© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
I have some thoughts about this Barack Obama. However, I must first disclose that I’m not necessarily a good judge of people. I’m always confused when people say, “I’m a good judge of character.”
Hell, everyone has character. It just reveals itself in different ways and in different situations depending on the person. So what makes people think that they’ve cornered the market on evaluating others? Usually our evaluations of others have more to do with what we think about ourselves than them.
I’ve often said that I am an “All Comers Kind of Guy.” I can find something interesting, and of value, about virtually anyone. Seriously.
That may be the reason why I’ve never been married nor had a desire to have children. It would just be too confusing for people to deal with me on a regular basis. (The Laughingman claims that he finally figured this marriage problem out, after a couple of failed attempts. At the first sign of loneliness… or any baser, prurient desire… he simply walks to the Strand, finds a woman he can’t stand, and buys her a house, thus avoiding both lawyers and broken crockery.)
Now, getting to the point, throughout the day yesterday, I repeatedly asked myself, “Who is Barack Obama, and why are people saying all of these things about him?”
I have no facts upon which to base my suspicions. I have not read any of his books, and I have not spoken to any of his friends or confidantes. I don’t even know the guy. This is just a visceral, gut-level assessment, watching him evolve during the past 18 months.
We’ve often heard him called a “mystery man” and an “enigma.” I believe that it is because he does not share our “mainstream” values. By values, I am not referring to all of the rhetoric about being a socialist or leftist, about which we heard so much during the last year.
From the perspective of an outsider simply watching human interaction, in a way, Obama's interaction with his wife speaks volumes, at least to me, about where his head is at. It’s my suspicion that it is an intellectual and principle-based love, not the usual physicality and security-based “love,” to which so many of us subject ourselves. It’s not about, “You make me feel special,” but rather, “We’re special together.”
It’s the ultimate form of interpersonal respect.
Their relationship strikes me as the type of cutting-edge heterosexual relationship, where the collaborative nature of the partnership trumps each partner’s personal issues. We suspect that we will see more and more of this as humankind dives into the abyss of further complexity.
(Quite honestly, I suspect it is perhaps more akin to relationships during the day when getting killed by a beast in the wild was a more pressing issue than the possibility that your spouse slept with a neighbor, or the amount of time you spent at home versus work.)
I also get the impression that he's detached, not from the issues, but from the fray, and in a good way. He's on a mission of more significance and importance than having his personal issues addressed. He believes that it is more about the moment than about him. As I’ve often said with some degree of grammatical imperfection, “It’s bigger than you and me, and it’s bigger than the here and now.”
(In my view, Bill Clinton never appreciated that concept, especially considering the manner in which he approached his defense during the Monica Lewinsky era.)
I do not have a good enough feel for Michelle to make the same call, but I suspect that she has similar motivations. That’s, what I suspect, drew them to one another.
Additionally, their kids just look grounded – for a reason. Something tells me that their parents have addressed them as intellectual and pragmatic beings, not mini-drones to be dictated to, and through which the parents’ inadequacies are expressed.
I'm not sure that he really wanted to be President per se, like Bill Clinton. But “No Drama Obama” has been pinned to him for a reason.
Here's something else. On “Morning Joe” on MSNBC this morning, Joe Klein told a story about being on the campaign trail, when Michelle asked him whether he was going to write a book about the Obama family, referring to "Primary Colors." Barack instantly quipped, "Oh Michelle, that won’t happen. We're too boring."
The guy doesn't seem to have an ego. (Hard to believe, isn’t it?) He's relatively dismissive of unbelievable personal attacks. Somewhere in his youth, he learned to tune out all the crap which makes most of us become insecure.
He understands that the moment is really not about him, and that’s why he is so receptive to the views of others. He just happens to be here at a certain place in time in history. It’s more about synchronicity, as Jung would put it, or serendipity, as Kundera would submit.
Interestingly, last night on Tavis Smiley on PBS, Tavis aired an interview of Obama some years ago. Barack indicated that his first priority was his family, and the second addressing the needs of the people of the State of Illinois. I actually think that is the truth in this instance, as compared to most Presidents, CEOS, and financial heavyweights, who might say it and desire it, but not really believe it themselves.
Additionally, I think that he is a big, big picture guy, not a technocrat, and he flows naturally. I watched him and Michelle walk through that school on National Service Day this past Monday, and they really seemed to be interested in each and every one of the people with whom they came into contact, which is extremely unusual for politicians. On a pragmatic level, they typically can not do that. There’s no time to engage.
I do not get the sense that much about his style is contrived. To borrow a phrase from an old Dramatics song, “What you see is what you get.” He's a very cool customer. I am sure that some will consider him to be the Anti-Christ.
