Post No. 192: Why Some are Concerned the Terrorists Might Win: “They Can’t be Bought and Don’t Seem to Mind Dying”

© 2014, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

This is a tad longer than my typical post of 750 words, but I feel that we Americans need a tongue-lashing, since we can’t whip one another since the Adrian Petersen muck-up. (This post is not only directed to my primary audience, college students, but to all citizens.)

My blog is about personal responsibility, choices, and making decisions. We didn’t like it when Jimmy Carter tried to “warn” us in 1979 during his speech which has been derisively referred to as the “Malaise Speech.” He described it as the greatest threat to American democracy. The truth be told, we Americans have become lazy and spoiled.

We do not like being inconvenienced or questioned. Our notion of personal freedom and pursuit of happiness may always outweigh what is needed to defeat the enemy we find embodied in the current group of terrorists, unless we have 9-11s of greater intensity and more frequency. The changes we had to make as a nation since 9-11 are relatively minor inconveniences.

In my view, Americans are the most spoiled people on the planet, and most of us still are not satisfied. It is why we seem to want our cake and eat it too, and have difficulty balancing competing interests so that they add up to a 100% course of behavior or conduct. Instead, we want 50 here, 60 there, and 20 in some other place. It’s one of the reasons why we are incapable, as a nation, of solving problems. Right now, we are a nation which wants the terrorists to go away, but at the same time, not engage in a war which might accomplish that goal.

The intransigence and polarization we are experiencing are not solely attributable to the current President. It is who WE have become as a people, and consistent with that notion, we decline to take responsibility for that as a people, especially on an individual level. Instead, we point the finger at easy targets. However, it is unfortunately what happens to humans who have grown accustomed to comfortable lifestyles and seen economic conditions improve for so long that they become “expectations” and “emotional entitlements,” pretty much through no effort on their individual parts, only to see things later fall apart.

When I traveled throughout Europe in the 1980s, my bags were regularly searched, the heels of my shoes torn apart, and I had to undergo extensive interrogations. Flights to certain cities (London to Athens and Cairo) were cancelled for extended periods. It was a royal pain in the ass; however, I was just a visitor. Just before I was scheduled to go to Cairo, the militia started storming the tourist hotels near Giza because they found out that they were going to have to serve 3 years instead of 2 years. I was in Europe very close to the time of the Leon Klinghoffer killing and the taking of the Achille Lauro in 1985. The people of Britain and Europe know what it is like to have bombs raining on your homes and exploding in your subways.

In the mean time, we’ve become a nation of dilettantes, yours truly included. Consider what Americans did to VOLUNTEER during WWI and WWII (real, practical, substantive, and tangible activities), and what they were willing to do without. (Tangentially, this summer I generated an incredible number of yellow squash and cucumbers from one plant each, and when I showed them to my 93 yr old Father with dementia, he said that he remembered people here growing Victory Gardens during WW II.)

While making a selfie or posting support on Twitter for our troops or revolutionaries in the Middle East may provide some personal satisfaction, pounding a keyboard is not going to be very effective against ISIS. Right now, you see very few people over the age of 30 voluntarily doing anything to aid in this fight.

Instead, we leave it up to others to handle, and sit comfortably in our homes ingesting an overwhelming diet of sitcoms. The constantly changing, theoretical, individual right to keep and bear arms, to protect us against our government’s activities, those with whom we disagree or feel are undeserving, and those who strike fear in our hearts simply when we encounter them, seem to outweigh those things that we could do to effectively make this a better, stronger, and more secure nation for our collective benefit. But we bitch about “someone else's” handling of the mess, which is a classic human mess, and not one really specific to our time.

And do you really believe that a legitimate, major, world power can function with a volunteer army?

These factors are also the same factors which, if we allow them to continue, will contribute to our decline as a world force. We’re dun fur if we do not think more comprehensively, and come to the realization that we are part of the global community, and that others have values dear to them which are different than our values. (Thus the subtitle of this post.) There is an argument to be made that we might rally a little bit during the next 20 – 30 years (and I sure hope so), but I’m afraid that we collectively do not care enough anymore. We’ve learned to dodge inconveniences.

