Post No. 176: A Peek into the Affirmative Action Trial of the Century

© 2009 and 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Today marked the first day of trial in a landmark class action lawsuit in Los Angeles in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs, representing all African-American citizens who failed to receive the benefits of affirmative action programs and policies commenced in 1961, allege that the defendants, who were direct beneficiaries of such policies, kept all financial and other benefits, and failed to share them with the African-American population at large.

Federal Judge Lance Ito, having been roundly criticized for allowing the press and media into the courtroom during the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, chose to deny access to all press and media outlets. Last week, the media sought a writ of mandamus to force Judge Ito to permit them into the courtroom. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out of San Francisco summarily denied the petition this past Friday.

However, certain friends of the Institute have acquired information, from sources who wish to remain anonymous, which provides us with some insight into this ground-breaking litigation.

The plaintiffs, led by black descendants of former Senator Strom Thurmond, claim that following the implementation of affirmative action policies, only a small percentage of African-American individuals benefited from set-asides and government contracts, preferential hiring, and admissions to institutions of higher learning.

They further argue that the policies and programs were designed to address centuries of slavery and disparate treatment under Jim Crow laws, and thus were to benefit the African-American community at large and not just certain individuals who fortuitously were in the right place at the right time.

Elliott Spitzer, counsel for the plaintiffs, met with reporters outside of the federal courthouse this morning before testimony began. “We plan to show two things. First, that the beneficiaries of the policies and programs at issue were overwhelmingly individuals who were already doing fairly well in the black community, and were primarily from the black middle and upper classes.

“Second, we plan to show that once these beneficiaries of affirmative action entered the workplace, established their respective businesses, entered Corporate America, or otherwise benefited from these programs, they failed to share the financial and societal benefits with those less educated and less fortunate. The poor state of the black community and the high incidence of poverty and crime are evidence of their failure to pass on the benefits.”

Spitzer called as his first witness (on a hostile basis), former Republican National Committee Chairperson Michael Steele. He traced Steele’s financial history since completing law school, and questioned him intensely about what Steele had given back to the African-American community, both financially and otherwise.

Spitzer elicited testimony from Steele to the effect that when Steele was in college and law school, he and his fellow black students reveled in black pride, and the need to empower the black community. Spitzer was able to show that once Steele graduated from school, he began his rapid ascent professionally, including moving to a predominantly Caucasian suburb, removed from the problems of inner-city blacks.

“Do you feel that you have any responsibility to Dr. King and other civil-rights leaders, to pass on your wealth and good fortune to those in the black community less fortunate, and at a minimum, live amongst poor blacks?”

The question drew long stares from the predominantly Hispanic jury, while they awaited Steele’s response. The Judge adjourned the trial for the day before Steele could answer.

In speaking with Rod Blagojevich, counsel for the defendant beneficiaries of the programs and policies, he noted, “There is no legal basis upon which this suit can be brought. There is no legal requirement that the beneficiaries of affirmative action share their good fortune with other members of the black community, or engage in conduct beneficial to the community.”

Spitzer concedes that there is no legal precedent for his position, but argues that that there is an equitable and moral basis for his clients’ suit. He contends that the legal doctrine of quantum meruit is applicable, in that the defendants have been unjustly enriched.

Spitzer further claims that since Jim Crow was not outlawed until 1962, it is too soon for those fortunate enough to have received the benefits of remedial programs and policies to pursue their selfish desires and needs. He suggests that perhaps 150 years should pass before the beneficiaries are relieved of their ethical and moral responsibilities to the other members of the black population who were not fortunate enough to receive the benefits.

Judge Ito’s prior rulings in unrelated cases may provide some insight as to his leanings. He previously expressed that in his opinion, both Jim Crow laws, which established segregation by law, and the Civil Rights cases and legislation, which established integration by law, were inappropriate exercises of governmental power, despite strained legal arguments to the contrary. His position appears to be that the decision to associate, or not associate with, others should be a personal decision, no matter what the environment, and that enforcing or addressing segregation or integration in any manner should be left to the hearts and minds of individual citizens, and are not the province of governmental entities, no matter the branch.

Furthermore, he contends that governmental interference in any way actually hurts race relations.

The Justice Department, under the Obama Administration, has chosen not to file briefs in support of, or in opposition against either position. According to a Justice spokesperson, the President has not contacted Justice regarding his position. Observers note that during the Presidential campaign then-candidate Obama (as well as the First Lady) were referred to as affirmative-action beneficiaries who lacked the academic skills and sophistication warranting their admission into the high-caliber educational institutions where they matriculated.

The trial is expected to last 2 years, longer than the O.J. Simpson trial over which Judge Ito presided.

