Showing posts with label honesty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label honesty. Show all posts
Monday, January 28, 2013
Post No. 186c: 27 Situations Where People We Respect Claim that Lying is Appropriate
We previously attempted to explore the issues of deceit and truthfulness in the context of the Mark McGwire steroid use story. More recently two other sports figures, a former Tour de France cycling champion and cancer survivor, and a college football star who claimed that his girlfriend (who he had never met) died from cancer, admitted that they deceived their fans and the public.
For some reason, the theoretical and practical attitudes of our readers toward cheating (which arguably is a form of deceit, of which "lying" is a subset) differed dramatically from the responses we received during our prior effort to delve into the issue of honesty. Consequently, we are re-visiting our original post on the subject to see whether athletes are held to a different standard than other members of society.
© 2009, 2010, and 2012, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
The Laughingman and the Logistician have been friends for years. The Laughingman has laughed out of loud at some of the Logistician’s antics.
He has also expressed bewilderment following comments by the Logistician, when there were highly desirable women in the room.
He would shake his head, and ask, “What in the world made you say that?” The Logistician would reply, “It’s the truth," which one would expect people to respect.
In case you haven’t figured out who is the more practical of the two, and who usually got the gal, there’s another Logistician story of note.
He once had this girlfriend, who was stunning in every aspect imaginable. One day, she asked him whether he loved her. He replied in a perfunctory fashion, “Why yes, dear.”
But then she followed by asking, “But do you love me?”
*
*
*
All of his male buddies have since said that all he had to do was to simply say, “Yes.” (Coincidentally, as have his female friends.) But he didn't.
His response, after pausing no less, was, “What’s the definition of the second love which distinguishes it from the first?”
Aphrodite then replied, “You know. Do you love me?”
The Logistician never managed to provide a satisfactory answer.
To all who later questioned the wisdom of his choice, he calmly stated, “I was placed in a situation where I was asked to respond to something I did not understand. For me to have said ‘yes’ would have been a lie, without a definition being provided.”
There is a logical explanation for this madness. You see, he was screwed up way early in life. Not only did he have traditional societal, familial, and religious forces suggesting that he always tell the truth, but he also attended West Point. The Honor Code there prescribed that he, “not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those that do.”
He has tried to apply that principle (minus the toleration part) to his life, albeit not always successfully. However, he’s tried.
One of his favorite quotes is from former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura: “When you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good recollection of what you previously said.”
And so it was with a great deal of consternation that the Logistician recently found himself in a heated conversation with a valued friend of 35 years, as to the responses one should provide to senior citizen relatives whose mental faculties are declining.
The friend argued that “a game” should be played with the relative, since that provides comfort, and the truth need not be told. He said that it was “unnecessary.”
The friend also extended this reasoning to raising young children.
The next day, the Logistician shared this exchange with another mutual friend of 35 years. She suggested that the truth can shatter someone’s delicate perception of the world, and promptly supported the position of the first friend.
It made him wonder whether there are ends sufficiently important to justify out right lying. He also wondered whether there are dangers, so “clear and present,” to support such action.
He thought about this a lot during the recent presidential campaigns: Is winning more important than telling the truth?
(Frankly, we’ve reached a point in our society where many aren’t quite sure what to believe from some purported news sources anymore.)
Back to the Logistician, he has always contended that when asked a specific question, he is required to provide a truthful response.
On occasion, he has recognized the value of silence, or momentary evasiveness, by posing, “Do you really want to ask that question?”
Many would argue that in cases of national security, it is appropriate to lie. But is it really?
Some others would also argue that when you have a confidential relationship with someone, it is appropriate to lie, to those outside of that relationship.
And then there was our former President who only lied about sex.
If there are so many instances where it is appropriate, then when is it inappropriate to lie? (Apparently one can not lie if one is using performance enhancing drugs in a competitive athletic sport.)
Back to kids, is suggesting to a child that there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunnie, or the Tooth Fairy, a lie?
And what about that dying parent? Are lies appropriate at the death bed? What about the case of a patient who has terminal cancer, with only a short time to live?
If Congress poses a question to a member of the CIA, is the operative required to always provide the truth? Was Oliver North justified in lying to Congress about Iran-Contra?