When he first burst on the scene, I paid absolutely no attention to him for 2 reasons. The first was that I did not believe that America was ready to elect a black President. (Even though it has done so, I still do not believe that it is ready.)
However, the second was that I did not listen to him, nor did I actually observe him. I simply assumed that he fit the mold of most politicians, and that he had a decent enough background as a Negro not to overly alarm folks, and that he had the good sense not to piss them off. (Like he cared.)
It took over a year for me to pay any attention to this young man, and listen to anything that he had to say. It’s been an evolutionary process; however, I would submit that it was I who evolved. He stayed right on message, consistently throughout.
And so you see, I think that his seemingly inexplicable popularity is based on a tone, a style, an attitude, an essence, all of which we should not consider in the selection of a national leader.
But we were obviously looking for something different, even if he did not embody experience. In a way, we said to ourselves, “Enough of the old stuff. It’s obviously not working. It’s time to find a new church.”
And here we find ourselves, in probably the worst situation most of us have ever known. We had to reach out and try to grasp something. Obviously it had to be something “different.”
To be fair, in the last 2 years, it would be hard to find an instance where President Obama screwed up anything of functional significance, and 2 years is a long time for a mere mortal to not put a foot wrong. Even his Cabinet nominations seem to be based more on talent and competence than any sort of political dogma. (Imagine that.)
It remains to be seen how, and if, he will be able to manage any of these opposing views; but he has hit the ground running faster than any other administration in recent memory.
Perhaps this is what we were all longing for - pragmatism, collaboration, and competence.
Perhaps we have had our fill of Senor Wences, and his Topo Gigio sidekicks, keeping the plates spinning in the air, while nothing else gets done. (For those of you for whom this has no significance, check with someone who remembers the old Ed Sullivan Shows.)
Perhaps political theater, outside of Shakespearian tragedies, is going the way of the dodo.
I may be all wrong. After all, I’m the guy who told you that I can generally look at a politician speaking on C-Span and immediately venture a guess as to whether they are progressive or conservative, based purely on visual factors. Consequently, you shouldn’t take me seriously. I’m just another goofball.
However, this is not outside the realm of possibilities. The reason we may not know Barack Obama is because we’re accustomed to evaluating the show, the make-up, and the results of the practice, the special effects, and the spin.
We may be seeing perhaps the first “real person” to run for presidential office in the last 200 years. (And you thought that Sarah Palin was of that species.) Not being accustomed to seeing real people, we may not be able to identify the alien that he is.
Alien or not, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could actually suck up all of our personal prejudices, and give this guy a chance?
© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
--
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Post No. 75: $150 Million Worth - On This Presidential Inauguration Day
Copyright 2009, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
First (in my memory) there was Ali... local (Louisville) kid with talent, eloquence, bravery, and a penchant for political incorrectness... who grew up to become the most admired man on the face of the planet. He was beautiful, and fearless.
Next was Richard Pryor... another kid with talent, eloquence, bravery, and a penchant for political incorrectness... who grew up to turn stand-up comedy (and political commentary) into something that attracted coliseum size audiences, and who had rock star-like appeal. He was beautiful, and also fearless.
Comes now President Obama... another kid with talent, eloquence, and bravery, standing on the shoulders of many who have gone before.... He, too, is beautiful... as is the extraordinary outpouring of joy and hope as we approach his inauguration. Based on what we've seen thus far, he also appears to be fearless.
We, as a Nation, are absolutely convinced we picked the best man for the job (and truth be told, even his detractors would confide that they are impressed)... albeit the worst job anybody has had in recent memory.
Our problems are overwhelming, and we can't wait for the chosen one to lead us out of the wilderness... unfortunately something that cannot be done with the snap of anyone's fingers.
In all probability, and through amazing technological vehicles, this will be the most watched speech in human history... it may even change the course of human events....
And despite the legitimate questions raised by my colleague, The Logistician, and others regarding the price tag for this event, money just can't buy this kind of advertising. Even at this point in economic time.
A generation of our young will grow up with President Obama's words resonating in their ears, hoping to accomplish some of what he has done.
We can only hope this massive demonstration of will, welcome, and affection doesn't lead him to lose his political incorrectness. I would hate to think that the ability to laugh at ourselves will be part of the historical baggage we must throw overboard in order to navigate the rocks ahead....
But for now and for today, Godspeed Barack Hussein Obama.
Copyright 2009, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
First (in my memory) there was Ali... local (Louisville) kid with talent, eloquence, bravery, and a penchant for political incorrectness... who grew up to become the most admired man on the face of the planet. He was beautiful, and fearless.