Post No. 175: Congressman Ron Paul - the Rodney Dangerfield of Presidential Candidates

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

“Most of the arguments to which I am a party fall somewhat short of being impressive, owing to the fact that neither I nor my opponent know what we are talking about.”
-- Rodney Dangerfield

It is our contention that Los Angeles is the new face of the world. With its multiple seaports, access to the Pacific Rim, world-class universities, and 6,743 cultures residing there, it is a microcosm of the globe. When the Institute was located there, we had both the detriment and benefit of coming into contact with every imaginable character.

One of the more memorable was a fellow we met on a train, who was trying to sell his movie concept. The movie was to be based on the quotes of Rodney Dangerfield, the comedian who claimed he never got any respect in life. He showed us a notebook containing every single 15 second joke by the King of Succinct.

We thought about Dangerfield last week while watching a CNN newscast after the Republican Presidential Candidate Debate. One commentator said that any prospect for success, which Ron Paul of Texas may have had, suddenly disappeared when he “suggested” that the Islamic world’s antipathy toward the U. S. was in some part due to our policies in the Middle East. The anchor on the show expressed surprise at the use of the word “suggested,” and said that Paul came right out and said it. This, according to them, was the death nail in his coffin.

For anyone to suggest that the U.S. bears absolutely no responsibility for the Islamic world’s attitude toward us is sheer idiocy, and yet any ultimately successful candidate cannot acknowledge any responsibility on our part. Paul was actually booed during his comments.

We once wrote a piece entitled, 27 Situations Where People We Respect Claim That Lying is Appropriate, and we weren’t referring to politicians. Some contend that it is the magic show that matters, not the reality, and that voters are more interested in being told what they want to hear, consistent with their belief systems.

A straight talker might get elected, with some other attributes working in his or her favor. But a straight shooter has absolutely no chance at all, and will not receive any respect. The candidate may get some notice, from the media in particular, who will label him or her either a fool or an idiot. They will euphemistically refer to it as a lack of “political sophistication,” and blame the candidate’s handlers.

(Presidential elections are also about media appeal, and a little bit of glamour. Another reason Ron Paul will not be elected is because he does not look “presidential.”)


In our view, a “straight talker” is different than a “straight shooter,” and while straight talk may be emotionally appealing, it does not necessarily contain much truth. Both qualities can theoretically be found in the same person, but rarely are both found in a politician.

A couple of years ago, between President Obama’s election and his inauguration, George Will appeared on Charlie Rose. He said that all of Obama’s idealism and lofty thinking might have gotten him elected, but that on the first day on the job, someone would take him aside, expose the realities to him, and tell him, “This is what you need to do,” essentially because the public can’t handle the truth.

Earlier this month, one of the nation’s governors claimed that his administration was trying to create a stable business environment. We immediately had 2 thoughts.

First, any real businessperson will tell you that there is no such thing as a stable business environment. The environment is unpredictable and changes daily. Business owners must stay on their toes like Isadora Duncan, dance like Fred Astaire, and jump through hoops like Siegfried and Roy tigers. And all of this with their eyes and ears wide open, while conducting research on the market and their competitors.

Like an animal in the jungle living to survive, one cannot rest, either to catch one’s breadth, or upon one’s laurels. As we noted in an earlier post, Pigs Get Fat; Hogs Get Slaughtered.

Second, the typical horse pukey spewed by politicians is salesman-type, smoke and mirrors stuff, which is the realm of snake oil, used-car, and cosmetic counter salespeople. For some reason, that appeals to voters, as long as there is a little music in the background.

During the entire time that Congressman Paul has been in politics, he has been nothing but a straight shooter. Try to find something, directly attributable to him, which might be termed “kooky.”

And yet, no one has taken him seriously, or given him any respect.

Unfortunately, presidential races are popularity contests based on images and sound bites, not on reason.

Imagine picking a doctor based on his or her popularity, bedside manner, and oratory skills, as opposed to their skill at addressing medical problems. Further imagine a doctor (which Paul happens to be) telling an obese patient, “No, you don’t have obesity, and you don’t need to change your dietary or exercise habits. It’s those family members of yours who keep telling you that you are fat. They are the problem.”

And then we voters complain about the elected officials we get. Is it any surprise that they don’t respect us once they get elected?

Plus, when a society (through its leaders) can not openly accept responsibility for your conduct, you're dun' fur'.

This nation might be better served by putting some technocrats in charge right now, instead of salespeople, hawkers, and those with media appeal.

Post No. 174a: Answer Us This Regarding Job Creation

It has been a while since we simply posed a question, and we thought that this might be a good time to do so again.

President Obama recently unveiled his job creation proposal. It was roundly criticized in a number of circles from various angles. The private sector "job creators" essentially took many of the jobs previously held by Americans and transferred them to China, India, and other countries where they could find workers willing to work for far less than most Americans. An argument has been made that the regulatory and tax environment here in the United States is what drove them to transfer the jobs elsewhere.

While listening to the criticism of the President's proposal, several questions occurred to us:

1. Assuming no change in regulations and the reduction of corporate and capital gain taxes here in the United States, will they create new jobs here or bring those jobs back here to the United States?

