Post 84b: Article of Interest: We Still Say a Country Needs to Know Its Limitations

Do you really have any confidence, or even just some hope, that our government has the ability to address serious problems in society? Take a look at this article which appears today in USA Today and let us know what you think after reading it. Does it provide us with an indication as to how the economic stimulus funds might be handled?

Post 84a: Article of Interest re Surprising Auto Sales in a Distant Land

Despite the problems faced by automobile manufacturers world-wide, there's one location where cars are selling like hotcakes. Guess where:

By the way, if that surprises you, although clearlyunrelated, do you recall this article which we posted in August of last year?

Post No. 84: Despite Bad Economy, Welfare Rolls Not Growing (Huh?)

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We call ourselves the Institute for Applied “Common” Sense, and yet we often find ourselves trying to make sense of things.

We believe that instead of being distracted by the superficial symptoms associated with problems, we should “dig deeper” to identify the underlying causes.

Just last week, we discussed the state of the art of various alternative automotive technologies. We noted that the problem is not with the science or the technology, per se.

After all, one could theoretically assemble a group of engineers or scientists to achieve virtually any technological goals, although not necessarily with the desired speed or preferred ease. (More significantly, it’s a timing issue, or simply put, do we have it when we need it, or when we want it, or when we choose to think about it?) Or as the Logistician often notes in his presentations, "whether they were 'sufficiently motivated.'"

In discussing the auto industry, and the government’s involvement (both past and future), we tend to focus on the nature and structure of our governance (management) model in this country, and the limitations associated with it.

The model’s inherent limitations were one of the main reasons that we cautioned against the development a national health care system, at least as currently being discussed. Quite simply, we believe that America does not have a governance model, or mindset (at least not at the present time), to be able to competently run such a system for 300 million subscribers.

Fortunately, we are not alone in our views this time around. This past weekend, C-Span2 Book TV aired a discussion about government’s inability to respond to the needs of its citizens. The title of the program was, “The Next Government of the United States: Why Our Institutions Fail Us and How to Fix Them.”

That is also the name of the book written by Donald Kettl, a leadership and government professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Kettl argues that the government has emerged into “interlocking public-private-nonprofit systems that lack adequate governance, a clear government role, and any central control.”

Hmm, what a radical position.

What should be very clear by now is that we have been using our tax dollars, some three trillion of them in the last 12 months, to fix the wrong things. [Pop quiz: Do you know how many zeros are in a trillion?]

We may all still be sitting around the same Monopoly board, but we are no longer all playing by the same rules.

Wall Street has used at least twenty billion of our money as bonuses because they claim that they “need to keep the best people.” On Wall Street, people are still considered an asset, regardless of their performance.

On the other hand, General Motors and Chrysler are using a good part of the twenty billion they received to get rid of their people (people who, by the way, are building the best quality cars and trucks in automotive industry history), because they think they can find someone who will do the work cheaper.

Does anyone else see a cost versus price problem here?

Is this the new definition of value added?

Apparently, the sense is not “common.”

With tongue only slightly in cheek, Michael Lewis (the author of Liar’s Poker, The New, New Thing, and Moneyball, among others), wrote in the September 5, 2007 edition of Bloomberg News, as follows:

“So, right after the Bear Sterns funds blew up, I had a thought: this is what happens when you lend money to poor people. Don’t get me wrong; I have nothing personally against the poor. To my knowledge, I have nothing to do with the poor at all. It’s not personal when a guy cuts your grass; that’s a business. He does what you say; you pay him. But you don’t pay him in advance. That would be finance. And finance is the one thing you should never engage in with the poor. (By poor, I mean anyone who the SEC wouldn’t allow to invest in my hedge fund.)” [Italics added.]

The best and the brightest of our Business Schools have nothing but contempt for Jack Welsh and Steve Jobs. In their view, those poor fools build things, meaning they have to share their income with (and think about) workers, suppliers, and bankers. They are playing Monopoly by the old rules. [Ha, ha, ha.]

You see, to those less sophisticated ones of us, it now appears that the new rules are not about making things, but making money.

The idea apparently is to divert as much money as possible into Free Parking, land on it, and get on to the next game. For some, this must be the new definition of “business relationship."