Next was Richard Pryor... another kid with talent, eloquence, bravery, and a penchant for political incorrectness... who grew up to turn stand-up comedy (and political commentary) into something that attracted coliseum size audiences, and who had rock star-like appeal. He was beautiful, and also fearless.
Comes now President Obama... another kid with talent, eloquence, and bravery, standing on the shoulders of many who have gone before.... He, too, is beautiful... as is the extraordinary outpouring of joy and hope as we approach his inauguration. Based on what we've seen thus far, he also appears to be fearless.
We, as a Nation, are absolutely convinced we picked the best man for the job (and truth be told, even his detractors would confide that they are impressed)... albeit the worst job anybody has had in recent memory.
Our problems are overwhelming, and we can't wait for the chosen one to lead us out of the wilderness... unfortunately something that cannot be done with the snap of anyone's fingers.
In all probability, and through amazing technological vehicles, this will be the most watched speech in human history... it may even change the course of human events....
And despite the legitimate questions raised by my colleague, The Logistician, and others regarding the price tag for this event, money just can't buy this kind of advertising. Even at this point in economic time.
A generation of our young will grow up with President Obama's words resonating in their ears, hoping to accomplish some of what he has done.
We can only hope this massive demonstration of will, welcome, and affection doesn't lead him to lose his political incorrectness. I would hate to think that the ability to laugh at ourselves will be part of the historical baggage we must throw overboard in order to navigate the rocks ahead....
But for now and for today, Godspeed Barack Hussein Obama.
Copyright 2009, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Monday, January 19, 2009
Post No. 74: Our National Discomfort with Miscegenation
Copyright 2009, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The exchange of comments related to this issue should be interesting, should we receive any comments at all.
We chose to use the word "miscegenation," rather than some more commonly used descriptive language, realizing that the subject is one which makes people uncomfortable.
We wanted our readers to at least get past the title.
The Institute is no stranger to controversy, and obviously does not avoid the discussion of sensitive issues, as evidenced by the pillorying that we took recently, for merely suggesting that there was a biological component to heterosexual infidelity.
Moving along, today is Martin Luther King Day, a national holiday. All this morning, we've listened to people from all walks of life talk about how far we've come in the area of race relations.
At least we've heard from those who think that it has been a positive change. (It is far more difficult to gauge the sentiments of those who deplore this transformation. Quite frankly, there might be some benefit associated with hearing directly from them, and being able to clearly identify them. It might aid in the discussion.)
Tomorrow, the first African-American President of this nation will be sworn into office. Some would say that it is indeed fortunate that he has an African-American spouse, and two similarly ethnically situated children. We should note that it has not gone unnoticed that the President-Elect is, himself, the product of miscegenation.
Just a few minutes ago, we saw a young Asian boy in a scene interacting with a young Asian girl on the ABC Family Channel. Because we do not see Asians on television with much frequency here in the U.S., it caught our attention.
We then started flipping through the channels for other instances of boy-girl, male-female interaction, that might be perceived as romantic or something else potentially more problematic in nature.
As we continued to surf, every single time, the couples essentially had the same ethnic background.
Some years ago, O.J. Simpson and Elizabeth Montgomery (the "blonde" of Bewitched fame) were paired in a made-for-television crime drama. The complaints to the sponsors might best be described as "intense."
Share with us the name of any regularly aired television show which has an interracial couple prominently featured.
We observe lots of innuendo and flirting; but rarely do we see them paired up. When was the last time that you saw a commercial for any product, where a couple, ostensibly engaged in an intimate relationship, consisted of people from different races. (It ain't "commercial" as Bobby Womack used to say.)
We're simply not comfortable with that.
Yet.
This is not to mention how family members, friends, church members, business associates, and schoolmates treat others within their circle, who "stray" from the herd.
We all probably know some instances of mixing in our neighborhoods. However, we find it interesting that such images are rarely projected through our media vehicles, with the exception of "immoral pieces" disseminated by those referred to as the "out of the mainstream, degenerate liberals" in Hollywood.
So as we celebrate Dr. King's contribution to this nation, and hand over the reins of power to young Barack Obama, let's contemplate the work that remains to be done, should we feel that getting beyond this issue has an upside.
As Mikhail Gorbachev, former Premier of the U.S.S.R. once said, some things take time and must evolve gradually.
True?
Copyright 2009, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The exchange of comments related to this issue should be interesting, should we receive any comments at all.
We chose to use the word "miscegenation," rather than some more commonly used descriptive language, realizing that the subject is one which makes people uncomfortable.
We wanted our readers to at least get past the title.