2. Assuming regulations are eliminated, but taxes remain the same, will they create new jobs here or bring those jobs back here to the United States?

3. Assuming regulations are eliminated, AND taxes are reduced or eliminated, do you think that the private sector "job creators" will create new jobs here or bring the jobs back home?

The ultimate question is whether we have a guarantee from the private sector "job creators" that if the government gives in to their requests, it will inure to the benefit of middle-class American workers.

Post No. 174: Tornadoes, Earthquakes, and Hurricanes, Oh My!

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We’re not big fans of folks who let their values dictate their thought processes. It seems to us that one’s analysis of issues ought to be a thing apart from their values. How else does one solve problems?

As the Laughingman often says, “If you think that every problem is a nail, a hammer becomes the only tool in your kit.” Some problems are screws, for which you might need a screwdriver, or two.

Despite this, any reasonable, thinking person would say that God does not approve of much going on in the United States these days, or of President Obama. Seriously.

AIR Worldwide, the catastrophic modeling firm, estimates that insured losses alone, for commercial, residential, and industrial losses following the severe thunderstorm activity in the U.S. in early 2011, will amount to $3.7 billion to $5.5 billion. That storm, under Obama's watch, lasted a mere 6 days in April. Imagine the figure for the entire year, stemming from God’s displeasure with our descent into socialism.

Earlier this week, a fairly significant earthquake shook Washington, D.C. and surrounding areas, sending the government’s work force scurrying for The Ark. The President, obviously prescient, was out of town on vacation.

But now, the heavily populated northeast looks like it may be battered by Hurricane Irene, which many expect to be of a force not seen in decades. Damage estimates in the range of $10 billion are already being made. This may prove to be Obama’s Katrina, God willing. The lines down at the New York City Harbor, where The Ark is currently docked, are reportedly getting pretty long.

There’s a message here somewhere. At least according to some. And of course, all of these so-called natural events can be traced directly to the President.

We are often reminded by the Optimizer of the celebrity who, during her campaign against homosexuality, claimed that God inflicted gays with AIDS as punishment for their wicked ways. And if you thought that the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright were a distraction for then-candidate Obama, you may have missed that one of John McCain’s spiritual advisers was John Hagee.

Hagee claims that God willed Hitler to kill the Jews, so that they would eventually return to Israel, thus hastening the 2nd coming of Christ. In one of his less controversial moments, he argued that Hurricane Katrina was an act of divine retribution due to the presence of homosexuals in New Orleans.

One need not be a celebrity or a televangelist to appreciate that natural forces are somehow related to God’s displeasure. Earlier this week in this part of the Bible Belt, we heard many a person laugh shortly after the tremors were felt in Washington and New York City. In their view, the domestic infidels were getting their due. They opined that citizens in large cities on the coastal shores have led lives justifying their exposure to this impending danger.

Once again, all of this is somehow related to the current Administration and our slide into socialism.

Either fortunately or unfortunately, there is an opposing camp. Back in January, just prior to the Super Bowl, we generated a post, God, Obama, and the Green Bay Packers. After reflecting on how championship athletes claim that God resides in their locker room, we told the story of a fellow who, after dismissing the travails of the Obama Administration, claims that Obama’s opponents will be surprised during the next Presidential election. Why? Because he knows that God is on Obama’s side.

We’ve been mulling this over all week, and we’re at a loss as to what parents (without a direct line to God) should tell their kids about the athletic team, the political party, the city or region, or the ethnic group that God supports.

We suspect that we should all get down on our knees and pray to our higher power this evening, before the full brunt of Mother (or is that Father?) Nature hits our fragile east coast (and our fragile national economy), and hope that God picks our team in the fantasy game.

When President Reagan, never at a loss for words, was being wheeled into the ER after the assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr., he reportedly looked up at the operating team and quipped, “I hope you’re all Republicans.“ The lead surgeon responded with a smile, “Yes Mr. President, today we’re all Republicans.”

We could use all of the players on the field being of the same team on occasion, or perhaps all having the support of the Lord.

Finally, there is one other thought that occurred to us this week, namely the difference between for-profit corporate entities in the private sector, and governmental entities. While we watched governors and the President speak of preparations for, and warn their constituents of, the impending storm, we observed the spending of millions of tax dollars to minimize the possible damage and the criticism post-Irene.

In the corporate world, the focus would be on risk assessment and management, insurance coverage, and probabilities. We could see a corporation reasonably examining the pattern of hurricanes over the past 50 years, and betting against the forecasters, by doing nothing.

That would never do in the public sector.

But we’re still having difficulty figuring out whether God supports governmental intrusion in our lives, which might be termed socialist in nature, or whether God supports limited government, lower taxes, and the functioning of the free markets without excessive regulation.

But as Tina Turner said, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?”

Post No. 173: Pigs Get Fat; Hogs Get Slaughtered

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We once generated a post, Where Have You Gone Joe DiMaggio? At the time, we felt that the nation’s lonely eyes were searching for someone like the Yankee Clipper.

