We here at the Institute for Applied Common Sense appreciate your insightful and thoughtful comments responsive to our posts. We thought that we would approach this election day a tad differently. We'd like to hear from you on the front end.
Assuming that Senator McCain ultimately wins the election, tell us what you think that means for this country. On the other hand, assuming that Senator Obama wins, tell us what you think that means? Finally, a large segment of the voting public has found something distasteful about the elective process this year. Tell us what you would recommend we do to ensure the nomination of qualified candidates by both parties, and what you would recommend be done to eliminate the use of inaccurate allegation tactics, or the use of misinformation, if anything.
We look forward to hearing from you. We wish the best to which ever candidate ultimately prevails. We need unity going forward, and we all should back the new administration.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Post No 63a: Book Which May Be of Interest: "Just How Stupid Are We?"
Just saw a discussion, on C-Span Q & A (http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=567749175) featuring Richard Shenkman, the Founder and Editor of the George Mason University History News Network. His latest book is Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter. You may find it interesting.
Post No. 63: How Political Polling Potentially Does a Disservice to the Democratic Process
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Over the past 18 months, we have been bombarded with all sorts of polls regarding this Tuesday’s presidential election. Probably most of you assume, with the exception of the Fox News polling organization, that most polling organizations are reasonably ethical, professional, and honest.
You know, cynicism is a terrible thing. It encourages us to think less of others. It discourages opening ourselves up to information, experiences, and most regrettably, other people. It encourages us to think less of the potential positive influence which we can have on others. It can also lead us to think that corruption is so deeply entrenched in the fabric of our nation, that there is little chance that things can improve.
What is the ultimate tragedy of such disillusionment? Giving up.
Fortunately, none of the people with whom we have personally come into contact who read this blog, and even those who comment and with whom we have not come into personal contact, are quitters. But there is something about which we should be concerned, and which we need to address.
Believe it or not, Fox News has actually done our nation a great service. It has revealed to us that seemingly responsible and well educated people can appear on our media vehicles, and with a straight face, argue the position which advances the interests of one side of the political and societal spectrum, and call it “fair and balanced.” Its success and popularity have alerted us to the same potential in all other media vehicles to disseminate a slanted message, and that’s a good thing.
Earlier this year, it occurred to some of us here at the Institute that the Fox News polls might not exactly be the most useful vehicles to use in gauging public opinion about various political issues J. However, being the optimists that we are, we assumed that the other polling organizations were, to borrow a phrase, “fair and balanced.” (To borrow another phrase from one of our Senior Fellows, the Logistician, “Silly us.”)
At a minimum, one would hope that the Gallup poll, with its long history and prominence in our nation, would lead us in the right direction. Au contraire mon frere. (We imagine that given the instructions by the client, the service provider complies.)
As we are generating this piece, we are simultaneously watching C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9812&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No.), as former Gallup Senior Editor, David Moore, discusses the flaws in our polling system. Moore, now a Senior Fellow at the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, has written a new book, The Opinion Makers: an Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls. The bottom line: As currently structured and implemented, the polling process does a disservice to the democratic process.
(Moore is also the author of How to Steal an Election, http://books.google.com/books?id=3lRQHgAACAAJ&dq=%22how+to+steal+an+election%22&ei=mN4NSdDHGJOOM4qnnZcE, and The Superpollsters, http://books.google.com/books?id=DXlxHAAACAAJ&dq=%22the+superpollsters%22&ei=Fd8NScXrHYHEMrTeqLQE.)
Interestingly, Moore claims that in the 1920s, there was an intense debate about whether the American electorate was too disinterested and too uninformed to really involve them in the political process. Many apparently felt that the world of politics should be left to the intellectual elite and the power brokers.
We also learned from Moore’s discussion that political primaries were created to wrestle the elections away from party bosses, and give more control to the voting public. Polling emerged from that same sentiment.
In the 1930s, George Horace Gallup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gallup) wanted to monitor the “pulse of democracy,” or what the voting public was thinking. Unfortunately, according to Moore, that laudable goal has evolved into an industry that manipulates the public, instead of moving us closer to direct democracy.
In today’s political environment, polling organizations manipulate us through the manner in which the sample group is selected or defined, and the phrasing of the questions posed. Instead of forcing the respondents to (1) come up with an opinion, (2) state that they do not currently have an opinion, or (3) state that they are totally disengaged and do not anticipate having an opinion, polling organizations dictate the resultant “opinion.”
Furthermore, administrations use their press releases and conferences, and their Press Secretaries, to introduce a notion into the minds of the American people. Polling soon follows. The result is, according to Moore, the completion of a spin cycle initiated by the administration. This, concludes Moore, does a disservice to the democratic process.
We have heard with increasingly frequency, from political commentators and talking heads, who will never face voters, that the American voting public consists primarily of the uninformed and unsophisticated, and thus they need not be consulted. (It also explains why the victims of Katrina will soon be forgotten, even though their basis needs have not yet been addressed.)