The Institute is no stranger to controversy, and obviously does not avoid the discussion of sensitive issues, as evidenced by the pillorying that we took recently, for merely suggesting that there was a biological component to heterosexual infidelity.
Moving along, today is Martin Luther King Day, a national holiday. All this morning, we've listened to people from all walks of life talk about how far we've come in the area of race relations.
At least we've heard from those who think that it has been a positive change. (It is far more difficult to gauge the sentiments of those who deplore this transformation. Quite frankly, there might be some benefit associated with hearing directly from them, and being able to clearly identify them. It might aid in the discussion.)
Tomorrow, the first African-American President of this nation will be sworn into office. Some would say that it is indeed fortunate that he has an African-American spouse, and two similarly ethnically situated children. We should note that it has not gone unnoticed that the President-Elect is, himself, the product of miscegenation.
Just a few minutes ago, we saw a young Asian boy in a scene interacting with a young Asian girl on the ABC Family Channel. Because we do not see Asians on television with much frequency here in the U.S., it caught our attention.
We then started flipping through the channels for other instances of boy-girl, male-female interaction, that might be perceived as romantic or something else potentially more problematic in nature.
As we continued to surf, every single time, the couples essentially had the same ethnic background.
Some years ago, O.J. Simpson and Elizabeth Montgomery (the "blonde" of Bewitched fame) were paired in a made-for-television crime drama. The complaints to the sponsors might best be described as "intense."
Share with us the name of any regularly aired television show which has an interracial couple prominently featured.
We observe lots of innuendo and flirting; but rarely do we see them paired up. When was the last time that you saw a commercial for any product, where a couple, ostensibly engaged in an intimate relationship, consisted of people from different races. (It ain't "commercial" as Bobby Womack used to say.)
We're simply not comfortable with that.
Yet.
This is not to mention how family members, friends, church members, business associates, and schoolmates treat others within their circle, who "stray" from the herd.
We all probably know some instances of mixing in our neighborhoods. However, we find it interesting that such images are rarely projected through our media vehicles, with the exception of "immoral pieces" disseminated by those referred to as the "out of the mainstream, degenerate liberals" in Hollywood.
So as we celebrate Dr. King's contribution to this nation, and hand over the reins of power to young Barack Obama, let's contemplate the work that remains to be done, should we feel that getting beyond this issue has an upside.
As Mikhail Gorbachev, former Premier of the U.S.S.R. once said, some things take time and must evolve gradually.
True?
Copyright 2009, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Post No. 73: An Opportunity Lost (Well, Sorta)
Copyright 2009, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
This one is a tad tricky for us.
Then again, we should all have some degree of ambivalence about the positions we take in life.
It permits us to be open to other views, and allows us to gracefully modify our views, and change course.
And thus grow.
Quite frankly, all the hoopla about this inauguration bothers us.
Sure, this is an historic event, of which the country should be proud.
But why couldn't we, during this time of economic hardship, simply conduct this event in the office of a local mid-western justice of the peace, followed by a dinner with the President-Elect's closest friends at the local Olive Garden.
We don't have a problem with broadcasting it throughout the globe via the latest media outlets.
But why spend the money, even if it is privately funded?
Does it send the wrong message at this time?
We've never been fans of big, expensive, catered weddings. What a less productive utilization of funds and human time. Or grand graduation ceremonies.
But then again, some folks obviously think that there is some value to such staged events.
The Logistician often tells the story about how he never marched in his graduation ceremonies after high school (where he was forced to do so since his Mother rented the cap and gown), thinking them to be frivolous. Same with the graduation ring.
Following his Mother's death, he spoke to one of her close friends, who confided that his Mother was disappointed that she was not able to attend those undergraduate and graduate school ceremonies upon his graduation.
He tells of his response to the effect that he did not consider the events to be of value to him.
The response of his Mother's friend was to the effect that those events are not for the children.
But for the parents.
Sorta put a whole new light on the issue.
So what are we saying that Obama should have done here?
The events are already planned, including the elaborate balls and parties. However, we still believe that this will be a missed opportunity to send a very simple message to the citizens of this country, and the world.
Just seems to us that frugality, or something vaguely akin to it, should rule, at least for some period of time going forward.
As the President-Elect has often said, we should all plan to make some sacrifices going forward.
Copyright 2009, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
This one is a tad tricky for us.
Then again, we should all have some degree of ambivalence about the positions we take in life.
It permits us to be open to other views, and allows us to gracefully modify our views, and change course.
And thus grow.
Quite frankly, all the hoopla about this inauguration bothers us.
Sure, this is an historic event, of which the country should be proud.