Add that to the fact that we allowed Corporate America, although its conduct was legal in nature, to sell us out to China (who was our ideological enemy not that long ago) thus decimating our middle class and creating a massive security risk. We no longer even have the manufacturing capabilities to transition into making arms and supplies should we really get into a war like we did in WW II, not to mention a war with China. Furthermore, our internal infrastructure is so poor and in need of critical repairs, that if the enemy landed on our shores, we’d be hard put to mount a credible defense.

Having adequate, decent paying jobs here at home is what really matters. People need to have a sense of purpose, a feeling that they can provide for their loved ones, and a little self-esteem. The terrorists feel that they have something of value for which they are fighting. What are we fighting for? Another big screen TV, DVD recorder, jet-ski, ATV, or vacation home? Do those in poverty have the wherewithal and resources to fight the terrorists, or are they too distracted fighting for their mere survival? Jobs, also by the way, contribute to tax revenue which helps us all.

We need to come up with some new solutions for some historic human problems if we intend to continue as a legitimate world power.

Our inability to get anything done anymore is reflected in the way we wage battles against most everything these days – like a corporation making a cost-benefit, risk analysis, and only doing what it can on the cheap with the hope that it will accomplish its public relations goals in the short term, and that the guys at the helm will be gone when the long term negative consequences come back to haunt us. While I'm a technocrat at heart, and that might be just fine for corporate governance, in theory. However, it’s a bunch of crap when it comes to taking care of a nation of real, live people as opposed to financial investors.

Unfortunately, we are relegated to management by committee under our current governance model, and lack the ability to think about, and plan for, the long-term. Perhaps somewhat related, I recently heard someone on C-Span talk about Eisenhower’s concern regarding the threat posed by the Military – Industrial Complex. Apparently when the speech was first drafted, it read “Military – Industrial – Political Complex.”

A good buddy of mine has a quote attributed to Albert Einstein in his signature on all e-mails he sends out: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Although I generally disagree with him about 98% of the poop he puts out there, he is spot on about this one.

Post No. 190a: The Dangers of Being Peculiar

© 2008, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

This entire Fourth of July weekend, TV Land is conducting an Andy Griffith Show marathon. We previously posted this piece about one of the episodes which struck us, about the human propensity to make quick judgments about others.


Several years ago, I attended a conference sponsored by a professional association at a high end resort in Florida. An incredible buffet dinner was scheduled for one evening, to which everyone was looking forward.

I arrived just as the food was being taken away.

Upon my arrival, everyone inquired as to why I was so late. When I informed them that I felt compelled to watch two episodes of the Andy Griffith Show, they all howled with laughter.

Their laughter grew even louder when I mentioned that, in my opinion, one could learn more about life from that show than perhaps any other show on television. (Interestingly, my Father tells me that it was also the favorite show of my Mother, who passed away at a relatively early age.)

I saw an episode of the show yesterday, which reminded me of the manner in which this simple show, about life in small town America, has provoked many a thought throughout my lifetime.

It was the story of Ed Sawyer, a clean-cut, well-groomed stranger who arrives in Mayberry. Throughout the episode, Ed is always dressed in a conservative business suit, articulate, respectful, polite, and there is nothing visually alarming about him. In fact, he could be the poster boy for virtually any All-American organization or movement.

The first scene in the episode unfolds as Ed enters Floyd’s barbershop, where Barney Fife is in the chair getting a shave. Several other citizens, including Andy, are also present.

Ed engages them all in a pleasant, upbeat conversation, calls them each by name, and exhibits a degree of familiarity which causes the shop’s occupants to become uncomfortable. As he leaves the shop, all heads turn to follow him down the street, and they all exit to watch his next move. Almost immediately, there is a suggestion by Barney that Andy commence an investigation of this suspicious and “peculiar” stranger.

As Ed proceeds down the sidewalk, he encounters a double baby stroller parked in front of a store, where the mother is looking through the shop window. Ed greets the two twins, their mother, and then poses questions which suggest that he can distinguish between the two boys at this early stage in their development. The suspicions grow.

Ed next proceeds to the local rooming house, and when offered one room, he declines because of an incident which had occurred in the room, arguably about which few would have known. Although he has never stayed at the rooming house, he then proceeds to request a specific room, by number, which although green in color, has a cheerier décor.