If one were to believe the rants and raves of many out there, one might be hoodwinked into thinking that the solution to our leadership vacuum lies with them. They have all the solutions (although few of them are willing to assume leadership roles), and they are so sure of their positions. To them, pulling us out of economic quicksand is a simple task (not to mention getting other world leaders to go along).

We hate to throw slop on their parade, but we have concerns about their qualifications, motives, and quite frankly, thought processes. We’d rather place our faith in the young and the untested, namely the college students to whom we direct our messages about personal responsibility. We find them less extreme in their ideological leanings, more pragmatic, and in possession of more common sense.

Recently, folks have been comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter. Both rode into office with high expectations and a message of change. Many expect Obama to join the ranks of the one-term presidents, and he probably will, although even Carnac the Magnificent figured that out before Obama was elected. Anyone with any sense knew that the global economy, of which oh by the way the U.S. is a part, was not going to significantly pull out of its slump within 3 years. There was simply no precipitating, motivating factor down the pike.

Unfortunately, the President recently made a reference to American society’s malaise. He obviously did not learn anything from Carter. A leader cannot place any responsibility or blame on the American people for the condition in which they find themselves, even if it’s true.

So we’ll do it. Simply put, we Americans became fat, lazy, and greedy. The title of this post, Pigs Get Fat; Hogs Get Slaughtered is a quote from Reggie Fountain, the Richard Petty of speedboat racing.

The former multi-millionaire, having fallen on hard times leading to bankruptcy, was asked about his demise. He said he lived too high and too fast for too long, and became bloated. His summary of his experience is the title of our piece.

Part of our problem is that we can’t handle a straight shooter. We want someone to tell us what we want to hear. George Kennedy was a friend of fellow actor Jimmy Stewart. Turner Classic Movies is currently airing a mini-biography of Stewart, narrated by Kennedy. During the piece, Kennedy refers to Stewart’s “everyman” image. What is interesting is that he refers to “how Americans wanted to see ourselves,” not who we actually were.

We talk a lot about being the greatest country in the history of humankind, but there are some very common sense things we ignore which complicate that assessment.

In the world of business, when a company performs poorly, management re-examines its business model. In the world of governance, the last thing we examine is our governance model.

What we have here - is a failure to appreciate.

Appreciate that there are limitations associated with ANY governance model.

Several (well, maybe more than that) points:

1. In terms of education, we were never really as smart as we claimed to be;

2. When you allow people to live where they want, pursue whatever educational pursuit they desire, marry who they desire, pursue whatever vocational pursuit they want, and retire when they want, you are going to have difficultly managing them. We are a very conflicted people;

3. When you allow or encourage your work force to retire when they still have valuable skills, knowledge, and experience to offer, you become less efficient and you take a loss;

4. You can’t as a people take children out of the work force and continually drive down the number of hours worked from 70, to 60, to 50, to 40, and then 35, and expect your global competitors to do the same;

5. You can’t place the burden of inspiration and motivation on the shoulders of elected officials. Either individual citizens are sufficiently motivated and ambitious enough to pursue their goals, or they are not. And oh by the way, many are not;

6. Spending more than you have coming in only works for so long;

7. When it takes one 30 to 40 years to pay for something, one should re-consider whether it is worth purchasing, since it assumes that you will have 30 to 40 years of steady income;

8. Alexis de Tocqueville warned us in the 1850s that there would be long-term negative consequences associated with slavery. That we engaged in this treatment of other humans for over 200 years says much about us as a nation;

9. When people do not care enough about their personal health to eat properly, exercise, and avoiding smoking and use of certain substances, you really can’t expect them to care about other things in life;

10. It was only so long that we could continue to make millionaires out of people betting on and selling intangible and illusory products;

11. Something is seriously “something” about a country which fought communism so vigorously, abhors socialism, and yet allows the largest communist country in the world to have it by the economic balls (and we’re not referring to Cuba); and

12. Our last point came to us during us during an exchange with a friend. He said that he knew something was shaky about America when his university offered a course entitled, “The Challenge of Leisure.”

Any one of these issues would be a problem for any country. We have all of them at work.

We’ve got some work to do.

P.S. The Roman Empire lasted how long?

Post No. 172a: Why Dumping on Royal Dutch Shell is a Bunch of B.S.

Royal Dutch Shell sprung a leak in the North Sea recently. Once again, a tsunami of criticism has evolved. While we did not come to the defense of British Petroleum (BP) and TransOcean last year in connection with their problems in the Gulf of Mexico, we noted that....

© 2010 and 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Yesterday, C-Span aired Tuesday’s Senate hearings in connection with the Gulf of Mexico oil “spill,” which is still spilling.

It was interesting to watch the corporate representatives, including the CEO of BP America, perform mental and legal gymnastics in responding to the questions. The world watched as Senators, on both sides of the aisle, posed questions reflecting their incredulousness that this “disaster” even occurred.