There is no other way to make a constant 20% on your investments, and a resulting $20 million annual bonus.

If you want to borrow some of the money these new wave financiers (who have slaved and toiled so hard) have under their management, you have to get rid of as many of your workers as possible… to get your future margins up.

That you can’t build anything without workers is beside the point, Watson. They will package your loan and sell it to the Chinese before you exhaust your existing inventory.

The problem is that 18th century steam boat physics proved ultimately (although it was challenged at the time) that when all the passengers and crew run to one side of the boat, you’re “most likely” going to have difficulty “going forward,” as Wall Street likes to say.

And so it was with a great deal of interest that we noted an article entitled “Welfare Aid Isn’t Growing as Economy drops Off” in the February 2, 2009 edition of The New York Times.

BEFORE you read it, stop and consider the most logical explanations for why this might be occurring.

The mere fact that anyone would have to read that article to make sense of it strongly suggests that….

If you think that the welfare situation doesn’t make sense, whether “common” or not, try understanding the opposition by some to the “Buy American” provision in the stimulus bill currently being debated.

We’re not particularly well-versed in either micro or macro economic theory. However, whatever route we chose to reach this point, where it has become problematic for us to suggest that we buy our own goods, should be “revisited” so that we do not venture down that path again.

It obviously wasn’t a straight one.

It may make “economic sense,” at this point in time, to the intellectuals and those who stand to benefit. However, it just seems to us that it defies the “common sense” of the common citizen.

We guess that this is just one more thing that the “common man or woman” does not understand, the silly people that we are, along with derivatives and swaps.

We truly apologize for not understanding those vehicles. Simply color us "unimaginative." Apparently, a lot of our politicians and the politically sophisticated understand them, and we guess that is all that matters.

Imagine a parent being told, “Instead of choosing to focus on taking care of your kids, and buying lemonade from their stand, you should be cautious and continue to purchase the lemonade made by the kids of some distant relatives living abroad, because to do otherwise might come back to haunt you, and, oh by the way, it may actually be in YOUR best interests.”

We, the unsophisticated, suspect that macro economic principles applicable to the global economy are far more complicated than dealing with one’s little family. But try explaining that to the common man or woman whose taxes are paying for the corporate bailouts.

Simply put, addressing societal problems is evidently complex stuff, but even a homeless guy (or perhaps someone on that dreadful welfare) knows that a patchwork of band-aids, applied in haste in the ER, rarely stops the bleeding, although it might allow the attending to send you on your way.

When you get results from an initiative, which are diametrically opposed to what you expect the program to accomplish, you should consider returning to the drawing board.

Finally, to quote that bearded friend of ours from days long past:

“Horatio: He waxes desperate with imagination.

“Marcellus: Let’s follow. ‘Tis not fit for us to obey him.

“Horatio: Have after. To what issue will this come?

“Marcellus: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

“Horatio: Heaven will direct it.

“Marcellus: Nay, let’s follow him. [Exeunt.]”

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Editorial Note: This “whatever” was the product of collaboration between The Laughingman and The Logistician. Believe it or not, we originally thought that we were going to chat about welfare, but it evolved into this. For those of you failing to make “sense” of it –well, we guess that you just had to be there….

Post No. 83: The Impure Need Not Apply

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Our goal here at the Institute is to assist people in ultimately formulating solutions. We do not care what the solution is, as long as it is reasoned, and advances the long-term goals of our collective society, and not just the interests of certain groups.

Someone once suggested that elected officials, and those seeking appointment to public service positions, be required to generate, for public dissemination, a detailed historical resume, and provide all tax returns and documentation BEFORE filing to run for elected office, or accepting a nomination or an appointment.

Obviously, an extension of this thought process would suggest that all details of their lives and finances, as politicians or government officials, be similarly disclosed on a periodic basis.

Here's another thought. Our nation has obviously reached the point where our elected officials are expected to be without flaws, and to be pristine and pure in those areas which we consider to be “of importance,” such as the avoidance of tapping shoes under public restroom stalls.

It doesn't matter on which side of the aisle they intend to travel. This should be applied uniformly without regard to political party or ideology.

Why not consider having all applicants for public office execute an affidavit to the effect that they have never broken the law (with the types of offenses enumerated), and have done nothing, of which they are aware, which might be regarded as "inappropriate" for a public official.