Or was Jack Nicholson correct in A Few Good Men, when he said that, "[We] can’t handle the truth?”
P.S. By the way, you’re right. The Logistician is not very bright, and he lied. He did not provide 27 situations.
© 2009, 2010, and 2012, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Should you desire to examine the comments from our readers the first time that we broached this subject, click here.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Post No. 162b: 27 Situations Where People We Respect Claim that "Lying" is Appropriate
Home Run King Barry Bonds is in the news again; however, this time, he may go to jail for lying about his use of steroids. For some reason, the theoretical and practical attitudes of our readers toward cheating (which arguably is a form of deceit, of which "lying" is a subset) differed dramatically from the responses we received during our prior effort to delve into the issue of honesty. Consequently, we are re-visiting our original post on the subject to see what happens when we separate the issue of honesty from the issue of steroid use.
© 2009, 2010, and 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
The Laughingman and the Logistician have been friends for years. The Laughingman has laughed out of loud at some of the Logistician’s antics. He has also expressed bewilderment following comments by the Logistician, when there were highly desirable women in the room.
He would shake his head, and ask, “What in the world made you say that?” The Logistician would reply, “It’s the truth," which one would expect people to respect.
In case you haven’t figured out who is the more practical of the two, and who usually got the gal, there’s another Logistician story of note. He once had this girlfriend, who was stunning in every aspect imaginable. One day, she asked him whether he loved her. He replied in a perfunctory fashion, “Why yes, dear.”
But then she followed by asking, “But do you love me?”
*
*
*
All of his male buddies have since said that all he had to do was to simply say, “Yes.” (Coincidentally, as have his female friends.) But he didn't.
His response, after pausing no less, was, “What’s the definition of the second love which distinguishes it from the first?”
Aphrodite then replied, “You know. Do you love me?”
The Logistician never managed to provide a satisfactory answer.
To all who later questioned the wisdom of his choice, he calmly stated, “I was placed in a situation where I was asked to respond to something I did not understand. For me to have said ‘yes’ would have been a lie, without a definition being provided.”
There is a logical explanation for this madness. You see, he was screwed up way early in life. Not only did he have traditional societal, familial, and religious forces suggesting that he always tell the truth, but he also attended West Point. The Honor Code there prescribed that he, “not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those that do.”
He has tried to apply that principle (minus the toleration part) to his life, albeit not always successfully. However, he’s tried. One of his favorite quotes is from former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura: “When you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good recollection of what you previously said.”
And so it was with a great deal of consternation that the Logistician recently found himself in a heated conversation with a valued friend of 35 years, as to the responses one should provide to senior citizen relatives whose mental faculties are declining.
The friend argued that “a game” should be played with the relative, since that provides comfort, and the truth need not be told. He said that it was “unnecessary.” The friend also extended this reasoning to raising young children.
The next day, the Logistician shared this exchange with another mutual friend of 35 years. She suggested that the truth can shatter someone’s delicate perception of the world, and promptly supported the position of the first friend.
It made him wonder whether there are ends sufficiently important to justify out right lying. He also wondered whether there are dangers, so “clear and present,” to support such action. He thought about this a lot during the recent presidential campaigns: Is winning more important than telling the truth?
(Frankly, we’ve reached a point in our society where many aren’t quite sure what to believe from some purported news sources anymore.)
Back to the Logistician, he has always contended that when asked a specific question, he is required to provide a truthful response.
On occasion, he has recognized the value of silence, or momentary evasiveness, by posing, “Do you really want to ask that question?”
Many would argue that in cases of national security, it is appropriate to lie. But is it really? Some others would also argue that when you have a confidential relationship with someone, it is appropriate to lie, to those outside of that relationship.
And then there was our former President who only lied about sex.
If there are so many instances where it is appropriate, then when is it inappropriate to lie? (Apparently one can not lie if one is using performance enhancing drugs in a competitive athletic sport.)
Back to kids, is suggesting to a child that there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunnie, or the Tooth Fairy, a lie?
And what about that dying parent? Are lies appropriate at the death bed? What about the case of a patient who has terminal cancer, with only a short time to live?
