Post No. 68c: TV Broadcast at 7:30 pm Sunday Evening "Evil Genes"

Television Show of Interest

Tonight, Sunday, November 30, 2008, at 7:30 pm EST, C-Span2 Book TV airs its program featuring Barbara Oakley, author of Evil Genes. She contends that the immoral behavior of individuals such as Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, and Slobodan Milosevic has a genetic basis.

Now this should be interesting: http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9618&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

Post No. 68b: Financial Meltdown Worsens Food Crisis

The following article of interest is taken from the October 26, 2008 electronic edition of the Washington Post. We suspected that because of the impending presidential election at the time of the original publication of the article, many readers would pay little attention to it and the significance of the issue.

We purposely held it in abeyance with the intention of bringing it to your attention once the election mania subsided. The situation described in the article should cause us all to pause.

It should remind us that all conduct has consequences, and possibly consequences beyond our immediate circle. It suggests that we should always consider the long-range (both in space and time) ramifications of our conduct. It should further prompt us to consider that responsible conduct is always bigger than us, and always bigger than the here and now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502293_pf.html

Post No. 68a: Outgoing Bush Administration and Incoming Obama Administration Working Together

The link below will take our readers to an article of interest appearing in today's electronic edition of the New York Times. The article outlines the manner in which President Bush and President-Elect Obama are working together to deal with the economy, in an effort to calm jittery nerves. Our hats are off here to both individuals and their respective administrations. This is the type of common sense collaboration which the American public and the world expect from responsible leaders.

Once again, it shows that doing the right thing is not rocket science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/us/politics/25obama.html?pagewanted=all

Post No. 68: Prejudice as Survival Instinct

[As many of you are aware, we invite our readers to become Guest Authors and submit articles to us for posting on our blog. The guidelines for the submitted articles are contained in our Post No. 34. (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-no-34-opportunity-to-serve-as.html.) Leading up to the election of Sen. Obama, there was much discussion in our country about the effect of race, and where we as a nation have come in terms of dealing with that issue. The following article has been submitted by one of our regular readers on the subject. Enjoy.]

© 2008, D. W. Haire

Every so often, I am reminded of something my Mother said to me. It was odd because it was "out of the blue," and had nothing to do with anything going on around us, or the conversation we were having. These are her words as well as I can recall them:

"I don't think I'm prejudiced but, if I am walking down the street and a black man approaches, I get very nervous and afraid."

Years later, my Father (a couple of years before he passed away) was relating a story that seemed important to him. We had been talking about various things and he was remembering a period when he was frustrated at work. There was something about a meeting and it may have been when he was leaving the company to start his own business (a small bike shop). The details are unclear, but I remember his words, and the emotion behind them, when he told me what he said to his supervisor.

"I never liked your smiling Jewish face."

My father never uttered a word of prejudice regarding anyone or any group in my presence in all the years prior to that. It was another "out of the blue" remark that sticks in my mind.

The following is not scientific. It does not have extensive research to support it, nor does it provide any references. It is strictly opinion, and my own opinion at that. You can disagree or not, as you see fit.

It will likely remain my opinion regardless of your argument unless you can show me a scientific, well researched, paper that refutes it. Even then, I will be the judge of that proof. This is not something I have just popped up with. It is opinion which is based upon what logic, knowledge, and observations I have gathered over the years. In short, it works for me. Let's start with my hypothesis and work from there.

I believe that hate and fear of others began with early man as a matter of survival. That is, prejudice and bigotry were survival techniques that actually worked to ensure the survival of individuals and of tribes. I am not condoning bigotry or prejudice, but rather I am taking an objective view, and positing a reason for their existence and persistence throughout the history of our species.

Early humans were hunter-gatherers. They banded together initially in family units and quickly into tribes or clans. It was necessary to do this in order to insure survival. It was easier for men to hunt in groups. More berries, grains, and wood (for fuel) can be gathered by a group than an individual. A family might survive on its own, but its chances are increased when it becomes part of a group. So tribes and clans are natural extensions of family and increase the odds of survival.

The first clans, as the name implies, came from family. But inbreeding would quickly destroy the group within a few generations. It is necessary to expand a gene pool. Therein lays the first dilemma - who to bring into the clan and where to find them.

To answer the question of where to find new blood, we turn to the prevailing lifestyle - hunting and gathering. For all practical purposes, men hunted and women (and children, often) gathered. It made sense. It worked. Clans migrated, as would tribes, following the herd animals they hunted. They would have to run into other clans from time to time. These clans were rivals for the food resources; game and vegetation and water. It is likely they would skirmish from time to time. The result would be one clan would be run off or wiped out.