At this point, Barney is beside himself, and inquires whether Ed speaks German. Fortunately, Andy, the voice of reason, intervenes and initiates a conversation more normally associated with welcoming a visitor to one’s town. At the same time, Andy poses a number of questions in an effort to get to know this fellow better, since he is also experiencing some degree of discomfort, although unarticulated.

Later that afternoon, Ed approaches Andy and seeks his advice and assistance. It appears that the local gas station is up for sale, and Ed is considering buying it. Andy suggests that perhaps Ed might be moving a tad too quickly, and that he should take the time to get to know the townspeople a little better.

He further suggests that the town’s citizens might regard Ed’s sudden emergence on the scene as “peculiar,” without some “warming up.” (By the way, I learned the word “peculiar” from this show, which was used with some frequency on episodes airing in the 1960’s.)

Ed then segues into how much in love he is with Lucy Matthews, who he has never seen. However, he is familiar with all of her physical attributes, and he inquires of Andy as to why she does not answer his calls and knocks on her door. Lucy soon walks in to lodge a complaint, to which Ed responds that she is just as pretty as he suspected. It is at this point that Andy feels, as the town’s sheriff, he must get to the bottom of this behavior, since it threatens to disturb the town’s peace.

Ed admits that his behavior might strike some as odd, but provides a very plausible, if not immediately obvious, explanation. Ed explains that Joe Larson, a long-time resident of Mayberry, was an Army buddy. While serving together, Joe received the local Mayberry newspaper, and Ed found himself reading the paper on a daily basis.

As time moved on, he began to feel that he “knew” the citizens about whom the articles were written. He further explains that over time, he began to envy Joe, because Joe was from Mayberry, a place that Ed admired, and Ed was from, well, “Nowhere.”

Ed further explains that over time, he began to wish that Mayberry was his hometown, and he eventually convinced himself that it was. When he saw the ad in the paper that the service station was up for sale, he regarded it as an opportunity to fulfill a dream.

After Ed leaves the courthouse / jail, Barney rushes in and proclaims that Ed has finally “overplayed his hand.” When Andy inquires as to what Barney is referring, Barney states that Ed has been hanging around Lucy Matthews’ house and actually crossed the line by ringing her bell.

Andy suggests that insufficient grounds exist to justify an arrest, to which Barney replies that he pulled in three 12 year olds the preceding Halloween just for ringing doorbells unnecessarily.

He further exclaims that Ed doesn’t even have the excuse of being out for trick or treat. Deputy Fife then inquires as to whether Ed speaks Spanish.

Of course, Ed’s efforts to integrate himself into the community go terribly wrong. That’s even after Andy makes everyone feel pretty small and provincial after facetiously suggesting that they all were justified in their prejudicial attitudes toward this stranger, just because he was an unknown, peculiar, and somewhat different.

Ed realizes that this really isn’t the place for him, and leaves. And the town lost a potentially energizing and illuminating individual.

This 40 plus year old episode of the Andy Griffith Show made me think of several things this weekend. First, the power of the visual media came to mind, along with its potential to expand the minds of its viewers, particularly young viewers, as well as its power to narrow.

Second, it reminded me of the 30 year period when I lived in Southern California, and I interacted with all sorts of people of different races from different parts of the world. Virtually everyone was a stranger. Upon returning to North Carolina, despite the fact that North Carolina is the number one state in terms of percentage increase of Hispanics, I noticed the lack of interaction between whites and blacks on the one hand, and Hispanics on the other. Asians operate many mom and pop businesses in the black parts of town, but the social interaction ends there.

At several public meetings in my hometown, I have mentioned that despite what one may think of our immigration policies, many immigrants are here, and we need to engage them and integrate them into our society, with the goal of deriving the best that we can from their involvement. Each time I have broached the subject, many citizens in the room have lowered their heads and looked at the floor without responding.

In recent months, I have tried something different. Every time I have encountered Hispanics, I have taken the initiative to walk up to them and start a conversation. Each time, without fail, they have been pleasant folks and almost ecstatic that someone outside of their group took the risk to engage them. It has always been a rewarding experience, although guarded it may have started.