To address the concerns of the due process extremists, we could have a bi-partisan commission generate a list of indiscretions, based on years of experience with past scofflaws, including utilizing the services of illegal aliens and the improper utilization of cigars and other contrivances.

In conjunction with the execution of the affidavit, we could also require the applicant to put up as collateral, all of his or her assets, to be forfeited, and the social service placement of any minors within their custody, if it is later determined that there has been some failing in their conduct.

That's one approach which we could employ to weed out all of these pretenders, don't you think? We, as a nation, appear to have no interest in people with flaws or who have failed, so let's deal with that on the front end.

And it also appears, as reflected in the recent comments about Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps, and Tom Daschle recently, that admitting that you were wrong, and accepting responsibility for your conduct is viewed as a “little too late,” and of little consequence.

(Hmmm. Perhaps the former governor of Illinois is way ahead of us on that one.)

Why not be proactive and do the Barney Fife by “nipping this in the bud” by disqualifying folks BEFORE they run for office or seek an appointment.

It would make admissions of fault and acceptance of responsibility purely gratuitous.

Doesn’t this seem like the proper and efficient thing to do?

Forget talent! Forget experience! Forget other qualifications!

What we really need to lead us back, to the mountaintop of international moral and economic prominence, is to only have the pristine and the pure lead us there. Hallelujah!

Why waste our time with the impure? Simply toss them aside, and use not their services.

Step forward, all of you who are without sin, to lead us!

The impure need not apply.

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post 82: Some Thoughts on the State of Technology in America

© 2009, the Institute of Applied Common Sense

Previously, in Post No. 79a, we posted an article discussing where we really are at this point in time, in connection with electric car technology. The Free Press article, which we referenced, also mentioned that the auto industry will need the long term cooperation and assistance of government to pull this off.

While we focused, in that post, on the debate between the competing “private enterprise/let the free market determine,” and the “government intervention/ regulation” factions, we later realized that we had failed to focus on the technology factor.

That realization came about when one of our readers, Robert, perfectly framed the issue, and brought some common sense back into the discussion about the state of technology related to batteries used in electric vehicles. We decided to generate this post to highlight the importance of his comment.

Simply put, Robert indicated that the technology is simply not there. Yet. (We invite you to examine it in its entirety toward the end of the comments to Post No. 79a.)

(Tangentially, Robert’s comment (along with its tone) so impressed The Logistician, who has an engineering and science background, that he suggested that we extend an invitation to him to join us here at the Institute for Applied Common Sense.)

We've often wondered, why it is that some "elements" in our society are always complaining about the failure of our nation (whether it be an attack on our educational system or private industry) to come up with technological advances in various areas, when they feel that we need them, or that it suits their purposes?

By "elements," we mean the non-scientific, non-engineer, non-inventor, political science and English majors, and the lawyers who run for elected office. For the most part, the members of these elements have not invented one single thing in their lives (with the possible exception of babies), and yet they have the gumption to preach about technological failures or miscalculations on the part of others.

Michael Crichton, shortly before his death last year, spoke of how we had, in this country, come to politicize science, to such an extent that it hurts our ability to have a realistic conversation about our technological needs and goals.

In a discussion, with a very well-respected scientist and leader in his field of research late last year, we asked this question: Why are we, the “general public,” not privy to scientific views and conclusions viewed as “givens” by the academic, engineering, and scientific communities, which significantly affect our lives and the quality thereof?

The Professor suggested one basic reason: the fear of being “Saganized,” or not being taken seriously because of one’s popular appeal, once the discussion enters the popular arena. (The term was coined in connection with Carl Sagan, who popularized science.)

We submit that there is a second: the fear of attack, from those factions (usually religious, financial, or political in nature) outside of their respective scientific communities, who have agendas unrelated to the advancement of science.

The conversation, at the national level in particular, has become perverted, and, as with many things in life, perversion of the analysis on the front end leads to perversion of the purported solutions on the back end.

If you have 300 cats in your large home or building, and you let them essentially do what they want to do on a daily basis, you can't exactly complain when, at the end of the day, your structure is not in the “condition” in which you would like.

