Many of you will recall that last week, we introduced you to a fellow blogger, Victoria North, who mixes her art work with commentary in a very visually appealing and thought provoking blog. http://redchair-vikkisblog.blogspot.com/ CBS News Sunday Morning has just advised her that they're using one of her Sun paintings as the logo on today's show, July 13. They have three of her painting, and she does not know which they're using for the segment.
Which ever one, it will appear at the end of an Allen Pizzey piece that they're doing about the Abruzzi region in Italy. The piece is currently scheduled to run approximately 45 minutes into our broadcast, but that can definitely change, because they re-adjust the lineup many times before the show airs. On the east coast, the show runs from 9 am until 10:30 am. You should consult your local listings.
The three fantasy Sun paintings are on her website under the Fantasy Link (2nd page). http://www.theredchairgallery.com/fantasy-art.html . Check out her work. It will be time well spent.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Post No. 27: The Inability of our Leaders to Please (or Lead?) Us
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
As simple as we like to make things for comprehension and managerial purposes, we all recognize the complexities associated with anything that involves human emotion. Such is the case with respect to those with whom we at least partially identify, and in whom we place our hopes.
Politicians are unusual animals. The circumstances surrounding their ascension to power virtually require that they be something less than straightforward and transparent. They are the personification of the Transformers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_%28toy_line%29) toy line. They simply have far too many different individuals and groups, not to mention interests, to please, other than their own. As the old 70’s song indicated, “Everybody wants me to be what they want me to be.”
Several months ago, this notion was brought home to me while conducting one of my regular bookstore walk-throughs. Roughly two or three times a week, I travel to the nearest Border’s or Barnes & Noble, and aimlessly walk through the various stacks. I came across a book about Hillary Clinton. It was actually a collection of roughly thirty articles written by thirty different female writers, about their perceptions of Senator Clinton, since she was catapulted on the national scene. As I thumbed through the pages, the thing that struck me was how virtually every writer did not like something about her, and suggested that she had failed to perform or behave in the manner desired by the writer, or the group which the writer felt she represented. (I conducted a Google Book Search to locate the book, and could not find it. However, take a look at the number of books written about her, and just scan the summaries to get a sense of the tone. (http://books.google.com/books?q=%22hillary+clinton%22&lr=&sa=N&start=0)
It appears that Senator Obama faces the same dilemma. Certain segments of the African-American population, which is clearly not monolithic, have certain expectations of him. Various groups within the Democratic Party have other expectations. The poor and the disenfranchised, along with the disillusioned, probably feel that he represents certain of their interests. The academic, intellectual types have different thoughts.
That we had two potential Democratic candidates, who would have been the first within their respective large subsets of our population, presented all sorts of problems for the voting public. Lots of folks, including former Clinton supporters, and perhaps even some moderate Republicans and Independents, now expect Senator Obama to champion their cause. It will not happen, and it is unrealistic to expect it to happen. Yet, we keep pressing them, meaning all politicians, as if they can represent the interests and desires of us all. John McCain has been criticized for seemingly backing away from his straight talking, maverick image, into a clone of the current President. Quite frankly, it would be great if the candidates could just be themselves. Those of us serving as parents to multiple children recognize the ridiculousness of such a concept.
What also happens is that when the various groups supporting a particular candidate have far too many expectations of their candidate, it opens the door for the opponents of that candidate to attack another aspect of the candidate’s platform. Every issue becomes an easy target. Of course, we all realize that all of these issues do not have equal weight and significance. If somehow, we as citizens could reduce what we expect out of a candidate to perhaps five or six primary positions, we might be able to reduce all of this irrational slicing and dicing that is the political campaign. A candidate focusing on those five or six primary positions might also do the voting public a service, in that he or she would remind us to focus on what is most important, and to avoid sweating the small stuff.
In the very first article which appeared on this blog, we discussed this issue in another context. In his overlooked work, The Disuniting of America, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v44/ai_12122328), legendary Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556940/Schlesinger_Arthur_Meier_Jr_.html) wrote of how the pursuit of individual self-interests by special interest groups has lead to America’s inability to unify its efforts. He wrote of the continuing disintegration of our society driven by the pursuit of individual goals, not collective goals. He wrote of how the first Gulf War was an aberration in terms of recent events which caused us to rally together, and also resulted in the first President Bush’s 82% approval rating at the time. Unfortunately, the current war in Iraq has had the opposite effect. Be that as it may, continuing in the direction of further dissection of our candidates does not bode well for either party. Perhaps, that is why an independent, third party may hold the most promise for America’s future.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
As simple as we like to make things for comprehension and managerial purposes, we all recognize the complexities associated with anything that involves human emotion. Such is the case with respect to those with whom we at least partially identify, and in whom we place our hopes.
Politicians are unusual animals. The circumstances surrounding their ascension to power virtually require that they be something less than straightforward and transparent. They are the personification of the Transformers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_%28toy_line%29) toy line. They simply have far too many different individuals and groups, not to mention interests, to please, other than their own. As the old 70’s song indicated, “Everybody wants me to be what they want me to be.”
Several months ago, this notion was brought home to me while conducting one of my regular bookstore walk-throughs. Roughly two or three times a week, I travel to the nearest Border’s or Barnes & Noble, and aimlessly walk through the various stacks. I came across a book about Hillary Clinton. It was actually a collection of roughly thirty articles written by thirty different female writers, about their perceptions of Senator Clinton, since she was catapulted on the national scene. As I thumbed through the pages, the thing that struck me was how virtually every writer did not like something about her, and suggested that she had failed to perform or behave in the manner desired by the writer, or the group which the writer felt she represented. (I conducted a Google Book Search to locate the book, and could not find it. However, take a look at the number of books written about her, and just scan the summaries to get a sense of the tone. (http://books.google.com/books?q=%22hillary+clinton%22&lr=&sa=N&start=0)
It appears that Senator Obama faces the same dilemma. Certain segments of the African-American population, which is clearly not monolithic, have certain expectations of him. Various groups within the Democratic Party have other expectations. The poor and the disenfranchised, along with the disillusioned, probably feel that he represents certain of their interests. The academic, intellectual types have different thoughts.
That we had two potential Democratic candidates, who would have been the first within their respective large subsets of our population, presented all sorts of problems for the voting public. Lots of folks, including former Clinton supporters, and perhaps even some moderate Republicans and Independents, now expect Senator Obama to champion their cause. It will not happen, and it is unrealistic to expect it to happen. Yet, we keep pressing them, meaning all politicians, as if they can represent the interests and desires of us all. John McCain has been criticized for seemingly backing away from his straight talking, maverick image, into a clone of the current President. Quite frankly, it would be great if the candidates could just be themselves. Those of us serving as parents to multiple children recognize the ridiculousness of such a concept.