Occasionally, one goes so far as to suggest that some members of the uninformed and unsophisticated class should have their right to vote taken away.
That potentially explains, apart from greed, why our elected officials apparently do not listen to common citizen, but grant large corporations, the Jack Abramoffs of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff), and other large special interest groups, all with money, an audience.
It also potentially explains, in a sentence, why we still have the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college) system.
Arguably, not much has changed since the formation of our nation, although there have been substantial technological advances in communication. We just can’t say certain things in public, especially before a crowd. Can you imagine a candidate saying that to a crowd, “You’re uninformed and unsophisticated, and that’s why were going to do what we feel is in your best interests!” Isn’t a desire to become part of the club which runs things and therefore have a say, what motivates most newcomers to join the ranks of elected officials?
However, rarely are they of the group which Sarah Palin represents, and with whom she connects. Just last evening, John McCain was questioned as to whether Palin was the correct choice, and bolstered the ticket. During the course of his response, he suggested that she was the spokesperson for a segment of the populace long ignored, and whose voices deserved to be heard. It’s only the members of the purported educated class, whose interests she does not advance, who find Palin inappropriate.
The common person, with some degree of justification, probably feels that a commoner in charge could have lead us into the economic crisis in which we currently find ourselves. Why should faith be placed in the elite?
(At least the British are honest enough to come right out and call a segment of their population, “commoners.” And as much criticism was leveled at the caste system which existed in India for years, at least there was no delusion about the class to which one belonged.)
And thus we have polls, controlled by the elite and the ruling class, to make the masses think that they are doing the bidding of the masses, and what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole.
Moore was careful to note that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been equally guilty of misusing polls to their advantage.
Earlier this week, we realized that the Republicans want to tell people what to do with their lives and bodies, and what relationships they should accept. The Democrats want to tell people how to spend their money and their priorities, once they take your money in the form of taxes. Maybe the Libertarians have it all right.
The good news is that Moore believes that we can structure polls to actually serve a useful and honest function, and truly determine the pulse of democracy. Some bi-partisan organization needs to take the lead in that regard.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Over the past 18 months, we have been bombarded with all sorts of polls regarding this Tuesday’s presidential election. Probably most of you assume, with the exception of the Fox News polling organization, that most polling organizations are reasonably ethical, professional, and honest.
You know, cynicism is a terrible thing. It encourages us to think less of others. It discourages opening ourselves up to information, experiences, and most regrettably, other people. It encourages us to think less of the potential positive influence which we can have on others. It can also lead us to think that corruption is so deeply entrenched in the fabric of our nation, that there is little chance that things can improve.
What is the ultimate tragedy of such disillusionment? Giving up.
Fortunately, none of the people with whom we have personally come into contact who read this blog, and even those who comment and with whom we have not come into personal contact, are quitters. But there is something about which we should be concerned, and which we need to address.
Believe it or not, Fox News has actually done our nation a great service. It has revealed to us that seemingly responsible and well educated people can appear on our media vehicles, and with a straight face, argue the position which advances the interests of one side of the political and societal spectrum, and call it “fair and balanced.” Its success and popularity have alerted us to the same potential in all other media vehicles to disseminate a slanted message, and that’s a good thing.
Earlier this year, it occurred to some of us here at the Institute that the Fox News polls might not exactly be the most useful vehicles to use in gauging public opinion about various political issues J. However, being the optimists that we are, we assumed that the other polling organizations were, to borrow a phrase, “fair and balanced.” (To borrow another phrase from one of our Senior Fellows, the Logistician, “Silly us.”)
At a minimum, one would hope that the Gallup poll, with its long history and prominence in our nation, would lead us in the right direction. Au contraire mon frere. (We imagine that given the instructions by the client, the service provider complies.)
As we are generating this piece, we are simultaneously watching C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9812&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No.), as former Gallup Senior Editor, David Moore, discusses the flaws in our polling system. Moore, now a Senior Fellow at the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, has written a new book, The Opinion Makers: an Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls. The bottom line: As currently structured and implemented, the polling process does a disservice to the democratic process.
(Moore is also the author of How to Steal an Election, http://books.google.com/books?id=3lRQHgAACAAJ&dq=%22how+to+steal+an+election%22&ei=mN4NSdDHGJOOM4qnnZcE, and The Superpollsters, http://books.google.com/books?id=DXlxHAAACAAJ&dq=%22the+superpollsters%22&ei=Fd8NScXrHYHEMrTeqLQE.)
Interestingly, Moore claims that in the 1920s, there was an intense debate about whether the American electorate was too disinterested and too uninformed to really involve them in the political process. Many apparently felt that the world of politics should be left to the intellectual elite and the power brokers.
We also learned from Moore’s discussion that political primaries were created to wrestle the elections away from party bosses, and give more control to the voting public. Polling emerged from that same sentiment.
