Showing posts with label intellectual honesty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual 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.
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?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Post No. 29: The Problems Associated with Having Your Cake and Eating It Too
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
America is an interesting country. We should often be perplexed about the various positions in which we find ourselves. This concept called “freedom,” which we must keep in mind is a relatively new concept, has its complications. Consider the following.
Why should a populace which willingly and voluntarily eats poor quality fast, fatty, salty, and cholesterol laden food, smokes, drinks alcohol, refrains from exercise, and engages in other questionable behavior, have an expectation that it is entitled to affordable health care coverage when poor health flows from such behavior? How can the citizens, of a country that permits them to pursue virtually any educational or vocational pursuit of their choice, complain when they are unable to find a job of their liking or one that permits them to adequately support their family? How can citizens of a country purchase inexpensive products made by American companies in third world countries, and then turn around and complain about the exporting of American jobs and technology?
Who is really at fault in connection with our housing mortgage crisis, the lenders for making bad loans to customers with an inability to pay, or the homeowners, for entering into transactions which were beyond their financial means? Just this past Sunday, a psychiatrist connected with UCLA’s Student Health Services, discussed on C-Span2 Book TV, the frustrations experienced by career professional women who thought that science had advanced to the point of suspending the biological clock, only to later discover that there are complications associated with having children late in life. (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8574&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No.)
Last week, in Post No. 28 of this blog, we touched on predictions by some that a water crisis is in the making, and suggested that America start planning ahead of time, contrary to the manner in which it approached energy. However, we did not pose the fundamental question: How did a country, with all of our great academic and corporate institutions, manage to find itself dependent on others for energy? We submit that what we have in this country is a responsibility crisis. We always want our cake and to eat it too. Both parties, and both sides of the aisle, are responsible, and yet you will never hear them acknowledge it. Taking responsibility for one’s condition is a common sense first step toward addressing one’s problems.
Two sound bites uttered this past weekend made us stop and think about our current condition. One was made by Barack Obama, during his interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday morning. He spoke of the inability of our politicians to make hard decisions. (Are they so focused on getting re-elected that they lack the ability to do so?) The other was uttered by T. Boone Pickens, to the effect that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Pickens testified before a Senate committee on homeland security issues related to energy dependence. (http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=566076979.)
In our opinion, probably the most difficult situation in which this nation has ever found itself, and which defies common sense, is our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens, a geologist by training, has committed 58 million dollars to telling America his plan for making America energy independent. You may have seen or heard his commercials on the media outlets over the past two weeks. He believes that the American public does not fully understand this confusing area. He further believes that we want to know what is going on, in some comprehensible manner, and he wants to elevate the discussion before the presidential election.
Pickens was previously the founder and owner of Mesa Petroleum. He is now the head of B.P. Capital Management. In his opinion (and the purpose of this blog is not to support his position), the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is not due to corporate price gouging or the involvement of speculators, but rather the factor that recent production levels have remained relatively constant, while the demand has increased dramatically. (We suspect that most of you economic experts have some empirical evidence to challenge his position.) Be that as it may, he argues that the oil leaders in the Middle East are absolutely dumbfounded by U. S. energy policy. They can not understand why the U.S. has done virtually nothing to improve its situation, and yet blames the oil producing nations for the current price increases. Did we have any clues, any clues at all, in our recent history, that we should try to become energy independent?
Pickens’ company operates the largest wind farm in America. It provides the power equivalent to two and one-half nuclear plants, and it has created 15,000 jobs. The farm is located in a wind corridor in the mid-west section of the United States. Interestingly, according to Pickens, Germany is the largest user of wind generated power, and it has poor wind conditions. Overall, he claims that the United States has excellent conditions, not to mention the coastal areas which can be utilized. (Many of you may be aware that there has been an ongoing battle near Cape Cod / Martha’s Vineyard in connection with a proposed off-shore wind farm. Some have suggested that wealthy residents in the area have placed their interests above those of the public. Actually, the issue is far more complicated than that. However, it should have been resolved by now. Time’s a wasting. [http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind].)