If Congress poses a question to a member of the CIA, is the operative required to always provide the truth? Was Oliver North justified in lying to Congress about Iran-Contra?
Or was Jack Nicholson correct in A Few Good Men, when he said that, "[We] can’t handle the truth?”
P.S. By the way, you’re right. The Logistician is not very bright, and he lied. He did not provide 27 situations.
© 2009 and 2010, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Should you desire to examine the comments from our readers the first time that we broached this subject, click here.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Post No. 143e: 27 Situations Where People We Respect Claim that "Lying" is Appropriate
Yesterday, we attempted to explore the issues of deceit and truthfulness in the context of the Mark McGwire steroid use story. For some reason, the theoretical and practical attitudes of our readers toward cheating (which arguably is a form of deceit, of which "lying" is a subset) differed dramatically from the responses we received during our prior effort to delve into the issue of honesty. Consequently, we are re-visiting our original post on the subject to see what happens when we separate the issue of honesty from the issue of steroid use.
© 2009 and 2010, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
The Laughingman and the Logistician have been friends for years. The Laughingman has laughed out of loud at some of the Logistician’s antics.
He has also expressed bewilderment following comments by the Logistician, when there were highly desirable women in the room.
He would shake his head, and ask, “What in the world made you say that?” The Logistician would reply, “It’s the truth," which one would expect people to respect.
In case you haven’t figured out who is the more practical of the two, and who usually got the gal, there’s another Logistician story of note.
He once had this girlfriend, who was stunning in every aspect imaginable. One day, she asked him whether he loved her. He replied in a perfunctory fashion, “Why yes, dear.”
But then she followed by asking, “But do you love me?”
*
*
*
All of his male buddies have since said that all he had to do was to simply say, “Yes.” (Coincidentally, as have his female friends.) But he didn't.
His response, after pausing no less, was, “What’s the definition of the second love which distinguishes it from the first?”
Aphrodite then replied, “You know. Do you love me?”
The Logistician never managed to provide a satisfactory answer.
To all who later questioned the wisdom of his choice, he calmly stated, “I was placed in a situation where I was asked to respond to something I did not understand. For me to have said ‘yes’ would have been a lie, without a definition being provided.”
There is a logical explanation for this madness. You see, he was screwed up way early in life. Not only did he have traditional societal, familial, and religious forces suggesting that he always tell the truth, but he also attended West Point. The Honor Code there prescribed that he, “not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those that do.”
He has tried to apply that principle (minus the toleration part) to his life, albeit not always successfully. However, he’s tried.
One of his favorite quotes is from former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura: “When you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good recollection of what you previously said.”
And so it was with a great deal of consternation that the Logistician recently found himself in a heated conversation with a valued friend of 35 years, as to the responses one should provide to senior citizen relatives whose mental faculties are declining.
The friend argued that “a game” should be played with the relative, since that provides comfort, and the truth need not be told. He said that it was “unnecessary.”
The friend also extended this reasoning to raising young children.
The next day, the Logistician shared this exchange with another mutual friend of 35 years. She suggested that the truth can shatter someone’s delicate perception of the world, and promptly supported the position of the first friend.
It made him wonder whether there are ends sufficiently important to justify out right lying. He also wondered whether there are dangers, so “clear and present,” to support such action.
He thought about this a lot during the recent presidential campaigns: Is winning more important than telling the truth?
(Frankly, we’ve reached a point in our society where many aren’t quite sure what to believe from some purported news sources anymore.)
Back to the Logistician, he has always contended that when asked a specific question, he is required to provide a truthful response.
On occasion, he has recognized the value of silence, or momentary evasiveness, by posing, “Do you really want to ask that question?”
Many would argue that in cases of national security, it is appropriate to lie. But is it really?
Some others would also argue that when you have a confidential relationship with someone, it is appropriate to lie, to those outside of that relationship.
And then there was our former President who only lied about sex.
If there are so many instances where it is appropriate, then when is it inappropriate to lie? (Apparently one can not lie if one is using performance enhancing drugs in a competitive athletic sport.)
Back to kids, is suggesting to a child that there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunnie, or the Tooth Fairy, a lie?