What also happens is that when the various groups supporting a particular candidate have far too many expectations of their candidate, it opens the door for the opponents of that candidate to attack another aspect of the candidate’s platform. Every issue becomes an easy target. Of course, we all realize that all of these issues do not have equal weight and significance. If somehow, we as citizens could reduce what we expect out of a candidate to perhaps five or six primary positions, we might be able to reduce all of this irrational slicing and dicing that is the political campaign. A candidate focusing on those five or six primary positions might also do the voting public a service, in that he or she would remind us to focus on what is most important, and to avoid sweating the small stuff.
In the very first article which appeared on this blog, we discussed this issue in another context. In his overlooked work, The Disuniting of America, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v44/ai_12122328), legendary Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556940/Schlesinger_Arthur_Meier_Jr_.html) wrote of how the pursuit of individual self-interests by special interest groups has lead to America’s inability to unify its efforts. He wrote of the continuing disintegration of our society driven by the pursuit of individual goals, not collective goals. He wrote of how the first Gulf War was an aberration in terms of recent events which caused us to rally together, and also resulted in the first President Bush’s 82% approval rating at the time. Unfortunately, the current war in Iraq has had the opposite effect. Be that as it may, continuing in the direction of further dissection of our candidates does not bode well for either party. Perhaps, that is why an independent, third party may hold the most promise for America’s future.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Post No. 26: Did I Miss Something Here – So to Speak?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m neither particularly bright nor sophisticated. I often miss things that others consider obvious. Presumptive Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama suggested yesterday that American parents encourage their children to study Spanish as a second language. For our purposes at this point, let’s assume that you read nothing further in the paper or online, or that you listened no further to any news broadcasts, as to the circumstances surrounding his statement, or the context in which it was uttered. What would you have reasonably thought was the underlying motivation for his statement?
During the 1960’s, the study of a second language was a requirement in many secondary schools. By the time that I completed my first two years of college, I had six years of French under my belt. French made the transition to Spanish far easier when I lived in California. During the 1990s, various businesspeople, out of a desire to acquire business from Japanese firms, took Japanese immersion courses. Before traveling to Brazil and Italy, I studied conversational Portuguese and Italian in preparation for the trips. Probably of most relevance to this discussion is the fact that while teaching adult students seeking their GEDs at a local community college, I frequently recommended that they encourage their children to study Mandarin Chinese in light of the rising importance of China in the world.
Consequently, when I first heard of Senator Obama’s suggestion that parents encourage their children to study Spanish, I assumed that it was a positive suggestion, and perhaps benign at worst. Silly me. I naively thought that learning to communicate, with a significant segment of our Nation’s citizens and a major segment of the people living in this hemisphere, was a good thing. Silly me, again. By the end of yesterday, the media outlets were full of talking heads framing the Senator’s comments as those of an individual who supported illegal immigration, and necessarily opposed the effort to make English the official language of the United States.
Somebody please explain to me how any responsible, self-respecting commentator, or elected representative, could make such an argument. Is denigrating this man that important? Are the stakes that high? What message is conveyed to the youth of our Nation? We most certainly have an immigration problem. We most certainly need to figure out a way to ensure the assimilation and integration of other cultures into our “melting pot.” However, quite frankly, this appears to be the wrong vehicle to highlight our legitimate concerns about these issues. Do they regard us, the listening and voting public, as fools willing to accept any framed argument asserted against any candidate? Let’s hope that those of us listening to this crap maintain the ability to apply a little common sense.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m neither particularly bright nor sophisticated. I often miss things that others consider obvious. Presumptive Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama suggested yesterday that American parents encourage their children to study Spanish as a second language. For our purposes at this point, let’s assume that you read nothing further in the paper or online, or that you listened no further to any news broadcasts, as to the circumstances surrounding his statement, or the context in which it was uttered. What would you have reasonably thought was the underlying motivation for his statement?
During the 1960’s, the study of a second language was a requirement in many secondary schools. By the time that I completed my first two years of college, I had six years of French under my belt. French made the transition to Spanish far easier when I lived in California. During the 1990s, various businesspeople, out of a desire to acquire business from Japanese firms, took Japanese immersion courses. Before traveling to Brazil and Italy, I studied conversational Portuguese and Italian in preparation for the trips. Probably of most relevance to this discussion is the fact that while teaching adult students seeking their GEDs at a local community college, I frequently recommended that they encourage their children to study Mandarin Chinese in light of the rising importance of China in the world.
Consequently, when I first heard of Senator Obama’s suggestion that parents encourage their children to study Spanish, I assumed that it was a positive suggestion, and perhaps benign at worst. Silly me. I naively thought that learning to communicate, with a significant segment of our Nation’s citizens and a major segment of the people living in this hemisphere, was a good thing. Silly me, again. By the end of yesterday, the media outlets were full of talking heads framing the Senator’s comments as those of an individual who supported illegal immigration, and necessarily opposed the effort to make English the official language of the United States.
Somebody please explain to me how any responsible, self-respecting commentator, or elected representative, could make such an argument. Is denigrating this man that important? Are the stakes that high? What message is conveyed to the youth of our Nation? We most certainly have an immigration problem. We most certainly need to figure out a way to ensure the assimilation and integration of other cultures into our “melting pot.” However, quite frankly, this appears to be the wrong vehicle to highlight our legitimate concerns about these issues. Do they regard us, the listening and voting public, as fools willing to accept any framed argument asserted against any candidate? Let’s hope that those of us listening to this crap maintain the ability to apply a little common sense.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Post No. 25: Does Everyone Necessarily Have a Point of View?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring President Johnson’s inheritance of the Vietnam War, and the manner in which he dealt with the conflict. I mentioned to a buddy that, despite the fact that I was in the Army during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, I did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time, and that the documentary provided me with a better understanding. My buddy immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the documentary film maker. At the time, it really had not occurred to me. It was simply “information.” While I recognized that it theoretically might have been produced with a particular slant, or a particular political purpose in mind, those factors did not loom large in my appreciation of the piece.
There are two types of people who I generally hold in high regard. Those without an “agenda,” and those who recognize that everything is bigger than their pedestrian concerns. My particular definition of those individuals with an “agenda” includes folks who are always proselytizing, disseminating dogma, or passing extreme judgment on others. (Is judgment being passed on them now through this process?) Like those individuals who recognize that the world is bigger than their concerns, those without an “agenda” seemingly have a tendency to listen more, acquire information, and be slow to judge. Those rushing to judgment have always concerned me, and arguably, should concern us all.
We encountered this reactionary phenomenon recently while observing various discussions about our presidential candidates, and reviewing some comments in response to some of our recent posts. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the candidate who they do not support. Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s candidate a fatal thing to do in an elective contest? The number of times that we have heard commentators mention that neither Obama nor McCain has done anything worthwhile in life is absolutely fascinating. (Of course, many talk radio hosts behave as if they have made tremendous contributions to science and humankind, and the advancement of society’s long term interests.)