In the 1930s, George Horace Gallup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gallup) wanted to monitor the “pulse of democracy,” or what the voting public was thinking. Unfortunately, according to Moore, that laudable goal has evolved into an industry that manipulates the public, instead of moving us closer to direct democracy.
In today’s political environment, polling organizations manipulate us through the manner in which the sample group is selected or defined, and the phrasing of the questions posed. Instead of forcing the respondents to (1) come up with an opinion, (2) state that they do not currently have an opinion, or (3) state that they are totally disengaged and do not anticipate having an opinion, polling organizations dictate the resultant “opinion.”
Furthermore, administrations use their press releases and conferences, and their Press Secretaries, to introduce a notion into the minds of the American people. Polling soon follows. The result is, according to Moore, the completion of a spin cycle initiated by the administration. This, concludes Moore, does a disservice to the democratic process.
We have heard with increasingly frequency, from political commentators and talking heads, who will never face voters, that the American voting public consists primarily of the uninformed and unsophisticated, and thus they need not be consulted. (It also explains why the victims of Katrina will soon be forgotten, even though their basis needs have not yet been addressed.)
Occasionally, one goes so far as to suggest that some members of the uninformed and unsophisticated class should have their right to vote taken away.
That potentially explains, apart from greed, why our elected officials apparently do not listen to common citizen, but grant large corporations, the Jack Abramoffs of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff), and other large special interest groups, all with money, an audience.
It also potentially explains, in a sentence, why we still have the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college) system.
Arguably, not much has changed since the formation of our nation, although there have been substantial technological advances in communication. We just can’t say certain things in public, especially before a crowd. Can you imagine a candidate saying that to a crowd, “You’re uninformed and unsophisticated, and that’s why were going to do what we feel is in your best interests!” Isn’t a desire to become part of the club which runs things and therefore have a say, what motivates most newcomers to join the ranks of elected officials?
However, rarely are they of the group which Sarah Palin represents, and with whom she connects. Just last evening, John McCain was questioned as to whether Palin was the correct choice, and bolstered the ticket. During the course of his response, he suggested that she was the spokesperson for a segment of the populace long ignored, and whose voices deserved to be heard. It’s only the members of the purported educated class, whose interests she does not advance, who find Palin inappropriate.
The common person, with some degree of justification, probably feels that a commoner in charge could have lead us into the economic crisis in which we currently find ourselves. Why should faith be placed in the elite?
(At least the British are honest enough to come right out and call a segment of their population, “commoners.” And as much criticism was leveled at the caste system which existed in India for years, at least there was no delusion about the class to which one belonged.)
And thus we have polls, controlled by the elite and the ruling class, to make the masses think that they are doing the bidding of the masses, and what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole.
Moore was careful to note that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been equally guilty of misusing polls to their advantage.
Earlier this week, we realized that the Republicans want to tell people what to do with their lives and bodies, and what relationships they should accept. The Democrats want to tell people how to spend their money and their priorities, once they take your money in the form of taxes. Maybe the Libertarians have it all right.
The good news is that Moore believes that we can structure polls to actually serve a useful and honest function, and truly determine the pulse of democracy. Some bi-partisan organization needs to take the lead in that regard.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Post No. 62: Re-Posting of Why Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function
Those of you who read Post Nos. 60 and 61, concerning the long term ramifications of Obama being elected President, will appreciate why we have chosen to re-post this article.
Earlier this evening, I attended a lecture by Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, a Stanford neurobiologist and primate researcher, and author of Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, and A Primate's Memoir. I asked him point blank whether racism is biologically driven, and whether some of the venom directed at Obama can be explained within that context. You'll find his response interesting, upon viewing our next post. In the mean time, let's revisit some of our earlier thoughts.
http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html
Earlier this evening, I attended a lecture by Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, a Stanford neurobiologist and primate researcher, and author of Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, and A Primate's Memoir. I asked him point blank whether racism is biologically driven, and whether some of the venom directed at Obama can be explained within that context. You'll find his response interesting, upon viewing our next post. In the mean time, let's revisit some of our earlier thoughts.
http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html
Post No. 61: Further Thoughts about the Problems Associated with an Obama Victory
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thanks Issac and Caleb for placing comments on our blog, in response to our earlier Post No. 60, “Why I am Concerned that Obama Might Win” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-60-why-i-am-concerned-that.html). You both essentially are of the opinion that the candidate with the best credentials, regardless of gender or race, should be selected. I have chosen to respond to the two of you in the form of a new post.
I agree with you, in theory, that society should want the best person (from an objective perspective) for the job. However, that’s not the way societies do things. There are reasons why neither a woman, nor a black, has ever been elected as President of this country. The reasons go back hundreds of years. There is a substantial segment of the population that feels that no matter the woman or the black, or the Hispanic or Asian for that matter, who might be put forth to occupy that position, they are inherently unqualified and unacceptable.