And what about that dying parent? Are lies appropriate at the death bed? What about the case of a patient who has terminal cancer, with only a short time to live?
If Congress poses a question to a member of the CIA, is the operative required to always provide the truth? Was Oliver North justified in lying to Congress about Iran-Contra?
Or was Jack Nicholson correct in A Few Good Men, when he said that, "[We] can’t handle the truth?”
P.S. By the way, you’re right. The Logistician is not very bright, and he lied. He did not provide 27 situations.
© 2009 and 2010, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Should you desire to examine the comments from our readers the first time that we broached this subject, click here.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Post No. 143d: Is a Professional Athlete Justified in Lying about Performance Enhancing Drugs?
Earlier today, former professional baseball player Mark McGwire publicly admitted that he was using steroids at the time that he broke baseball's home run record in 1998. He said that he knew that this day would come.
During a Senate investigation into steroid use at the professional sports level, he chose to neither confirm nor deny his use. Other professional athletes have admitted their use, while others have denied it.
Is the use of performance enhancing drugs a form of cheating? Is the refusal of someone to respond to direct questions about their use tantamount to lying? Is cheating an implicit form of lying?
In the event that a teammate sees a colleague using such supplements, should he or she automatically disclose this information, only when asked, only when it adversely affects the team, only when it positively impacts the team, or keep the information to him or herself?
What if the questions are directed toward the use by someone else about that other person's use? Is the respondent justified in lying about the acts of another?
Is the use of such supplements purely a personal matter about which the public should not be concerned?
We previously generated a piece entitled, 27 Situations Where People We Respect Claim that "Lying" is Appropriate. Instead of simply re-posting the text of the original article, we are directing people to the original post and the comments made at that time regarding the concept and honesty and where it is really expected or demanded.
What's the standard for lying in our society?
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Post 23: What Views Would the Members of a Truly Independent American Political Party Hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Monday, June 2, 2008
Post No. 15: Hmmm, Respect - That's a Novel Concept.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There is a childhood story that I often tell that illustrates the point which I would like for you to entertain. I was in the third grade. I had just finished using the boy’s bathroom, when someone sprayed some water about as I was about to leave. I instinctively placed my hands near my eyes, but kept walking out of the entrance, which was right next to the entrance to the girl's bathroom.
Unfortunately, while my vision was obscured, I bumped into another young girl, who I did not know, and hit her in the face. Somehow the event morphed into a premeditated, conscious assault on this young lady, for whom I had some unspecified ill will. I was taken to Mr. Cundiff’s room, and he promptly (since corporal punishment was condoned in those days) abused my rear end, while saying that I should never hit another female.
Perhaps it was simply an opportunity which he seized to teach me one of life’s lessons. However, I realized at that point that truth, honesty, and doing the right thing do not always work for you every single time. The preconceptions of others can be powerful. However, I always believed that in the long term, those principles would place one in good stead. It’s simply the right thing to do.
Perhaps it is because of my third grade experience that I have always tried to withhold judgment about certain events, until I considered the facts. I also appreciate that, lacking personal knowledge, and without first hand information from witnesses, one runs the risk of making a bad call. Additionally, we all must keep in mind that there are many other factors which potentially come into play, with the two most obvious being bias and motivation.
A friend of mine in corporate America reminded me that in the corporate setting, someone “speaking up” is frequently just looking to torpedo their career. That led me to query, “Why do people think that an employee who is uncomfortable with what is going on around him or her, would be motivated to, and should, bring up a controversial subject, or challenge his superiors, during the course of his employment?” I mean think about it. What would you do? To not take that factor into consideration is just plain crazy. It’s science fiction.
Most folks are financially dependent on their jobs. Questioning the appropriateness of the conduct of one’s superiors is problematic, to say the least. Most observers of large, bureaucratic organizations will attest to the fact that as the size of the organization grows, and the importance of the issue increases, the likelihood of the truth becoming an afterthought, if not irrelevant, increases accordingly. I don’t care how much spin you try to put on it.