While we were impressed with the tap dancing on the part of the spokespeople, we were more impressed with the political savvy of the Senators. President Obama was justifiably incensed at the multi-lateral finger pointing going on, but, we submit, for all the wrong reasons.

We’re willing to bet, and even invest some money in the derivative ultimately crafted, that in the years to come (be it 10, 50, or 100), (1) “accidents” of this type will continue to occur, (2) the companies involved will be no more prepared to deal with them and their consequences, and (3) Senators investigating future accidents will continue to fake their incredulousness that such “accidents” still occur.

Many things in life have less to do with people or the humans who happen to exist at any given point in time, and more to do with the structure or organization within which they function.

We here in America, for a variety of psychological, historical, legal, and systemic reasons, have a “perverted” sense of “corporate responsibility.”

First of all there really is no such thing as “corporate responsibility.” In America, if a corporation screws up, it’s generally going to pay. Being a responsible corporation or a good corporate citizen is only pursued to enhance the bottom line. The consequences of the screw up are generally based on the particular screw up, and even punitive damages can’t be avoided by a “good corporation.”

Second, those Senators asking questions are pretty savvy. They are well aware that a corporation is a legal fiction. They also know (although you might have difficulty believing it considering the way they run the government) that in conducting business, the goal of that entity is to generate profits and try to stay afloat.

Third, and most important, every corporate decision is made in an effort to maximize profits, and is theoretically an educated and calculated guess. However, the reality is that some of the guesses are going to be wrong. Corporate management knows, and the Senators should know, this dirty little secret.

The rest of society apparently does not.

And so we dump on corporations when there is a screw-up, accuse them of mismanagement and devious, under-handed activity, and then slap our jaws and open our mouths with our eyes all bugged (like the kid on “Home Alone”), when the 27th screw-up occurs.

A corporate entity does not have a mind or a conscience similar to that of a human.

Repeat: A corporate entity does not have a mind or a conscience similar to that of a human.

Even though humans run corporations, corporations are separate and apart from humans, somewhere between a human and an inanimate object.

Whereas a human will occasionally make a judgment call against his or her personal interests in pursuit of other goals (like unprotected sex with a stranger), rarely will a corporate entity do so because it is not really its money. It's not even the money of the folks managing the company, at least in the case of a publicly traded corporation.

It is the money and interests of others, the shareholders, which are at risk, not that of the decision makers.

It makes for a unique dynamic.

As a result, fines, penalties, and lawsuits (which are quantifiable and really only about money, not lives) have to be figured into the economic mix as necessary evils.

An entity may try to minimize them, or even delay them if possible, but they know that they are always just around the corner. Corporate management recognizes this for what it is.

They keep this in mind when they're engaged, and then walk away from it and try to live a human life.

Speeches, press conferences, hearings, investigations, fines, and lawsuits, are all perversions designed to distract us from really getting to the root of the matter. Talk about irresponsibility.

If you really want to know what’s going on, talk to the bean counters. It’s all about probabilities and risk management. It’s not about humans, wild life, or the environment.

It’s about time that we recognize that, and then get on with the business of trying to reduce, not eliminate, such “accidents” from happening in the future.

Corporations are not human. They can't be. It's an inherent conflict of interest.

If they don’t make enough in the way of profits, they will not have any put away for a rainy day, or to respond to the fickle changes in consumer tastes.

And as they pass through St. Peter’s bankruptcy gates, we’ll accuse them of mismanagement and sleeping at the switch.

And that ain’t no BS.

Post No. 172: What’s Personal Responsibility Got to Do with the Debt Ceiling Impasse?

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We once read an article suggesting that despite his technical brilliance, director Martin Scorsese never achieved the full recognition he could have (from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) because his films always had an edge. The author suggested that what gets to the Academy each year is a film which explores the depth of the human condition in a universal way.

We saw a film yesterday which took us to a whole new place in terms of appreciating this issue, and reminded us of the importance of personal responsibility in our dealings with our fellow human beings. Imagine a film with the power to potentially unite people. (We also appreciate the potential of images to divide.)

The film is The Band’s Visit, an Israeli film. It is the story of an 8 member, police, ceremonial orchestra from Alexandria, Egypt, which has been invited by an Arab cultural league to play at an event. Upon their arrival in Israel, they promptly get lost, and end up in some out-of-the-way locale in the desert, far, far from their intended destination. Dressed in their formal, Carolina blue uniforms with gold spaghetti on their band hat brims and epaulettes, they drag their instruments and suitcases on wheels across the desert. They encounter a woman who runs a diner, and who confirms that the area is removed from civilization.

Realizing that they will not be able to return that evening, the band members allow the restaurateur to make arrangements for them to spend the night in her apartment, the apartment of a friend, and the restaurant itself. It’s during the time spent together that evening that the film takes us on a truly fascinating, human journey.