Third, this episode also struck a chord when I learned of Senator’s Obama’s reference earlier this week to the efforts of his opponents to label him as different, and thus necessarily something that we should fear.

Our fear of the unknown, caution, and prejudice, even that racially based, appear to be hard wired to ensure survival and ease of negotiation in a complex world. But we also have a bigger brain which should enable us to think and reason beyond our biggest primal fears.

Some criticism has been leveled against the Andy Griffith Show over the years because of its conspicuous absence of blacks in a show based in a southern city. However, Andy Griffith himself sure made up for that during the airing of his Matlock series.

Be that as it may, my hat is off to the Andy Griffith Show, and particularly its writers, particularly considering the era in which the show was first viewed. Perhaps more of you will have the opportunity to view the Ed Sawyer episode before the upcoming presidential election.

© 2008, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 189: Some Observations of, and Life Lessons Gleaned from, the 2014 Super Bowl

© 2014, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Now that we’ve had some time to think about it, we’ve concluded:

1. Pundits, experts, and talking heads don’t know jack about jack;

2. Humans really are unpredictable;

3. Organizations consisting of humans are pretty unpredictable, too;

4. The weather and most things associated with Mother Nature might as well be considered unpredictable;

5. Gambling on any anticipated human behavior is stupid, but then again there’s marriage;

6. The Denver Broncos Football Team is a relatively small, government-owned and operated collection of individuals, with only 53 players, a host of highly paid coaches, and a pretty decent front office, and still could not pull off its goal within the time allotted;

7. The Seattle Seahawks Football Team is a relatively small, private enterprise . free market entity composed of individuals, with only 53 players, a host of highly paid coaches, and a pretty decent front office, and managed to pull off its goal this time, but it should be kept in mind that success is frequently transient and episodic;

8. At least players, contrary to politicians, pundits, experts, and talking heads, put their bodies and their health on the line in connection with their claims and goals;

9. Although virtually everyone who gambled on the game thought it through and perhaps legitimately thought they picked the right team and the correct spread, probably more people lost money on the game than got it right;

10. The joke about Seattle beating a dead horse was tired and old before Monday rolled around;

11. We suspect that the vast majority of people actually attending the game on Sunday had some degree of difficulty finding their parked cars after the game;

12. Almost every player on each team, with a couple of exceptions, know that running into another man at full force may result in a concussion, and in an ordinary lawsuit this knowledge would constitute either assumption of risk or contributory negligence on the part of the player, and thus deny his [or her?] claim for compensation;

13. Pete Carroll was not solely responsible for his team’s performance on Sunday;

14. There is no question in our minds that Peyton Manning was solely responsible for his team’s performance on Sunday;

15. If you want to lend legitimate support to someone, some group, or some cause you support, get in your car, or catch a plane, and be there with your slickers when the crap’s flying;

16. Once the game is over, any underlying motivations, biases, or agendas that the pundits, experts, and talking heads had before the game pretty much don’t matter, because no one cares;

17. Life and management of humans are complicated and you never know what is going to happen, much less the reason;

18. Many events in the Universe are serendipitous, when one stops to consider all of the dynamic forces in operation at any given point in time, and no one, single cause and effect factor can be singled out as being responsible for failure or success;

19. As the Logistician’s 93 yr old Father always says, “Timing is everything;”

20. If the NFL were regulated and subject to governmental intervention like most businesses, there would never be a Super Bowl Champion;

21. Lest we forget, there is a notion which many characterize as "unintended consequences," and which some contend even rises to the level of a "law;" and

21. The typical sitting President, including those who many characterize as a moron, is not solely responsible for jack, and politicians are the last folks to sit in judgment about anything, and particularly unqualified in talking about taking responsibility for one’s actions.

We'll leave the other 10 points to David Letterman.

Post No. 188f: The Anticipation (Or Perhaps Lack Thereof)

We first generated this piece in January 2011, just minutes before President Obama delivered his State of the Union Speech at that time. Upon reviewing it earlier today, we concluded that not much has changed. What do you think?