If one believes that gender and racial attitudes have improved since the 1950s, then an argument can be made that the time for a woman or some other minority has arrived, and our society has evolved. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that racial and gender attitudes have not really changed, then one can easily come to the conclusion that America is not ready to have a woman or minority President.
What have changed over time are the visibility of integration, and the comfort level of at least some people to disclose their true feelings. Integration was effectively forced on this nation, first by the Warren Supreme Court when the Congress did not see fit to do so, and later legislatively, but with an extreme amount of reluctance.
There were clearly many bigots during the 1950s, who did not have a problem identifying themselves as such. There were probably just as many folks who were not legitimate, honest bigots, but behaved as such due to peer pressure and socialization factors. (This is the group which I suspect is comfortable having blacks as friends and colleagues today.)
Not only were many merchants, schools, clubs, public accommodations, and other entities forced to accept folks into their world against their will, but later the whole concept of affirmative action further soured the soup. There has been a lot of whispering, and under the breath statements of discomfort, over the past 60 years.
I’m not sure whether racial attitudes can change, as dramatically as we profess, over such a short period of time. Make-up can be applied, and plastic surgery performed, but the basic pragmatic and functional reasons for racism have existed, somewhere on this earth, for thousands of years. (Just think about all of the ethnic cleansing that took place over the past 30 years internationally.)
We previously addressed racism in our Post No. 2, in April 2008, entitled, “Why Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html)
I suspect that the expression of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs, and the comfort with which people feel to express them, is significantly dependent on the current economic status of the group affected. I submit that there are transient changes in generational attitudes depending on the economic status of the nation. It is unnecessary, and serves no useful function, to disclose one’s innermost prejudices, if one is doing fairly well. However, as soon as one, or the group of which the person is a member, feels that his interests are being adversely affected, and identifies, rightly or wrongly, another group as a causative factor, then civility and the exercise of self-restraint go right out the window. That we have folks at McCain / Palin rallies calling for Obama’s death should surprise no one during these economic times.
Now, getting back to the performance issue. Just for sake of argument, let’s assume that we could label the state of economic affairs in our country as poor, moderate, or good. If a substantial segment of the electorate feels that women and minorities are incapable of running the country and serving competently, and by whatever combination of forces, the country ended up with a woman or black president, I would just hope that individual would preside during a moderate or good economic period. Then at least the person would have a chance to disabuse the doubters of the inappropriateness of the selection, and the inherent inferiority of that individual’s group.
But when we thrust the first of any group into a situation which many deem perilous, he’ll either be viewed as a hero, should things turn around quickly, or an abysmal failure, should economic conditions continue to deteriorate.
I simply do not think that things are going to turn around sufficiently economically within the next 2 – 3 years, to give Obama a chance to even appear competent. I also believe that no one person, under our system of government, can quickly overcome, as George Will calls it, “the inertia that is Washington.” Furthermore, do you really have reason to believe that a Democratic controlled Congress will do a better job than what has been done over the past 20 years?
This has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the economy, and the apparent disinterest on the part of our elected federal officials, to place the interests of the nation, ahead of their personal interests.
I’m afraid that he will be a one term president, and we will not see another woman or minority elected for at least another 100 years thereafter.
We never allowed people to grow, respect, and value others on their own terms. We never allowed the concept of integration, fairness, and equal treatment to creep into the hearts and minds of people and evolve accordingly. Instead, we created awkward and artificial contrivances, and legal fictions, to achieve an admittedly lofty goal. However, we didn’t work on the hearts and minds of the core citizens of America. We just drove the bigots underground, and made unpopular the open expression of their views. (We also made employers financially responsible for discriminationatory acts of their employees which were developed years becoming arriving at that place of employment, as if an employer can really police the heart of an employee.) You couple those attitudes with some religious underpinnings, and nothing has really changed in the past 60 years. Their God supports their view of the world.
On the other hand, those closet liberals / potential race “minglers” who were afraid to disclose their true views during the 1950s, now feel free to do so.
The real question remains, deep down, have we really changed? If one believes that racism is primaily biologically and evolutionarily driven, and not a mere matter of choice, then it's going to take more than 60 years of artifical laws to change the DNA.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thanks Issac and Caleb for placing comments on our blog, in response to our earlier Post No. 60, “Why I am Concerned that Obama Might Win” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-60-why-i-am-concerned-that.html). You both essentially are of the opinion that the candidate with the best credentials, regardless of gender or race, should be selected. I have chosen to respond to the two of you in the form of a new post.
I agree with you, in theory, that society should want the best person (from an objective perspective) for the job. However, that’s not the way societies do things. There are reasons why neither a woman, nor a black, has ever been elected as President of this country. The reasons go back hundreds of years. There is a substantial segment of the population that feels that no matter the woman or the black, or the Hispanic or Asian for that matter, who might be put forth to occupy that position, they are inherently unqualified and unacceptable.