In one of our recent posts, we presented the views of a particular citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for a particular political party. One of the positions expressed was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to protect and defend our nation, and consequently those freedoms which we all enjoy. We simply raised some rhetorical questions regarding one’s identification with certain political parties, and examined potential positions that might be taken by a third, independent party. Interestingly, some readers felt that we were advocating treating citizens as slaves, and branded us totalitarian pigs. Some others assumed that we had taken a position in line with Osama bin Laden and that we were not patriotic. Some frequently assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position. To borrow a phrase, “Au contraire, mon frere.”
One thing which we have learned during the publishing of this blog is that when you raise theoretical questions and issues, you run the risk of people assuming that you have taken a position along one particular line regarding the issue. Why is that? They obviously have not read the piece from an unbiased perspective. Some have even suggested that no writer can achieve objectivity and put aside their personal biases. I wonder how judges do it, or do they? (Interestingly, it often seems that those individuals who are most offended by the posing of rhetorical questions are those who have hard and fast, unyielding positions themselves.) Our experience also highlighted something said by another writer, that being that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side, but rather has to fend off attacks from both. Perhaps that’s why we get so little accomplished in the political arena these days, and why partisanship appears to rule. Let’s all rally around groupspeak.
There is so much negative, outlandish, and critical information disseminated daily about virtually every candidate in virtually every election in this nation. The reason is that negative information, particularly bearing on emotional, hot button issues, works. Does anyone really think that McCain plans to open up the border in Arizona and permit all undocumented workers to enter the country, as some of his detractors have argued? Does anyone really believe that should Obama be elected President, more Islamic mosques than Christian churches will be built during his tenure?
This junk is just that; however, it appears to work, at least for a significant segment of our population. We should all be concerned that the innermost “fears” of many may have an influence on the outcome of this election. (Maybe it always has. You will recall that there was a concern that by electing a Catholic, i.e. John Kennedy, the Pope would have too much of an influence in American politics.) What’s more troubling is that the manipulation of our fears is being orchestrated by heretofore, somewhat respected, well educated folks, on both sides of the aisle, who are more concerned about winning, than appealing to our good sense, logic, and fairness. Of course, America loves a winner, but are lies and misinformation any different than steroids in the quest to win?
It’s amazing that these “public servants” have any interest in running for office. The mere fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their families to this abuse suggests that something is a tad different about them. However, it may also keep prospective leaders, who could actually accomplish something of value, from coming up to the plate. Is this the environment in which we want to conduct the selection of our leaders? A totally objective viewer might conclude that none of the candidates in any election is worthy of being elected. What kind of “transformers” and actors are these folks, along with their handlers and consultants? Perhaps we deserve the lies and false promises fed to us so that they can get elected. Perhaps this can be viewed as a necessary evil and simply a means to an end, so that they can actually do something of value once they win the position. Hmmmh, is truth still the better choice, even if you do not win? Is there some value to being a noble loser who took the high ground?
One of my best friends was a college and professional level coach for many years. The phrase which I recall him repeating most frequently is, “Don’t judge.” What he was really saying was to listen, acquire and be open to more information, and do not rush to judgment. As the professor noted to Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, there are issues bigger than those which we now face, and which have a longer term impact.
The next time that you read or hear something, try to avoid processing it from your point of view. Try to avoid assuming that the writer has a particular point of view. Simply view it as information. The next time that you hear something with which you disagree, assume for a short period of time that you misheard it, or that there is a reasonable explanation for the position taken by the speaker. Consider the prospect of your brain functioning like a hard disk on a computer. Just take in the information, store it there, and process it later when you have additional information and time to reflect. As the old song during the 1970’s used to say, “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring President Johnson’s inheritance of the Vietnam War, and the manner in which he dealt with the conflict. I mentioned to a buddy that, despite the fact that I was in the Army during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, I did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time, and that the documentary provided me with a better understanding. My buddy immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the documentary film maker. At the time, it really had not occurred to me. It was simply “information.” While I recognized that it theoretically might have been produced with a particular slant, or a particular political purpose in mind, those factors did not loom large in my appreciation of the piece.
There are two types of people who I generally hold in high regard. Those without an “agenda,” and those who recognize that everything is bigger than their pedestrian concerns. My particular definition of those individuals with an “agenda” includes folks who are always proselytizing, disseminating dogma, or passing extreme judgment on others. (Is judgment being passed on them now through this process?) Like those individuals who recognize that the world is bigger than their concerns, those without an “agenda” seemingly have a tendency to listen more, acquire information, and be slow to judge. Those rushing to judgment have always concerned me, and arguably, should concern us all.
We encountered this reactionary phenomenon recently while observing various discussions about our presidential candidates, and reviewing some comments in response to some of our recent posts. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the candidate who they do not support. Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s candidate a fatal thing to do in an elective contest? The number of times that we have heard commentators mention that neither Obama nor McCain has done anything worthwhile in life is absolutely fascinating. (Of course, many talk radio hosts behave as if they have made tremendous contributions to science and humankind, and the advancement of society’s long term interests.)
In one of our recent posts, we presented the views of a particular citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for a particular political party. One of the positions expressed was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to protect and defend our nation, and consequently those freedoms which we all enjoy. We simply raised some rhetorical questions regarding one’s identification with certain political parties, and examined potential positions that might be taken by a third, independent party. Interestingly, some readers felt that we were advocating treating citizens as slaves, and branded us totalitarian pigs. Some others assumed that we had taken a position in line with Osama bin Laden and that we were not patriotic. Some frequently assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position. To borrow a phrase, “Au contraire, mon frere.”
One thing which we have learned during the publishing of this blog is that when you raise theoretical questions and issues, you run the risk of people assuming that you have taken a position along one particular line regarding the issue. Why is that? They obviously have not read the piece from an unbiased perspective. Some have even suggested that no writer can achieve objectivity and put aside their personal biases. I wonder how judges do it, or do they? (Interestingly, it often seems that those individuals who are most offended by the posing of rhetorical questions are those who have hard and fast, unyielding positions themselves.) Our experience also highlighted something said by another writer, that being that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side, but rather has to fend off attacks from both. Perhaps that’s why we get so little accomplished in the political arena these days, and why partisanship appears to rule. Let’s all rally around groupspeak.
There is so much negative, outlandish, and critical information disseminated daily about virtually every candidate in virtually every election in this nation. The reason is that negative information, particularly bearing on emotional, hot button issues, works. Does anyone really think that McCain plans to open up the border in Arizona and permit all undocumented workers to enter the country, as some of his detractors have argued? Does anyone really believe that should Obama be elected President, more Islamic mosques than Christian churches will be built during his tenure?