This was hammered home last night as I watched a relative of Pat Tillman (who entered military service, deferred a potentially lucrative pro football career, and was deployed to Iraq) discuss, on C-Span 2, Book TV, how the Pentagon and Secretary Rumsfeld handled the friendly fire death of Tillman. She made a comment which hit home with me. Paraphrasing, she said that this democratic concept is supposed to be a pretty good system, closer to perfection than most. She continued that Tillman believed in, and fought and died for, this system. She just wants to see the system work to the best of its capability. She lamented that when we have less than straightforward and candid interaction with those in power, it adversely affects the system, and further erodes our faith in the system. She concluded that the enlistees, who bought into the program, along with their families, deserve to be treated with respect. (And that is separate and apart from the intellectual honesty that we also expect from our leaders.)
We need whistleblowers in our society, regardless of whether they are telling the truth. They force us to periodically revisit the internal, behind the scenes operations of our governmental agencies, and keep them honest. Just the act of conducting an investigation serves a useful function.
You tell me, did Scott McClellan do the right thing? I don’t know. Obviously you folks with hard positions, either way, are privy to first hand and credible information which has not been made available to the consuming public. Please share it with the rest of us. I’m sure that there are many others who would appreciate being equally well-informed....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There is a childhood story that I often tell that illustrates the point which I would like for you to entertain. I was in the third grade. I had just finished using the boy’s bathroom, when someone sprayed some water about as I was about to leave. I instinctively placed my hands near my eyes, but kept walking out of the entrance, which was right next to the entrance to the girl's bathroom.
Unfortunately, while my vision was obscured, I bumped into another young girl, who I did not know, and hit her in the face. Somehow the event morphed into a premeditated, conscious assault on this young lady, for whom I had some unspecified ill will. I was taken to Mr. Cundiff’s room, and he promptly (since corporal punishment was condoned in those days) abused my rear end, while saying that I should never hit another female.
Perhaps it was simply an opportunity which he seized to teach me one of life’s lessons. However, I realized at that point that truth, honesty, and doing the right thing do not always work for you every single time. The preconceptions of others can be powerful. However, I always believed that in the long term, those principles would place one in good stead. It’s simply the right thing to do.
Perhaps it is because of my third grade experience that I have always tried to withhold judgment about certain events, until I considered the facts. I also appreciate that, lacking personal knowledge, and without first hand information from witnesses, one runs the risk of making a bad call. Additionally, we all must keep in mind that there are many other factors which potentially come into play, with the two most obvious being bias and motivation.
A friend of mine in corporate America reminded me that in the corporate setting, someone “speaking up” is frequently just looking to torpedo their career. That led me to query, “Why do people think that an employee who is uncomfortable with what is going on around him or her, would be motivated to, and should, bring up a controversial subject, or challenge his superiors, during the course of his employment?” I mean think about it. What would you do? To not take that factor into consideration is just plain crazy. It’s science fiction.
Most folks are financially dependent on their jobs. Questioning the appropriateness of the conduct of one’s superiors is problematic, to say the least. Most observers of large, bureaucratic organizations will attest to the fact that as the size of the organization grows, and the importance of the issue increases, the likelihood of the truth becoming an afterthought, if not irrelevant, increases accordingly. I don’t care how much spin you try to put on it.
This was hammered home last night as I watched a relative of Pat Tillman (who entered military service, deferred a potentially lucrative pro football career, and was deployed to Iraq) discuss, on C-Span 2, Book TV, how the Pentagon and Secretary Rumsfeld handled the friendly fire death of Tillman. She made a comment which hit home with me. Paraphrasing, she said that this democratic concept is supposed to be a pretty good system, closer to perfection than most. She continued that Tillman believed in, and fought and died for, this system. She just wants to see the system work to the best of its capability. She lamented that when we have less than straightforward and candid interaction with those in power, it adversely affects the system, and further erodes our faith in the system. She concluded that the enlistees, who bought into the program, along with their families, deserve to be treated with respect. (And that is separate and apart from the intellectual honesty that we also expect from our leaders.)
We need whistleblowers in our society, regardless of whether they are telling the truth. They force us to periodically revisit the internal, behind the scenes operations of our governmental agencies, and keep them honest. Just the act of conducting an investigation serves a useful function.