Only they wouldn't be wiped out, would they? The women were likely to be spared because women are a resource. They provide an expanded gene pool that is non-threatening, add to a work force, and provide comfort, pleasure, and children. And they are compliant. They can be tamed (contrary to movie and novels).

Men are not resources, generally speaking. They are competition. They resist domestication. In a primitive society, the basic ingredients of power are strength and boldness. It is, therefore, more likely that women would be saved than men when a clash between clans occurs. It was not uncommon, for thousands of years, for the winning side to murder all the males, including male children, and take the women and female children.

From close breeding and a shallow gene pool, the tribe takes on common characteristics. Also, people really don't follow the "opposites attract" maxim for the most part. They are attracted to those who most look like themselves. Put another way, they are their own standard of beauty. Since the tribe has similar physical characteristics, outsiders would seem to them as "unalike."

It continues to today. I am reminded of an exchange in the O.J. Simpson trial where Judge Ito becomes unhappy when he is likened to a forensic investigator who is Chinese. To Judge Ito, the difference in physical characteristics between Japanese and Chinese was obvious, not so to the prosecutor who made the mistake. Differences may be subtle between Hutu and Tutsi but each is readily capable of recognizing the other.

In order to survive, primitive man needed to quickly determine friend or foe. And the biological answer was the precursor to prejudice. If you look like me and mine, you are my "Friend", if you do not, you are the "Enemy." Bigotry and racism also play a role in that they offer support for the belief of success in battling the enemy. If you perceive those that do not look like you as inferior, weaker, and/or less intelligent, then you feel you have an advantage and are more willing to fight.

I have heard many people express the idea that children are born without prejudice, that they learn this from their parents. I disagree. I think we are all born with it in our genetic makeup. Our parents and our peers simply teach us to articulate it, express it, and, all too often, to embrace it.

The question is, can we overcome this and rid humanity of the effects of prejudice and bigotry? Can we get people to expand their instinctual perception of their "tribe" to include all people of the planet? I think we must. Otherwise, that part of our survival instinct will eventually lead to our extinction. I know that I have learned to suppress my own prejudice, which is all I think is needed. I believe that when we understand why we think a certain way, we can control it.

© 2008, by D.W. Haire

Post No. 67b: TV Show of Interest: History of Race & Prejudice Back to Ancient Times

On C-Span2 Book TV at this moment, is a presentation at the Brooklyn Public Library, by Author Marc Aronson, about the history of race and racial prejudice going back to ancient times.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9067&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

Post No. 67a: Guess Which Country's Auto Industry May Be Seeking Assistance from its Government

Article of Interest from the New York Times

Check out this article about another country's automobile industry which is experiencing some difficulties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/business/worldbusiness/19chinaauto.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=print

Post No. 67: The Dangers Associated with Being "Peculiar"

The Dangers Associated with Being Peculiar, Revisited

Over the past week, much has been made of the issue of same sex marriage and civil unions. Even on this blog, a very lively exchange developed, with individuals on all sides weighing in with their views.

We thought that it might be a good time to re-post one of our earlier articles about being "peculiar." We'd appreciate your thoughts.

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

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

I arrived just as the food was being taken away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post 66d: Television Show of Interest - CBS 60 Minutes Interview of President Elect

No matter the side of the aisle on which you sit, I strongly suspect that you will find the interview of the Obama family interesting, from a personal perspective. It might better explain the “intangibles.”

You can also watch it online at http://www.cbsnews.com

Post No. 66c: Question to Ponder – Why Are We So Worked Up Over This Same Sex Marriage Issue?

© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

In our immediately previous post, “Would Jesus Discriminate,” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/11/post-no-66b-question-to-ponder-would.html), a very lively discussion developed about the subject matter of Rev. Dr. Cindi Love’s book of the same name.

In one of the comments to that post, “Stever” brought up an interesting point, about which we occasionally thought during the week following Sen. Obama’s election to the Presidency. Having previously lived in California for many years, one of our Senior Fellows contacted a number of his friends in California to discuss their thoughts about the election. Interestingly, virtually all of them had something to say about Prop. 8 and its effect on same-sex marriage, as if it were equal in significance.

In fact, one friend suggested that in a state disposed to electing an African-American, one would have thought that it would have also been able to handle same-sex marriage. (We will not delve further in the accuracy of any portion of this statement, at least not right now.)

Stever mentioned our country's obsession with who sleeps with whom, contrary to many other parts of the modern, industrialized world. Should one simply look at the religious views of the original settling colonists, and their successors, one can easily identify the roots.