This junk is just that; however, it appears to work, at least for a significant segment of our population. We should all be concerned that the innermost “fears” of many may have an influence on the outcome of this election. (Maybe it always has. You will recall that there was a concern that by electing a Catholic, i.e. John Kennedy, the Pope would have too much of an influence in American politics.) What’s more troubling is that the manipulation of our fears is being orchestrated by heretofore, somewhat respected, well educated folks, on both sides of the aisle, who are more concerned about winning, than appealing to our good sense, logic, and fairness. Of course, America loves a winner, but are lies and misinformation any different than steroids in the quest to win?
It’s amazing that these “public servants” have any interest in running for office. The mere fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their families to this abuse suggests that something is a tad different about them. However, it may also keep prospective leaders, who could actually accomplish something of value, from coming up to the plate. Is this the environment in which we want to conduct the selection of our leaders? A totally objective viewer might conclude that none of the candidates in any election is worthy of being elected. What kind of “transformers” and actors are these folks, along with their handlers and consultants? Perhaps we deserve the lies and false promises fed to us so that they can get elected. Perhaps this can be viewed as a necessary evil and simply a means to an end, so that they can actually do something of value once they win the position. Hmmmh, is truth still the better choice, even if you do not win? Is there some value to being a noble loser who took the high ground?
One of my best friends was a college and professional level coach for many years. The phrase which I recall him repeating most frequently is, “Don’t judge.” What he was really saying was to listen, acquire and be open to more information, and do not rush to judgment. As the professor noted to Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, there are issues bigger than those which we now face, and which have a longer term impact.
The next time that you read or hear something, try to avoid processing it from your point of view. Try to avoid assuming that the writer has a particular point of view. Simply view it as information. The next time that you hear something with which you disagree, assume for a short period of time that you misheard it, or that there is a reasonable explanation for the position taken by the speaker. Consider the prospect of your brain functioning like a hard disk on a computer. Just take in the information, store it there, and process it later when you have additional information and time to reflect. As the old song during the 1970’s used to say, “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, July 4, 2008
Post No. 24: What Constitutes American Interests Abroad?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
For years, all of us have heard discussions about protecting American interests abroad. We spend a significant amount of our tax dollars in foreign aid, and in connection with various military operations. Earlier this week, we learned that we are supplying North Korea with fuel oil as part of an agreement in connection with its relinquishment of certain aspects of its nuclear program. It also appears that we have been providing North Korea with food for some time now.
We obviously had some concerns about its potential use of nuclear power, and the possible sale of nuclear weapons or enriched plutonium to others. However, have you ever really taken the time to think about what constitutes American interests? Can those interests be generically described as anything that keeps America strong and safe, and perpetuates our position as the dominant superpower? What limits exist, if any, on the exercise of our power in terms of our involvement with other countries?
This is not the kind of stuff about which the average citizen speaks during the course of an ordinary week. However, this analysis is being conducted on a more frequent basis by the common person in light of the state of international terrorism, and some of our recent ventures. Despite the cries of many, it has never been quite clear to me that we have been motivated by oil alone, although a plausible argument to that effect might be advanced. During the first Gulf War, over 82% of the American public supported our response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Did the American public feel that it was primarily about oil, or was it about a bully taking advantage of an ally of the United States?
Author Michael Scheuer appeared on a number of media outlets during the past week to promote his book. Scheuer served in the Central Intelligence Agency for over twenty years. He was the Chief of the Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 until 1999, and he also served as a special advisor to the unit for a three year period following 9/11. Last weekend, he appeared on C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9227&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No) to discuss his most recent work, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq (http://books.google.com/books?id=qjWdGAAACAAJ&dq=%22marching+toward+hell%22&ei=VcJtSLO2IIHAigHO3sGPBg).
During his discussion, Scheuer suggested that the current Administration, and its supporters, have characterized or framed the underlying motivation of radical Islamic extremists, our rather amorphous enemy, as trying to destroy our “Western way of life.” Having studied the messages communicated by this element over many years, particularly Osama bin Laden, Scheuer disputes this theory. He suggests that the real underlying motivation is that they find American intrusion into their society, and presence in their lands, as offensive, and they simply want us out. He claims that they could care less about our music, and freedom, and our ability to wear short skirts in a free society. (He further suggests that if we were to ratchet up the use of force, and actually function like a superpower, we would be better off.)
Be that as it may, what was most intriguing about Scheuer’s discussion was his analysis of whether the United States really has any significant interests in various locations. In a number of instances, he noted that if one removed oil from the picture, the United States would not have any interests worth the sacrifice of the lives of our soldiers. This naturally led us to consider whether there are other interests of the United States, other than those energy or economically related, which we might justifiably seek to protect abroad. In this regard, we pose the following questions:
1. Are there interests that the United States has in Haiti, Zimbabwe, and Darfur?
2. What are those interests?
3. Should the United States do anything more than what it is currently doing in those regions of the world?
4. If so, would you support sending U.S. troops, whether unilaterally, or in conjunction with other nations, to any of those countries to assist the people in addressing their issues?
5. Do you think that the United States should continue to support Israel, and if so, for how long without some progress on the peace front?
We’d be interested in your thoughts. After all, this is your country, and you have an interest in what it does, where it goes, and how it spends your tax dollars. Don’t you?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
For years, all of us have heard discussions about protecting American interests abroad. We spend a significant amount of our tax dollars in foreign aid, and in connection with various military operations. Earlier this week, we learned that we are supplying North Korea with fuel oil as part of an agreement in connection with its relinquishment of certain aspects of its nuclear program. It also appears that we have been providing North Korea with food for some time now.
We obviously had some concerns about its potential use of nuclear power, and the possible sale of nuclear weapons or enriched plutonium to others. However, have you ever really taken the time to think about what constitutes American interests? Can those interests be generically described as anything that keeps America strong and safe, and perpetuates our position as the dominant superpower? What limits exist, if any, on the exercise of our power in terms of our involvement with other countries?
This is not the kind of stuff about which the average citizen speaks during the course of an ordinary week. However, this analysis is being conducted on a more frequent basis by the common person in light of the state of international terrorism, and some of our recent ventures. Despite the cries of many, it has never been quite clear to me that we have been motivated by oil alone, although a plausible argument to that effect might be advanced. During the first Gulf War, over 82% of the American public supported our response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Did the American public feel that it was primarily about oil, or was it about a bully taking advantage of an ally of the United States?
Author Michael Scheuer appeared on a number of media outlets during the past week to promote his book. Scheuer served in the Central Intelligence Agency for over twenty years. He was the Chief of the Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 until 1999, and he also served as a special advisor to the unit for a three year period following 9/11. Last weekend, he appeared on C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9227&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No) to discuss his most recent work, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq (http://books.google.com/books?id=qjWdGAAACAAJ&dq=%22marching+toward+hell%22&ei=VcJtSLO2IIHAigHO3sGPBg).