But why couldn't we, during this time of economic hardship, simply conduct this event in the office of a local mid-western justice of the peace, followed by a dinner with the President-Elect's closest friends at the local Olive Garden.
We don't have a problem with broadcasting it throughout the globe via the latest media outlets.
But why spend the money, even if it is privately funded?
Does it send the wrong message at this time?
We've never been fans of big, expensive, catered weddings. What a less productive utilization of funds and human time. Or grand graduation ceremonies.
But then again, some folks obviously think that there is some value to such staged events.
The Logistician often tells the story about how he never marched in his graduation ceremonies after high school (where he was forced to do so since his Mother rented the cap and gown), thinking them to be frivolous. Same with the graduation ring.
Following his Mother's death, he spoke to one of her close friends, who confided that his Mother was disappointed that she was not able to attend those undergraduate and graduate school ceremonies upon his graduation.
He tells of his response to the effect that he did not consider the events to be of value to him.
The response of his Mother's friend was to the effect that those events are not for the children.
But for the parents.
Sorta put a whole new light on the issue.
So what are we saying that Obama should have done here?
The events are already planned, including the elaborate balls and parties. However, we still believe that this will be a missed opportunity to send a very simple message to the citizens of this country, and the world.
Just seems to us that frugality, or something vaguely akin to it, should rule, at least for some period of time going forward.
As the President-Elect has often said, we should all plan to make some sacrifices going forward.
Copyright 2009, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Post 72c: Article of Interest from the Wall Street Journal
The following article is taken from the Friday, January 9, 2009 hard copy edition of the "Wall Street Journal." In light of all the talk about "socialism" during the presidential campaign, and our request for New Year resolutions as to what we, as individual citizens, can to do to collectively advance the long term positive interests of our nation, we found it thought-provoking.
The article was written by Stephen Moore and appeared in the Opinion section of the paper.
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html#
The article was written by Stephen Moore and appeared in the Opinion section of the paper.
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement.
* * *
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html#
Monday, January 12, 2009
Post No. 72b: Book Review of Interest re Social Darwinism
We frequently allude to the concept known as "Social Darwinism" in our discussions. The United States is an interesting mix of competing social and governmental philosophies. The characterization, by his detractors, of President-Elect Obama as a "socialist," reflects the tension in our society about how we should collectively be permitted to live our lives, with or without governmental involvement. As our friend Dan Perin recently noted, we appear to be drifting toward the government taking more and more responsibility for things in our lives, while we simultaneously tell it to stay out of our lives.
In order to competently address the various problems which we face as a society (and to come up with the society-based New Year Resolutions we continue to seek: http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/12/post-no-72-country-seeking-new-year.html), we must fully appreciate who we are as a nation.
We ran across this book review in the Friday, January 9, 2009 hard copy edition of the Wall Street Journal. The author is Bill Kauffman, and he reviews Barry Werth's "Banquet at Delmonico's: Great Minds, the Gilded Age, and the Triumph of Evolution in America."
We think that this discussion is particularly timely in light of all of the discussions ongoing about governmental bailouts of the private sector, and the extent to which various industries should be regulated.
The review alone should make all of us think. We're going out to acquire a copy of the book.
In order to competently address the various problems which we face as a society (and to come up with the society-based New Year Resolutions we continue to seek: http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/12/post-no-72-country-seeking-new-year.html), we must fully appreciate who we are as a nation.
We ran across this book review in the Friday, January 9, 2009 hard copy edition of the Wall Street Journal. The author is Bill Kauffman, and he reviews Barry Werth's "Banquet at Delmonico's: Great Minds, the Gilded Age, and the Triumph of Evolution in America."
We think that this discussion is particularly timely in light of all of the discussions ongoing about governmental bailouts of the private sector, and the extent to which various industries should be regulated.
The review alone should make all of us think. We're going out to acquire a copy of the book.
DARWIN IN THE NEW WORLD
"Herbert Spencer, the 19th Century British philosopher, is remembered today as the forbidding-almost forbidden-father of "Social Darwinism," a school of thought declaring that the fittest prosper in a free marketplace and the human race is gradually improved because only the strong survive.
* * *
Applying Darwinian insights about evolution to political, economic and social life-though he did not himself use the term "Social Darwinism" - Spencer concluded that vigorous competition and unfettered capitalism conduced to the betterment of society.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Post No. 72a: Articles of Interest from USA Today re a Modern Day Don Rickles (and maybe a comment or two on political correctness)
The opinions expressed in the following two articles taken from the January 9, 2009 hardcopy edition of "USA Today" are not in any way reflective of the views of the Institute for Applied Common Sense or any of its employees. We just found them to be interesting in light of the ongoing debate about political correctness.