© 2011 and 2014, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that can’t be good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post No. 181: The Most Deadly Mental Illness in America

© 2012, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We’re not fans of CBS’ 60 Minutes, because we’re not fans of folks who let their values dictate their thought processes. In our view, one’s analysis of issues ought to be a thing apart from one’s values. For us, the presentation of news ought to be as value free as humanly possible. The 60 Minutes folks rarely ask the logical, follow-up question in the pursuit of balance.

But last night was different. First Senators Harry Reid (Democrat) and Mitch McConnell (Republican) sat side by side while being interviewed. They provided their views as to the source of gridlock in Congress. Nothing new came out of the discussion; however, we gained some perspective through the second guest.

David McCullough is an award-winning American historian who has written numerous books, including those on Presidents Adams (John), Lincoln, Roosevelt (Teddy), and Truman. He was initially interviewed in his 8’ x 10’ office in the back of his Cape Cod home, where we saw him hunting and pecking on a turn–of-the-last century manual typewriter. When asked why he preferred the relic over a computer, he quipped, “I don’t like to hit a button and see a month’s work disappear.”

Per McCullough, despite complaints today there is nothing new about extreme partisanship and personal attacks. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, national candidates branded each other thieves and common criminals. One even accused his opponent of being a hermaphrodite. (Fortunately, we did not have cameras, or we suspect that the foundational photo would have gone viral.)

The Good Historian also reminded us that there is nothing new about a country feeling it is in a state of decline. While he was a kid, McCullough’s Father always voted Republican. Following the election of Truman in 1948, his Father was absolutely certain the U.S. would become a third-rate power.

Years later, the Elder McCullough would quietly say, “I sure wish we had old Harry back….”

Upon leaving Cape Cod, instead of moving the camera to Washington, the interview transitioned to Independence Hall and other historic locations in Philadelphia. The men who sat in the room, where the new governance model was invented, feared for their lives since they realized that their discussions were treasonous. According to McCullough, they even closed the windows of the building during the heat of the summer of 1787, out of concern that there might be eavesdroppers.

In thinking about it further, perhaps we’re giving the 60 Minutes folks too much credit for this broadcast. It was really McCullough who brought clarity and a sense of historical perspective regarding this very toxic environment.

And maybe we’re overly complimentary of McCullough’s comments, since he managed to succinctly state in a phrase something which we have felt but have had difficulty articulating in 4-1/2 years of blogging.

Paraphrasing McCullough, what is most troubling about politics now, particularly with the tons of money being spent, is that there is, “a dearth of ideas.”

At an earlier point in our existence, when the Institute was located in one region of the U.S., we’d assemble people with varying points of view and from different disciplines, and after working together, folks would say, “Let’s give it a try.”

In another, we’d go through the same process, and people would find every imaginable objection and complication leading to a state where nothing was done.

The toxicity in the air can be significantly traced to our national attitude. It’s not as though it is totally unreasonable. There are a couple of factors contributing to this zeitgeist.

1) Uncertainty - we’re no longer secure in our role as top dog. Osama bin Laden did a lot to foster that mood - he bit us in the ass and globalization has further contributed to it; and

2) We’ve lost our edge educationally and technologically (and we know it). We rode the coat-tails of our prior triumphs for far too long. Today, too many kids (through the power of the Internet and electronic media) want to be entertainers and athletes, and play in reality TV shows, not scientists, engineers, and inventors.There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with the former; but everything in the Universe is about proportion and timing, and technology drives everything.

Right now, the Randle Patrick McMurphys of the world are running the institution. We need Nurse Ratched back, to shock us to our senses, with the assistance of the college students of today.

We’re not generally ones to pine for practices of the past, opting instead to come up with new approaches. But this might be, like our praise of 60 Minutes, one time where we make an exception, and revert back to some of our past practices infused with youthful ideas.

(You can view Part 2 of McCullough’s interview next Sunday, November 11, 2012.)

Post No. 179: Neither Republican, Democrat, nor Libertarian are We

© 2012, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We try to stimulate thought, particularly among college students, by providing a forum where diverse ideas are discussed with a tone of civility. We hope the leaders of tomorrow will develop new ways to address societal issues. We also believe that if we individual citizens take more responsibility for our actions, societal problems will decrease in number and significance.

We try to walk down the middle of the road. We have all types of social, political, economic, and philosophical views here at the Institute. Each one of us has been a business owner with varying degrees of success. We’ve been solo, with mid-size firms, and with the big, bad bullies of industry.