Pickens made a number of interesting points before the Committee. He indicated that 38% of our oil is imported from the Middle East and Africa, from countries which are unstable. He noted that we can replace that 38% with natural gas already here in the United States. Natural gas costs 40% of crude oil. Will our supply last indefinitely? No, according to Pickens, but it will give us time to develop some alternatives. In fact, according to Pickens, if we had started using natural gas 20 years ago, our resources would be substantially depleted by now; however, we would not be dependent on others for that segment of our energy needs.
Pickens made some other interesting points. He noted that there is no one silver bullet that will solve all of our energy issues, but rather we need to use all available technologies and resources to become independent. Pickens believes that wind and solar power are the cheapest sources at this time, but that we need to consider off-shore drilling, and drilling near the Artic Circle. He also mentioned the need for government mandates to encourage industry participation in this independence effort. Pickens himself drives a Honda GX natural gas vehicle (http://automobiles.honda.com/shop/?modelname=civic+gx&ef_id=1097:3:s_f566d7a6f1f03f560e37a47917ba4e55_444155100_honda%20natural%20gas%20vehicle:gu-rNtB6B3YAAG6U7sUAAAAR:20080729045957). No American automobile manufacturer makes such a vehicle, at least not in the United States. General Motors makes them, but according to Pickens, only in South America.
Keep in mind that Pickens’ testimony was before a committee dealing with homeland security. He considers our dependence on foreign oil to be dangerous. Every time one of the senators posed a partisan question, or made a suggestion that he supported one side of the aisle or the other, he responded that his concern is about what is in the best interests of America, and American jobs. When asked specifically about whether he was in agreement with Al Gore regarding alternative sources of energy, he simply said that Al Gore’s issue is global warming. Pickens regards that as a secondary issue which can be addressed later. He considers our energy dependence on unstable countries to be the primary issue, which needs to be addressed now. According to Pickens, “There is only one enemy, foreign oil, and that’s my fight.”
All of this is quite complicated stuff to this simpleton, and I suspect that most of you feel that you already know what we need to do. However, are we going to continue to argue about all of the competing considerations, and drag out all of the litigation and bureaucratic haggling, while our energy situation further deteriorates? Even if you disagree with all of Pickens’ suggestions, and think that they are self-serving, hopefully you agree with his statement that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Some one or some body needs to exercise responsible leadership. America can not afford to keep traveling down this path. We can’t have our cake and eat it too, indefinitely.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
America is an interesting country. We should often be perplexed about the various positions in which we find ourselves. This concept called “freedom,” which we must keep in mind is a relatively new concept, has its complications. Consider the following.
Why should a populace which willingly and voluntarily eats poor quality fast, fatty, salty, and cholesterol laden food, smokes, drinks alcohol, refrains from exercise, and engages in other questionable behavior, have an expectation that it is entitled to affordable health care coverage when poor health flows from such behavior? How can the citizens, of a country that permits them to pursue virtually any educational or vocational pursuit of their choice, complain when they are unable to find a job of their liking or one that permits them to adequately support their family? How can citizens of a country purchase inexpensive products made by American companies in third world countries, and then turn around and complain about the exporting of American jobs and technology?
Who is really at fault in connection with our housing mortgage crisis, the lenders for making bad loans to customers with an inability to pay, or the homeowners, for entering into transactions which were beyond their financial means? Just this past Sunday, a psychiatrist connected with UCLA’s Student Health Services, discussed on C-Span2 Book TV, the frustrations experienced by career professional women who thought that science had advanced to the point of suspending the biological clock, only to later discover that there are complications associated with having children late in life. (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8574&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No.)