If one believes that gender and racial attitudes have improved since the 1950s, then an argument can be made that the time for a woman or some other minority has arrived, and our society has evolved. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that racial and gender attitudes have not really changed, then one can easily come to the conclusion that America is not ready to have a woman or minority President.
What have changed over time are the visibility of integration, and the comfort level of at least some people to disclose their true feelings. Integration was effectively forced on this nation, first by the Warren Supreme Court when the Congress did not see fit to do so, and later legislatively, but with an extreme amount of reluctance.
There were clearly many bigots during the 1950s, who did not have a problem identifying themselves as such. There were probably just as many folks who were not legitimate, honest bigots, but behaved as such due to peer pressure and socialization factors. (This is the group which I suspect is comfortable having blacks as friends and colleagues today.)
Not only were many merchants, schools, clubs, public accommodations, and other entities forced to accept folks into their world against their will, but later the whole concept of affirmative action further soured the soup. There has been a lot of whispering, and under the breath statements of discomfort, over the past 60 years.
I’m not sure whether racial attitudes can change, as dramatically as we profess, over such a short period of time. Make-up can be applied, and plastic surgery performed, but the basic pragmatic and functional reasons for racism have existed, somewhere on this earth, for thousands of years. (Just think about all of the ethnic cleansing that took place over the past 30 years internationally.)
We previously addressed racism in our Post No. 2, in April 2008, entitled, “Why Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html)
I suspect that the expression of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs, and the comfort with which people feel to express them, is significantly dependent on the current economic status of the group affected. I submit that there are transient changes in generational attitudes depending on the economic status of the nation. It is unnecessary, and serves no useful function, to disclose one’s innermost prejudices, if one is doing fairly well. However, as soon as one, or the group of which the person is a member, feels that his interests are being adversely affected, and identifies, rightly or wrongly, another group as a causative factor, then civility and the exercise of self-restraint go right out the window. That we have folks at McCain / Palin rallies calling for Obama’s death should surprise no one during these economic times.
Now, getting back to the performance issue. Just for sake of argument, let’s assume that we could label the state of economic affairs in our country as poor, moderate, or good. If a substantial segment of the electorate feels that women and minorities are incapable of running the country and serving competently, and by whatever combination of forces, the country ended up with a woman or black president, I would just hope that individual would preside during a moderate or good economic period. Then at least the person would have a chance to disabuse the doubters of the inappropriateness of the selection, and the inherent inferiority of that individual’s group.
But when we thrust the first of any group into a situation which many deem perilous, he’ll either be viewed as a hero, should things turn around quickly, or an abysmal failure, should economic conditions continue to deteriorate.
I simply do not think that things are going to turn around sufficiently economically within the next 2 – 3 years, to give Obama a chance to even appear competent. I also believe that no one person, under our system of government, can quickly overcome, as George Will calls it, “the inertia that is Washington.” Furthermore, do you really have reason to believe that a Democratic controlled Congress will do a better job than what has been done over the past 20 years?
This has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the economy, and the apparent disinterest on the part of our elected federal officials, to place the interests of the nation, ahead of their personal interests.
I’m afraid that he will be a one term president, and we will not see another woman or minority elected for at least another 100 years thereafter.
We never allowed people to grow, respect, and value others on their own terms. We never allowed the concept of integration, fairness, and equal treatment to creep into the hearts and minds of people and evolve accordingly. Instead, we created awkward and artificial contrivances, and legal fictions, to achieve an admittedly lofty goal. However, we didn’t work on the hearts and minds of the core citizens of America. We just drove the bigots underground, and made unpopular the open expression of their views. (We also made employers financially responsible for discriminationatory acts of their employees which were developed years becoming arriving at that place of employment, as if an employer can really police the heart of an employee.) You couple those attitudes with some religious underpinnings, and nothing has really changed in the past 60 years. Their God supports their view of the world.
On the other hand, those closet liberals / potential race “minglers” who were afraid to disclose their true views during the 1950s, now feel free to do so.
The real question remains, deep down, have we really changed? If one believes that racism is primaily biologically and evolutionarily driven, and not a mere matter of choice, then it's going to take more than 60 years of artifical laws to change the DNA.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Post No. 60: Why I am Concerned that Obama Might Win
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Earlier this evening, I had a conversation with a friend, Lawrence, about the prospect that Obama might actually pull this thing off. Lawrence, an Obama supporter, participated in a neighborhood campaign drive several weeks ago.
He turned and looked at me with a slight tinge of amazement, when I said that I hoped that Obama did not win this election.
You see, it’s not that I have anything of real substance against Obama. However, I just do not honestly think that America is ready for a black president. Plain and simple. We’re not there yet.
Same goes for a woman president. Does that mean that I feel that the battle should not be fought? Of course not.