Yesterday, President Obama joked that his opponent, Governor Romney, changes his position on issues for political expediency. He described the condition as “Romnesia,” and suggested the Governor has difficulty remembering past statements and positions.

While one might question a change of position over a period of weeks or even months, as business owners we understand someone changing or taking different positions over a period of years. Why? Because that’s what business owners and managers do in the economic theater – a different dance like Fred Astaire, depending on whether it is Ginger Rogers or Cyd Charisse.

On moral / religious / social issues, we understand why private citizens tend to stick to the same positions they held as grade school children, especially if there is some familial, religious, or community peer pressure.

One of the 27+ problems politicians have is trying to navigate a double black diamond slope with one economic snow ski, and one social ski, while shaking the hands of those on both sides of the Swiss-Italian border, and smiling for the camera.

Earlier this week, we heard a political ad where the candidate said he wanted the government off the backs of businesses so that they could “prosper.” We often joke that during good times, when we had numerous employees in branch offices, we were Republicans. Trying to deal with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and the California Family Leave Act, complicated making a profit.

However, during the lean times while operating with few employees and struggling to survive, we were more likely to embrace Democratic positions. But then again, we aren’t politicians.

Recently, we’ve been thinking about the extent of government regulation we embrace, if any, or whether we want the government off of our backs entirely. We concluded that it is a complicated decision, and one not taken lightly. Consider the following:

(a) The contraction of salmonella from miniature turtles by young children. It appears that the Food and Drug Administration previously banned the sale of turtles less than a certain length because they are more likely to carry bacteria;

(b) A report revealing that 97% of on-line pharmacies are illegal in the U.S., and that many sell fake products;

(c) The outbreak of meningitis and resultant deaths as a result of contaminated vials of steroids produced by a Massachusetts compounding lab; and

(d) Seats on American Airlines Boeing 757 planes, which became loose during flights because of some fastening issues.

We had a heated discussion, resulting in fisticuffs, about whether the free market should be allowed to fully operate and industries be left alone to police themselves. Some argued that the civil legal system adequately addresses problems, and others suggested that there is a deterrent in the form of potential criminal prosecution, in the case of egregious conduct.

(Shortly after we started writing this post, we heard that a 4 mile oil slick was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, and efforts were being made to determine whether it was connected with the BP - Deep Water Horizon explosion several years ago.)

Republicans argue that “excessive” regulation discourages business investment, hurts profits, reduces jobs, and drives companies to other countries. Interestingly, non-politician CEOs throughout the U.S. claim they have jobs, but that American workers in those geographical areas where jobs are located are not qualified or properly trained.

Should government be involved in training or encouraging these prospective workers, or should the government stay out of that arena? Should government assist qualified workers in relocating, and leaving their families and homes to work in other regions where the jobs are?

Just yesterday, we heard that businesses and local community colleges are working in tandem to address staffing needs, and that billions in federal dollars are being distributed to community colleges to train workers in those regions where the businesses claim they have openings.

To what extent should government regulate or be involved in our lives? We suspect that it varies depending on the subject at hand, and the location of those affected. But there is a concept in life called a continuum.

One thing we know for sure – the amount of government regulation of businesses is not one, hard and fast, absolute position embraced by either political party.

Just imagine the captain of a ship in choppy waters being restricted in thought and action while navigating his ship across the Atlantic Ocean, with crew members criticizing his every move and decision. Yep - - That’s a boat that we want to be on….

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

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“This is why the Transit Authority is crap!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post No. 154: The Anticipation

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that can’t be good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post No. 151: Where Our Heads Take Us

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post No. 139: "Ain't Nobody in Here But Us Chickens"

We recently had the opportunity to meet Lee Schaeffer, the Founder of America 357. America 357 is dedicated to the proposition that the citizens of the United States can and must conduct our national legislative business with civil discourse, and that its conduct must appear to follow the rules of Common Sense.

Mr. Schaeffer and his followers believe that we must end the partisan bickering and focus the nation’s energies on the pursuit of effective solutions to America’s most pressing issues, without regard to party interest, self-interest, or special interest.