The FIRST ARTICLE is taken from “Page 3.0” written by Michael Hiestand and is entitled, “Barkley the entertainer usually gets a pass.”
“Charles Barkley’s latest and very serious mistake-an arrest for a drunken driving charge-has drawn derision appropriate for an athlete or credible analyst. CBSsports.com said if he were “almost any other athlete we’d have burned him at the stake by now” and The Charlotte Observer said he’s “hurt his credibility.
“Except, TNT’s Barkley is neither an athlete, representing a team or league, nor particularly credible. He’s an entertainer – think Lindsay Lohan, Hugh Grant, Paris Hilton, the Saturday Night Live news desk-who began in sports. His supposed plan to run for governor of Alabama would be as meaningful as Howard Stern’s run for New York governor in 1994.
“Otherwise, Barkley wouldn’t have survived on-air after saying Dan Rather should have killed Saddam Hussein when he interviewed him. And that Olympic curling “is dusting, any woman can do that.” Or goading animal rights activists by eating a burger on-air- “I don’t care what this cow went through.” Or saying, after a Desperate Housewives actress jumped into Terrell Owens’ arms on a Monday Night Football skit, he’d like the actress “to jump on me in here one night.” By the time Barkley said The Masters has “always been racist” or, on CNN, that conservatives “are fake Christians,” who really cared? After all, Barkley long ago said he’s “not a role model” – but even that was just a scripted line in a (Nike) TV ad.
“Like Don Rickles, Barkley is best seen as a long-running act where he can say things that would be wildly inappropriate for most public figures. But that act also allows Barkley to do things on-air like kiss a donkey’s rear end.
“The Houston Rockets’ Tracy McGrady, talking on TNT, has figured it out: ‘I don’t really listen to Charles about basketball. I listen to Charles if he’s talking about calories in a cupcake.’”
The SECOND ARTICLE is taken from Sports, Section C, Page 1, written by Joe Saraceno, and is entitled, “Barkley’s test results to be released.”
“The 45-year old Hame of Fame basketball star was stopped in Scottsdale on New Year’s Eve for running a stop sign. After a police officer said he smelled alcohol, Barkley refused to give a breath test but flunked a field sobriety test and was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. The former MVP and 11-time NBA All-Star told police he was in a hurry to receive oral sex from a female passenger, according to a police report. Barkley issued an apology.”
The FIRST ARTICLE is taken from “Page 3.0” written by Michael Hiestand and is entitled, “Barkley the entertainer usually gets a pass.”
“Charles Barkley’s latest and very serious mistake-an arrest for a drunken driving charge-has drawn derision appropriate for an athlete or credible analyst. CBSsports.com said if he were “almost any other athlete we’d have burned him at the stake by now” and The Charlotte Observer said he’s “hurt his credibility.
“Except, TNT’s Barkley is neither an athlete, representing a team or league, nor particularly credible. He’s an entertainer – think Lindsay Lohan, Hugh Grant, Paris Hilton, the Saturday Night Live news desk-who began in sports. His supposed plan to run for governor of Alabama would be as meaningful as Howard Stern’s run for New York governor in 1994.
“Otherwise, Barkley wouldn’t have survived on-air after saying Dan Rather should have killed Saddam Hussein when he interviewed him. And that Olympic curling “is dusting, any woman can do that.” Or goading animal rights activists by eating a burger on-air- “I don’t care what this cow went through.” Or saying, after a Desperate Housewives actress jumped into Terrell Owens’ arms on a Monday Night Football skit, he’d like the actress “to jump on me in here one night.” By the time Barkley said The Masters has “always been racist” or, on CNN, that conservatives “are fake Christians,” who really cared? After all, Barkley long ago said he’s “not a role model” – but even that was just a scripted line in a (Nike) TV ad.
“Like Don Rickles, Barkley is best seen as a long-running act where he can say things that would be wildly inappropriate for most public figures. But that act also allows Barkley to do things on-air like kiss a donkey’s rear end.
“The Houston Rockets’ Tracy McGrady, talking on TNT, has figured it out: ‘I don’t really listen to Charles about basketball. I listen to Charles if he’s talking about calories in a cupcake.’”
The SECOND ARTICLE is taken from Sports, Section C, Page 1, written by Joe Saraceno, and is entitled, “Barkley’s test results to be released.”
“The 45-year old Hame of Fame basketball star was stopped in Scottsdale on New Year’s Eve for running a stop sign. After a police officer said he smelled alcohol, Barkley refused to give a breath test but flunked a field sobriety test and was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. The former MVP and 11-time NBA All-Star told police he was in a hurry to receive oral sex from a female passenger, according to a police report. Barkley issued an apology.”