This has nothing to do with my personal views – just my thoughts watching the battle and the soldiers on both sides. Certain more optimistic or lofty-ideal commentators have spoken about how far our country has come, and the message which it will send to the world.
Let me provide an analogy which might better explain my concern.
There are many legal organizations, which advocate certain positions, and wait for years to pursue the appropriate “test case” to advance their positions. Timing is very important. The mood of the country, the facts of the case, the strength of the plaintiff, the financial resources available, and the judges on the bench, are all factors.
Such cases are not prosecuted carelessly, without considering the big picture / long term effects.
As much of an optimist as I portray myself, there are some practical issues about which I am very concerned.
First, I think that we are in for some very difficult economic times for several years to come.
Second, to the extent that any purported damage done by the current folks in power can be addressed, it will take a long time to perform any corrective action.
Third, this war thing is not going to be resolved as quickly and easily as we might argue, no matter which side is telling it.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, we don’t have the financial resources to do much of anything.
We all know, on a practical level, that when times are bad, fault and blame are placed on the executive in charge, and the party in control of Congress.
Imagine the discourse while Obama presides over all of these complications. I can tell you how soon the criticism of his policies is going to start.
I have a fear that should he win, within 2 years, the electorate will be calling for his head. And his opponents will undoubtedly demonize him and say, “I told you so.”
Economic hardship and pain have a way of quickly erasing all memory about the good times associated with the successful candidate’s election, and the good times that he anticipates down the road.
The patience of the electorate will get short. Real short.
And it is not just Obama about whom I am theoretically concerned. I would be just as concerned about the first woman to occupy the office. Or the first Hispanic.
Quite frankly, the first of any group, after years of conspicuous absence of similar individuals, should not be remembered for bad times. I’d almost have him lose this one and win the next one, when the economy is on the upswing. But then again, there may not be another time.
And so I told Lawrence, there is only so much that a president can do, and that the problems are global and deep rooted in nature. Lawrence looked at me and said, despite that, he wanted a president who inspired hope around the world. Is that a good enough reason to want to see Obama win?
You tell me.
P.S. In the end, Hillary may have been the victor.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Earlier this evening, I had a conversation with a friend, Lawrence, about the prospect that Obama might actually pull this thing off. Lawrence, an Obama supporter, participated in a neighborhood campaign drive several weeks ago.
He turned and looked at me with a slight tinge of amazement, when I said that I hoped that Obama did not win this election.
You see, it’s not that I have anything of real substance against Obama. However, I just do not honestly think that America is ready for a black president. Plain and simple. We’re not there yet.
Same goes for a woman president. Does that mean that I feel that the battle should not be fought? Of course not.
This has nothing to do with my personal views – just my thoughts watching the battle and the soldiers on both sides. Certain more optimistic or lofty-ideal commentators have spoken about how far our country has come, and the message which it will send to the world.
Let me provide an analogy which might better explain my concern.
There are many legal organizations, which advocate certain positions, and wait for years to pursue the appropriate “test case” to advance their positions. Timing is very important. The mood of the country, the facts of the case, the strength of the plaintiff, the financial resources available, and the judges on the bench, are all factors.
Such cases are not prosecuted carelessly, without considering the big picture / long term effects.
As much of an optimist as I portray myself, there are some practical issues about which I am very concerned.
First, I think that we are in for some very difficult economic times for several years to come.
Second, to the extent that any purported damage done by the current folks in power can be addressed, it will take a long time to perform any corrective action.
Third, this war thing is not going to be resolved as quickly and easily as we might argue, no matter which side is telling it.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, we don’t have the financial resources to do much of anything.
We all know, on a practical level, that when times are bad, fault and blame are placed on the executive in charge, and the party in control of Congress.
Imagine the discourse while Obama presides over all of these complications. I can tell you how soon the criticism of his policies is going to start.
I have a fear that should he win, within 2 years, the electorate will be calling for his head. And his opponents will undoubtedly demonize him and say, “I told you so.”
Economic hardship and pain have a way of quickly erasing all memory about the good times associated with the successful candidate’s election, and the good times that he anticipates down the road.
The patience of the electorate will get short. Real short.
And it is not just Obama about whom I am theoretically concerned. I would be just as concerned about the first woman to occupy the office. Or the first Hispanic.
Quite frankly, the first of any group, after years of conspicuous absence of similar individuals, should not be remembered for bad times. I’d almost have him lose this one and win the next one, when the economy is on the upswing. But then again, there may not be another time.
And so I told Lawrence, there is only so much that a president can do, and that the problems are global and deep rooted in nature. Lawrence looked at me and said, despite that, he wanted a president who inspired hope around the world. Is that a good enough reason to want to see Obama win?
You tell me.
P.S. In the end, Hillary may have been the victor.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, October 24, 2008
Post No. 59a: As If There was a Question that Folks are "Worked Up" about this Election
You may or may not have heard about the young lady, Ashley Todd, who was purportedly attacked yesterday, and the initial reports were that she was attacked for being a McCain supporter.