Part of this approach involves re-thinking the way in which we engage the youth of our nation at all levels. Although the work of America 357 is not specifically directed toward the Institute’s target audience of college students, there are similarities in approach and principle between our two organizations. Mr. Schaeffer is our Guest Author in connection with the following post.

© 2009, America 357, Inc.

With all the buzz around Washington these days about Lobbyist Reform, and in light of recent abuses, perhaps now would be a good time to put this in perspective for the average American “outside the Beltway."

And what could be easier for the average person to understand than banks. After all, that is where almost all of us put our money for safe keeping. Therefore most people should favor Bank Robbery Reform, right?

And who better to come up with these needed reforms than, well, bank robbers, of course. One could just imagine the results of such an effort.

One possible reform would be to be limit the amount of money a crook could take on a given heist, to say, $50,000. Another rule might permit a potential robber to give gifts to a bank manager as long as no direct reciprocal action was taken. After all, that would be a bribe and we can’t have that. And if six months later the bank manager left a door unlocked for the robber, thus permitting the taking of funds, then the conduct of the banker and the robber would not be considered connected.

Now, wait just a minute here! Do these ideas for Bank Robbery Reform seem insane? Of course they do. The more important question is why average Americans should expect anything less insane when we have the very people who receive money from lobbyists making the new rules.

Allowing Congress to have the final say on lobbying reform is like shuffling chairs on the deck of the Titanic and calling it “Iceberg Collision Reform”.

The parallel between Bank Robbery Reform and Lobbyist Reform becomes clear when we recognize two points. First, Congress is the “People’s Bank.” Not only does Congress control the accumulation and disbursement of trillions of dollars of our money each year, but it also controls many of the rules (laws) about what we (including corporations) can and cannot do.

In this respect, firstly, what Congress does with our money, and the manner in which it does it, are vastly more important that just the depositing of money in a bank. We arguably must protect the assets of the “People’s Bank” even more vigorously than we try to protect the assets of our financial institutions.

Secondly, lobbyists might appropriately be termed “bank robbers” in that it is their job to extract from Congress (the “People’s Bank”) concessions in the law and the allocation of great sums of money for their clients by way of grants or tax benefits. Why else would lobbyists spend billions of dollars a year to lobby Congress?

Under the current rules, a lobbyist is permitted to send a member of Congress on lavish trips, make campaign contributions, and host fundraisers. In effect, a lobbyist can peddle influence to a member of Congress as long as no direct reciprocal action can be established.

After all, that would be a bribe and we can’t have that. And if six months later the member of Congress returns the favor, well that would not be considered connected.

The existing rules for lobbyists and members of Congress are ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of the American people, and the current reform proposals amount to “shuffling chairs” by the ship’s hands.

What we have in the current lobbying system, with all of its associated abuses, amounts to institutionalized corruption. While lobbying may be protected as speech by the Constitution, bribery most certainly is not.

To the average American, transferring vast sums of money to members of Congress with the expectation of future favors amounts to bribery.

The only meaningful Lobbyist Reform would be to eliminate any connection between a lobbyist and money. No gifts. No fundraising. No campaign contributions. And that would apply to the lobbyist, any associate in their organization, and any client they represent. Anything less would amount to “People’s Bank Robbery Reform” and that would be insane!

Editorial Note: We took the title for this piece, "Ain't Nobody in Here But Us Chickens," from a rather famous movie scene involving the late Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry aka Stepin Fetchit. In the scene, he is caught in the chicken coop by a farmer who asks, "Who's in there stealing my chickens," to which Fetchit replies, "Ain't Nobody in Here But Us Chickens."

Post No. 136a: Article of Interest from the New York Times: Where Did "We" Go ?

Many thought that when President Obama was elected he would become the "Great Unifier." Instead, we have witnessed the full panoply of factions which are dissatisfied with some aspect of his governance and policies thus far. Furthermore, they are not afraid to express their dissatisfaction in very personal, and colorful forms.

Thomas Friedman has some concerns about what is taking place in our country, and expresses them in the following piece. He eloquently articulates something which we have felt for the past few months, but have had difficulty putting into words.


September 30, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist

Where Did ‘We’ Go?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

"I hate to write about this, but I have actually been to this play before and it is really disturbing.