During his discussion, Scheuer suggested that the current Administration, and its supporters, have characterized or framed the underlying motivation of radical Islamic extremists, our rather amorphous enemy, as trying to destroy our “Western way of life.” Having studied the messages communicated by this element over many years, particularly Osama bin Laden, Scheuer disputes this theory. He suggests that the real underlying motivation is that they find American intrusion into their society, and presence in their lands, as offensive, and they simply want us out. He claims that they could care less about our music, and freedom, and our ability to wear short skirts in a free society. (He further suggests that if we were to ratchet up the use of force, and actually function like a superpower, we would be better off.)
Be that as it may, what was most intriguing about Scheuer’s discussion was his analysis of whether the United States really has any significant interests in various locations. In a number of instances, he noted that if one removed oil from the picture, the United States would not have any interests worth the sacrifice of the lives of our soldiers. This naturally led us to consider whether there are other interests of the United States, other than those energy or economically related, which we might justifiably seek to protect abroad. In this regard, we pose the following questions:
1. Are there interests that the United States has in Haiti, Zimbabwe, and Darfur?
2. What are those interests?
3. Should the United States do anything more than what it is currently doing in those regions of the world?
4. If so, would you support sending U.S. troops, whether unilaterally, or in conjunction with other nations, to any of those countries to assist the people in addressing their issues?
5. Do you think that the United States should continue to support Israel, and if so, for how long without some progress on the peace front?
We’d be interested in your thoughts. After all, this is your country, and you have an interest in what it does, where it goes, and how it spends your tax dollars. Don’t you?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Post 23: What Views Would the Members of a Truly Independent American Political Party Hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Post No. 22: Do We Have Something to Fear Other Than Fear Itself?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Radio and television talk show host Don Imus drew attention to himself again last week. Upon hearing his latest controversial statement, one’s response might have been that Imus could not have avoided criticism under any circumstances. (Disregard, for the time being, whether we truly know him intimately enough to enable us to judge the motives underlying the statement.)
In the future, he might avoid making any statements, which include any race-related words, since various negative assumptions will be made regarding his motives, even if his intent is to make a positive statement.
More disconcerting was the statement by the NFL player whose frequent run-ins with the law were at the center of Imus’ unfortunate expression. Arguably, Imus’ comment could have been viewed as a statement condemning the frequent stopping of African-Americans by law enforcement officials, or justifying it. However, “Pacman” Jones fairly quickly concluded that Imus “obviously has a problem with African-Americans.”
One can only assume that Jones has some direct link to Imus’ brain and heart, to permit him to make such an unequivocal assessment. Along a similar vein, an argument might be made that Jones “obviously has a problem with the law,” or that he “obviously has a problem disassociating himself from the criminal element.”
George Carlin, considered by some to be an iconic comedian, died last week. It is generally agreed that he expressed the views of the counter-culture element of our society. However, what stood out most significantly was the frequent reference, by those who remembered him, to the “fearless” nature of his comedy.
What did Carlin potentially have to fear? What did he say that posed so significant a potential danger that we needed to be leery of him? Was there a concern that what he said, or might say, could damage or harm a certain segment of our society?
So here we are considering whether it is good for members of society to avoid making certain comments, or discussing certain subjects, in a public setting. (Ignore for now that the statements could be true, and honestly uttered.)
Just to carry our discussion a little further, images are also a form of expression. Some of you may recall the controversy surrounding the pairing of O.J. Simpson and Elizabeth Montgomery, over twenty years ago, in a television murder mystery movie, and the backlash that befell the sponsors. But that was long ago, right?
Recently, while I was listening to, but not watching television, a commercial aired for Cascade, the dishwasher detergent. The voice-over contained an African-American accent. At first, I couldn’t figure out why that struck me odd. Then, for some unexplained reason, I turned around to see if an African-American face or image would also appear in the commercial.
Let me ask you. When was the last time that you can recall seeing an African-American woman in a commercial associated with cleaning anything – whether it be laundry detergent, floor wax, window cleaner, or garbage bags? How many years have sponsors avoided projecting certain images to play it safe? The corollary reality is that many of us avoid making certain statements to play it safe, out of concern for offending others.
In light of the risks associated with making certain statements, we obviously have to carefully evaluate the consequences, or perhaps some might say, the “potential punishment,” associated with making statements, though honest they may be.
Furthermore, if we are not entirely clear as to the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech/expression, most of us will steer far wide of the danger zone.
During the course of the development and evolution of this blog, we’ve been surprised at a number of things, particularly in the expression of speech arena. A number of regular readers have suggested that the content makes many uncomfortable.
Many have indicated that although they would like to respond honestly to some of the posts, they feel reluctant to do so. There is a concern that, even using a pseudonym, once their true thoughts are revealed to the public, they might suffer negative consequences.
There is a scene in one of the classic Hollywood movies where the local, irresponsible, rich kid, who is attending medical school, is confronted by a childhood friend. She questions his flippant attitude, and lack of sense of responsibility, considering the talent which she considers him to have.
She notes that he could do so much of a positive nature for so many. She then goes on to say, “Most of us have no choice but to live useless lives.”
This leads one to wonder, “What is a person if not his or her expression?” Is freedom of expression the essence of freedom?
What we should appreciate is that when any talk show host, religious leader, celebrity, politician, or other public figure, manages to generate a following or an audience, they run the risk of saying something controversial. However, that ought to be a good thing, because it causes us to periodically stop and think.
Imagine a world where everything said in the media is uttered within certain prescribed boundaries, where no one is offended, surprised, intrigued, inspired, or in some manner affected. Imagine where we would be as a society if every utterance was something that we already knew, or accepted, or with which the “expression police” were comfortable.
There is an argument to be made that in this competitive, free market environment that is America, the speech expressed by its citizens ought to be evaluated by the same competitive, free market forces.
A speaker should fail or succeed based on the quality of his content, and whether the citizens are willing to “buy” his or her expression.
We ultimately discard and ignore products of little or no value. Are we afraid to let the market place decide the fate of those making offensive comments, in the same way that we let the market place decide the fate of poor products?
We might discourage someone from expressing a new idea or concept, in the same way that we might discourage someone from developing a new product or service, if we discourage expression on the front end.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently accuse the other of failing to acknowledge the intelligence of the American people. If we are intelligent enough to assess and evaluate other issues and their value, why do we not possess enough intelligence to assess and evaluate (and thus accept or repudiate) personal expression, in whatever form it manifests itself?
There is something else that comes to mind. When we hear the rantings and ravings of callers as they express themselves on talk radio shows, we gain some insight into, and provide a forum for, a segment of our society that otherwise might go unnoticed and unheard.
Some would suggest that we might be a better society if they went unnoticed and unheard. However, isn’t it better for us to know with whom we are really dealing, and have a better appreciation of the issues and concerns of every segment of our society? Or is that something which certain forces do not want?
We are once again reminded of the words of the Laughingman:
“The worst conceivable way to silence one with whom we disagree is to stop him from talking. By doing so, you create a martyr to his similarly warped followers, and take him off the radar screen of the rest of the public. Had we, as a society, a bit thicker skins, we would broadcast these lunacies far and wide, with an appropriate apology to the more sensitive among us, demonstrate a little common sense for our fellow man, and let the fringe element drown in the laughter and public ridicule generated by their own thinking or lack thereof. Along with the right to free speech comes the right to make a public fool of oneself; and like the naked, fools have little or no influence on society.”
That is, of course, unless you are Lady Godiva or Angelina Jolie.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Radio and television talk show host Don Imus drew attention to himself again last week. Upon hearing his latest controversial statement, one’s response might have been that Imus could not have avoided criticism under any circumstances. (Disregard, for the time being, whether we truly know him intimately enough to enable us to judge the motives underlying the statement.)
In the future, he might avoid making any statements, which include any race-related words, since various negative assumptions will be made regarding his motives, even if his intent is to make a positive statement.
More disconcerting was the statement by the NFL player whose frequent run-ins with the law were at the center of Imus’ unfortunate expression. Arguably, Imus’ comment could have been viewed as a statement condemning the frequent stopping of African-Americans by law enforcement officials, or justifying it. However, “Pacman” Jones fairly quickly concluded that Imus “obviously has a problem with African-Americans.”
One can only assume that Jones has some direct link to Imus’ brain and heart, to permit him to make such an unequivocal assessment. Along a similar vein, an argument might be made that Jones “obviously has a problem with the law,” or that he “obviously has a problem disassociating himself from the criminal element.”
George Carlin, considered by some to be an iconic comedian, died last week. It is generally agreed that he expressed the views of the counter-culture element of our society. However, what stood out most significantly was the frequent reference, by those who remembered him, to the “fearless” nature of his comedy.
What did Carlin potentially have to fear? What did he say that posed so significant a potential danger that we needed to be leery of him? Was there a concern that what he said, or might say, could damage or harm a certain segment of our society?
So here we are considering whether it is good for members of society to avoid making certain comments, or discussing certain subjects, in a public setting. (Ignore for now that the statements could be true, and honestly uttered.)
Just to carry our discussion a little further, images are also a form of expression. Some of you may recall the controversy surrounding the pairing of O.J. Simpson and Elizabeth Montgomery, over twenty years ago, in a television murder mystery movie, and the backlash that befell the sponsors. But that was long ago, right?
Recently, while I was listening to, but not watching television, a commercial aired for Cascade, the dishwasher detergent. The voice-over contained an African-American accent. At first, I couldn’t figure out why that struck me odd. Then, for some unexplained reason, I turned around to see if an African-American face or image would also appear in the commercial.
Let me ask you. When was the last time that you can recall seeing an African-American woman in a commercial associated with cleaning anything – whether it be laundry detergent, floor wax, window cleaner, or garbage bags? How many years have sponsors avoided projecting certain images to play it safe? The corollary reality is that many of us avoid making certain statements to play it safe, out of concern for offending others.
In light of the risks associated with making certain statements, we obviously have to carefully evaluate the consequences, or perhaps some might say, the “potential punishment,” associated with making statements, though honest they may be.
Furthermore, if we are not entirely clear as to the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech/expression, most of us will steer far wide of the danger zone.
During the course of the development and evolution of this blog, we’ve been surprised at a number of things, particularly in the expression of speech arena. A number of regular readers have suggested that the content makes many uncomfortable.
Many have indicated that although they would like to respond honestly to some of the posts, they feel reluctant to do so. There is a concern that, even using a pseudonym, once their true thoughts are revealed to the public, they might suffer negative consequences.
There is a scene in one of the classic Hollywood movies where the local, irresponsible, rich kid, who is attending medical school, is confronted by a childhood friend. She questions his flippant attitude, and lack of sense of responsibility, considering the talent which she considers him to have.
She notes that he could do so much of a positive nature for so many. She then goes on to say, “Most of us have no choice but to live useless lives.”
This leads one to wonder, “What is a person if not his or her expression?” Is freedom of expression the essence of freedom?
What we should appreciate is that when any talk show host, religious leader, celebrity, politician, or other public figure, manages to generate a following or an audience, they run the risk of saying something controversial. However, that ought to be a good thing, because it causes us to periodically stop and think.
Imagine a world where everything said in the media is uttered within certain prescribed boundaries, where no one is offended, surprised, intrigued, inspired, or in some manner affected. Imagine where we would be as a society if every utterance was something that we already knew, or accepted, or with which the “expression police” were comfortable.
There is an argument to be made that in this competitive, free market environment that is America, the speech expressed by its citizens ought to be evaluated by the same competitive, free market forces.
A speaker should fail or succeed based on the quality of his content, and whether the citizens are willing to “buy” his or her expression.
We ultimately discard and ignore products of little or no value. Are we afraid to let the market place decide the fate of those making offensive comments, in the same way that we let the market place decide the fate of poor products?
We might discourage someone from expressing a new idea or concept, in the same way that we might discourage someone from developing a new product or service, if we discourage expression on the front end.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently accuse the other of failing to acknowledge the intelligence of the American people. If we are intelligent enough to assess and evaluate other issues and their value, why do we not possess enough intelligence to assess and evaluate (and thus accept or repudiate) personal expression, in whatever form it manifests itself?
There is something else that comes to mind. When we hear the rantings and ravings of callers as they express themselves on talk radio shows, we gain some insight into, and provide a forum for, a segment of our society that otherwise might go unnoticed and unheard.
Some would suggest that we might be a better society if they went unnoticed and unheard. However, isn’t it better for us to know with whom we are really dealing, and have a better appreciation of the issues and concerns of every segment of our society? Or is that something which certain forces do not want?
We are once again reminded of the words of the Laughingman:
“The worst conceivable way to silence one with whom we disagree is to stop him from talking. By doing so, you create a martyr to his similarly warped followers, and take him off the radar screen of the rest of the public. Had we, as a society, a bit thicker skins, we would broadcast these lunacies far and wide, with an appropriate apology to the more sensitive among us, demonstrate a little common sense for our fellow man, and let the fringe element drown in the laughter and public ridicule generated by their own thinking or lack thereof. Along with the right to free speech comes the right to make a public fool of oneself; and like the naked, fools have little or no influence on society.”
That is, of course, unless you are Lady Godiva or Angelina Jolie.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Post No. 21: The Solution to All of Our Fuel and Energy Issues
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
If you haven’t picked up on it by now, we strongly believe that most of us are far too quick to judge and take rigid positions on issues, without really “digging deep” to truly understand the numerous and complex factors underlying most issues. Most people have a tendency to entertain those positions consistent with their own, and vigorously oppose those positions with which they disagree. Why regular folks have to take such hard positions, on so many subjects, has often puzzled us. This rigidity limits our creativity as a people, and further limits our ability to craft new solutions to problems.
People who manage, and people who run things, have to take positions and proceed to get things done. They can not sit around indefinitely gathering information, since time and resources are limited. However, the rest of us might better spend our time gathering information leading to us being better informed, and not just entertain information that supports our point of view. As a result, we might develop a more informed electorate capable of sifting through the spin, sound bites, disinformation, and cryptic commentary disseminated by our leaders, be they corporate, religious, educational, parental, media and entertainment related, or political.
If you haven’t picked up on it by now, the primary purpose of this blog is to stimulate thought, not to take a position. If we remove but one shackle from your mind, then we’ve accomplished our goal. More knowledge reduces that probability that one will be manipulated by those disseminating their particular message. More information makes the body politic more responsible in the selection of its leaders. We don’t care which position you ultimately take; we just want to encourage you to consider information from all sources, and not just two or three of them, but perhaps fifteen or twenty of them (at a minimum). We’re more concerned about the thought process of examining and weighing all of the competing considerations, since we firmly believe that society can then craft better solutions to problems, and perform its responsibility.
We are amongst the unsophisticated of our society, and thus believe that there are no simplistic solutions to our energy situation. However, we strongly believe that America must “do something.” We also suspect that the average American citizen does not have a decent appreciation of all of the various conflicting factors, particularly those scientific, engineering, and historical in nature, which might be considered in developing practical solutions. Earlier today, on C-Span2 Book TV, a presentation was made by Robert Zubrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin), author of Energy Victory - Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil (http://books.google.com/books?id=KysvGQAACAAJ&dq=%22energy+victory%22&ei=f0xmSLzEC4KejgGgk8T9BQ). For those of you, who like us, are confused about all of this energy discussion, you might try to catch his presentation the next time that it is aired (http://www.booktv.org/schedule.aspx), or consider the purchase of his book.
He discusses numerous factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) percentages of oil production by country at different points in time during the last century; (b) ethanol; (c) methanol; (d) various other alcohols; (e) costs associated with producing different types of fuels; (f) cost differentials associated with producing oil by the current major oil producers; (g) environmental issues associated with various fuels; (h) effects on crops; (i) effects on food supply; (j) various materials out of which fuels can be made and their relative costs; (k) the status of diesel; (l) the technological and engineering issues associated with automobile manufacturer re-tooling; (m) the energy, power, or miles per gallon produced per unit cost for different types of fuels; (m) the technological and economic status of hybrid vehicles; (n) flex-fuel vehicles; (o) the geo-political ramifications of oil being in the hands of authoritarian regimes; and perhaps most interesting, (p) his position that the Allies won WWII because they had access to, or controlled, oil, and destroyed the German synthetic oil production facilities. (He also tells the story of how the Japanese produced thousands of Zeros during the last year of the war, but did not have the fuel for them to intercept the bombers that dropped the atomic bombs.)
For our purposes, his presentation was about the most comprehensive discussion about this whole issue which one could have in a very short period of time. Additionally, he presented the information in a manner in which the average citizen could understand it. Although there is no in-depth discussion of every single factor (although Zubrin packs in a lot of information by speaking very rapidly and with great passion), he definitely makes one appreciate the big picture. No matter the side of the aisle on which you sit on any of these issues, we would suggest at least taking the time to examine his itemization of the issues. It is a thought-provoking analysis.
Oh, by the way, Zubrin founded a group devoted to the manned exploration and development of Mars.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
If you haven’t picked up on it by now, we strongly believe that most of us are far too quick to judge and take rigid positions on issues, without really “digging deep” to truly understand the numerous and complex factors underlying most issues. Most people have a tendency to entertain those positions consistent with their own, and vigorously oppose those positions with which they disagree. Why regular folks have to take such hard positions, on so many subjects, has often puzzled us. This rigidity limits our creativity as a people, and further limits our ability to craft new solutions to problems.
People who manage, and people who run things, have to take positions and proceed to get things done. They can not sit around indefinitely gathering information, since time and resources are limited. However, the rest of us might better spend our time gathering information leading to us being better informed, and not just entertain information that supports our point of view. As a result, we might develop a more informed electorate capable of sifting through the spin, sound bites, disinformation, and cryptic commentary disseminated by our leaders, be they corporate, religious, educational, parental, media and entertainment related, or political.
If you haven’t picked up on it by now, the primary purpose of this blog is to stimulate thought, not to take a position. If we remove but one shackle from your mind, then we’ve accomplished our goal. More knowledge reduces that probability that one will be manipulated by those disseminating their particular message. More information makes the body politic more responsible in the selection of its leaders. We don’t care which position you ultimately take; we just want to encourage you to consider information from all sources, and not just two or three of them, but perhaps fifteen or twenty of them (at a minimum). We’re more concerned about the thought process of examining and weighing all of the competing considerations, since we firmly believe that society can then craft better solutions to problems, and perform its responsibility.
We are amongst the unsophisticated of our society, and thus believe that there are no simplistic solutions to our energy situation. However, we strongly believe that America must “do something.” We also suspect that the average American citizen does not have a decent appreciation of all of the various conflicting factors, particularly those scientific, engineering, and historical in nature, which might be considered in developing practical solutions. Earlier today, on C-Span2 Book TV, a presentation was made by Robert Zubrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin), author of Energy Victory - Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil (http://books.google.com/books?id=KysvGQAACAAJ&dq=%22energy+victory%22&ei=f0xmSLzEC4KejgGgk8T9BQ). For those of you, who like us, are confused about all of this energy discussion, you might try to catch his presentation the next time that it is aired (http://www.booktv.org/schedule.aspx), or consider the purchase of his book.
He discusses numerous factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) percentages of oil production by country at different points in time during the last century; (b) ethanol; (c) methanol; (d) various other alcohols; (e) costs associated with producing different types of fuels; (f) cost differentials associated with producing oil by the current major oil producers; (g) environmental issues associated with various fuels; (h) effects on crops; (i) effects on food supply; (j) various materials out of which fuels can be made and their relative costs; (k) the status of diesel; (l) the technological and engineering issues associated with automobile manufacturer re-tooling; (m) the energy, power, or miles per gallon produced per unit cost for different types of fuels; (m) the technological and economic status of hybrid vehicles; (n) flex-fuel vehicles; (o) the geo-political ramifications of oil being in the hands of authoritarian regimes; and perhaps most interesting, (p) his position that the Allies won WWII because they had access to, or controlled, oil, and destroyed the German synthetic oil production facilities. (He also tells the story of how the Japanese produced thousands of Zeros during the last year of the war, but did not have the fuel for them to intercept the bombers that dropped the atomic bombs.)
For our purposes, his presentation was about the most comprehensive discussion about this whole issue which one could have in a very short period of time. Additionally, he presented the information in a manner in which the average citizen could understand it. Although there is no in-depth discussion of every single factor (although Zubrin packs in a lot of information by speaking very rapidly and with great passion), he definitely makes one appreciate the big picture. No matter the side of the aisle on which you sit on any of these issues, we would suggest at least taking the time to examine his itemization of the issues. It is a thought-provoking analysis.
Oh, by the way, Zubrin founded a group devoted to the manned exploration and development of Mars.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Post No. 20: Water is Water, Isn't It?
Water is Water, Isn’t It?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
All of us recall, in some manner unique to each of us, the tragedy that was, and continues to be, Katrina. We all watched hours of news coverage, with reporters riding in boats and helicopters, and observed many a rescue from a roof top. That was three years ago this August, and we still have media and political commentators mentioning it frequently.
During the past couple of weeks, we watched the citizens of Iowa and Missouri deal with epic flooding. In fact, just this past week a nationally recognized meteorologist explained why this event was termed “the 500 year flood,” and summarized the evidence and records from the past that permitted us to characterize this event as such.
In Post No. 19, entitled Katrina, Iowa Style, after noting that President Bush, during his visit to Iowa last week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina, the following questions were posed on this blog about the federal government’s response to the Iowa flooding:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
All of us, before formulating judgments about anything in the world of current events, should probably take the time to gather our facts, conduct a little research, and even check our history books to ensure that our judgments are well founded and not tainted by bias. Despite an effort to be objective, something still seemed different about Katrina versus Iowa. Was it due to the media coverage, or lack thereof? Did the differences in population density have a different effect on us? Perhaps the different topography, or the rescue methods employed, provided a difference sense of tragedy.
Should you switch to CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC right now, you probably will not find coverage of the Iowa and Missouri flooding. Did we somehow become emotionally numb in light of the coverage of the intervening South Pacific tsunami and the Chinese earthquake? Why hasn’t there been as much discussion about class distinctions, and why haven’t the politicians attacked the local parties and elected officials in control with the same zeal as we saw three years ago? Has anyone tallied up the number of levees that have failed during the past two weeks, as contrasted to those that failed during Katrina?
Did Katrina occur during a slow news week? Why have we talked more about the flip flops by the presumptive presidential candidates for each party? Are the flip flops more important to us as a society than the impact of Mother Nature on the lives of the citizens of the two states? Who decides what is more important to be covered, and thus shapes our view of “current events?” Did New Orleans’ moral complexity contribute to our fascination with the events there? Have any ministers suggested that the citizens of Iowa and Missouri are being punished by God for their immoral behavior?
This is complex stuff, as are all news events. Are you at as much as much of a loss as I am with respect to trying to compare these two “Acts of God?”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
All of us recall, in some manner unique to each of us, the tragedy that was, and continues to be, Katrina. We all watched hours of news coverage, with reporters riding in boats and helicopters, and observed many a rescue from a roof top. That was three years ago this August, and we still have media and political commentators mentioning it frequently.
During the past couple of weeks, we watched the citizens of Iowa and Missouri deal with epic flooding. In fact, just this past week a nationally recognized meteorologist explained why this event was termed “the 500 year flood,” and summarized the evidence and records from the past that permitted us to characterize this event as such.
In Post No. 19, entitled Katrina, Iowa Style, after noting that President Bush, during his visit to Iowa last week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina, the following questions were posed on this blog about the federal government’s response to the Iowa flooding:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
All of us, before formulating judgments about anything in the world of current events, should probably take the time to gather our facts, conduct a little research, and even check our history books to ensure that our judgments are well founded and not tainted by bias. Despite an effort to be objective, something still seemed different about Katrina versus Iowa. Was it due to the media coverage, or lack thereof? Did the differences in population density have a different effect on us? Perhaps the different topography, or the rescue methods employed, provided a difference sense of tragedy.
Should you switch to CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC right now, you probably will not find coverage of the Iowa and Missouri flooding. Did we somehow become emotionally numb in light of the coverage of the intervening South Pacific tsunami and the Chinese earthquake? Why hasn’t there been as much discussion about class distinctions, and why haven’t the politicians attacked the local parties and elected officials in control with the same zeal as we saw three years ago? Has anyone tallied up the number of levees that have failed during the past two weeks, as contrasted to those that failed during Katrina?
Did Katrina occur during a slow news week? Why have we talked more about the flip flops by the presumptive presidential candidates for each party? Are the flip flops more important to us as a society than the impact of Mother Nature on the lives of the citizens of the two states? Who decides what is more important to be covered, and thus shapes our view of “current events?” Did New Orleans’ moral complexity contribute to our fascination with the events there? Have any ministers suggested that the citizens of Iowa and Missouri are being punished by God for their immoral behavior?
This is complex stuff, as are all news events. Are you at as much as much of a loss as I am with respect to trying to compare these two “Acts of God?”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, June 20, 2008
Post No. 19: Katrina, Iowa Style
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In late August of this year, it will have been three full years since Hurricane Katrina unleashed her fury on the Gulf Coast, with significant damage to the State of Louisiana. Additionally, we’ve all seen reports of what still remains to be done, and the manner in which the lives of many have been disrupted and have not yet returned to normal. In Post No. 8, the following questions were posed regarding the then current earthquake in China:
1. Three years from now, do you think that China will have done a better job of responding to its earthquake than America did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences in our cultures and governments that will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will China have repaired all of the physical damage within three years?
6. Will China have reconstructed the lives of all of the affected people within three years?
Over the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed epic flooding in the State of Iowa. President Bush, during his visit there earlier this week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina. The following questions are now posed with respect to the Iowa flooding, and the potential federal response:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
Please be sure to provide the basis for your positions. This, like the series of questions posed regarding the Chinese earthquake, should be interesting.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In late August of this year, it will have been three full years since Hurricane Katrina unleashed her fury on the Gulf Coast, with significant damage to the State of Louisiana. Additionally, we’ve all seen reports of what still remains to be done, and the manner in which the lives of many have been disrupted and have not yet returned to normal. In Post No. 8, the following questions were posed regarding the then current earthquake in China:
1. Three years from now, do you think that China will have done a better job of responding to its earthquake than America did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences in our cultures and governments that will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will China have repaired all of the physical damage within three years?
6. Will China have reconstructed the lives of all of the affected people within three years?
Over the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed epic flooding in the State of Iowa. President Bush, during his visit there earlier this week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina. The following questions are now posed with respect to the Iowa flooding, and the potential federal response:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
Please be sure to provide the basis for your positions. This, like the series of questions posed regarding the Chinese earthquake, should be interesting.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)