Last week, in Post No. 28 of this blog, we touched on predictions by some that a water crisis is in the making, and suggested that America start planning ahead of time, contrary to the manner in which it approached energy. However, we did not pose the fundamental question: How did a country, with all of our great academic and corporate institutions, manage to find itself dependent on others for energy? We submit that what we have in this country is a responsibility crisis. We always want our cake and to eat it too. Both parties, and both sides of the aisle, are responsible, and yet you will never hear them acknowledge it. Taking responsibility for one’s condition is a common sense first step toward addressing one’s problems.
Two sound bites uttered this past weekend made us stop and think about our current condition. One was made by Barack Obama, during his interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday morning. He spoke of the inability of our politicians to make hard decisions. (Are they so focused on getting re-elected that they lack the ability to do so?) The other was uttered by T. Boone Pickens, to the effect that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Pickens testified before a Senate committee on homeland security issues related to energy dependence. (http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=566076979.)
In our opinion, probably the most difficult situation in which this nation has ever found itself, and which defies common sense, is our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens, a geologist by training, has committed 58 million dollars to telling America his plan for making America energy independent. You may have seen or heard his commercials on the media outlets over the past two weeks. He believes that the American public does not fully understand this confusing area. He further believes that we want to know what is going on, in some comprehensible manner, and he wants to elevate the discussion before the presidential election.
Pickens was previously the founder and owner of Mesa Petroleum. He is now the head of B.P. Capital Management. In his opinion (and the purpose of this blog is not to support his position), the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is not due to corporate price gouging or the involvement of speculators, but rather the factor that recent production levels have remained relatively constant, while the demand has increased dramatically. (We suspect that most of you economic experts have some empirical evidence to challenge his position.) Be that as it may, he argues that the oil leaders in the Middle East are absolutely dumbfounded by U. S. energy policy. They can not understand why the U.S. has done virtually nothing to improve its situation, and yet blames the oil producing nations for the current price increases. Did we have any clues, any clues at all, in our recent history, that we should try to become energy independent?
Pickens’ company operates the largest wind farm in America. It provides the power equivalent to two and one-half nuclear plants, and it has created 15,000 jobs. The farm is located in a wind corridor in the mid-west section of the United States. Interestingly, according to Pickens, Germany is the largest user of wind generated power, and it has poor wind conditions. Overall, he claims that the United States has excellent conditions, not to mention the coastal areas which can be utilized. (Many of you may be aware that there has been an ongoing battle near Cape Cod / Martha’s Vineyard in connection with a proposed off-shore wind farm. Some have suggested that wealthy residents in the area have placed their interests above those of the public. Actually, the issue is far more complicated than that. However, it should have been resolved by now. Time’s a wasting. [http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind].)
Pickens made a number of interesting points before the Committee. He indicated that 38% of our oil is imported from the Middle East and Africa, from countries which are unstable. He noted that we can replace that 38% with natural gas already here in the United States. Natural gas costs 40% of crude oil. Will our supply last indefinitely? No, according to Pickens, but it will give us time to develop some alternatives. In fact, according to Pickens, if we had started using natural gas 20 years ago, our resources would be substantially depleted by now; however, we would not be dependent on others for that segment of our energy needs.
Pickens made some other interesting points. He noted that there is no one silver bullet that will solve all of our energy issues, but rather we need to use all available technologies and resources to become independent. Pickens believes that wind and solar power are the cheapest sources at this time, but that we need to consider off-shore drilling, and drilling near the Artic Circle. He also mentioned the need for government mandates to encourage industry participation in this independence effort. Pickens himself drives a Honda GX natural gas vehicle (http://automobiles.honda.com/shop/?modelname=civic+gx&ef_id=1097:3:s_f566d7a6f1f03f560e37a47917ba4e55_444155100_honda%20natural%20gas%20vehicle:gu-rNtB6B3YAAG6U7sUAAAAR:20080729045957). No American automobile manufacturer makes such a vehicle, at least not in the United States. General Motors makes them, but according to Pickens, only in South America.