"I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.

"And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, 'God will be on your side' — and so he did.

"Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening."

To view the remainder of the article, click here.

Post No. 132: There’s More than Just the Difference in the Price of Your Ticket on the Train

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We’ve always found conflict to be of little value. And generally unproductive.

What we’ve found encouraging has been the absence of conflict, despite differences.

We’ve expressed our concerns about the tone of discourse in America, and what it portends for our collective future. We recently ran across a blog whose title might be paraphrased as, “Yell and Scream First, and Then Reason.” We thought, “There’s a lot of that going on,” and later realized that the yelling and screaming usually end the interaction.

In April, we generated a piece entitled, It All Depends on the Price of Your Ticket on the Train. We used Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to show how good people could legitimately have different perceptions of reality, and thus different values and priorities.

In thinking about this issue further, it also occurred to us that who you are willing to engage in a conversation, across from your seat on the train, can significantly affect your view of the world, and what you get out of the journey.

We’re convinced that a citizenry incapable of sitting down together, in some civilized way to collaboratively address problems, will not get the most out of its people long term. The tensions and emotions can only put further strain on that glue which holds them together.

We thought about this issue twice today. The first time was during the re-airing of a presentation on C-Span2 Book TV, of an interview of the Harvard professor who was recently arrested. The presentation aired in February, prior to the controversial arrest. (Click here to see the video.)

We saw a likeable, affable, intelligent man who had worked hard in an academic setting. However, we kept returning to the image painted by many after his arrest: arrogant, elitist, bi-polar, degenerate, a fraud, a clown, and proof that affirmative action does not work.

The second event consisted of the recent comments of two of our regular readers. There have been times in the past when they have seemingly been at each other’s throats. One could not imagine more polar opposites philosophically.

However, earlier this week, they agreed on something. In fact, they have done so on a number of occasions, although perhaps not with the passion with which they have disagreed on others.

We thought about how different their interaction might be if they both appreciated and focused on the views which they share, as opposed to their interaction being defined by the issues on which they differ. We also wondered whether they realized the number of times there was agreement.

There are two “odd ball” relationships which we frequently mention in our presentations on college campuses. The first involves Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler Magazine, who is generally regarded at the “King of Smut,” a label he relishes.

In one issue of the magazine, he published a parody of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. He suggested that Falwell’s first sexual encounter with his mother was in an out-house, which prompted Falwell to sue Flynt.

For many years, they traveled around the country debating one another, on the subjects of obscenity and pornography. We saw one during the 1990s, and we were fascinated by their relationship: one of mutual respect, despite their differences. After Falwell's death, Flynt acknowledged that they became great friends.

The second “odd ball” relationship which has always intrigued us is that involving an ardent white, male segregationist and a black, female civil rights advocate, who battled over school desegregation in North Carolina. They are now also the best of friends, and make presentations together regularly.

Earlier we suggested that conflict is unproductive in nature, and that despite differences of opinion, progress might be made in achieving goals, if the focus is shifted from the conflict. Our recently minted President suggested that he was going to stress the ties that bind us, rather than highlight the differences which separate us.

Thus far, it does not appear to have worked out that way. Interestingly, in the blogosphere, the most consistent comment we see made about Mr. Obama is that he has done more to set back civil discourse during his brief tenure, than anyone in the past.

We suspect that this loud rancor has little to do with the current occupant of the Oval Office, and more to do with some deep seated, unresolved issues which have been developing for centuries. They’ve just now clearly revealed themselves through the tears in the fabric of our nation, now that we facing inclement weather.

We’d best take note now, and engage those across from our train seat in an honest and direct conversation, lest we all miss the developments outside our train car windows, which is the assault on our prosperity. The glass could break, and make the journey even chillier.

Post No. 131b: Re-Posting Of Post No. 92: Dobermans. Surrounded by Dobermans

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

They bark. They snarl. They attack.

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

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

Our colleague’s Dobermans got us thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our country’s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fear. We’ve all felt it on occasion, and we’re feeling it again.

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

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

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

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

There has to be something bigger than this ideological dispute.

Do we still have those angels?


© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 117: That Positive Side to Anger Which So Many of You See...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post No. 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. 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.