Well, check this out: http://cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html
Well, check this out: http://cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html
Post No. 59a: Now You Tell Me That Folks aren't Worked Up about this Election
You may or may not have heard about the young lady, Ashley Todd, who was purportedly attacked yesterday, and the initial reports were that she was attacked for being a McCain supporter.
Well, check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html
Well, check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html
Daily Trifecta No. 3
Word of the Day:
INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY: (1) the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows, or believes, to be false; (2) the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed the rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion which it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence, but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.
See references and sources at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty
Quote of the Day:
Intellectual Honesty is more than what’s legislated; it is inherent in the best people, those who take a broader view of their action than simply, “What’s in it for me?”Fact of the Day: Top Three Highest and Top Three Lowest 3 Yr Avg Median Income by State (2005 – 2007):
INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY: (1) the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows, or believes, to be false; (2) the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed the rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion which it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence, but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.
See references and sources at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty
Quote of the Day:
Intellectual Honesty is more than what’s legislated; it is inherent in the best people, those who take a broader view of their action than simply, “What’s in it for me?”Fact of the Day: Top Three Highest and Top Three Lowest 3 Yr Avg Median Income by State (2005 – 2007):
Fact of the Day:
New Jersey $65,933
Maryland $65,124
New Hampshire $63,942
Louisiana $39,461
Arkansas $39,279
Mississippi $35,971
Figures acquired from U.S. Census Bureau Statistics Web Site
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Post No. 59: Art Imitates Political Life Again
© the Institute for Applied Common Sense
As this piece is being written, I am watching an old episode of The West Wing on Bravo. The “conversation” in the episode was so close to the current “conversation” in our presidential race, that I had to find out when the series ended. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing.) It turned out to be 2006.
Part of The West Wing conversation had to do with courting evangelical Christians, uniting the Republican party, affiliation with shady characters from one’s past, and associations with ministers. There was also a discussion about the public’s seeming demand for expressions of religious faith from politicians. However, those issues are not the focus of this piece.
This piece is about uniting America. In the West Wing episode, Alan Alda plays a member of Congress planning to run for the presidency when Martin Sheen’s character, President Bartlett, leaves office. A Karl Rove type political consultant, played by Ron Silver, is brought in by one of Alda’s aides to counsel Alda. One gets a sense that Alda does not respect Silver. Silver even goes so far as to question Alda as to whether Alda thinks that Silver is really a spy sent by the opposition.
At some point during the exchange, Silver essentially says the following: “Look, I’ve spent 20 years driving a wedge between people. By observing what drives people apart, I also observed what brings people together. How about this? How about becoming the candidate of unity – the candidate who is capable of defining those issues and goals on which we can all agree, and the methods used to achieve them. We can highlight those ways in which people are connected and have the same basic values. We can also play to their emotions in that during these times of uncertainty, it is more important for us to be united than divided. If you do what I say, you’ll be elected as the candidate of unity.”
I found it to be of interest that Obama originally painted himself as the candidate of unity. He claimed that he was able to cross political and cultural lines. Interestingly, it was the politics of division, from within and without his party, which ultimately caused him to respond in kind.
Do we as a nation have the capability and motivation to unite and get past our individual differences? It has generally been said that such unification, and looking past our selfish interests, occurs during periods of “stress.” These might include war (at least those in which the whole country is invested), natural disaster, and common threats (such as a poor economy or the attack on the World Trade Center). Are we as a nation sufficiently in trouble (or worried) to prompt us to find some unifying principles around which we can rally?
To some extent that’s what occurred when oil prices hit the roof. We finally started a serious conversation on alternative energy sources and energy independence. (By the way, Jimmy Carter first tried to doing something about energy during his term.)
I find it a tad ironic that we are facing some very serious problems in this country, and we are still focusing on our differences. I still say that the Laughingman had it right earlier this year. If only McCain had nominated Obama as his VP, and Obama had done the same with McCain. That would have been the shot heard around the world.
I recently heard an author speak on C-Span2 Book TV. (I was unable to locate the book for purposes of this article.) However, it was someone fairly well known, since Newt Gingrich trusted him enough to provide him with his records and notes. In the records, the author located a set of amazing documents.
As most of you are aware, there was no love lost between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Furthermore, they did not trust one another. However, at some point in Clinton’s second term, they both came to the conclusion that they both loved their country. They also both felt that partisanship was having a detrimental effect. Erskine Bowles was Clinton’s Chief of Staff (1997-1998) at the time, and fortunately, Gingrich trusted him.
The author actually found a document outlining the terms of the truce, and stating the goals of Clinton and Gingrich. The document further contained a pledge to work together. Just before it was about to go to the press, and announced to the American public, the Monica Lewinsky story broke 2 or 3 days before. Thereafter, the Congress and the President were absorbed by the Fellatio Investigation.