Keep in mind that Pickens’ testimony was before a committee dealing with homeland security. He considers our dependence on foreign oil to be dangerous. Every time one of the senators posed a partisan question, or made a suggestion that he supported one side of the aisle or the other, he responded that his concern is about what is in the best interests of America, and American jobs. When asked specifically about whether he was in agreement with Al Gore regarding alternative sources of energy, he simply said that Al Gore’s issue is global warming. Pickens regards that as a secondary issue which can be addressed later. He considers our energy dependence on unstable countries to be the primary issue, which needs to be addressed now. According to Pickens, “There is only one enemy, foreign oil, and that’s my fight.”
All of this is quite complicated stuff to this simpleton, and I suspect that most of you feel that you already know what we need to do. However, are we going to continue to argue about all of the competing considerations, and drag out all of the litigation and bureaucratic haggling, while our energy situation further deteriorates? Even if you disagree with all of Pickens’ suggestions, and think that they are self-serving, hopefully you agree with his statement that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Some one or some body needs to exercise responsible leadership. America can not afford to keep traveling down this path. We can’t have our cake and eat it too, indefinitely.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Post No. 26: Did I Miss Something Here – So to Speak?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m neither particularly bright nor sophisticated. I often miss things that others consider obvious. Presumptive Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama suggested yesterday that American parents encourage their children to study Spanish as a second language. For our purposes at this point, let’s assume that you read nothing further in the paper or online, or that you listened no further to any news broadcasts, as to the circumstances surrounding his statement, or the context in which it was uttered. What would you have reasonably thought was the underlying motivation for his statement?
During the 1960’s, the study of a second language was a requirement in many secondary schools. By the time that I completed my first two years of college, I had six years of French under my belt. French made the transition to Spanish far easier when I lived in California. During the 1990s, various businesspeople, out of a desire to acquire business from Japanese firms, took Japanese immersion courses. Before traveling to Brazil and Italy, I studied conversational Portuguese and Italian in preparation for the trips. Probably of most relevance to this discussion is the fact that while teaching adult students seeking their GEDs at a local community college, I frequently recommended that they encourage their children to study Mandarin Chinese in light of the rising importance of China in the world.
Consequently, when I first heard of Senator Obama’s suggestion that parents encourage their children to study Spanish, I assumed that it was a positive suggestion, and perhaps benign at worst. Silly me. I naively thought that learning to communicate, with a significant segment of our Nation’s citizens and a major segment of the people living in this hemisphere, was a good thing. Silly me, again. By the end of yesterday, the media outlets were full of talking heads framing the Senator’s comments as those of an individual who supported illegal immigration, and necessarily opposed the effort to make English the official language of the United States.
Somebody please explain to me how any responsible, self-respecting commentator, or elected representative, could make such an argument. Is denigrating this man that important? Are the stakes that high? What message is conveyed to the youth of our Nation? We most certainly have an immigration problem. We most certainly need to figure out a way to ensure the assimilation and integration of other cultures into our “melting pot.” However, quite frankly, this appears to be the wrong vehicle to highlight our legitimate concerns about these issues. Do they regard us, the listening and voting public, as fools willing to accept any framed argument asserted against any candidate? Let’s hope that those of us listening to this crap maintain the ability to apply a little common sense.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m neither particularly bright nor sophisticated. I often miss things that others consider obvious. Presumptive Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama suggested yesterday that American parents encourage their children to study Spanish as a second language. For our purposes at this point, let’s assume that you read nothing further in the paper or online, or that you listened no further to any news broadcasts, as to the circumstances surrounding his statement, or the context in which it was uttered. What would you have reasonably thought was the underlying motivation for his statement?