You tell me, did Scott McClellan do the right thing? I don’t know. Obviously you folks with hard positions, either way, are privy to first hand and credible information which has not been made available to the consuming public. Please share it with the rest of us. I’m sure that there are many others who would appreciate being equally well-informed....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, May 30, 2008
Post No. 12: What I Hope We Learn from Scott McClellan
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
“Doing the right thing is not rocket science.”
This is the mantra that my good friend Laughingman has been pounding in my head for going on thirteen or more years, and with more frequency since I started this blog. Laughingman is the Senior Fellow and Founder of the Institute for Applied Common Sense. When I first met him and he handed me his card, I was immediately taken with the concept, although I did not quite understand what it meant.
Being a linear thinker and not particularly bright, it’s taken me a while to develop some appreciation of the application of common sense. This “event” involving Scott McClellan, and his experiences while serving as the White House Press Secretary in President Bush’s administration, has served to further develop my appreciation of the concept. Work with me for a while.
After practicing law and providing business management consulting services for a total of over 25 years, which were followed by a major personal failure, I decided to re-invent myself and become a motivational speaker. I teamed up with Laughingman, and other baby boomers around the country, and developed a number of products. Our team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and universities to engage students in a discussion about personal responsibility.
We will utilize adults, like me, who have encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision theory. Our goals are the following: (a) to provoke thought; (b) to encourage students to consider their choices in life; (c) to assist students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the consequences; and (d) to have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices. Our ultimate goal is to come up with some fresh, new ways to address their personal and societal issues.
One of the goals which we will achieve, during our discussion of issues, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of the problems that we encounter, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by the symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions. The articles appearing on our site reflect the type of thought process and critical thinking through which we will navigate students in our sessions. These articles are precursors to the content that will be delivered during our workshops and other projects.
Getting back to doing the “right thing,” I first misunderstood the concept in that I felt that by suggesting that there is a “right way” to do something, one implicitly suggests that there is no other way to do something and still have it be “right.” And then I thought about it. I recalled that there were many times during law firm partnership meetings, that we had to deal with some uncomfortable issue or event. What always amazed me was the fact that you could have ten different attorneys in the room evaluating the situation, and have every, single one of them say, “Why didn’t they do X?” I realized that when you have a unanimous appreciation of the appropriate or “right” course of action to take, it is a powerful force.
In thinking about Scott McClellan, I kept saying to myself that I did not want to judge either side, and take a position, if for no other reason than I did not have any first hand information. So how was I supposed to deal with this? It was really bothering me, and then it came to me. For purposes of this analysis, I decided to assume that both sides were telling the truth, as I had during the case of the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill hearings. (By the way, in that situation, I really did feel that they were both telling the truth; here, it is a fiction created for analytical purposes.) By doing so, it allowed me to immediately go to the next place, and ask, “How did this happen?”
The answer? It came about simply as a result of people in the Administration not being straight with us. It doesn’t matter who it was. It does matter when it was. Shakespeare got it “right” by noting, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.”
This ain’t rocket science. You know that we’ve been deceived about numerous issues on various occasions. It does not matter which ones. It also does not matter the political party or President in office. Bill Clinton was no better; he was just smoother. It is interesting that perhaps the straightest shooter, Jimmy Carter, did not fare well. Unfortunately, being less than straight in political office has become the norm. There’s too much spin; and too many attacks on messengers and those who dare question suspicious conduct. You see how this is not rocket science? If the members of the Administration had been straight with the American public on a regular basis, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s the first example of how they could have done the right thing.
Let’s move on to the second. You will recall that many people came to Bill Clinton’s defense when the Monica Lewinsky allegations first surfaced. Madeline Albright and others hit the talk show circuit and the pavement, and passionately defended their president, and took heat for him. When he finally fessed up, they all looked like fools. To put his friends and loyal staff out there to later be embarrassed was, in my opinion, far worse than any impeachable offense. It was simply wrong. Encouraging your friends to extend their necks on your behalf based on a lie, is simply wrong, no two ways about it. Clinton could have done the right thing in the first instance by simply telling the truth, and not placing his friends in that situation. This is not a moral judgment, but rather a common sense judgment. I can almost guarantee you that Scott feels that he was misled and hung out to dry on something. Once again, it does not matter the issue.