However, why have these views, about such a relatively small aspect of the human body, spirit, and condition, persisted and occupied so much of our time and energy over the years?

In the grand scheme of things, aren't food, clothing, housing, shelter, and lack of disease or deformity the most important things to humans, as opposed to where someone places his or her appendage or orifice? How did such a biological, reproductive function evolve into a moral issue? Of course, there are many tomes written which explore this history. However, this is the 21st Century. Even if one has a conflicting view, why is it such a big issue that there is uniformity in behavior or conduct, either way?

We think that part of the answer is that when certain basic needs in society have been addressed, we then move on to deal with the less significant issues. That does not explain the sexual philosophies of so many in our country, who still struggle to provide the basics for themselves and their families.

As we prepare this piece, we are listening to a C-Span2 Book TV presentation (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9946&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No) by Charles Taylor, author of A Secular Age (http://books.google.com/books?id=s67LGgAACAAJ&dq=%22+A+Secular+Age%22&ei=KmsfSb-QFJWyyQSP3ZWsBQ). During the discussion, Taylor looks at the history of secularism and its relationship with the force of religion. He notes that as a country becomes more prosperous and “advanced,” it becomes more secular.

We are often reminded of a comment made by someone in Afghanistan about why the Taliban was welcome to his country, from 1995 until the US arrival in 2001. He noted that prior to the arrival of the Taliban, there was utter chaos and difficulty merely surviving. The Taliban (like Marshall Tito in the former Yugoslavia) established order, so that people could live in peace. In response to the complaint of westernized countries about the Taliban's position on women's rights, he said, "Who cares about women's rights when you have order?"

We here in the US have the luxury of looking at others and questioning their values and practices, and the discretionary time to address issues that are not necessarily basic survival issues. Some would suggest that we are the moral compass for the rest of the world. Are we?

A friend of our Senior Fellow earlier in the week said that she wants to be able to "love" whoever she wants to love. But what does that mean? What does love have to do with marriage? (The character of Gregory House, played by Hugh Laurie on Fox’s House, claims that a successful marriage is based on lies.)

What if the law permitted "spiritual love," but no same sex touching, or penetration, or genital contact? Would society be satisfied? Would we allow members of the same sex to get married as long as they did not have sex, or hold hands or kiss in public, so that minors could not view this conduct? Perhaps we could allow members of the same sex to marry, but not allow them to become, let us say, public school teachers, where they might come into contact with children.

What’s the deal with this same sex marriage thing? And why is it so important now that folks have difficulty feeding their families, filling up their gas tanks, and finding a job?

If we all decided to become more “religious,” and follow the purported dictates of God, would our country’s financial situation improve? If the individuals desirous of becoming married to one another agreed to abandon their quest, and marry individuals of the opposite sex, would the interests of our society be advanced and improved?

You tell us.

© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 66b: Question to Ponder - Would Jesus Discriminate?

Those of you who are regular readers of our blog are aware that we, the Fellows at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, are big fans of the weekend book presentations on C-Span2 Book TV. Many ideas and concepts are discussed in a relatively short period of time.

After having our thoughts stimulated, many of the questions posed in our articles reflect our consideration of various issues raised by the authors, panelists, or participants in book fairs.

Today’s consideration is whether Jesus would discriminate. Yesterday, the Rev. Dr. Cindi Lowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindi_Love) discussed her book, Would Jesus Discriminate: The 21st Century Question (http://books.google.com/books?id=GUD7MQAACAAJ&dq=%22Would+Jesus+Discriminate%22&ei=T8kXSePvE4uWyATUwNjqAw). You can actually watch the interview by clicking on this link: http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9616&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=Yes.

What’s interesting about Dr. Lowe is that she was apparently brought up in a religious environment where she was taught to be intolerant of certain behavior of others. In fact, when her brother was dying of AIDS, she initially took the position that God had punished him for his sexual behavior. However, at some point later, when her relationship with her daughter was at issue, Dr. Lowe decided to change her attitude and position.

Dr. Lowe, who is now a lesbian, claims that God called on her to disseminate her new message. After this occurred, she realized that there are all sorts of discrimination associated with religious beliefs. [It reminded us of how the Ku Klux Klan often couches its philosophy in religious terms. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562317/Ku_Klux_Klan.html)] It is now her role to “correct the behavior of other people.”

Her original target audience consisted of religious fundamentalists and Christian Evangelicals (http://encarta.msn.com/text_761574399___1/Evangelicalism.html). She noted that she discovered that her book is appreciated by a much wider audience.

Of course, we do not have a position here. However, we’d be curious as to your views. Would Jesus discriminate or tolerate discrimination against any of God’s children?