During the 1960’s, the study of a second language was a requirement in many secondary schools. By the time that I completed my first two years of college, I had six years of French under my belt. French made the transition to Spanish far easier when I lived in California. During the 1990s, various businesspeople, out of a desire to acquire business from Japanese firms, took Japanese immersion courses. Before traveling to Brazil and Italy, I studied conversational Portuguese and Italian in preparation for the trips. Probably of most relevance to this discussion is the fact that while teaching adult students seeking their GEDs at a local community college, I frequently recommended that they encourage their children to study Mandarin Chinese in light of the rising importance of China in the world.
Consequently, when I first heard of Senator Obama’s suggestion that parents encourage their children to study Spanish, I assumed that it was a positive suggestion, and perhaps benign at worst. Silly me. I naively thought that learning to communicate, with a significant segment of our Nation’s citizens and a major segment of the people living in this hemisphere, was a good thing. Silly me, again. By the end of yesterday, the media outlets were full of talking heads framing the Senator’s comments as those of an individual who supported illegal immigration, and necessarily opposed the effort to make English the official language of the United States.
Somebody please explain to me how any responsible, self-respecting commentator, or elected representative, could make such an argument. Is denigrating this man that important? Are the stakes that high? What message is conveyed to the youth of our Nation? We most certainly have an immigration problem. We most certainly need to figure out a way to ensure the assimilation and integration of other cultures into our “melting pot.” However, quite frankly, this appears to be the wrong vehicle to highlight our legitimate concerns about these issues. Do they regard us, the listening and voting public, as fools willing to accept any framed argument asserted against any candidate? Let’s hope that those of us listening to this crap maintain the ability to apply a little common sense.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Post No. 25: Does Everyone Necessarily Have a Point of View?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring President Johnson’s inheritance of the Vietnam War, and the manner in which he dealt with the conflict. I mentioned to a buddy that, despite the fact that I was in the Army during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, I did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time, and that the documentary provided me with a better understanding. My buddy immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the documentary film maker. At the time, it really had not occurred to me. It was simply “information.” While I recognized that it theoretically might have been produced with a particular slant, or a particular political purpose in mind, those factors did not loom large in my appreciation of the piece.
There are two types of people who I generally hold in high regard. Those without an “agenda,” and those who recognize that everything is bigger than their pedestrian concerns. My particular definition of those individuals with an “agenda” includes folks who are always proselytizing, disseminating dogma, or passing extreme judgment on others. (Is judgment being passed on them now through this process?) Like those individuals who recognize that the world is bigger than their concerns, those without an “agenda” seemingly have a tendency to listen more, acquire information, and be slow to judge. Those rushing to judgment have always concerned me, and arguably, should concern us all.
We encountered this reactionary phenomenon recently while observing various discussions about our presidential candidates, and reviewing some comments in response to some of our recent posts. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the candidate who they do not support. Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s candidate a fatal thing to do in an elective contest? The number of times that we have heard commentators mention that neither Obama nor McCain has done anything worthwhile in life is absolutely fascinating. (Of course, many talk radio hosts behave as if they have made tremendous contributions to science and humankind, and the advancement of society’s long term interests.)
In one of our recent posts, we presented the views of a particular citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for a particular political party. One of the positions expressed was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to protect and defend our nation, and consequently those freedoms which we all enjoy. We simply raised some rhetorical questions regarding one’s identification with certain political parties, and examined potential positions that might be taken by a third, independent party. Interestingly, some readers felt that we were advocating treating citizens as slaves, and branded us totalitarian pigs. Some others assumed that we had taken a position in line with Osama bin Laden and that we were not patriotic. Some frequently assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position. To borrow a phrase, “Au contraire, mon frere.”
One thing which we have learned during the publishing of this blog is that when you raise theoretical questions and issues, you run the risk of people assuming that you have taken a position along one particular line regarding the issue. Why is that? They obviously have not read the piece from an unbiased perspective. Some have even suggested that no writer can achieve objectivity and put aside their personal biases. I wonder how judges do it, or do they? (Interestingly, it often seems that those individuals who are most offended by the posing of rhetorical questions are those who have hard and fast, unyielding positions themselves.) Our experience also highlighted something said by another writer, that being that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side, but rather has to fend off attacks from both. Perhaps that’s why we get so little accomplished in the political arena these days, and why partisanship appears to rule. Let’s all rally around groupspeak.
There is so much negative, outlandish, and critical information disseminated daily about virtually every candidate in virtually every election in this nation. The reason is that negative information, particularly bearing on emotional, hot button issues, works. Does anyone really think that McCain plans to open up the border in Arizona and permit all undocumented workers to enter the country, as some of his detractors have argued? Does anyone really believe that should Obama be elected President, more Islamic mosques than Christian churches will be built during his tenure?
This junk is just that; however, it appears to work, at least for a significant segment of our population. We should all be concerned that the innermost “fears” of many may have an influence on the outcome of this election. (Maybe it always has. You will recall that there was a concern that by electing a Catholic, i.e. John Kennedy, the Pope would have too much of an influence in American politics.) What’s more troubling is that the manipulation of our fears is being orchestrated by heretofore, somewhat respected, well educated folks, on both sides of the aisle, who are more concerned about winning, than appealing to our good sense, logic, and fairness. Of course, America loves a winner, but are lies and misinformation any different than steroids in the quest to win?
It’s amazing that these “public servants” have any interest in running for office. The mere fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their families to this abuse suggests that something is a tad different about them. However, it may also keep prospective leaders, who could actually accomplish something of value, from coming up to the plate. Is this the environment in which we want to conduct the selection of our leaders? A totally objective viewer might conclude that none of the candidates in any election is worthy of being elected. What kind of “transformers” and actors are these folks, along with their handlers and consultants? Perhaps we deserve the lies and false promises fed to us so that they can get elected. Perhaps this can be viewed as a necessary evil and simply a means to an end, so that they can actually do something of value once they win the position. Hmmmh, is truth still the better choice, even if you do not win? Is there some value to being a noble loser who took the high ground?
One of my best friends was a college and professional level coach for many years. The phrase which I recall him repeating most frequently is, “Don’t judge.” What he was really saying was to listen, acquire and be open to more information, and do not rush to judgment. As the professor noted to Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, there are issues bigger than those which we now face, and which have a longer term impact.
The next time that you read or hear something, try to avoid processing it from your point of view. Try to avoid assuming that the writer has a particular point of view. Simply view it as information. The next time that you hear something with which you disagree, assume for a short period of time that you misheard it, or that there is a reasonable explanation for the position taken by the speaker. Consider the prospect of your brain functioning like a hard disk on a computer. Just take in the information, store it there, and process it later when you have additional information and time to reflect. As the old song during the 1970’s used to say, “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring President Johnson’s inheritance of the Vietnam War, and the manner in which he dealt with the conflict. I mentioned to a buddy that, despite the fact that I was in the Army during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, I did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time, and that the documentary provided me with a better understanding. My buddy immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the documentary film maker. At the time, it really had not occurred to me. It was simply “information.” While I recognized that it theoretically might have been produced with a particular slant, or a particular political purpose in mind, those factors did not loom large in my appreciation of the piece.
There are two types of people who I generally hold in high regard. Those without an “agenda,” and those who recognize that everything is bigger than their pedestrian concerns. My particular definition of those individuals with an “agenda” includes folks who are always proselytizing, disseminating dogma, or passing extreme judgment on others. (Is judgment being passed on them now through this process?) Like those individuals who recognize that the world is bigger than their concerns, those without an “agenda” seemingly have a tendency to listen more, acquire information, and be slow to judge. Those rushing to judgment have always concerned me, and arguably, should concern us all.