Former President Clinton provides me with material to discuss a third example of what potentially could have been a right thing to do. Once he was caught up in his web, he should have realized that the work that he tried to accomplish on behalf of the Democratic Party was bigger than the man. He should have simply resigned, and let his Vice President, Al Gore, take over, and continue the policies of his Administration. Instead, Clinton made himself the issue, and not the causes and policies supported by his supporters. Example number three - we should all be reminded that everything is bigger than we are. When what we do hurts the bigger cause, we should re-evaluate our involvement, and consider changing course.
I am somewhat concerned that we have reached a point in our political evolution where an elected official can not admit fault, and still stay in office. We automatically demand that they resign. However, I would suggest that we remember that there is more to a person than the worse thing that he or she has ever done. We allow the leaders who blame their indiscretions on drugs or alcohol, and seek rehabilitation, to stay in office on the premise that they were not actually responsible. We also allow those who deny any responsibility to stay in office, unless the proof against them is overwhelming, or they are subsequently voted out. And yet, the politician who stands up and says that he was wrong is immediately forced to resign.
Example number four: one can’t solve a problem without admitting there is a problem, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. It’s simple as that. This Bush Administration is unbelievable. (By the way, this is not coming from some die hard Democrat. When I was making some “real money,” I was a full on Republican in practice and in heart, if not per registration.) It’s almost as if they do whatever they want to do, with impunity, and don’t care what we think or feel, or the consequences. “These guys are absolutely wild!” And I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I can not recall these folks ever really providing us with an unqualified, “We’re sorry. We made a mistake.”
Is such an admission still possible in American politics, or is it the immediate kiss of death? Folks, you can’t muck up, and then pass blame to others for your muck up! Take this gas situation for example. It’s absolutely incredible that we sit on so much oil and natural gas within our reach, protect it for our various reasons (some of which may be valid), use gas like there is no end in sight without developing alternative sources of energy, and then blame OPEC or the Saudis for our current increase in price. Get real! It’s unbelievable! All we have to do is just apply some common sense. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
So there you have it. Right thinking; doing the right thing. It’s not that difficult after all, is it? Thank you Scott, for helping me see clearly.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
This is the mantra that my good friend Laughingman has been pounding in my head for going on thirteen or more years, and with more frequency since I started this blog. Laughingman is the Senior Fellow and Founder of the Institute for Applied Common Sense. When I first met him and he handed me his card, I was immediately taken with the concept, although I did not quite understand what it meant.
Being a linear thinker and not particularly bright, it’s taken me a while to develop some appreciation of the application of common sense. This “event” involving Scott McClellan, and his experiences while serving as the White House Press Secretary in President Bush’s administration, has served to further develop my appreciation of the concept. Work with me for a while.
After practicing law and providing business management consulting services for a total of over 25 years, which were followed by a major personal failure, I decided to re-invent myself and become a motivational speaker. I teamed up with Laughingman, and other baby boomers around the country, and developed a number of products. Our team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and universities to engage students in a discussion about personal responsibility.
We will utilize adults, like me, who have encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision theory. Our goals are the following: (a) to provoke thought; (b) to encourage students to consider their choices in life; (c) to assist students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the consequences; and (d) to have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices. Our ultimate goal is to come up with some fresh, new ways to address their personal and societal issues.
One of the goals which we will achieve, during our discussion of issues, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of the problems that we encounter, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by the symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions. The articles appearing on our site reflect the type of thought process and critical thinking through which we will navigate students in our sessions. These articles are precursors to the content that will be delivered during our workshops and other projects.
Getting back to doing the “right thing,” I first misunderstood the concept in that I felt that by suggesting that there is a “right way” to do something, one implicitly suggests that there is no other way to do something and still have it be “right.” And then I thought about it. I recalled that there were many times during law firm partnership meetings, that we had to deal with some uncomfortable issue or event. What always amazed me was the fact that you could have ten different attorneys in the room evaluating the situation, and have every, single one of them say, “Why didn’t they do X?” I realized that when you have a unanimous appreciation of the appropriate or “right” course of action to take, it is a powerful force.