Can you imagine the direction in which our country might have been guided had that circus not occurred? In the grand scheme of things, was the President’s indiscretion and admittedly improper conduct of such importance as to justify the diversion?
Maybe we could use someone similar to the character played by Alda in the West Wing episode. I’m still wondering what would have happened if Obama, in his quest to be the candidate of inclusion and crossing of lines, simply ignored the questions raised about his citizenry, Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager, Bill Ayers, Lewis Farrakan, Chicago Political Machine allegations, ACORN, and his purported devotion to Islam.
Here’s my final question. Who would you admire more? An honorable and noble loser, or a down and dirty winner?
When one stops to think about it, it is we who determine the nature of the discourse, by what we pay attention to, and how we respond.
As this piece is being written, I am watching an old episode of The West Wing on Bravo. The “conversation” in the episode was so close to the current “conversation” in our presidential race, that I had to find out when the series ended. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing.) It turned out to be 2006.
Part of The West Wing conversation had to do with courting evangelical Christians, uniting the Republican party, affiliation with shady characters from one’s past, and associations with ministers. There was also a discussion about the public’s seeming demand for expressions of religious faith from politicians. However, those issues are not the focus of this piece.
This piece is about uniting America. In the West Wing episode, Alan Alda plays a member of Congress planning to run for the presidency when Martin Sheen’s character, President Bartlett, leaves office. A Karl Rove type political consultant, played by Ron Silver, is brought in by one of Alda’s aides to counsel Alda. One gets a sense that Alda does not respect Silver. Silver even goes so far as to question Alda as to whether Alda thinks that Silver is really a spy sent by the opposition.
At some point during the exchange, Silver essentially says the following: “Look, I’ve spent 20 years driving a wedge between people. By observing what drives people apart, I also observed what brings people together. How about this? How about becoming the candidate of unity – the candidate who is capable of defining those issues and goals on which we can all agree, and the methods used to achieve them. We can highlight those ways in which people are connected and have the same basic values. We can also play to their emotions in that during these times of uncertainty, it is more important for us to be united than divided. If you do what I say, you’ll be elected as the candidate of unity.”
I found it to be of interest that Obama originally painted himself as the candidate of unity. He claimed that he was able to cross political and cultural lines. Interestingly, it was the politics of division, from within and without his party, which ultimately caused him to respond in kind.
Do we as a nation have the capability and motivation to unite and get past our individual differences? It has generally been said that such unification, and looking past our selfish interests, occurs during periods of “stress.” These might include war (at least those in which the whole country is invested), natural disaster, and common threats (such as a poor economy or the attack on the World Trade Center). Are we as a nation sufficiently in trouble (or worried) to prompt us to find some unifying principles around which we can rally?
To some extent that’s what occurred when oil prices hit the roof. We finally started a serious conversation on alternative energy sources and energy independence. (By the way, Jimmy Carter first tried to doing something about energy during his term.)
I find it a tad ironic that we are facing some very serious problems in this country, and we are still focusing on our differences. I still say that the Laughingman had it right earlier this year. If only McCain had nominated Obama as his VP, and Obama had done the same with McCain. That would have been the shot heard around the world.
I recently heard an author speak on C-Span2 Book TV. (I was unable to locate the book for purposes of this article.) However, it was someone fairly well known, since Newt Gingrich trusted him enough to provide him with his records and notes. In the records, the author located a set of amazing documents.
As most of you are aware, there was no love lost between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Furthermore, they did not trust one another. However, at some point in Clinton’s second term, they both came to the conclusion that they both loved their country. They also both felt that partisanship was having a detrimental effect. Erskine Bowles was Clinton’s Chief of Staff (1997-1998) at the time, and fortunately, Gingrich trusted him.
The author actually found a document outlining the terms of the truce, and stating the goals of Clinton and Gingrich. The document further contained a pledge to work together. Just before it was about to go to the press, and announced to the American public, the Monica Lewinsky story broke 2 or 3 days before. Thereafter, the Congress and the President were absorbed by the Fellatio Investigation.
Can you imagine the direction in which our country might have been guided had that circus not occurred? In the grand scheme of things, was the President’s indiscretion and admittedly improper conduct of such importance as to justify the diversion?
Maybe we could use someone similar to the character played by Alda in the West Wing episode. I’m still wondering what would have happened if Obama, in his quest to be the candidate of inclusion and crossing of lines, simply ignored the questions raised about his citizenry, Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager, Bill Ayers, Lewis Farrakan, Chicago Political Machine allegations, ACORN, and his purported devotion to Islam.
Here’s my final question. Who would you admire more? An honorable and noble loser, or a down and dirty winner?
When one stops to think about it, it is we who determine the nature of the discourse, by what we pay attention to, and how we respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)