There are lengthy periods of silence, where the participants cannot communicate with one another due to language difficulties. They periodically exchange furtive glances accompanied by distrust and discomfort. However, they all gradually connect in simplistic, human ways – enjoying a familiar song, asking about family, seeing a new-born, and by just sharing "stuff." In fact, stuff gets so basic that you almost think that the forty-something restaurateur and the reticent, formal, tightly wound sixtyish leader of the band (whose wife died 3 years earlier) are going to end up in the sack together.

The next morning, they realize that they all have become the richer for the experience, and quietly question the tension which has existed for so long between Arabs and Jews.

In thinking about the film, we wondered whether nations and their political and military leaders really drive wars and tension, while ordinary citizens stand on the sidelines. It made us examine whether we ordinary citizens are really in control of our lives, and our nation’s destiny. For many years, the citizens of our nation have questioned whether our leaders have our best interests at heart, and whether we are headed in the right direction.

Over the past several months, we have noted an increasing pessimism on the part of our readers, and an air of resignation. With the budget and debt ceiling impasse currently enveloping Washington, ordinary citizens seem to be watching a new form of sport on ESPN, while our leadership plays strip poker.

Somehow and somewhere on the continuum, individual, personal responsibility ultimately translates into collective responsibility as a nation of people. Somehow we have to do more as ordinary citizens to figure out those commonalities of interest which bind us, and set aside those issues which divide us. Because our leaders apparently have not done so.

There is one other point which we should make – music plays an important role in the movie. In several instances, it is a song which the minstrels and the desert dwellers share which exposes their bonds.

Back in 2005, while “cruising for chicks” in a soon-to-be defunct Border’s Bookstore, we ran across a copy of Einstein’s Violin. Upon opening the work of the Conductor of the United Nations Philharmonic, we discovered that the Father of the Theory of Relativity was a fairly accomplished violinist. The author goes on to discuss how the physical attributes of music have the ability to affect the social interaction of humans. After all, we are all just a mix of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Next to Einstein’s Violin was a copy of Classical Music for Dummies. We once again saw references to the universality of music and how it had bridged divides in many instances over human history.

You all should go out and rent this one, or figure out how to download it. It is film making at its very best. Check out any of the reviews and what they have to say.

Perhaps if we all contacted our elected representatives in Washington and asked them to view the film, we might get an agreement on the debt ceiling issue.

But that’s not science – that’s science fiction.

Post No. 171b: Whose Life Is It Anyway?

© 2009 and 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Back in 2009, we generated a post in which we made reference to Ghulam Hamidi. Hamidi, an Afghan national, lived in Washington, D.C. for close to 20 years, before returning to war torn Afghanistan, to become the Mayor of Kandahar. In our post, we spoke of people who took risks to pursue something of value for society, and to make statements. At times, those risks may be significant, and they may be deadly. Yesterday, the risk was deadly for Hamidi. In light of this development, we are re-posting our original post.

We try to stimulate thought amongst our young citizens, when their worldviews are still malleable. Yesterday, a couple of us participated in a brainstorming session for a non-profit organization about which we previously wrote.

B.E.S.T. addresses issues affecting at-risk young men. We highlighted the efforts of its founder as an example of how private citizens can do something meaningful for their communities and society.

Before the meeting, we bounced around ideas. We recalled that we Baby Boomers had such idealistic goals. We were going to change the world, right all wrongs, speak the truth (which would set us free), and do nothing but good, positive things in life.

In addition, we planned to transform the world, perhaps through astral projection or Transcendental Meditation, to a “kinder, gentler” place. One of us recalled pledging to become a brain surgeon following JFK’s death.

It didn’t exactly turn out that way. It’s been said that life is what happens to you when you’re making other plans. If anything, we’ve been surprised at how many Boomers have transitioned from card-carrying liberals (and committed to “living off the fatta’ the lan”, like Lennie in Of Mice and Men), to hard core conservatives. (Why have so few traveled the opposite road?)

When P.J. O’Rourke was asked about his transformation from liberal to conservative, he blamed it on his daughter. Upon realizing she was vulnerable, and a potential target of all sorts of nasty forces, he resolved to protect her, at any cost.)

We know hundreds of business people, accountants, engineers, investment bankers, lawyers, and doctors, who abandoned those dreams and principles. We lived comfortably, and did little that we can identify in pursuit of those principles, other than occasional pro bono work.

(A prominent activist in speaking to a professional group once lamented that some of the best and brightest were in the audience, and members of a profession whose primary goal was making money for themselves and their corporate clients.)

Last week, we heard a report suggesting that today’s youth are possibly skipping the self-delusion phase. Far fewer minors, when asked, expressed interest in pursuing goals which might also “give back to the community.”

We’re not sure what to do with that. Virtually every generation seems to think those succeeding will go to hell in a hand basket. After 13,000 years, we still have faith in humankind’s ability to adapt, use our bigger brains, and “be guided by the better angels of our nature.”