In thinking about Scott McClellan, I kept saying to myself that I did not want to judge either side, and take a position, if for no other reason than I did not have any first hand information. So how was I supposed to deal with this? It was really bothering me, and then it came to me. For purposes of this analysis, I decided to assume that both sides were telling the truth, as I had during the case of the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill hearings. (By the way, in that situation, I really did feel that they were both telling the truth; here, it is a fiction created for analytical purposes.) By doing so, it allowed me to immediately go to the next place, and ask, “How did this happen?”
The answer? It came about simply as a result of people in the Administration not being straight with us. It doesn’t matter who it was. It does matter when it was. Shakespeare got it “right” by noting, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.”
This ain’t rocket science. You know that we’ve been deceived about numerous issues on various occasions. It does not matter which ones. It also does not matter the political party or President in office. Bill Clinton was no better; he was just smoother. It is interesting that perhaps the straightest shooter, Jimmy Carter, did not fare well. Unfortunately, being less than straight in political office has become the norm. There’s too much spin; and too many attacks on messengers and those who dare question suspicious conduct. You see how this is not rocket science? If the members of the Administration had been straight with the American public on a regular basis, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s the first example of how they could have done the right thing.
Let’s move on to the second. You will recall that many people came to Bill Clinton’s defense when the Monica Lewinsky allegations first surfaced. Madeline Albright and others hit the talk show circuit and the pavement, and passionately defended their president, and took heat for him. When he finally fessed up, they all looked like fools. To put his friends and loyal staff out there to later be embarrassed was, in my opinion, far worse than any impeachable offense. It was simply wrong. Encouraging your friends to extend their necks on your behalf based on a lie, is simply wrong, no two ways about it. Clinton could have done the right thing in the first instance by simply telling the truth, and not placing his friends in that situation. This is not a moral judgment, but rather a common sense judgment. I can almost guarantee you that Scott feels that he was misled and hung out to dry on something. Once again, it does not matter the issue.
Former President Clinton provides me with material to discuss a third example of what potentially could have been a right thing to do. Once he was caught up in his web, he should have realized that the work that he tried to accomplish on behalf of the Democratic Party was bigger than the man. He should have simply resigned, and let his Vice President, Al Gore, take over, and continue the policies of his Administration. Instead, Clinton made himself the issue, and not the causes and policies supported by his supporters. Example number three - we should all be reminded that everything is bigger than we are. When what we do hurts the bigger cause, we should re-evaluate our involvement, and consider changing course.
I am somewhat concerned that we have reached a point in our political evolution where an elected official can not admit fault, and still stay in office. We automatically demand that they resign. However, I would suggest that we remember that there is more to a person than the worse thing that he or she has ever done. We allow the leaders who blame their indiscretions on drugs or alcohol, and seek rehabilitation, to stay in office on the premise that they were not actually responsible. We also allow those who deny any responsibility to stay in office, unless the proof against them is overwhelming, or they are subsequently voted out. And yet, the politician who stands up and says that he was wrong is immediately forced to resign.
Example number four: one can’t solve a problem without admitting there is a problem, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. It’s simple as that. This Bush Administration is unbelievable. (By the way, this is not coming from some die hard Democrat. When I was making some “real money,” I was a full on Republican in practice and in heart, if not per registration.) It’s almost as if they do whatever they want to do, with impunity, and don’t care what we think or feel, or the consequences. “These guys are absolutely wild!” And I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I can not recall these folks ever really providing us with an unqualified, “We’re sorry. We made a mistake.”
Is such an admission still possible in American politics, or is it the immediate kiss of death? Folks, you can’t muck up, and then pass blame to others for your muck up! Take this gas situation for example. It’s absolutely incredible that we sit on so much oil and natural gas within our reach, protect it for our various reasons (some of which may be valid), use gas like there is no end in sight without developing alternative sources of energy, and then blame OPEC or the Saudis for our current increase in price. Get real! It’s unbelievable! All we have to do is just apply some common sense. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
So there you have it. Right thinking; doing the right thing. It’s not that difficult after all, is it? Thank you Scott, for helping me see clearly.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)