Similarly, when a nation of 300 million lets its adult citizens pursue whatever educational and vocational interests they desire, and industry to pursue whatever legal goals it desires, we can not later legitimately complain about the state of our nation.

We're not saying that we necessarily need to change our current governance model, if it's what the majority of the citizens want. We're just saying that a responsible nation recognizes the consequences of its freedoms (aka actions), acknowledges them, and then figures out how to minimize the negative costs associated with the exercise of those freedoms.

Disingenuously blaming others does not advance that goal, or the long term interests of the nation, in dealing with scientific and technological issues (or any other issues for that matter).

© 2009, the Institute of Applied Common Sense

Post No. 81: Rear View Mirror: Post - Super Bowl Edition (or How Quickly We Forget)

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We are once again delighted to have a contribution by The Laughingman.

In the summer of 1971, then President Richard M. Nixon introduced the American public to mandatory wage and price controls, pursuant to the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, setting off a wave of unintended consequences.

(For those of you under the age of 45, we have provided you with some nifty links enabling you to further explore this seemingly ancient history.)

President Nixon's action was largely the result of the cost of America's longest war... and its first defeat.

Both Nixon and his predecessor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, had correctly assumed that support for the conflict would totally evaporate should the American people get any idea of what it was actually costing. Consequently, both men played their economic cost cards very close to their vests.

Wage and price controls had two immediate impacts on both corporations and labor.

For corporations, any reduction in the price of a product to address declining economic circumstances was viewed as suicidal because of the possibility of the corporation becoming locked into that lower price into perpetuity.

For labor, compensation negotiations shifted from current pay to future benefits, effectively moving what the workers earned from pay to future promises of health care and retirement income.

Both groups had one thing in common - neither trusted the federal government.

As both struggled with this new reality, the government went chasing niche interests in hopes of building support for an increasingly unpopular war. Detroit was given a couple of years to make mandatory seat belt/ignition interlocks standard equipment on every car sold in the United States by the 1974 model year.

Our news papers became awash in "coupons" to be submitted to the retailer, or sent directly to the factory to obtain a temporary price reduction on just about anything. As soon as P&G discovered that more than 40% of these coupons were never redeemed, it began to change its strategy, from strength of wholesale sales based on pricing and advertising superiority, to coupons, thus shifting pricing and advertising largely to retailers.

Welcome to the game, Wal-Mart.

Unions came up with ideas like "job banks" to insure that if their workers could not share in economic upturns, at least they would not lose their income when the market turned down.

President Nixon, with new problems of his own, finally pulled American combat troops out of Viet Nam on March 29, 1973, but the cost of the war remained a lingering problem, even as that only class of criminals native to the United States, Congress, debated how the "peace dividend" could best be spent to their individual benefit.

It was a short debate.

The Yom Kippur War only lasted from October 6 to October 26, 1973 (some have advanced it lasted until December 23, 1973), but the Arab Oil Embargo lasted from October, 1973 to March, 1974... temporarily quadrupling the cost of oil.

On January 2, 1974, President Nixon signed the "Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act" into law, basically denying federal highway funds to any state not immediately enacting a 55 mph speed limit.

The United States became the laughing stock of the world-wide automotive community.

The idea was to cut U.S. oil consumption by at least 2.2%. Interestingly, U.S. oil conservation never exceeded 1%... and by most independent analysis never got above .5%... nevertheless, the law remained on the books until 1995.

The laughter only got louder as the American consumer simply refused to buy an automobile equipped with technology that made it impossible to start unless everybody (and every heavy package) in the car was wearing a properly connected seat belt.

Not only did American corporations and labor no longer trust the government, it appeared that the government no longer trusted them.

Not surprisingly, light vehicle sales tanked. 1975 looked as if it would be lucky to reach half of 1973's volume.

On August 8, 1974, during the acoustic segment of a Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young concert in Newark, New Jersey, Richard Nixon resigned the presidency.

Six months later, during half-time at Super Bowl IX, Joe Garagiola suggested that the solution to all our economic ills could be solved fairly simply: "Get a car. Get a check."

Five years later, round about January, and on its way to 70 something consecutive monthly sales records, Tom Messner and Barry Vetere produced a $100,000 television commercial for Saab with a visual of empty car haulers driving down various roads.