Monday, December 29, 2008
Post No. 72: Country Seeking New Year Resolutions
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Now that the New Year is upon us, we’ve decided, as citizens, to approach it differently. After all, we’re nothing if not eclectic.
Although some suggest that the concerns about the state of our nation (and the world) are much ado about nothing, we’d rather not be lulled into complacency and leave it to our purported leaders to pull us out of this mess.
As stated in our Post No. 71, entitled “Our Responsibility as Citizens,” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/12/post-no-71-our-responsibility-as.html), we believe that each and every one of us can have a significant influence in improving our collective situation.
If we don’t have that belief as citizens, we’re screwed.
And we’ll be left to the devices of the slick, the charlatans, and the cads.
The period in history, which we believe most powerfully reflects the power of individual contribution (at least in a measured way), is WWII. (So was the French Revolution; however, it was not particularly coordinated.)
War bonds, rationing, women lifting riveting machines, dramatic re-tooling of industry, and individual sacrifice, in addition to the men and women fighting on or close to the front line, all contributed to the ultimate success of the Allied forces.
What we’d like for you to do is to come up with a description of something pragmatic and practical, which you are capable of doing in the coming year, as an individual, responsible citizen, which you believe others could emulate. Don’t make it too conceptual.
We all know what we didn’t do during the past 8 years. Now it’s time to stop complaining about the actions of others, and to take charge and do something.
Send what you plan to do to RDGreene@triad.rr.com via e-mail on or before January 1, 2009.
We will review the submissions, and on January 2, 2009, post the Top Ten Actions of Responsible Citizens for 2009 on our blog. We will then take efforts to have them presented to the media and our elected leaders, and go from there.
We look forward to your input.
We’re sure that you’re up for the challenge.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Now that the New Year is upon us, we’ve decided, as citizens, to approach it differently. After all, we’re nothing if not eclectic.
Although some suggest that the concerns about the state of our nation (and the world) are much ado about nothing, we’d rather not be lulled into complacency and leave it to our purported leaders to pull us out of this mess.
As stated in our Post No. 71, entitled “Our Responsibility as Citizens,” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/12/post-no-71-our-responsibility-as.html), we believe that each and every one of us can have a significant influence in improving our collective situation.
If we don’t have that belief as citizens, we’re screwed.
And we’ll be left to the devices of the slick, the charlatans, and the cads.
The period in history, which we believe most powerfully reflects the power of individual contribution (at least in a measured way), is WWII. (So was the French Revolution; however, it was not particularly coordinated.)
War bonds, rationing, women lifting riveting machines, dramatic re-tooling of industry, and individual sacrifice, in addition to the men and women fighting on or close to the front line, all contributed to the ultimate success of the Allied forces.
What we’d like for you to do is to come up with a description of something pragmatic and practical, which you are capable of doing in the coming year, as an individual, responsible citizen, which you believe others could emulate. Don’t make it too conceptual.
We all know what we didn’t do during the past 8 years. Now it’s time to stop complaining about the actions of others, and to take charge and do something.
Send what you plan to do to RDGreene@triad.rr.com via e-mail on or before January 1, 2009.
We will review the submissions, and on January 2, 2009, post the Top Ten Actions of Responsible Citizens for 2009 on our blog. We will then take efforts to have them presented to the media and our elected leaders, and go from there.
We look forward to your input.
We’re sure that you’re up for the challenge.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Post No. 71a: Article of Interest from CNN.com: Baby Boomers Out, Cuspers In
The following article is taken from a recent edition of CNN.com. It was forwarded to us by one of our loyal readers, Stever.
Commentary: Baby Boomers Out, 'Cuspers' In
By Marian Salzman, Chief Marketing Officer, Porter Novelli Worldwide
"New York (CNN) -- Rarely has there been a year when so many things went out of style in such a short time: not just investment bankers, gas-guzzling vehicles, corporate jets, conspicuous consumption and political polarization, but also a whole generation.
* * *
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Post No. 71: Our Responsibility as Citizens
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
In response to two of our recent posts, dealing with same-sex marriage and abortion, one of our readers facetiously suggested that we were engaging in “mental masturbation,” while another suggested that we were “going in circles.”
Both comments were constructive in that they reminded us, here at the Institute, that we should occasionally engage in a discussion about why we do what we do.
There are three of us here engaging in multi-disciplinary masturbation. The Laughingman keeps us in check, and reminds us of the historical, psychological, and anthropological underpinnings of things. The Logistician is engineering, management, and policy oriented. The Optimizer injects the human and governmental elements, and impresses upon us the importance of nuance.