We heard 2 stories recently. The first involved a Sudanese woman, who is facing fairly severe punishment. She and some other women committed a crime - wearing trousers in public. Some immediately pled guilty, and only received 10 lashes.

The remaining subject chose to go to trial. She faces a possible $100 fine and 40 lashes. She’s not a professional activist, and had some UN position which would have allowed her to side-step the charges.

Instead, she chose to resign, and waive her immunity.

The other story revolved around the mayor of Kandahar, Afghanistan, one of the more violent cities on Earth. He enjoyed a comfortable, middle class existence in Washington, D.C. for 25 years, until he was motivated to return to his native country and “make a difference.”

He put himself at risk, and returned to the heart of the violence. He said we’re all going to die from something one day, be it cancer, a heart attack, or a car accident. He questioned whether there was any real difference between dying from violence doing something in which you believed, and dying from one of the other causes.

That caused us to pause.

While a 25 year old might see lots of differences, those of us 55 and beyond might reflect on what we’ve done, and whether we’ve made a ”real” contribution.

The Logistician and his best friend were sitting at a side walk café in the Copacabana in the late 1990s, reflecting on what, if anything, they had accomplished... and whether it had been of any benefit to anyone beyond themselves. They had always hoped to able to say that they did something more than “raise a good family.”

The founder of the at-risk male youth non-profit, the Sudanese lady, and the mayor of Kandahar might be better examples of those we should hold up as role models in our society, than the folks to whom we usually direct our plaudits.

Whose life is it anyway? We might all consider making it more than just our own.

Post No. 171a: Another Talented Performer Lost

Amy Winehouse is no more, except through her music and in the hearts and minds of her fans. During the time that the Fellows here at the Institute have been on this earth, we've lost some talent because of the complicated lives they led, including Hendrix, Joplin, Elvis, Belushi, Marvin, and Michael. When we read of her death, our hearts were instantly heavy, and our thoughts shot to Michael, with whose music we Fellows grew up. We also thought about how we'll never really know how talented she could have become, whereas we had lots of product from Michael.

However, whatever the age of the talent, as the Laughingman says, "Drugs be drugs...."

© 2009 and 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

In Post No. 126, we mentioned a number of the Laughingman’s sayings, including “Common Sense should be a way of life.” The Logistician, still on sabbatical in Brazil, has a few too, albeit somewhat strange.

He claims he only needs a woman in his life 12 days each year. Why? For the highs and the lows.

He’s always viewed intimate relationships with women like prescription drugs – beneficial, on occasion, when administered by a licensed physician, and in moderation. However, he considers them, let’s say, problematic, when administered intravenously on a regular basis.

Our mission is to engage college students in a discussion about Personal Responsibility, the options / choices they have, and decisions they make.

We’ve been watching this freak show since MJ’s death, trying to figure out whether there are some not so obvious lessons to be learned, which we can discuss with students.

We did observe an incredible, international outpouring of love, sadness, and admiration. We also noted an intense dissection (primarily on the home front) of his career, values, and character, supporting the conclusion that he was a bad, evil human being.

What we found most fascinating was the phalanx of critics, who had little appreciation of his work, but who clearly had views about his lifestyle and eccentricities.

We watch Turner Classic Movies religiously. Last week, Judy Garland was a featured artist.

We were reminded how much we were dazzled by her talent. We viewed a bio-documentary, which outlined her life-long relationship with prescription drugs, which ultimately led to her demise at age 47.

She started performing at 2-1/2, and thus performed for 45 of her 47 years. For decades, she fought addiction with prescription drugs. Movie industry officials used them to control her weight, and regulate her productivity. Coupled with her perception she was not “pretty” enough, and you had a recipe for ….

One of our heroes has always been Howard Hughes, the great aviator, inventor, industrialist, film director and producer, and philanthropist. We loved his passion for life, and his intensity. There was also a down side. What some called his fearlessness, others termed recklessness.

As a result of various plane crashes, he spent a significant part of his life in pain, eventually becoming addicted to prescription drugs in many forms. When they finally wheeled him out of the “Acapulco Princess Hotel” on the way to the morgue, he weighed 90 lbs.

The more intriguing sub-plot to MJ’s story was the fact that his wife, Lisa Marie Presley, walked away because of, and in spite of, her love for MJ. He confided in her that he would probably go the way of her Father, Elvis, “The King.”

A siren, who in her own way was like a drug, and caused the Logistician to stutter many a starry night at the Hollywood Bowl while listening to classical music, said it best.

“Everything in moderation.”

And that applies to drugs, plastic surgery, driving at high speeds, skydiving, sex, food, wine, dancing, paragliding, and perhaps most things in life. (Even physical exercise.)

Some years ago, the History Channel aired a program on the literary creation of heaven and hell. Although various religions have different versions, in every instance, mortals here on Earth, through their conduct, walk a very thin line. Stepping on either side could determine their descent or ascent.

Lest you be confused about this drug thing, there is little difference between illegal/recreational drugs, and prescription drugs, with the exceptions being the legitimacy of the “entity” which produces them, who gets to prescribe them, and whether politicians benefit. Drugs be drugs.

Take it from some guys who matured (arguably) during the drugs, sex, and rock and roll years. We know lots of successful doctors, business people, family people, accountants, judges, and pillars of society who once used drugs in many a form and fashion. Fortunately for most of them and for society, they appreciated that drugs might be an interesting pastime, but not a life long journey.

Two final thoughts, one of which is a line from a TCM movie:

“A man ought to be appreciated for more than the worst thing that he has ever done.”

By doing so, we can keep an eye out for the good in people, not just the bad.

The other is the Logistician’s:

“If you’re willing to walk into a courtroom looking like a freak, you’ll be judged a freak.”

Just ask Phil Spector. At least O.J. had the Common Sense to put on a suit the first time around.

Post No. 171: It’s Only Money

© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Early this morning, we came across an article indicating that Rupert Murdoch’s aides “long tried to blunt [the] scandal over hacking.” How long? At least 4 years. They tried to save their financial derriere.

More than a year ago, at the time of the Gulf oil spill, we generated, Why Dumping on BP is a Bunch of BS. We argued that a corporate entity does not have a mind or a conscience like that of a human. They are legal fictions.

“Whereas a human will occasionally make a judgment call against his or her personal interests in pursuit of other goals (like unprotected sex with a stranger), rarely will a corporate entity do so because it is not really its money. It’s not even the money of the folks managing the company, at least in the case of a publicly traded corporation…. It is the money and interests of others, the shareholders, which are at risk, not that of the decision makers…. It makes for a unique dynamic.”

One of our regular readers, the Independent Cuss, argues that many U.S. corporations should be tried for treason, for having compromised our national security by taking jobs off shore. But he appears to be in a minority of one.

The reality is that our federal elected officials are beholden to, and feeding at, the corporate trough. That’s not going to change anytime soon. (On the other hand, a socialist country like Great Britain will do something in the criminal realm, and we wouldn’t want that.)

Consequently, an expectation on the part of anyone here in the U.S. that a corporation should do anything other than pursue its own selfish goal of improving its bottom line is a pipe dream. In fact, wouldn’t it be a conflict of interest for a corporate officer to do something adverse to the corporation’s financial interest?

We in Western, industrialized, representative democracies are confused right now. We can’t decide what we want out of corporations, somewhat akin to how we treat our spouses and kids.

There’s a whole bucket full of people who feel that corporations should be allowed to do whatever in the name of free market enterprise, and free of government interference.

There’s another bucket whose tenants claim that corporations should be allowed to do whatever to generate a profit and stay in business, no matter the amount of the profit.

And then there is the bucket whose occupants believe that profits should be “reasonable,” whatever that is.

Rebekah Brooks, formerly of News International, was arrested in Britain earlier this week, and may lose her liberty for quite some time. However, if money and the maximization of profit are the driving forces within a corporation, why should society’s sanctions spill over into the criminal realm? Aren’t civil lawsuits adequate to keep corporations, which step out of bounds, in check?

But, how is the pursuit of money or property, incapable of being attributable to what society deems a fair, responsible effort, any different than the acts of a common thief, or a con man, or a prostitute, or a host of other individuals whose financial pursuits we label criminal in nature?

Did this corporation actually engage in conduct which hurt people? If so, some argue they can file lawsuits. If there is merit to their claims, some attorney will take the case, won’t he or she? Or did the conduct shock our conscience? Does shock equal criminal? Is that how we distinguish between legitimate corporate conduct from the criminal exploits of non-corporate criminals?

If we slap corporations with fines, monetary judgments, and punitive damages, don’t they derivatively adversely affect innocent shareholders, who had nothing to do with, or say about, the offending conduct?

In addition to Ms. Brooks, Britain’s highest ranking police official resigned yesterday. This morning, we received an e-mail alert, “Tabloid Scandal a Fresh Threat to Cameron’s Survival,” Cameron being the British Prime Minister.

Stuff’s about to get real complicated over there; but not here. No corporate official’s liberty is at stake here in the U.S. Maybe this will prove to be a positive thing for America in that corporations will run to our shores to perform their financial magic without fear of criminal sanction. Hell, that’s better than a tax break. We’re more likely to throw our elected officials in jail.

After all, it’s only money. And to interfere with the generation of wealth will discourage entrepreneurs from pursuing vital commercial projects, which produce jobs. The folks arguably hurt are just collateral damage, like that experienced in the war on terror - just another risk management calculation in the corporate world.

The less enlightened and communist Chinese executed construction company officials whose buildings collapsed on school kids during their massive earthquake a couple of years ago, and essentially forced parents of the deceased kids to accept pensions as compensation and to stop complaining.

You see, it’s only money. Or, is it?

We don’t know where we are on this subject. Like many others, we’re confused.