The voice over ran something along the lines of, "Last year, Saab sold every single car they imported to America...even the 36 neon green ones with the orange interiors, and the rubber floor mats. So, if you want to buy a Saab this year, you might want to hurry."

This was clearly out of step with what had become standard automotive sales procedure, but according to Bob Sinclair...CEO of Saab NA at the time; "If you build cars that people want to buy, and price them accordingly, you don't have to bribe them to buy them."

Now that we’ve gotten beyond the hoopla of this year’s Super Bowl, and the depressing atmosphere at the recent North American International Auto Show, I would sure feel a whole lot better about the future or our automobile industry, if President Obama could find the time to have lunch with Bob, before we begin production of the new Pelosi.

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 80: The Logistician’s Favorite "Short Story"

A frog walks into a bank, and promptly walks up to the teller, whose name is Patricia Whack.

"Good morning Ms. Whack," says the frog. "My name is Froggy Jagger, my Father is Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones, and I'd like to get a loan."

Ms. Whack, taken somewhat aback, inquires as to whether Froggy has any collateral.

Froggy reaches down and pulls up a brown, paper bag, which he promptly opens to reveal a delicate, pink, porcelain elephant.

Ms. Whack provides a polite, "Hmm, let me see," and indicates that she'll be right back.

She then walks into the office of the Branch Manager, Mr. Jones, and hesitantly reveals that, "There's a frog outside, sir, who claims that his Father is Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones, and he would like to get a loan, the collateral for which he has provided this porcelain elephant."

The Branch Manager displays a look of irritation for a few seconds, and then with clenched teeth utters:

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

"It's a knick-knack Patty Whack, give the frog a loan. His old man's a Rolling Stone."

The Logistician refers to this type of joke as a “church joke,” namely one which can be told in church, or to grade school children. Now it’s your turn. Share with us your “short story” or “church joke.”

Post No. 79a: Article of Interest - Where are we in Terms of Electric Car Technology?

For the past couple of weeks, we have engaged in a conversation about whether the private sector or government should perform certain functions in society. We entertained all points of view, and even presented some arguments by Nobel Economics Laureate Milton Friedman, highlighting the different positions.

The following article appeared in the January 18, 2009 electronic edition of the Free Press. The article, entitled “Detroit 3 Say They’ll Need Help to Go Electric,” was written by Justin Hyde of the publication’s Washington staff. We’d like to hear from both free market advocates and government interventionists as to the factors which led to this situation, and what we might do going forward to accelerate the technological advance. Obviously just throwing money at the issue, no matter what the source, will not advance the technology overnight. Those of you with engineering or science backgrounds need not comment; this one is for the “policy” makers.

“When Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker strolled into the Ford Motor Co. display last week at the Detroit auto show, Mark Fields had his pitch for electric vehicles ready.

“The Ford vice president steered Corker toward a display showing the underside of a Focus converted to all-electric power, and pressed a case that Ford and other automakers couldn’t make such models happen alone.

“’We are really going to need to partner with the government and the electric companies,’ Fields said. ‘The infrastructure is key. If you’re going from one state to another, where are you going to plug in, what are you going to charge for it?’

“It’s the kind of conversation that Detroit’s executives will have plenty of practice with in the coming years…." [Read More.]

Post No. 79: Rethinking the Role of Government (Part 2) – or the “Real” Definition of Liberalism

Previously in our Post No. 77, we provided you with excerpts of Nobel Economics Laureate Milton Friedman’s book published in 1962, “Capitalism and Freedom.” The following additional excerpts are taken from that work. We told you that you’d be surprised about the definition of “liberalism” addressed by Friedman. With all of the talk about stimulating the economy these days, we'd be interested in where you stand after reading this. (If you did not read Post No. 77, you should do so now before reading this one.) You should enjoy this.

“Government can never duplicate the variety and diversity of individual action. At any moment in time, by imposing uniform standards in housing, or nutrition, or clothing, government could undoubtedly improve the level of living of many individuals; by imposing uniform standards in schooling, road construction, or sanitation, central government could undoubtedly improve the level of performance in many local areas, and perhaps even on the average of all communities. But in the process, government would replace progress by stagnation, it would substitute uniform mediocrity for the variety essential for that experimentation which can bring tomorrow’s laggards above today’s mean.