Together, we have a goal. We’re three Baby Boomers who recognize that, despite our lofty, idealistic goals and views in the 70s, we did little to improve on the citizen model. And for that we must take responsibility.
You see, we believe that all adult citizens bear most of the responsibility for the current state of our nation. Not our purported leaders.
We abdicated our responsibility each time that we stepped into the voting booth, we shopped, we worshipped, we sent our kids to school, and the manner in which we functioned as employees and managers.
And each time that we remained silent and acquiesced.
Someone recently suggested that we are approaching a new era in our nation with respect to the role of government going forward.
At the same time, we recognize that a new crop of kids will inherit a mess of massive proportions. Consequently, we’re here to assist them in recognizing that there are more than 2 or 3 ways to view any issue; there are at least 27.™
Because it is going to take thinking outside of the box, and coming up with bold, innovative, untried approaches, to tackle this monster. We’re getting our asses kicked, soundly, and the first step in turning that around is to admit that it’s our fault. Each one of us.
It’s now the turn of the kids to turn this thing around.
We will ultimately take our concept on the road and engage college students throughout the nation in a conversation about Personal Responsibility, and how the decisions that they make ultimately bear on the success of the nation as a collective whole.
We need more engineers.
We need more scientists.
We need more inventors.
We need more entrepreneurs.
And we need each member of these groups to tackle our problems, not from their personal perspectives, and what might be in their best interests, but what is ultimately in the long-term best interests of the nation.
We will utilize adults who have encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain, and decision theory. The goals of the Institute are the following:
(a) To provoke thought;
(b) To encourage students to consider their choices in life;
(c) To assist students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the consequences; and
(d) To have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices.
We hope to achieve, during our discussion of issues, the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of issues, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions.
Although maintaining the status quo might be, solving problems shouldn’t be, partisan and political.
If the election of President-Elect Obama signifies anything, it tells us that we all need to chip in and do our respective parts. It’s our duty as citizens.
It’s time for a whole new collective approach.
Remember, experience isn’t expensive – it’s priceless.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
In response to two of our recent posts, dealing with same-sex marriage and abortion, one of our readers facetiously suggested that we were engaging in “mental masturbation,” while another suggested that we were “going in circles.”
Both comments were constructive in that they reminded us, here at the Institute, that we should occasionally engage in a discussion about why we do what we do.
There are three of us here engaging in multi-disciplinary masturbation. The Laughingman keeps us in check, and reminds us of the historical, psychological, and anthropological underpinnings of things. The Logistician is engineering, management, and policy oriented. The Optimizer injects the human and governmental elements, and impresses upon us the importance of nuance.
Together, we have a goal. We’re three Baby Boomers who recognize that, despite our lofty, idealistic goals and views in the 70s, we did little to improve on the citizen model. And for that we must take responsibility.
You see, we believe that all adult citizens bear most of the responsibility for the current state of our nation. Not our purported leaders.
We abdicated our responsibility each time that we stepped into the voting booth, we shopped, we worshipped, we sent our kids to school, and the manner in which we functioned as employees and managers.
And each time that we remained silent and acquiesced.
Someone recently suggested that we are approaching a new era in our nation with respect to the role of government going forward.
At the same time, we recognize that a new crop of kids will inherit a mess of massive proportions. Consequently, we’re here to assist them in recognizing that there are more than 2 or 3 ways to view any issue; there are at least 27.™
Because it is going to take thinking outside of the box, and coming up with bold, innovative, untried approaches, to tackle this monster. We’re getting our asses kicked, soundly, and the first step in turning that around is to admit that it’s our fault. Each one of us.
It’s now the turn of the kids to turn this thing around.
We will ultimately take our concept on the road and engage college students throughout the nation in a conversation about Personal Responsibility, and how the decisions that they make ultimately bear on the success of the nation as a collective whole.
We need more engineers.
We need more scientists.
We need more inventors.
We need more entrepreneurs.
And we need each member of these groups to tackle our problems, not from their personal perspectives, and what might be in their best interests, but what is ultimately in the long-term best interests of the nation.
We will utilize adults who have encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain, and decision theory. The goals of the Institute are the following:
(a) To provoke thought;
(b) To encourage students to consider their choices in life;
(c) To assist students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the consequences; and
(d) To have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices.
We hope to achieve, during our discussion of issues, the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of issues, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions.
Although maintaining the status quo might be, solving problems shouldn’t be, partisan and political.
If the election of President-Elect Obama signifies anything, it tells us that we all need to chip in and do our respective parts. It’s our duty as citizens.
It’s time for a whole new collective approach.
Remember, experience isn’t expensive – it’s priceless.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)