Should It Make a Difference?

 

© 2022, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

 

This is a post I generated a year ago, but never published - partly because I wanted to ensure that my position was clear, even though out of the mainstream.   

 

Around that time, I promised myself that I would never write anything again about being a black man in America.  Why? Because it doesn’t really accomplish anything in terms of advancing any meaningful societal interests.  Either one already recognizes the complexities associated with the race issue, or one doesn’t.  Either one feels that America is a racist country; or one doesn’t.  I’m not sure that the conversation really matters, unless one believes that they can sway the sentiment amongst the “undecided.”

 

Unfortunately, I’ve always tried to find solutions to problems, and not just repeatedly complain about them. (It’s the engineer in me.) Thus, I prefer to talk about human issues (and widgets), and the commonality of interests facing all widgets, and not just black widgets.

 

So about two years ago, I started a Facebook group page entitled, Black Baby Boomers Who Remember – namely segregation.  I later changed the name to Black Baby Boomers Who Seek a BetterFuture for All, seeking to attract more Chinese followers. (Seriously!  During the early days of this blog, I tried every imaginable tactic to reach Chinese students. Silly me, once again.) I’ve been amazed, quite frankly, with the nature of the discourse on the Black Baby Boomers page, which I expected to become “self – executing,” and take on a momentum of its own.

 

Then this black guy, who was a member only briefly and supported most things Trump, accused me of assembling a bunch of Trump haters and feeding them raw meat, which led to this: “Just so that there is no confusion, or a claim that the goals of this group page have been misrepresented, I started this group page with no particular political agenda in mind, either explicit or implied. Additionally, I welcome, and encourage, people of all ideological views to participate. I do not belong to either major political party. I am unaffiliated. This page is focused on the potential reversal of civil rights laws as it affects minorities.”

Then, shortly thereafter, a different black guy (as far I could tell, although he might have been a Russian operative) asked me to expel him from the group, because he could not figure out how to do so himself.  He was offended by my intellectual dishonesty for including the word “Black” in the name of the group, which had white members.

   

All of this reminded me of a time when I had a 4 or 5 hour layover in Mexico City, and decided to walk through some neighborhoods to get a “real feel” for the city, but chose to walk down the middle of the street to avoid being attacked from either side. It actually worked.

 

Consistent as is my wont to entertain the views of all humans I encounter, and learn “something” from them, I thought about something often said by one of the most despicable (and devoid of socially redeeming values) childhood friends of mine, "Take the names and faces off of the individuals involved, and then analyze the conduct."

 

In theory, and in principle, doing the right thing and having integrity and principles SHOULD NOT CHANGE FROM SITUATION TO SITUATION or event to event, no matter which team you find yourself associated. There’s a phrase which I have been uttering to folks for the past year, and I believe that there is a modicum of truth to it:  “There’s no need to take a side, unless you have a dog in the fight.”  And if we find ourselves rooting for one dog over another, we should consider the nature and consequences of the fight, and whether it is a good fight. 

 

I am still amazed to this day about two things in history pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church – the first being the Doctrine of Discovery, justifying the exploration and colonization of lands not inhabited by Christians - hhmm, hhhmmmm..., and if that wasn’t deep enough, the second, the Church cozying up to the Hitler and the Nazis (reminiscent of Trump cozying up to Putin).

 

I’m done for tonight.  I can’t make sense of any of this, despite spending an entire year thinking about it.  On whose team or side are you; and should it make a difference?  That is the question.

 

Post No. 128: "You Can't Always Get What You Want"

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We’ll tell you up front. This is about the Supreme Court Sotomayer confirmation hearings, after some thought.

But first, a story.

Everyday we order lunch from our neighborhood Burger King. We get a kick out of having the guy in the King costume make the delivery, and spike a football as he departs. Plus, we can have our burgers “our way.”

BK has had an ad campaign for years with the theme, “Have It Your Way.” We recently questioned whether BK may have done a disservice to the nation, or the world for that matter, by suggesting everyone can have it their way.

“That’s ridiculous,” you say, “they’re only referring to how you want your burger.”

However, that ignores the sheer power of repetitive, subliminal messages. (Imagine what young kids think.)

Jim Jordan, legendary ad man and author of the original Burger King campaign, also believed that if you hit a tree in the same place enough times, it’ll fall.

We reached out to several people to help us recall songs, other than the Rolling Stones classic in our title, which conveyed the far more pragmatic message.

Douglas, one of our loyal followers, replied that he could not think of any others which conveyed the message as well. In his view, “Most songs are not about a general feeling of desire and frustration, but tell of unrequited love.”

He added, “Life is all about expectations and a desire to overcome [obstacles in pursuit of our] dreams and goals.

The Laughingman counters out that most songs are just that – songs. If you play a country song backwards, your pick-up won’t get fixed, your wife won’t come back, and your dog won’t come home.

On the other hand, music intended to change behavior might be more like hymns than hits.

In retrospect, it’s hard to tell whether you’re talking about the chicken or the egg; but if Woody Guthrie, Phil Ochs, and Bob Dylan didn’t change the public’s behavior, they certainly chronicled the changes with their music… much of which is still played today.

Which gets us back to Sotomayer.

We watched, with much distress, the hearings involving Clarence “Long Dong” Thomas, starring Anita “You Ain’t Going to Make It Up This” Hill, and watched the fun loving and engaging Robert Bork evolve into a pessimist following his rejection.

What has captured our attention over 30 years of justice nominee hearings has been the intensity of the effort by partisan forces, on both sides of the aisle, to achieve their particular goals. Even if it means smearing the nominee. Each side essentially claims that the nation, as we know it, will implode upon the ascension onto the Court by those who they oppose.

Both sides fear that the Devil may have all the best tunes (downloaded on his iPod).

In reality, it simply doesn’t work that way. First, the new justice is just 1 of 9. Then there is that very important issue of judicial precedent, and a host of other reasons the Court avoids unnecessarily making decisions.

And that’s not to mention it takes decades, if not longer, for any real meaningful shift in rulings to occur. (Take whether slaves were “men,” or something less, for example.)

Still, that folks expect that the cultural pendulum will not, or should not, swing back and forth, and that Newtonian physics are not applicable to life, is fascinating. Elected officials come with all points of view, and represent the full spectrum of values. Why shouldn’t the people who they appoint?

Interestingly, should any judge in any court answer any of the, “What are your views on…” questions posed, they would automatically be excused from sitting in judgment on that issue. And when the nominee properly refuses to answer (especially in response to a hypothetical set of facts), the ensuing inquisition produces less useful information by which to judge that person’s qualifications than one gets in a singles bar, or by participating in “speed dating” musical chairs.

To repeat a question we posed prior to the presidential election: Are we that concerned about the effect of the entry of just one person on our governmental institutions? Are they that unstable and subject to whim? Aren’t there checks and balances?

Our friends in college might well ask, "So what's all this got to do with me?" To avoid complications later, it might be good to appreciate certain concepts early in life:

Times Change, and You Can’t Stop That

Sentiments and Values Change, and You Can’t Stop Them Either

If You Can’t Achieve What You Want One Way, Try Another

Those Who Disagree with You are Not Necessarily Bad, Evil, Possessed People, with Bi-Polar Disorder

Disparaging People With Whom You Might Have to Work in the Future Can Have Long-Term Negative Ramifications

Not Every Battle Needs to be a Fight to the Death, Nor Does It Require Pulling Out All Stops

“You Can’t Always Get What You Want”

Life is not like ordering hamburgers.

Bob Dylan probably summed it up best, “The Times They Are A Changing.” We need to face it and deal with it.

Post No. 125a: TV Broadcast of Interest re Power of US Supreme Court

At this very moment as we type this, C-Span2 Book TV is airing a program entitled, "The Dirty Dozen: Twelve Supreme Court Cases Which Radically Changed the United States." It just started roughly 5 minutes ago.

The authors argue that the Judicial Branch was originally envisioned to be the weakest branch of government, that government was to be limited in power, and that freedoms were to be left to the individual.

The cases outlined were handed down since the New Deal, and both conservatives and liberals are guilty of this federal government expansion, although admittedly with respect to different issues and causes.