“This book discusses some of these great issues. Its major theme is the role of competitive capitalism – the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market – as a system of economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom. Its minor theme is the role that government should play in a society dedicated to freedom and relying primarily on the market to organize economic activity.”

* * *

“It is extremely convenient to have a label for the political and economic viewpoint elaborated in this book. The rightful and proper label is liberalism. [Emphasis added.] Unfortunately, “As a supreme, if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label, [footnote omitted]” so that liberalism has, in the United States, come to have a very different meaning than it did in the nineteenth century or does today over much of the Continent of Europe.

“As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported laissez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In political matters, it supported the development of representative government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms of individuals.

“Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom.

[Paragraph break added.] “The nineteenth-century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth-century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!

“The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is more striking in economic matters than in political. The twentieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable difference.

[Paragraph break added.] “Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nineteenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized government. He will resolve any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government.

“Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views that formerly went under that name are now often labeled conservatism. But this is not a satisfactory alternative. The nineteenth-century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense of favoring major changes in social institutions. So too must be his modern heir.

[Paragraph break added.] “We do not wish to conserve the state interventions that have interfered so greatly with our freedom, though, of course, we do wish to conserve those that have promoted it [.] Moreover, in practice, the term conservatism has come to cover so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-conservative.

“Partly because of my reluctance to surrender the term to proponents of measures that would destroy liberty, partly because I cannot find a better alternative, I shall resolve these difficulties by using the word liberalism in its original sense-as the doctrines pertaining to a free man.”

Post No. 78: An Example of a Private Citizen Taking Responsibility for Her Community

Copyright 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

As most of our regular readers are aware, in late December of last year, in our Post No. 71, we spoke of the responsibility which all of us have as citizens to improve our communities.

We noted that we can not blindly sit by and leave everything to our elected officials. We further noted that there are many things that we can do on an individual level to advance the long-term positive interests of society.

In our Post No. 72, we challenged our citizen readers to develop, pragmatic, society-oriented, collaborative New Year resolutions for 2009, which they intended to pursue. We received numerous exciting suggestions and we intend to publish a Top Ten list of those resolutions before the end of January.

However, we recently became aware of an effort by an individual in Greensboro, North Carolina, which reflects the attitude and spirit which we hope others will emulate during the coming year. As our new President has often said, all of us will need to pitch in, and all of us will need to sacrifice.

Voulynne Small is the daughter of a minister, and an instructor at a local community college in the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina. While on land, she teaches adults, seeking their GEDs, English and Math. In recent years, she has bounced between her community college instructor duties and serving as an instructor on U.S. Naval aircraft carriers in foreign waters, teaching psychology, math, and English to service personnel while out at sea.

Most of us would choose to permanently teach the courses on board the carrier, and travel to exotic lands around the world. However, Ms. Small has made a personal sacrifice, and chosen to form a non-profit known as B.E.S.T.

B.E.S.T. stands for Brothers Excelling with Self-Sufficiency to Thrive. Ms. Small, an African-American, believes that young, African-Americans males have been negatively impacted by many things in our society. Instead of simply complaining and waiting for government and politicians to address her many concerns, she decided late last year to "take charge" and do something about the plight of male African-American youth in her community.

B.E.S.T intends to accomplish several goals, the most important of which are: (a) the enhancement of intellectual development, (b) the instillation of a sense of positive self-esteem and responsibility; (c) the development of respect for others, through strong family and community relationships, including volunteerism; and (d) stimulating the development of a solid, stable economic foundation. All of this is done in an environment which recognizes the importance of a strong, cultural, relational, and spiritual foundation.

B.E.S.T. is about the provision of solution-oriented tools to actually attack problems, and not simply complain about them. Instead of simply dropping these young men on the door step of some local governmental agency, B.E.S.T. takes responsibility for getting things done, and not blaming past history or other institutions for the condition in which these young men, and their surrounding communities, find themselves.

We applaud B.E.S.T. and Ms. Small for their efforts. We can only hope that the rest of our readers presenting New Year resolutions will come forward with vehicles with the same substance and potential impact on society as B.E.S.T.

Further information regarding B.E.S.T. can be acquired by visiting the B.E.S.T. site.


Copyright 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense