Post No. 198: There Has to be Something Bigger than One's Self

© 2020, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

My last blog post was on June 4, 2016.  It has been a complex 4 years. Shortly before that date, my good friend, mentor, and Founding Member of the Institute for Applied Common Sense, Willy Hopkins (a/k/a The Laughingman), left, as he would characterize it, “…this mortal coil.”  My father, who I consider to have been a great man (and not just because he was my father), passed a couple of weeks short of his 97^th birthday. He had that indomitable spirit and positive influence on me to the end. Finally, one of the most in-depth thinkers and a calming influence in my life, Darryl Jackson (a/k/a The Optimizer of the Institute), passed far too early in life when he had so much more value to bestow on the young people who he taught.

So here I stand, the only surviving member of the Institute for Applied Common Sense (2 weeks shy of the tender age of 69 and before I start the 2^nd half of my life), trying to figure out what to say in 750 words or less, which pays tribute to these men in life, and yet encapsulates all my thoughts for the past 4 years.  In September of last year, while observing the Senate hearings on Brett Kavanaugh, I decided on the title of this piece, but did not get around to writing it until today, when the memorial service for civil rights icon, John Lewis, took place.  I listened to all of the speakers at his service, and there appeared to be a common theme, and thus the title of this piece.

Recently, I have been concerned about the extent to which many people think that, “it’s all about them, and what they want.”   My dad was a caring, humble, relatively quiet man, who did wonders for his community.  He won several community service awards from the NAACP and never mentioned them to me while I was living in California.  But then again, he never had to be concerned about being re-elected.

I first started gathering my thoughts about this life principle when Bill Clinton was facing impeachment.  It just seemed to me that the office and institution of the presidency, and the goals which he sought to accomplish, were more important than Bill Clinton, the individual, remaining in that position. He was not the only individual who could advance those goals.  Additionally, his credibility and effectiveness were severely affected by his indiscretions.  My position is that he should have immediately resigned, and allowed his vice – president, Al Gore, to carry on the mission (which Clinton did not personally own).  

I felt the same way during the hearings with respect to prospective Supreme Court Associate Justice, Brett Cavanaugh.  Even if he felt that the allegations of sexual misconduct had no validity whatsoever, I felt that he should have removed his name from consideration and fought the allegations outside of the context of the hearings.  Once again, it seemed to me that the seat and institution of the Supreme Court justice, and the goals which his party and supporters sought to accomplish, were more important than Brett Cavanagh, the individual, putting up a fight to acquire that position. He was not the only individual who could advance those goals. 

Additionally, his credibility and effectiveness, and respect for the Court would be, arguably, negatively impacted by his getting the seat.  Why would someone want that to satisfy one’s personal desires?  Interestingly, right after Mr. Kavanagh was successful in fending off the challenges, and confirmed by the Senate, President Trump congratulated Mr. Kavanagh for putting up the vigorous fight, and alluded to former Senator Al Franken, as having “folded like a wet rag.”

So, what is my message to college students, who are my target audience?  It seems to me that personal responsibility includes thinking beyond one’s self and one’s personal goals.  Though the Laughingman and the Optimizer are gone, I still reach out to others to expand my thinking about the concepts and issues about which I write.  The Laughingman introduced me to someone who often provides kernels of thought.  During an exchange with him earlier this year, he suggested that I pose two questions to the readers of this piece.

The first was, “What would your grandfather or grandmother have done confronted with your current situation?”

The second was, “While you may presently be strapped for money because of being ‘sheltered in place’, you now have a lot of free time.  What can you do with this free time to make a difference in the quality of someone else’s life?”  He suggests that thinking about improving someone else’s life can help you improve your own....

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

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

© 2011 and 2014, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that can’t be good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post No. 154: The Anticipation

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that can’t be good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post No. 88: Does Everyone Necessarily Have a Point of View? - Revisited

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

In July of last year, we generated a piece which asked, “Does everyone necessarily have a point of view?” At that time, we were so tired of hearing everyone take a rigid stand, on one side or the other in the presidential candidate debate, that we were about to scream.

We’ve since concluded that the question need not be directly answered, because the point of view need not always be expressed. Additionally, in a group setting, it need not dictate your effort to contribute to a common goal through collaboration.

How did the discussion of where we are headed as a nation become so acrimonious? Although many say that political campaigns have always been down, dirty, and nasty, for some reason, we feel that more sewage has recently overflowed into our drinking water.

Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring LBJ’s inheritance of the Vietnam War. We mentioned to a colleague that, despite the fact that several of us had served in the Army during that period, we did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time.

Our colleague immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the film maker.

Since then, we’ve been asking ourselves whether everyone necessarily has a point of view.

We observed this reactionary phenomenon most recently during the debate about the economic stimulus package. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the positions of the other party.

We initially thought of entitling this piece, “The Dangers Associated with Defining Something by Its Least Liked Component,” Or “Let Me Introduce You to My Ugly Wife.”

Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s position such a fatal thing to do in drafting legislation?

In a previous piece, we presented the views of a fictional citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for either political party.

We 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.

One of the positions was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to defend our nation. Some readers felt that we were advocating a return to slavery, 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.

It is not unusual for some of our readers to assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position.

That experience also highlighted something said by another writer. He noted that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side. Rather, one 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.

Every day, negative and outlandish allegations are put out there about virtually every move by every elected official.

This junk is just that; even if it does appeal to our emotional side. We should all be concerned when our innermost “fears” so strongly invade the national discourse, and begin to define who we are.

We have to get beyond our personal issues. We here at the Institute have often said that we do not care where people come out, as long as they engage in a reasoned thought process.

Reason and common sense, not to mention the seriousness of the issue, dictate that all of us be able to find something acceptable in a proposal of this size.

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.

So the next time that you read or hear a proposal from someone across the aisle, 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. Try to make sense out of it.

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.

When you decide to take action, or express your view, be sure to also ask this question of yourself, “Will what I have to say advance any societal interests in a positive way?”

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 66a: Television Broadcast of Interest -- America - United We Stand

As this article is being generated, C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/) is airing a panel presentation conducted on November 1, 2008, several days prior to the election of the President. It was a presentation made during the 2008 Texas Book Festival, entitled “America-United We Stand.” The panel explored the social and political divide in America and how it developed over time.

Paul Stekler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Stekler), a political documentary film maker and Professor at the University of Texas at Austin, served as the Moderator.

The assembled authors presented some very interesting arguments, even prior to the election. The panel consisted of three authors.

Robert Cushing (http://www.texasbookfestival.org/Author_Page.php?aid=276) is a retired sociology and statistics professor from the University of Texas at Austin, and the author of The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart (http://books.google.com/books?id=mbjOZTx9u_cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+big+sort%22&ei=DCUXSfHLAZLKM5CW6Z0L).

Bill Bishop (http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php) is a journalist who, in 2004, first coined the phrase, “The Big Sort.” He is Cushing’s co-author.

Ronald Brownstein (http://www.nndb.com/people/149/000104834/) is a CNN Political Analyst, and author of The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America (http://books.google.com/books?id=mSPCGAAACAAJ&dq=%22The+Second+Civil+War%22&ei=hiYXSf-VLIaoM9eVvfsL).

Interestingly, a couple of the speakers made strong arguments for the continuation of the Electoral College. They fear that direct popular vote would actually bring out more bitterness and extreme partisanship.

Since this discussion is so pertinent to the events of the day, we are reasonably sure that C-Span2 Book TV will air it again at some point during the coming week.

In that same vein, later this afternoon, Sunday, November 9, 2008, at 3:15 pm, C-Span2 will air another panel discussion from the 2008 Texas Book Festival, entitled “The War over American Ideals” (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9964&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No). The panelists discuss the Bush Administration’s war on terror and its effect on America’s standing in the world.