We encountered this reactionary phenomenon recently while observing various discussions about our presidential candidates, and reviewing some comments in response to some of our recent posts. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the candidate who they do not support. Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s candidate a fatal thing to do in an elective contest? The number of times that we have heard commentators mention that neither Obama nor McCain has done anything worthwhile in life is absolutely fascinating. (Of course, many talk radio hosts behave as if they have made tremendous contributions to science and humankind, and the advancement of society’s long term interests.)
In one of our recent posts, we presented the views of a particular citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for a particular political party. One of the positions expressed was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to protect and defend our nation, and consequently those freedoms which we all enjoy. We simply raised some rhetorical questions regarding one’s identification with certain political parties, and examined potential positions that might be taken by a third, independent party. Interestingly, some readers felt that we were advocating treating citizens as slaves, and branded us totalitarian pigs. Some others assumed that we had taken a position in line with Osama bin Laden and that we were not patriotic. Some frequently assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position. To borrow a phrase, “Au contraire, mon frere.”
One thing which we have learned during the publishing of this blog is that when you raise theoretical questions and issues, you run the risk of people assuming that you have taken a position along one particular line regarding the issue. Why is that? They obviously have not read the piece from an unbiased perspective. Some have even suggested that no writer can achieve objectivity and put aside their personal biases. I wonder how judges do it, or do they? (Interestingly, it often seems that those individuals who are most offended by the posing of rhetorical questions are those who have hard and fast, unyielding positions themselves.) Our experience also highlighted something said by another writer, that being that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side, but rather has to fend off attacks from both. Perhaps that’s why we get so little accomplished in the political arena these days, and why partisanship appears to rule. Let’s all rally around groupspeak.
There is so much negative, outlandish, and critical information disseminated daily about virtually every candidate in virtually every election in this nation. The reason is that negative information, particularly bearing on emotional, hot button issues, works. Does anyone really think that McCain plans to open up the border in Arizona and permit all undocumented workers to enter the country, as some of his detractors have argued? Does anyone really believe that should Obama be elected President, more Islamic mosques than Christian churches will be built during his tenure?
This junk is just that; however, it appears to work, at least for a significant segment of our population. We should all be concerned that the innermost “fears” of many may have an influence on the outcome of this election. (Maybe it always has. You will recall that there was a concern that by electing a Catholic, i.e. John Kennedy, the Pope would have too much of an influence in American politics.) What’s more troubling is that the manipulation of our fears is being orchestrated by heretofore, somewhat respected, well educated folks, on both sides of the aisle, who are more concerned about winning, than appealing to our good sense, logic, and fairness. Of course, America loves a winner, but are lies and misinformation any different than steroids in the quest to win?
It’s amazing that these “public servants” have any interest in running for office. The mere fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their families to this abuse suggests that something is a tad different about them. However, it may also keep prospective leaders, who could actually accomplish something of value, from coming up to the plate. Is this the environment in which we want to conduct the selection of our leaders? A totally objective viewer might conclude that none of the candidates in any election is worthy of being elected. What kind of “transformers” and actors are these folks, along with their handlers and consultants? Perhaps we deserve the lies and false promises fed to us so that they can get elected. Perhaps this can be viewed as a necessary evil and simply a means to an end, so that they can actually do something of value once they win the position. Hmmmh, is truth still the better choice, even if you do not win? Is there some value to being a noble loser who took the high ground?
One of my best friends was a college and professional level coach for many years. The phrase which I recall him repeating most frequently is, “Don’t judge.” What he was really saying was to listen, acquire and be open to more information, and do not rush to judgment. As the professor noted to Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, there are issues bigger than those which we now face, and which have a longer term impact.
The next time that you read or hear something, try to avoid processing it from your point of view. Try to avoid assuming that the writer has a particular point of view. Simply view it as information. The next time that you hear something with which you disagree, assume for a short period of time that you misheard it, or that there is a reasonable explanation for the position taken by the speaker. Consider the prospect of your brain functioning like a hard disk on a computer. Just take in the information, store it there, and process it later when you have additional information and time to reflect. As the old song during the 1970’s used to say, “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)